TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"you guys were basically stealing people's stuff and not paying them, and then he wound up murdered." "Also a great tragedy. He committed suicide." "I really do." "It looks like a suicide to me." "No. He was definitely murdered, I think. There were signs of a struggle, of course." "The surveillance camera, the wires had been cut." "Blood in multiple rooms; no indication at all that he was suicidal, no note, and no behavior." "Has there ever been a suicide where there's no indication at all that the person was suicidal who just ordered takeout food?" "Have you talked to the authorities about it?" "I have not talked to the authorities about it." "And his mother claims he was murdered on your orders." "I immediately called a member of congress from California, Ro Khanna, and said, this is crazy. You gotta look into this. And nothing ever happened." "The kid was clearly killed by somebody."

Candace ain't lying, guys. I know it for a fact. None of us really know. 'they're literally telling us to look at the wall that is purple and say and we say it's purple and they say, no. No. No. Look closer. It's it's yellow.' 'How do we best honor Charlie's death and legacy than figuring out who the hell killed him and why and how?' 'There is absolutely something going on in that organization. There was something going on prior to his assassination. There's absolutely something going on right now, and they do not want us to know.' 'This is a real source. This is a real text message.' 'We fight to figure out what the hell it is they don't want us to know.' I hope that helps.

"We need to talk about how the media is the mouthpiece of the US government." "This man was over six feet tall, and we're expected to believe that he himself from a bunk bunk that is five and a half feet tall." "However, it has to be with enough force to break his neck in multiple places in ways which are indicative of a person being violently strangled." "unbelievable coincidences of his cellmate being moved out of his cell just hours before his death." "The cameras are conveniently located so that nothing records anything in that area." "The guards that are supposed to be guarding him were told to go home because there's maintenance happening." "This is your fucking life and your kids and your families. Wake up."

"Candice is now saying that she believes that there is most likely some Ukrainian ties, some intelligence agencies that are involved in this assassination." "it's a military operation." "None of this shit is adding up, and it fucking stinks, guys." "a person going by the name Robbie Hild, who was allegedly from Washington." "No one is saying they went to school with him." "stronger than a theory and more of a hunch that this was a military operation, and people that executed this are actually from overseas." "They have a direct pipeline from Russia to America." "What we're talking about are terrorist cells." "Charlie was on a hit list. I also was on the hit list. Tucker was on the hit list." "release the gosh damn CCTV footage." "What the hell are you guys doing covering this shit up?"

Donors give money to TP USA. TP USA loans 350,000 of that into a company Charlie owned. That company uses it to buy a premium on a jumbo life insurance policy on Charlie's life. Once he dies, TP USA recoups its loan. The leftover millions go to whoever Charlie named his private beneficiaries. The payout was somewhere around 20 to 50,000,000 upon his death. The nonprofit pays the premiums now. The family gets paid later. The nonprofit merely recoups its loan. And often, the insured doesn't pay a dime, so the donor money does. The payout only triggers when the insured passes away. In short, charity money basically becomes a death benefit jackpot for private beneficiaries. The question is who controls the structure. The policy isn't owned by TPUSA. It's owned by a shell company called GGLF twenty twenty three LLC, owned by Charlie Kirk. So the main thing is they didn't run this through TP USA's books. They tucked it away in a Wyoming shell where nobody can easily see who benefits. All this comes from TP USA's own publicly available form 990. So it's a mailbox. All of these billionaires do this. Trump does this. Epstein did this. They use a trust, and smart people actually do this to keep the government's hands off of your hard earned money. A lot of people do. Yep. And it's legal. Like I said, you just search it up. This is just their paperwork. It's filed under oath. The shell company formed in May 2023, and that became public only recently, and then Charlie was assassinated. These people are covering up the truth behind what happened on September 10. And I've heard a lot of people saying, well, I don't believe that Charlie Kirk is dead. I believe that he's secretly alive somewhere. That's what it's sounding like. And until we see how these were set up, who's profiting from this, then we won't know. And Erica Kirk can absolutely show us, but they don't seem like they wanna show us anything. It's gonna continue to happen where people are gonna speculate, well, is Charlie Kirk privately sitting on an island somewhere with 20 to 50,000,000 and we don't see the kids because they're with him? Right. People are gonna continue to say that. If these people do not become transparent and start saying the truth, then how can they fault anyone for speculating? Because what we do know is that they're lying. So, of course, we're going to do our research. We're going to look into things. We're going to investigate. We're going to come to our own relevant conclusions. And if they are right or wrong or indifferent, we won't we'll never know because these people won't just tell us the truth because they are liars and frauds, they're the profiteers of Charlie's death on September 10.

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."

Candice is calling it a military operation, saying Tyler wasn't on the roof, didn't take the shot, and dumped clothing. She asserts intelligence involvement and warns of a false-flag attack in the USA; the FBI, the military, and foreign intelligence are involved, making the cover-up monumental. Another speaker believes this was a military hit with foreign actors, with multiple decoys on the ground. He says the person who walked up the stairs didn’t kill Charlie, and the photo and the Loisy rooftop shot were not on the same day; decoys include George Zinn, staircase guy, maroon shirt guy, Lozy center guy. He pins Lance Twiggs as the maroon-shirt wearer and suspects Tyler Robinson was involved, driving for costume changes and dumping clothing in the cemetery beside Dairy Queen; Tyler was seen at Dairy Queen. The dumping of clothing is described as his job; the Dairy Queen leak disrupts their narrative.

- "Robinson didn't kill Charlie Kirk." - "Charlie Kirk's Israeli security detail killed Charlie Kirk and Charlie Kirk's assassin is caught on tape." - "That is the explosion from Charlie Kirk's lavalier lapel mic." - "First we had exploding pagers, now we have exploding mics." - "That proves that all of the activity came from the mic that Charlie Kirk was wearing." - "That's the assassin." - "This guy, brown shirt guy, he's the assassin." - "He pushes the detonator." - "We have video now from destiny that shows the handoff of this remote detonator." - "Tyler Robinson did not kill Charlie Kirk." - "If you want security, the Israelis know what they're doing." - "But in no way did that trigger man, that assassin, the brown shirt with the sunglasses act alone."

"The story they fed you doesn't add up. They had you staring at the wrong roof while the real operation was going down somewhere else. And just like every deep state hit in history, they wrapped it all up in with a patsy. 'This is twenty minutes before the shot, ladies and gentlemen. Look. There it is.' 'why do we have all these people crawling around on the roofs of OOVU that day.' 'I've gotta be honest with my audience. This is the easiest roof I've ever seen in my life.' 'I've seen almost no cameras. No cameras on campus.' 'Epstein was a key player in a multi decade blackmail operation against the most powerful people on the planet.' 'The Charlie's security team, we've known for many, many years. They are like brothers with Charlie.' 'Not one iota of evidence that that's true.'"

Speaker 0 asserts openness to many topics but not to the theory that Tyler Robinson didn’t kill Charlie, and questions who else was involved or if there were other voices in the row. They state the evidence in the case is incredibly watertight and express a desire to focus on broader issues rather than debating that point. They call attention to the rise of left-wing violence, mental health illness in the country, and young people on the progressive side turning to Mangioneism and assassination culture, suggesting they can solve political disputes by justifying violence. They accuse the current discussion of veering into rabbit trails and acknowledge good-faith questions, while noting that they’ve been lied to. They emphasize the harm caused to their team, staff, and movement by the issue, describing it as carnage, and express a wish not to see more of that and to move through the situation sooner rather than later.

Speaker 0: 'you guys are basically stealing people's stuff and not paying them, and then he wound up murdered.' Speaker 1: 'Also a great tragedy. He committed suicide.' Speaker 0: 'Do you think he committed suicide?' Speaker 1: 'It was a gun he had purchased.' Speaker 0: 'There were signs of a struggle, of course. The surveillance camera, the wires had been cut.' Speaker 0: 'No indication at all that he was suicidal. No note.' Speaker 1: 'And his mother claims he was murdered on your orders.' Speaker 0: 'the city of San Francisco has refused to investigate it beyond just calling it a suicide.' Speaker 1: 'I immediately called a member of congress from California, Ro Khanna, and said, this is crazy. You gotta look into this. And nothing ever happened.'

Speaker asserts 'Candace ain't lying, guys. I know it for a fact.' They warn against attacking anyone who asks questions and labeling them conspiracy theorists, noting those questions are often raised by 'typically conspiracy theorists.' They claim 'these narratives they're spinning out... don't make any sense' and that 'None of us really know. Like, if you're actually believing what these people are telling us, you're cooked.' They describe a contradiction: 'look at the wall that is purple... it's purple' and 'Look closer. It's yellow.' They ask, 'What are you talking about?' and argue the way to honor Charlie is by figuring out 'who the hell killed him and why and how.' They state 'There is absolutely something going on in that organization' before and after the assassination and that 'they do not want us to know.' To honor Charlie, 'we fight to figure out what the hell it is they don't want us to know.'

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a conspiracy surrounding Charlie’s death, challenging the official narrative. - Speaker 0 says, “we definitely penetrated our water jugs,” and notes this won’t stop conspiracy theories. “His head fell off. I figured this is probably what would happen. I was trying to remain optimistic, but that right there is why people are skeptical on the official story.” They state, “The thirty aught six is a very hard round to stop.” - Speaker 1 adds that they want to illustrate what the federal government is selling, and asserts, “that particular bullet would have decapitated Charlie.” They describe the idea that the bullet ricocheted and went inward as “beyond ridiculous” and “insulting.” They criticize attempts to present a certain narrative with goofball public figures, saying, “they think that if they send out these, like, glee boys, like Nick Fuentes… then a bunch of hunters are gonna go, yeah. I see what you mean, man.” They declare that the scenario is never going to happen. - They foresee two possible outcomes: either the government will declare war on the American people because the public won’t accept their account, or they will have to “give us something that’s truthful.” They insist someone must come forward with something that makes sense. - Speaker 1 expresses a belief that the conspiracy is far-reaching, likening it to the JFK assassination, and claims that people close to Charlie are aware of things and “sold him out in many ways every single day.” They argue that the more the truth is avoided and the anxiety surrounding the night before Charlie died is downplayed, the guiltier those involved appear. - They state a conviction that the Deep State is involved in the assassination and that multiple states are implicated. They contend those responsible “don’t know what to do” and have “completely come undone” because they believed wealth and power would let them get away with it. However, they suggest “common sense seems to be ruling the roost.” Overall, the speakers argue that the official explanation is implausible, predict governmental evasions or manipulation, and contend that a deep-state-backed conspiracy involving multiple states may be uncovering itself as untenable under scrutiny. They emphasize the need for truthful disclosure rather than continued obfuscation.

- The footage that we saw of the front of Charlie's neck, was that an entry or an exit wound? - Why wasn't there any blood spatter on the white banner behind Charlie? - Why wasn't this handled like a regular crime scene? - Why was the security taking down a camera that was posted up behind Charlie during the shooting? Who took that camera down? Where is that footage? - For multiple decoys in this incident, it almost seems like there's a patsy because you remember that older guy who was taken into custody. His name turned out to be George Zinn. - Netanyahu is acting incredibly suspicious. - He somehow tweeted at the exact same time as Donald Trump to announce that Charlie Kirk was killed. - He was home in his casket within forty eight hours of being killed. Everything was very swift. - What does the hospital have to say? What do the surgeons at the hospital have to say?

"Charlie Kirk's assassination has deleted evidence that Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson haven't mentioned once." "This guy told the cops to arrest him so the shooter could have more time to get away." "This guy was deployed for 09/11, deployed against Obama, for George Bush, and personally worked with senators and US congressmen." "And he personally admitted it, and they wiped everything, but I downloaded it just before. George Zinn," "These donors like Manafort, Berman, Ronald Weiser, they manipulate elections, create countries, and have personally admitted to taking money from all of these countries." "Zinn, the patsy, is an example of an actor they use." "I have a full twenty seven minute video going over exactly what happened, why people like Candace Owens might be lying to you, and the archive podcast link in bio."

"Now I can tell you the part that he is telling the truth about is that Charlie's neck indeed did stop the bullet without question." "Charlie Kirk was shot from the front and the bullet did not exit." "And at least a fragment of the bullet was recovered from his neck." "They did not recover a bullet from a 30 odd six." "They found a 30 odd six bullets." "Charlie's death certificate certainly would have reflected that." "There is not one reflected onto Charlie Kirk's death certificate because they did not recover a bullet from a 30 odd six." "Andrew has claimed that he had a conversation with the surgeon who offered up the idea that it really was just your modern Christian miracle." "What are we to make of that?"

The speaker explains that in the three months since Charlie Kirk was murdered, they have avoided public commentary on the murder investigation out of care for Charlie and respect for the people involved, many of whom they know personally and admire. They emphasize that their goal is truth and justice, and they would not criticize anyone sincerely trying to uncover what happened, recognizing that good motives can lead to wrong conclusions. They recount a three-hour conversation with Theo Vaughan that touched on distrust of the FBI. They clarify this did not mean they accused anyone of involvement in Charlie Kirk’s murder, but it gave them the chance to state that they do not trust the FBI. They distinguish personal trust in individuals (e.g., Dan Bongino, whom they like, and Cash Patel) from trust in the FBI as an institution, noting that parts of the FBI can act independently within a large bureaucracy, separate from leadership. The speaker argues that distrust is not about a general attack on political leadership but about systemic issues. They reference the 2024 election as evidence that major institutions may be corrupt or rot, and they point to January 6 as, in their view, a setup in which the FBI played a key role. They question whether everyone involved in that setup has faced consequences. They insist that no American is morally obligated to believe everything the government says, especially given a history of the FBI's alleged crimes, illicit participation in politics, manufacturing crimes, or distorting justice—claims they assert as part of the FBI’s track record, which, in their view, is counter to its mission to obtain justice through facts and then explain its conclusions. They argue that it is not enough to have government officials declare the truth; the public has the right or obligation to demand proof. A central concern is that the investigation into Charlie Kirk’s murder could be overshadowed by debates about what happened, allowing the FBI to go unchallenged or unaccountable. The speaker asserts that the FBI should tell, show, and convince the public about what happened, rather than hiding behind national security or confidential sources. Ultimately, they commit to avoiding statements they don’t understand, to staying out of the case, but to maintaining love for Charlie and a desire for justice, while urging others to remain skeptical. They conclude that skepticism is a duty and not something to be ashamed of.

This is a heated discussion accusing the government of lying and calling it "a government cover up." They cite "the number 33" with: "In thirty three hours, we have made historic progress for Charlie. In less than thirty six hours, 33 to be precise. 33,000 pages of information to you" and "Thirty third hour after the shoot. Thirty three hours." Candace Owens is cited: "Charlie Kirk was a friend of the feds." The panel repeats: "Sean Hannity, you're a government agent." Michael Savage also says: "Sean Hannity, you're a government agent" and accuses media figures of promoting "the left versus right paradigm lie." They reference "'CIA Infiltrated Operation Mockingbird MK Ultra Media.'" The talk ends asserting "This is a government cover up."

- "And, we all lost, no matter what side of the political aisle you're on to, we lost something important in America today." - "But, the case goes on." - "The investigation goes on." - "There's a lot of piecing of evidence together." - "We don't have a shooter tonight." - "We have a couple leads, couple people that were released that probably aren't the shooter." - "They have a couple hot leads." - "There's a little bit of foreign intelligence." - "And I think over the next couple of days, we will learn a lot more and hopefully, we will bring to justice the evil person who did what, they did to Charlie today." - "I am hearing that they do have a couple of people of interest." - "That's the latest I heard from law" - "That's correct." - "Law enforcement." - "You're hearing the same thing."

"We've all heard the vile statements that Destiny made about Charlie's life being taken from him." "But did you know that the guy who was speaking to Charlie when Charlie was unalived was a guy who was part of Destiny's Unfuck America's tour." "If you haven't heard of Unfuck America, the Unfuck America tour, look who that is, was scheduled to follow Turning Point around and counter all of Turning Point's events." "Destiny is their lead creator, and he's making these comments about Charlie and people who think like Charlie." "Everyone who works for Turning Point should get a restraining order against him immediately so that he or anyone who works for him is not allowed to show their ass up at these Turning Point events."

Speaker 0 addresses Don, saying it’s better to say nothing than answer the question, and that honoring Charlie Kirk for any reason is to simply say nothing. The speaker notes discomfort with a clip and asserts knowledge of Don’s identity, describing Don as a hunter who loves the wilderness and hunting, and recalls a past fishing experience fighting sea lions or seals in British Columbia. The speaker urges Don not to lie and to be truthful about his beliefs regarding the investigation. The speaker asks Don to make a video stating that he believes Charlie was shot by a .30-06 in the neck and that, through a miracle, Charlie’s neck stopped the bullet, remaining in good shape and not destroyed. The speaker highlights Don’s knowledge of hunting and guns and requests Don to sit down and say to Candace, “I really do think that Charlie, our friend, because you are his friend, you were his brother, stopped a .30-aught-six with his neck which stayed intact.” The speaker notes Don won’t say that because it is untrue and suggests it would spiritually affect him, asserting that hunters know Don does not believe that. The speaker acknowledges ties and pressure from Jared and Ivanka and “the Zionists” to stay quiet, while urging other brothers, sisters, and people in the movement, who may not even know Charlie, to get to the bottom of this because “everything we’re being sold is absolute BS.”

"You gotta just give up. It's it's gonna come out. Whatever it is, it's gonna come out. There you would have to and I wouldn't put it past you. You'd have to get rid of all of us." "You got, like, 7,000,000,000 people you've got to ethnically cleanse right now if you wanted to just forget about the Charlie Kirk story." "In 1963, when JFK was shot, people didn't watch it on TikTok." "You traumatized all of us." "We're grieving because you assassinated Charlie Kirk in front of the entire world." "If you had pretended he slipped and fell on some ice in the winter, maybe you wouldn't have this response."

"It's gonna come out." "There would have to and I wouldn't put it past you. You'd have to get rid of all of us." "You'd have to ethnically cleanse 7,000,000,000 people to forget the Charlie Kirk story." "It's no one's forgetting it." "Not the ballistics guys on YouTube that we're all listening to, but no one's no one's gonna let this one go because and by the way, that's your fault." "In 1963, when JFK was shot, people didn't watch it on TikTok." "People mostly read about it, and then the feds lied about it." "You traumatized all of us." "You assassinated Charlie Kirk in front of the entire world." "This is the Internet generation." "K? We're running this." "We're not calming down. We're pretty upset, and we're gonna stay upset."

- I recognized an individual and 'have taken down the cameras minute four after Charlie was shot? The back camera of all the ones when you take the front camera.' - 'I've never seen that. He's never been behind me at an event. He's never been lingering around me at an event.' - I asked about 'his presence behind Charlie' and 'the mysterious phone call ... minute three after Charlie was assassinated.' - He told me explicitly that 'they were trying something new that day. Like, it was something new. Charlie's super ambitious. And on the AV thing, they were trying something new, and they wanted to be able to feed it back instantly to Arizona.' - 'None of it makes sense to me because these events are typically livestreamed. But again, something new. Okay?'

"I thought the feds were saying they were looking for a bullet at some point, which is now very alarming to me. I don't understand that. How could they have been looking for a bullet? Because if I'm not seeing, and there isn't. I'm telling you, what happens in the front is not what happens in the back at all." "If I'm not seeing any blood, what what are we to take from that? The only thing that could make sense if what they're saying is true and that person took the shot from the place that they are saying that individual took the shot from, it would suggest that it it's a it it was inside of Charlie. Right? And they would know that. The feds would have known that." "So they would have communicated that they were never looking for a bullet."