reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker, a retired Green Beret and sniper, believes the shooting of President Trump was a planned attack due to security measures in place. He questions how a 20-year-old could access the president and take shots without help from insiders. He offers to protect the president for free.

The speaker discusses a botched Secret Service plan at Butler Farms, pointing out inconsistencies in the media coverage. They argue that the sniper team's location was misrepresented, highlighting the impossibility of their positioning. The speaker suggests that the water tower played a role in the incident and questions the Secret Service's awareness of the situation. They emphasize the discrepancies in the narrative and urge viewers to think critically about the events. The speaker concludes by inviting viewers to share their thoughts.

There was a discussion about a shooting incident involving a secret service sniper who successfully neutralized a threat from about 400 yards away. Concerns were raised about the possibility of a second shooter, referencing a video by John Collin that shows a bullet's trajectory and its impact on bystanders, suggesting it couldn't have originated from the main suspect, Thomas Crooks. The group emphasized the importance of examining this evidence and bringing in witnesses to clarify the situation. They highlighted that bullet trajectory is a critical factor in understanding the events and the number of shots fired. The need for thorough investigation and transparency from authorities was also mentioned.

Speaker 0: "We still have, basically confirmation he got shot. ... immediate incapacitation." He asserts "the FBI is lying" and that "it's quite literally not possible for the shooter to have been on the roof that they claim he is along with other inconsistencies across the board." Speaker 1: "Keep your eye on this space here... the bullet matches the exit wound, ... the shirt puffing up and the angle of the entry and exit." He adds: "the same what appears to be the bullet coming down and it does line up with the actual gunshot itself." From Google Earth, "the shooter was up here somewhere, that's the angle that the bullet was coming down from." "the shooter was most likely here somewhere." "Somewhere on those stairs would be my tip, and if the FBI aren't looking there, I don't know why."

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not the act of a lone shooter. The speaker cites the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone surveillance, and being spotted with a rangefinder as reasons for suspicion. The speaker, identifying himself as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. He asks if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt and imprison the target, and depictions of him as Hitler. The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, to which the recipient says they participated in securing it and provided bomb assets. The speaker then asks if any agents reported anything "fishy" at the home, such as silverware or trash, or if it was extremely clean like a medical lab. The recipient states he was not given those details. The speaker concludes that this is what he is hearing and finds it "interesting."

The speaker, a retired Green Beret and sniper, believes the shooting of President Trump was a planned attack due to security measures in place. He questions how a 20-year-old could access the president with a rifle without inside help. Urging focus on those who allowed the incident, he offers to protect the president for free.

The speaker analyzes footage of a shooting, alleging it was a staged event using emergency response drill protocols. They identify individuals as "players, controllers, simulators, evaluators, actors, observers," referencing the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). The analysis focuses on the actions of specific people before, during, and after the shooting, claiming their behavior suggests pre-planning and coordination. The speaker questions the authenticity of the blood, the victim's reactions, and the actions of medical personnel. They point out inconsistencies in the narrative, such as changing accounts of where the victim was shot. The speaker suggests the event was designed to further division and manipulate public perception, urging viewers to analyze the footage and share their insights. They state that something "ain't right."

Speaker 0 raises a series of pointed questions and concerns about FBI and government actions surrounding the monitoring and reporting of online activity and potential threats, urging a demand for answers: - Why did the FBI present only early pro-Trump posts and hide the anti-Trump phase? Two answers are implied: under Biden, the existence of a narrative, and a need to ask who was involved in that decision and why it happened. - After the election, why did the FBI continue to toe that line, and who made that decision? - The speaker notes that authorities are monitoring people who ask how to build bombs or evade assassination scenes, and asks how such monitoring relates to successful assassinations and the future locations of political actors; suggests an algorithmic tie and notification so someone is watching. - Why did they ignore Crooks’s really unbelievable threats? Why were ordinary Americans arrested for memes, while Crooks’s behavior appeared to be ignored? - Why did intelligence agencies monitoring extremism miss a kid openly fantasizing about assassinations, who connected with a Swedish individual allegedly part of a large Nazi movement in Sweden? - Why was the scene cleaned prematurely? Why did every digital trace of his political shift get kept out of public discussion? Why did authorities claim he had almost no footprint when, in fact, the footprint seemed large but scrubbed? - The speaker notes a pattern: every single mistake by the FBI and government seems to point toward ignorance, negligence, hiding inconvenient data, and shaping a political narrative; questions whether the pattern indicates incompetence or intentional action. - Is this incompetence or something more problematic? The speaker says they aren’t asserting a conspiracy but emphasize something feels wrong and that the official story is hard to believe. They ask why the government that supposedly monitors everything would become blind, deaf, and mute when a presidential assassin emerges on their radar. - The question is posed non-partisan: under different presidents, why would the narrative stay the same if the government can see everything? What does that imply about the FBI, DOJ, and CIA—whether they are lying, incompetent, or selectively monitoring—since any of these possibilities should be unsettling. - The FBI and mainstream media, including MSNBC, are said to have referenced leaks from Crooks’s social media indicating pro-Trump and anti-immigration stances, while being described as having almost no online footprint; Crooks reportedly had Discord, Snapchat, and an active YouTube presence, with violent 2019 YouTube comments about decapitating government officials, followed by a shift. - The speaker asserts the iceberg is deep and suggests a broader pattern of concerns about oversight, control, and the potential overreach or misalignment of intelligence agencies, with a friend claiming the CIA may be completely out of control and implying limits to accountability, while noting it could extend beyond the CIA. Overall, the remarks center on questioning the completeness, transparency, and motivation behind FBI monitoring, narrative shaping, data handling, and the handling of Crooks’s threats and online footprint, while expressing concern about systemic issues within intelligence agencies.

Discussion centers on Charlie's views and reactions: "He was pro pro second amendment and so on." Speakers expect backlash: "People are gonna talk shit and say, see, is why." They reference a video "right before he gets hit," noting: "As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, when I'm watching the video right before he gets hit, was." The talk shifts to mass shootings: "Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last ten years? Counting or not counting gang violence. Great." One participant adds, "I didn't watch it except for So" while another says, "he's literally they're literally asking him about mass shootings. I don't find that to be a coincidence either." The closing claim: "If I had my guess, this is a deep state hit. 100%. Our country's on the brink."

The speaker, a retired Green Beret and sniper, believes the shooting of President Trump was a planned attack due to security measures in place. He questions how a 20-year-old could have accessed the area and fired shots without inside help. The speaker offers to protect the president for free if needed.

The speaker discusses speculation about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump at Butler Farm Show. They point out a water tower with a clear angle towards Trump, suggesting it as a potential sniper spot. The speaker highlights Gematria connections between "water tower" and "Donald J Trump." They express doubt about the official narrative and urge viewers to consider alternative theories. The speaker hints at upcoming revelations and asks for opinions on the matter.

The shooter was identified as a potential suspect, but by the time they were located, they were on the rooftop and able to fire at the former president. The Secret Service director was allegedly instructed by the administration and the DHS secretary to keep quiet or risk losing her job. One speaker has heard from the Secret Service director, but not publicly. Another speaker states they would fire the Secret Service director for not being visible and transparent with the American people, regardless of the story. They believe the handling of the situation by briefing only Milwaukee was poorly executed.

The speakers discuss the attempted assassination of Trump, questioning why the would-be assassin had no social media footprint and a professionally scrubbed house. They find it suspicious that CNN streamed the rally live and that the Secret Service deemed the roof he was on unsafe, while snipers occupied a steeper roof. They speculate it could have been a coordinated assassination attempt, with the shooter intended to be killed afterward. They highlight the suspect's young age and the possibility of radicalization or manipulation. The speakers are concerned about the lack of information released and the absence of a formal report. They mention leaked cell phone records showing a phone traveling from outside the FBI offices in DC to where the suspect lived. They find it odd that the suspect had multiple phones and no cutlery in his house. They suggest the suspect could have been under the influence of psychotropic drugs or hypnosis, referencing MK Ultra and Jolly West's experiments.

The speaker believes the individual involved in a recent political attack did not act alone, citing a lack of requisite skill and the media's quick dismissal. They question if the individual was honey-trapped by a foreign entity and criticize the FBI's handling of the situation, including the rapid cremation of the body and the claim that the individual acted alone. Senator Ron Johnson also finds the situation suspicious, particularly the rush to dispose of evidence. He highlights the fact that the body was cremated before autopsy and toxicology reports were released. He notes the FBI immediately declared the individual acted alone without a thorough investigation. The speaker points out the FBI's history of spying and questions why, if the individual acted alone, the FBI doesn't release the data they likely possess. They cite a counter sniper's concern over the scrubbing of the roof and question the need for a high-powered attorney if the case is straightforward. Senator Johnson states that the Secret Service and FBI are stonewalling the senate investigation, providing heavily redacted documents and delaying transcribed interviews. The speaker concludes that the agencies are hiding something, as transparency would dispel conspiracy theories.

Speaker questions the narrative: 'random trans shooter' on the roof who 'took this shot' and was 'undetected' because the FBI released video footage. He asks if this means 'he must have already had planted the gun on the roof prior' and wonders 'why didn't he have it on him when he was leaving?' He questions the lack of footage—'why don't we have any images of this kid leaving the school?' and 'video footage of this kid jumping off the roof?' He says, 'he runs roughly one mile with a long arm rifle in broad daylight to stash it in the woods' and argues, 'you definitely wouldn't carry the rifle with you' to blend in, citing 'an American flag shirt on.' He references 'criminal minds' and BAU, concluding, 'This is weird, guys. This is freaking weird.'

The speaker questions why snipers initially assigned to a second-story window with a clear view of the roof where the shooter stood and tried to kill President Trump were withdrawn before the shooting. The speaker emphasizes that these are basic questions the Secret Service should easily answer, especially given the seventeen days since the attack. The speaker expresses frustration that the response from the Secret Service has repeatedly been "we're looking into it," which they deem insufficient.

I spent 17 years in the military, 14 in a special operations unit. I believe the recent assassination attempt on former President Trump involved help from an agency or government. The shooter couldn't have reached the rooftop alone to take a shot at the president. It seems too obvious that assistance was involved.

Following an assassination attempt on Trump, questions remain unanswered, such as why the shooter's house was professionally scrubbed, leaving no digital or physical footprint. Despite being filmed with a rangefinder before the event and CNN streaming the rally live, there was no formal report or press conferences detailing the investigation. The Secret Service's explanation for restricting roof access also seemed illogical. The possibility of a coordinated assassination attempt is considered, where the shooter would be eliminated post-attack, mirroring a Lee Harvey Oswald scenario. The shooter's willingness to die suggests radicalization or manipulation. The presence of multiple phones and a phone potentially linked to the FBI traveling to the shooter's residence raises further suspicion. The lack of personal items in the house, including cutlery, adds to the mystery. The potential use of psychotropic drugs, hypnosis, and mind control, reminiscent of MK Ultra, is also discussed.

The speaker believes the individual in question did not act alone in what they consider a significant attack on democracy. They question the media's quick dismissal and suggest the individual could have been targeted by a foreign enemy. Senator Ron Johnson questions the rush to dispose of evidence, such as washing the roof and cremating the body, before autopsy and toxicology reports were released. He notes the FBI quickly declared the individual acted alone without a thorough investigation. Johnson also mentions the individual had encrypted accounts in different countries. The speaker highlights concerns about the FBI's history of spying and suggests they possess the individual's metadata. They challenge the FBI to release the information if the individual acted alone. They cite a counter sniper who found it concerning that the roof was scrubbed down so quickly. Johnson states that the Secret Service and FBI are stonewalling the senate investigation by providing heavily redacted documents and delaying transcribed interviews. He believes this behavior is suspicious and fuels conspiracy theories. The speaker argues that the FBI and Secret Service should be transparent with congressional representatives to address concerns, and their lack of transparency suggests they are hiding something.

Questions the claim that 'some random trans shooter was on the roof, took this shot, runs across into the rooftop, jumps down, somehow magically being undetected because the FBI releases a a video footage.' He asks if he had 'planted the gun on the roof prior' and how he could 'walk back in the second time without the weapon.' He questions why 'we don't have any images of this kid leaving the school' or 'any video footage of this kid jumping off the roof,' and notes he 'runs roughly one mile with a long arm rifle in broad daylight to stash it in the woods' while wearing 'an American flag shirt.' He doubts the FBI photo is the best they can provide and references 'criminal minds' and 'the BAU' that would 'rerender that image' to be 'pixel perfect' with 'face recognition software.' Contrasts movie-like tech with reality, calling it 'weird.'

From the outset, one of the speakers says there was a sense that the official narrative about the day didn’t add up, expressing that many Americans feel they were being lied to. The major problem they identify with the assassination narrative includes inconsistencies and unanswered questions rather than acceptance of the official story. Speaker 1 recalls being told Charlie Kirk was shot and initially in critical condition, but notes that the video shows an exit wound and movement of Kirk’s shirt that suggests an impact nearby. With extensive experience around gunshot wounds, they say what they saw didn’t make sense. They reference the FBI’s announcement of a shooter and describe a separate incident involving a person on the roof who allegedly disassembled and reassembled a firearm, aligned a scope, fired a cold bore shot, moved to the roof, and then wrapped the rifle up. They mention texts from the shooter that didn’t sound like a typical 22-year-old and state that these observations raise questions. They say asking questions leads to being torn down or accused of holding conspiracy views, and they specify they aren’t claiming “Israel did it,” but insisting the questions about the event “don’t look good.” They raise specific questions: did the security team remove Charlie Kirk’s lapel mic after the incident and give it to someone else; what happened to the SIM card; did someone take the camera behind him; why was the crime scene contaminated and rebuilt. They admit they don’t know what is true but insist the questions deserve answers. They note that once they question, they’re labeled antisemitic, and they say they didn’t even bring up Israel. They emphasize the personal and national significance of the incident. Speaker 0 mentions a claim that Charlie Kirk was portrayed as Superman, with his body supposedly stopping the 30-odd-six bullet, and asks what would have happened if a 30-06 round hit him. Speaker 1 says it would likely blow his head off and leave remnants of the bullet, arguing that they don’t think such remnants have been found yet. They question why the chair and desk were moved and contend that a forensic expert could determine the shot’s origin, insisting they are simply asking questions. If those questions can be refuted, they would stop asking; but they claim they’re not getting any answers beyond “this is what happened” and being told to “shut up.” Speaker 0 adds that telling someone to be quiet amounts to labeling them antisemitic, and that when the trial comes, they will look like a fool. Speaker 1 says that’s a tactic of the left—when you call them out, they label you a name—and that the right is now doing the same to them.

The speaker argues it's not clear the shooter fled the scene with a weapon, possibly downplaying it as a concealed firearm. He suggests the shooter could have had a short-barreled AR-15 broken down to fit a bag, raising questions about how the gun ended up and was later found in the woods. If the shooter didn’t leave with a weapon, one possibility is the weapon was left at the scene; another is that the person wasn’t the shooter. The speaker acknowledges conspiracy theories and distinguishes personal uncertainty from certainty, referencing the FBI’s account of sneaking a 30-06 rifle in his pants, taking the shot, not leaving with it, and then retrieving it hours later. He wonders why someone would run into the woods and asks where the actual gun is, and whether a different rifle in the woods was misattributed.

The speaker, a retired Green Beret and sniper, believes the shooting of President Trump was a planned attack due to security measures in place. He questions how a 20-year-old could access the president with a rifle without inside help. Urging focus on those who allowed the incident, he offers to protect the president for free if needed.

Discussion centers on claims about the Charlie Kirk assassination, including a side shot. The presenter says "there's now a shooter on the roof" and an eyewitness states the shooter was "wearing tactical gear" and described "the exact type of weapon... a two two three round." A bystander video shows "somebody on the roof" and the eyewitness asserts the shooter was "highly trained, like a highly trained assassin" and that the footage's metadata "begins at 12:22 and goes into 12/23, the very minute that Charlie gets shot." The speaker adds the shooter "looked like a foreign agent" and "not jeans." Another claim: "the FBI's official story is false" with video of an "entry and exit wound," though another participant says "it's not blood splatter. That's literally his necklace getting snapped off and flying over the back of his neck." The discussion concludes with "Cash should resign."