TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"how did this guy know to move to that exact location?" "There was also a man that was arrested in a parking lot with an airsoft rifle." "that crazy guy screaming that he was basically a distraction?" "the best way to tell a difference between people is to look at their ear." "the ear does not is a bit different to the one we've seen of of photos of Tyler, old photos Tyler." "it's not obvious, but we don't have any positive proof here that there is a rifle in this video at all." "how did he get a rifle up on the roof?" "it's not a takedown model." "the bulge in his pocket" "12:23:34" "potato cam footage" "I didn't shoot him, I didn't do anything, I swear guys." "rifle was pre positioned at some period in time, and that he then was able to pick it off the property, and because he knew he couldn't walk all the way across, and then stash it like that as he was moving into position finally." "there's so many different people that are talking about this and it hasn't died yet." "a Twitter post the day before and ended up sharing it, the same day within hours of when Charlie Kirk got shot, that said he was attending school there, he said something very big was gonna happen the next day"

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether the other is maintaining that there were no planes that hit the World Trade Center. Speaker 1 clarifies that this is not the claim they are making; rather, there is no significant wreckage from a large Boeing crash at any of the four events. This framing emphasizes a distinction between the presence of aircraft impact and the apparent absence of substantial debris. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 saw the videotape that others saw, prompting a response that encourages a frame-by-frame analysis of the South Tower. Speaker 1 asserts that what you will see is a “fake, a cartoon display,” arguing that an aluminum airplane cannot pass through a building like the South Tower as if it were thin air. In other words, Speaker 1 contends that the footage demonstrates a simulated or cartoon-like depiction rather than a real-time account of an aircraft penetrating the structure. Following this, Speaker 0 probes whether Speaker 1 is suggesting that the news media was involved in this fabrication, indicating a belief that media sources contributed to the apparent display. Speaker 1 affirms the suggestion by stating “Yes,” and notes that there was only one so-called real-time film, adding that “we don’t really understand how they did that.” This introduces a claim of media involvement and a mystery surrounding the production of the visible footage, implying manipulation or concealment of the true events. The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 mentioning that there are “video ex” (likely beginning to refer to video evidence or explanations) but the thought is cut off, leaving an incomplete reference to further material or evidence that would support the previous claims about the nature of the footage and the method by which it was produced.

The discussion centers on a rapid escalation of online activity described as military bot operations, which the speakers associate with attempts to cancel Candace Owens from Australia after October 7. They note a pattern in which bot activity appears when certain topics are discussed, including Fort Huachuca, the Obas Gai, and Cairo/African plains references, tying these to an eyewitness who insists he saw Brian Harpole and believed there was an all-hands-on-deck meeting the day before. The speakers stress a broader pattern of activity on the same day and say they verified the eyewitness’s account with people stationed at the base. A longer clip from Baron Coleman is introduced, focusing on what it means to see a SAM call sign on a plane, especially those flying from Andrews outside Washington, D.C. Coleman argues that a key piece of evidence in Candace Owens’ story is a jet used exclusively by few people—presidential family members, cabinet officials, and military generals at the Pentagon—present at the location of a high-level meeting the morning of September 9, the day before Charlie Kirk’s alleged neutralization. The jet is described as a Special Air Mission (SAM) jet; the conversation explains that SAM call signs designate flights carrying high-ranking officials, with Air Force One and Air Force Two as the corresponding designated callsigns when the president or vice president is aboard. The flight logs show a jet with the rarely used SAM000 call sign, which indicates a highly sensitive passenger manifest, traveling on August 25 from Joint Base Andrews to Colorado Springs (home of the 10th Special Forces Group), then to Las Vegas, and later a return leg to Joint Base Andrews as SAM658. Speaker 0 questions whether this pattern means a very important person traveled on the flight, noting the call sign changes from a high-priority SAM to an RCH (a less VIP designation) and later to SAM as the VIP reappears. They discuss the possibility that someone significant either boarded or disembarked in Las Vegas, with Venus noted as an empty-flight designation when only the pilots are aboard. The timeline is tied to Brian Harpole’s statements about UVU event preparations, with the August 24 date identified as when intel gathering and hard conversations began, described by Harpole as starting two weeks prior and documented in a decentralized command app. The speakers compare this to “Operation Valhalla,” which they say began on August 24 and ended on August 27. They observe that on August 25, a VIP flight to Colorado Springs occurred, the same day the aircraft flew to Las Vegas, after which the log shows an RCH designation on a subsequent leg, suggesting a less-than-top-tier passenger on that leg. The speaker notes they have multiple emails confirming Fort Huachuca as an intelligence base, reinforcing the claim that the base is linked to covert missions rather than routine operations. They express a belief in the credibility of the eyewitness account about Harpole and say they plan to feature the testimony and related details, including additional flight logs (referred to as the finishing touch on SUBTV) and visuals from a car investigation, on kennethowens.com or similar platforms. The overarching aim is to explore whether Egyptian planes are connected to Israel, which they say would explain a mass panic. They emphasize continuing to pursue these narratives while minimizing distractions from “timelines and delivering this information.”

There is speculation about Maxwell Yurek from Arizona being linked to a white van at a Trump rally. The van had Arizona plates and is connected to Yurek Armoury Explosives. A conversation with a person at Yurek's residence did not provide any clear answers about his whereabouts or involvement. The individual denied knowing Maxwell and refused to discuss further details. The video ends with unanswered questions and suspicions about Yurek's potential role in the events.

The video centers on Candace and a claim about Egyptian private military contractors being flown to America on a top-secret mission and landing at a private military base in Utah on the day of the Charlie Kirk assassination. The presenters show photos of private military subcontractors and describe them as the “baddest, hardest, most battle trained” soldiers, implying their involvement is significant to the Charlie Kirk case. They question why Egyptian military contractors would be in Provo, Utah, and why they did not return to Cairo, asking who they were planning to “take out next.” One speaker states that, according to a person close to someone who was aboard the flight, the aircraft did not simply stop in Utah for routine servicing. They claim the plane carried military subcontractors and that these individuals were dropped off in Provo, yet did not reboard for Cairo. They assert the flight departed Provo on September 10 and returned to Cairo on September 11, with allegedly missing people from the plane. The speaker emphasizes that the flight radar investigation shows a Cairo-to-Paris-to-France-to-Bannat, North Dakota route around that period, and notes that on September 10 the plane departed Provo at 07:14 AM local time. They insist the people aboard the plane were not the same individuals who later appeared on the flight’s return. The speaker contends this information was provided by a female source who knows an Egyptian military subcontractor personally. They acknowledge she did not claim the mission was related to Charlie Kirk, only that it was a top-secret operation, possibly a discreet joint military exercise, so hidden that people were urged to ignore it. The speaker describes the revelation as terrifying yet galvanizing, claiming it prompted bravery and a push to root out perceived evil in society. The discussion then shifts to Kash Patel, referencing a Daily Mail article about him shutting down a Charlie Kirk foreign intelligence probe in a feud with Trump’s counterterror chief. The speaker suggests Patel’s stance raises questions and asserts that Patel’s approach contrasts with what they would expect if there were genuine efforts to investigate Charlie Kirk’s murder, noting that Trump and Trump family members would presumably be involved in questioning the narrative. They criticize Patel for discouraging further inquiry, comparing him to Dr. Fauci in his alleged resistance to investigation. The speaker challenges Kash Patel to dispute the claims, asking him to confirm whether the plane truly came for routine servicing or for a discreet mission, and to disclose the truth about who was aboard and why they were in Provo, Utah.

The speaker asserts a 100% proof that Ashley Babbitt was not shot and begins by giving credit to Jesus Christ, stating that “his spirit, his spirit of truth that revealed to my heart that something was off.” They claim to have spent a lot of time analyzing the videos. The speaker references John Sullivan’s footage and claims that “the gun” makes a quick movement, and that it is shooting “really low in comparison to Ashley Babbitt's neck.” They point to the upper right-hand corner of the frame, asserting that “you’ll see something move,” and claim that “we get the rare opportunity of seeing the travel of the bullet.” Returning to a scene from mainstream media, the speaker describes Helmet Boy bashing the windows and moving toward the final window—“the one that must have been installed with thumbtacks because he knocks it out in one shot.” They observe the wooden window trim and propose that it will be hit by the pathway of the bullet, asking the audience to watch and stating, “Did you see that?” The speaker claims to have obtained “a clear shot of which way the bullet actually went after it left the gun.” They state that viewers might think the bullet hit the window trim and then Ashley Babbitt, which they argue could happen if the shooter were in front of Ashley, but claim instead that “the shooter is shooting from the side of Ashley.” Consequently, they declare that what they have shown provides “a really clear shot that Ashley Babbitt did not get shot by that bullet.”

The transcript centers on a critical clash over Candace Owens, TP USA, and allegations surrounding Charlie Kirk’s murder investigation, focusing on Fort Huachuca, alleged alibis, and competing narratives presented by Candace Owens and her critics. - The speaker positions himself as having known and supported Candace Owens for ten years, but challenges her latest claims, calling them “ridiculous gaslighting” and “nonsense,” and promises to lay out the facts and where they land. - The ongoing dispute involves “Egyptian planes,” a “latest so-called witness and whistleblower,” Mitch Snow, and a broader question about possible foreign or domestic involvement in Charlie Kirk’s murder, which is tied to a Fort Huachuca narrative. - Mitch Snow is alleged to have claimed that he saw Brian Harpole leaving a meeting at Fort Huachuca on September 9, and also claimed that Erica Kirk was at Fort Huachuca the night before, at Candlewood Inn and Suites. Owens had hosted Snow’s claims as part of her investigation, and the speaker had previously advised Candace to check alibis. - Candace Owens’ supporters and surrogates allegedly attacked the speaker after he questioned the alibis; he persisted in investigating, noting that the Fort Huachuca storyline had “completely blown up” with those alibis. - The narrative shifts to Erica Kirk, with Owens stating she had claimed she did not say the military was involved and did not implicate TP USA, despite compilations of past statements suggesting otherwise. The speaker contends Owens moved the goalposts multiple times and used the Fort Huachuca angle as a distraction from a prior Egyptian plane storyline. - The speaker asserts exclusive access to HD screenshots from Andrew Colvin, the TP USA spokesperson, which purportedly show that Owens’ depiction of Andrew Colvin’s involvement in “secret damage control” is a fraud. He claims to reveal that Colvin was coordinating with Paramount Tactical, not Owens directly, and that Colvin reached out to Owens’ team with alibi requests regarding Erica Kirk. - A key incident involves a screenshot and a time-stamped image Erica Kirk allegedly sent to Colvin showing her with her kids at 08:33, purportedly from Phoenix, which Owens used as part of her alibi apparatus. The speaker presents this as evidence that Colvin’s communications were not a cover-up but a regular PR exercise, and that Owens used the image to claim a broader conspiracy. - The speaker narrates a back-and-forth where Colvin allegedly provided an alibi for Erica Kirk; he shows that Kirk sent photos from a park and home, and Colvin responded three hours later, asking not to display the photo publicly but to acknowledge the proof. Owens denies the alibi and reframes it as desperate behavior by TP USA. - The discussion expands to broader personnel and planes-related details: an undersecretary of the army allegedly went to Fort Huachuca on the eighth; a defense department border inspection visit is cited as context for why Fort Huachuca is significant. The speaker emphasizes that the focus should be on the ninth and the alleged base alibis, not the eighth. - The speaker accuses Owens of simulating a “gaslighting operation” and notes that she has discredited alibis by shifting attention to new claims; he maintains that the “ninth” is the core question, not the earlier Fort Huachuca references. - The narrative includes a conflict with commentators such as Alex Jones, Charlie Kirk, and The Daily Wire, and alleges that Owens’ circle has manipulated public perception to undermine TP USA and Charlie Kirk. - The speaker concludes with a denunciation of Owens’ tactics, insisting that the public should focus on the Charlie Kirk murder case and its true facts, while alleging Owens uses a pattern of deception, moving from one narrative to another to distract from the nine’s alleged details. He calls for prayer for Candace Owens and urges supporters to consider the broader battle against perceived globalist manipulation; he also frames this as a spiritual or existential conflict in which truth is being contested. Note: Promotional or advertising content included toward the end of the original transcript has been omitted.

The speaker introduces Emmanuel Bearer as someone they consider extremely shady and outlines a request to obtain explicit footage of him, specifically who he was with in the crowd, and to identify every person in attendance. The speaker claims Bearer is a former Oracle engineer, likely from Germany, and notes that Bearer attended the event. They question how Bearer, a relatively obscure figure, became an eyewitness who appeared in Salt Lake City in coverage by the mainstream media, specifically mentioning PBS. The speaker asks how PBS or other media outlets knew to reach out to Bearer and whether Bearer tweeted or otherwise indicated he was there. The speaker describes a desire to understand the process by which Bearer was selected for media interviews and to replicate a method of on-the-ground reporting at the UVU campus rather than relying on Bearer’s account. They reference a prior incident involving Tiffany Barker to illustrate concerns about how media connections are made and how certain individuals gain attention. The speaker asks for clarification on how Emmanuel Bearer was chosen as an eyewitness and why mainstream media pursued him. The speaker then presents a clip of Bearer testifying on PBS, quoting Bearer: “I hear this loud sound, and I'm like, that wasn't what I thought it was, is it? I was like, no. This can't be happening right now. And we all ducked.” They note that Bearer appeared on nearly every news channel and mention that there may be a longer clip they could locate. Finally, the speaker appeals to anyone who attended the UVU event with Bearer to come forward to clarify who Bearer was with, to send photos, and to explain how Bearer became an eyewitness that the mainstream media wanted to speak to, expressing strong suspicion about the unattended appearance and coverage of Bearer.

Speaker 1 argues there are several issues with Brian Harpel’s narrative. First, a records request found 20 911 calls related to Charlie Kirk’s death and the Utah Valley University shooting; none of the calls came from Brian Harpold or anyone on his security staff. 911 does not have any record of their call, which is presented as problem number one. Second, the question is who could have called 911 if the five men in the car describe their actions during the drive to the hospital. Brian Harpole had dropped his phone at UVU, and Frank Turick’s phone was stuck on FaceTime the whole time, according to him. The listener is invited to determine who possibly made the 911 call, when it was made, and why Harpole would claim a call was made if it did not occur. Speaker 2 recounts the drive to the hospital: they ran toward the security team, got into the SUV with Justin driving, Dan in the front with GPS, Rick to the left holding Charlie’s head, and Brian at Charlie’s feet. Charlie is described as so large that the door wouldn’t close, prompting commands to “go, go, go.” The group heads to the hospital, driving without lights or sirens, breaking intersections, and beeping the horn. An ambulance is described as approaching from the venue; they decide to continue. Justin is praised as a trained driver, using exact directions for turns. Rick and the speaker are in the back; Charlie’s left leg is down in the door, preventing the door from closing. The speaker is on their knees doing medical care with Rick and Charlie’s life in danger, shouting and performing CPR. Speaker 3 adds details: they open the back door, drag Charlie in, Justin drives 60–100 mph, Charlie’s tallness prevents the door from closing, and they continue driving. The speaker describes continuing medical care in the car, including stopping to perform CPR, and the door not closing because of Charlie’s size. They reach the hospital, put Charlie on a gurney, and wheel him inside. The staff are described as unaware of their arrival, since they had called 911 but arrived in bloodied condition. The speaker notes his phone came out during unloading, and that he had been FaceTiming his wife and later Spencer during the event. He explains that he left the phone in his back pocket once the shooting occurred. Speaker 1 concludes: Turick’s phone was stuck on FaceTime and did not make any calls; Rick Cutler was praying and cradling Charlie’s head, and holding Harpole to keep him from flying out of the SUV while tending to Charlie. Brian Harpole did not make any call and did not use his own phone since it was left at UVU. Justin, the driver, drove aggressively through intersections, while Dan Flood directed from the passenger seat. The question remains whether any 911 calls were made during the high-speed conveyance, given 911 calls last 30 seconds to 2 minutes, and whether anyone had a free moment to place a call. The speaker questions if a 911 call was made at all, and why Harpole would misremember a 911 call if none occurred. The hospital’s lack of notification suggests the 911 call may not have been successful, or may not have been made, and the speaker commits to continuing the investigation, asking for input on what happened to the missing 911 call.

Candace Owens opens by acknowledging tech challenges and explains she wants to recap the Fort Huachuca situation to counter a widespread misinformation campaign. She shares a timeline she drafted to illustrate how rapidly events unfolded after receiving Mitch’s story about a Fort Huachuca meeting. She describes her decision-making process from the night of the eighth through subsequent days as she sought to verify Mitch’s claims, including face-to-face vetting with government/military contacts and cross-checking with people who could corroborate or challenge Mitch’s account. Key narrative points Candace presents: - Mitch’s account centers on a September 8-9 sequence at Fort Huachuca involving top brass and a likely on-the-brink mission. Mitch says he saw Erica Kirk at the Candlewood Inn and Suites on September 8 and later describes a high-level meeting on September 9, with 12-13 people she described as top brass. He initially identified a person who resembled Cabot Phillips as being present and later discussed Brian Harpole’s possible presence at the base in that context. - Candace states she asked for basic vetting from a trusted government/military contact and later confirmed certain details, including that Brian Harpole’s alibi was not fully established for the morning of September 9. She notes that Erica provided flight information for Harpole, which Candace used to test Mitch’s timeline but found it did not definitively confirm an alibi for the morning. - With Mitch’s consent, Candace had Mitch on her show to present his metadata (IDs, passports) and his broader story; she maintains Mitch is a Green Beret and that “everything he said was substantially true,” though she concedes uncertainty about whether Harpole actually attended the meeting. - Candace recounts an escalation in scrutiny: Alex Jones and others amplified Mitch’s story; Barry Weiss’s “stop, stop” clip and social media attention followed. She says Ian Carroll warned of an impending lawsuit by Harpole and that someone sought to derail the discussion with manipulated allegations (e.g., stolen valor accusations). She explains she received a cease-and-desist suggestion but pressed on with vetting Mitch’s claims. - She notes that during the back-and-forth, Erica Kirk provided Harpole’s flights but not a complete, verifiable alibi for September 9 or a full record of activities. Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and Erica’s team offered an alibi (she was making dinner for Charlie Kirk); Candace sought metadata to confirm whether the text messages with Charlie Kirk occurred, but those data were still pending. - Candace emphasizes that she did not claim Erica was at Fort Huachuca on September 9; she states Mitch specifically claimed Harpole was present, and she focused on verifying that. She mentions Cabot Phillips’s possible presence was investigated and found Phillips was on vacation during the relevant dates, complicating Mitch’s claims about Cabot being the person he saw. - She discusses the broader context: the investigation has drawn in other players (Paramount Tactical, Valhalla, exes, and Mitch’s family) who offered or alleged alibis or information. She asserts she has sought to publish verifiable alibis when provided and to debunk or corroborate Mitch’s story with available evidence. She asserts she would publish Erica’s alibi if provided with receipts or a verifiable text chain showing Charlie Kirk’s communications. - Candace acknowledges the debate about whether the Fort Huachuca discussion constitutes an assassination planning meeting, clarifying that she has not claimed Erica Kirk attended that meeting, only that Mitch said someone resembling Cabot Phillips and Brian Harpole were involved in the broader Fort Huachuca-related events. She notes that Harrisons and others push back on the inference that the Fort Huachuca episode proves an assassination plot, and she respects a range of views on the matter. - She reports ongoing efforts: contacting Brian Harpole multiple times for a direct alibi for the morning of September 9; continuing to request Erica’s complete alibi and metadata; engaging Turning Point USA for clarifications; and aiming to verify or refute Mitch’s account through primary sources (base personnel, flight logs, official records). - Candace highlights the general sentiment from viewers and participants: there is a strong urge for transparency and credible evidence, and a belief that those connected to TPUSA and its affiliates should provide clear, simple alibis if they care about debunking or clarifying Mitch’s claims. Several participants stress that the investigation should stay focused on Charlie Kirk’s murder and whether Mitch’s Fort Huachuca timeline intersects with that event, rather than spiraling into personal allegations or MeToo-era rumors. Input from participants and their positions: - Harrison Faulkner: Questions the significance of the Fort Huachuca meeting, asking what the actual claim is and what proof would entail. He noted that even if Mitch’s story has proof, the core question remains: what is the conclusion or inference about Charlie Kirk’s murder? - Morgan Ariel: Affirms she remains on board with the investigation while expressing reservations about Mitch’s credibility. Emphasizes the need to assess Mitch’s claims against credible evidence and to avoid conflating personal accusations with the core investigative goals. - Myron: Supports Candace’s approach, endorsing investigative rigor, considering that Mitch may have been misrepresented by informants, and highlighting the importance of corroborating facts with base personnel and official records. - Ian Carroll: Recaps interactions with “Paramount Tactical” and others warning of potential pushback or attempts to manipulate Mitch’s narrative. Notes Ben Shapiro/Andrew Colbert’s involvement and expresses concern about behind-the-scenes pressure. He emphasizes seeking a straightforward alibi from Harpole and Erica. - Isabella: Asks about Morgan’s involvement and notes the potential for coordinated messaging around Mitch’s case. Seeks clarity on positions of exes and allies in the narrative. - Diligent Denizen: Urges rigorous curiosity and accountability, questioning how to prove negatives and seeking direct, verifiable evidence (e.g., alibi confirmations, flight logs, phone/metadatum trails). Argues for open, transparent sourcing and discourages character attacks without solid receipts. - Suleiman: Asks about the feasibility of proving negative alibis and how to confirm absence from a location when no direct evidence exists; underscores the need for a robust evidentiary trail. - Mel: Brings perspective from personal military life, pressing for straightforward evidence (alibis) and criticizing what she perceives as “half-hearted debunkings” or distractions (e.g., focus on exes) that divert from the Charlie Kirk case. - Ryan and other attendees: Echo appreciation for Candace’s investigative work, urge Turning Point to provide clear accountability, and emphasize public trust concerns regarding TPUSA’s handling of the Fort Huachuca matter and Charlie Kirk’s murder investigation. Candace closes by acknowledging the ongoing, crowdsourced nature of the investigation, the need for receipts and verifiable alibis, and her commitment to continuing to pursue the truth. She reiterates that if Erica or Cabot provide solid alibis with verifiable evidence, she will publish them; if Mitch’s account is proven inaccurate, she will acknowledge it and adjust accordingly. She teases additional explosive reporting on related topics, including Tyler Robinson, and states she will be back with more on this case.

The speaker discusses reactions to Candace’s incident reports and what Candace allegedly said, including Fort Huachuca confirmation and that Mitch Snow, Michael, and Harry were there. They plan to show what Candace actually said, noting it seemed like a subliminal address while a larger group tries to debunk her. They also mention George Webb and that many have told them to check his work, though they’re unsure. They summarize Valhalla VFT’s position: if by Friday Mitch returns all the money to Candace and Candace donates it to Mitch’s victims, the situation could move forward positively; otherwise, they will go “scorched earth” on Friday and reveal everything about the man. The speaker expresses discomfort with a pattern they’ve observed: three people—Valhalla VFT, Balak’s Tones, and George Webb—initially express support for Candace and claim they want her to reach out, but then publicly attack or debunk her. They note that all three claimed to care about Candace, and then shifted to public attacks after alleged private communication. George Webb is described as briefly protective, then chastising Candace in posts; Balak’s Tones is said to have given Candace an ultimatum (twenty-four hours) to shut down the GoFundMe and redirect funds to “victims,” followed by a series of videos and attacks. Valhalla is described as shifting from supportive to attacking as well, creating an odd pattern. The speaker outlines personal experiences with these figures: George Webb did not answer a question about how a clip connecting to Fort Huachuca related to his claims, and has a tendency to block on social media; Valhalla is accused of reframing and proclaiming the story “done” while moving toward public attacks. Balak’s Tones is accused of issuing ultimatums and then attacking Candace if her response did not align with his demands. The speaker argues that if these individuals genuinely cared about Candace, they would press for the questions she must answer. They examined Valhalla’s claims about building numbers, foyer requests, and license plates: one building number checks out, the other’s existence is unclear; the foyer request answer is reportedly not verifiable by Candace’s team alone, though she has people who could obtain it; the California license plate claim “checks out.” The overall tension centers on the ultimatum to shut down the GoFundMe by Friday and the shifting portrayal of Candace’s story by these three figures. The speaker concludes by noting Valhalla’s deep emotional stance against toxic spousal situations may influence his views, suggesting his past conversations with witnesses and victims inform his strong stance, which, in the speaker’s view, colors his approach and may contribute to the public attacks. They acknowledge liking Valhalla and recognizing the no-tolerance stance, but feel it clouds judgment and pushes toward attacking Candace.

John Collin created a video showing a bullet's trajectory that suggests it would have been very difficult for the round to travel the path it did if it came from Thomas Crooks. The speaker suggests that the investigators should bring in John Collin and see his evidence. The speaker believes that any worthwhile investigation should examine all theories, including those that some might consider conspiratorial, and then try to disprove or debunk them, or see if they hold water. The speaker reiterates that John Collin is someone the investigators should bring in to examine the video evidence.

There were multiple improbable factors that would have had to align for these bombs to be discovered at the same time on a sidewalk, prompting questions about a broader conspiracy and how such a scenario could unfold. The speakers emphasize that while they want to avoid a conspiracy path, there are many questions still open, including the handling of video footage. Regarding video records, one speaker notes that they want to review January 6 video to see if anyone returned to the locations, but that video apparently does not exist anymore. They do have January 5 video, but have been told that no one preserved January 6. This raises eyebrows as they consider whether the devices were placed by an inexperienced person who was trying to set them down quickly or whether the devices were left to be found. Mrs. Younger’s account is highlighted: she walked out her back door and did not see anything earlier in the morning, but saw the devices later, which would give a reason to believe she would have noticed them if they had been there in the morning. This observation is part of why they want to talk to her. One speaker is blown away by a point: according to the FBI, the FBI’s internal data indicate 39,000 videos showing the hoodie-clad pipe bomber—referred to as the C. Virkel bomber—movements that night, from various camera angles. Washington, DC, Capitol Hill is described as among the most surveilled areas in the world. Yet there is a claim that there is no footage from January 6 of the actual areas a person would have had to travel to place the pipe bombs. The other speaker confirms that there are cameras along some Capitol Police lines that show walking paths, including footage from Capitol Police cameras, but the angles that would show positions behind the RNC and behind the DNC do not exist today, at least not in a way that captures the relevant movements. This absence has limited the investigation into the theory that the devices could have been placed earlier and then moved or re-placed. They are now going back through Capitol Police footage, including from the Fairchild Building near the DNC, which has provided the most evidence so far. The team is reviewing hours from about 8 PM on May 5 to 1 PM on January 6 to determine whether anyone else passed by, whether there was any suspicious activity, and whether the devices were moved again. The investigators are evaluating step-by-step explanations for these anomalies, considering whether the Secret Service dog failed to detect one device or whether Mrs. Younger missed the other, whether the devices were not present at that time, or whether weather and other factors affected detections. They acknowledge that with so many circumstances, some “smoke” might indicate “fire.” They hope the FBI is reviewing cell phone data to determine if the suspected bomber returned or if a co-conspirator was involved in setting timers or re-placing devices. The transcript ends with an acknowledgment of ongoing investigation scope and questions.

Speaker 0: "Oh, I don't need TMZ's cameras. There's nothing I love more than a good investigation, and I'm coming to you guys with the receipts." They report "Trump has said Charlie Kirk has died" and, "as we were reporting the assassination of Charlie Kirk." They say people in the back room were "watching a car chase" and "laughing, they were clapping, and you could hear it out here." Exhibit A–D are referenced: "the alleged car chase that they were watching"; "the giant clocks around their office"; "don't worry. You won't have to do the math because I've done it for you"; "Time stamp... one zero seven and fifteen seconds in the afternoon... with the time stamp on their video of three hours forty two minutes and five seconds." "For 03:00 in Utah time, which is two 02:00 Pacific." Exhibit D: "the cheering starting at exactly four hours seventeen minutes and fifteen second mark, which is a difference of thirty five minutes and ten seconds." "01:43." They conclude, "they were not laughing. They were not reacting that way about Charlie Kirk's assassination. They were not. They would not work here if they did."

The speaker references a person who was removing memory cards from cameras about four minutes after what is described as the Charlie Kirk assassination, noting that something about the situation didn’t sit right. They mention Candace released a video showing how this person reacted, and that diligent investigation followed, including a campus visit to UVU to examine the events with a play-by-play analysis. The speaker says they will leave a link to that video but first shows a clip. In the clip, Speaker 1 describes the sequence: “He doesn't try to grab Charlie. He doesn't duck. His first reaction standing right here is to turn this way and start booking.” The person “starts booking back here,” and Speaker 1 notes that he sees the shot and that Charlie hasn’t even hit the ground yet. Charlie is described as being in a position where “Charlie’s like this,” and the person pivots to lean back. Security personnel respond by coming over, grabbing him, and pulling him to the ground. Meanwhile, Terrell Farnsworth “has already turned and begun running back here to climb up on that wall.” The speaker asks the audience to imagine there had just been a shooting, with chaos and people running. Charlie Kirk “was just shot,” and the wall is described as “almost as tall as I am.” The speaker asks the audience if they can see, confirming visibility. The analysis then focuses on the person’s actions: measuring “how much of a pain in the ass he climbed up right here and then threw that loose rock and just so he could get to his vantage point.” The speaker calls it out as an attempt to explain the sequence from the vantage point up the wall. The clip continues with the person producing a selfie video: “Oh, they shot Charlie. They just shot Charlie. They just shot Charlie.” They refer to him as “Agent” and note his statements like “They shot Charlie. God help him.” The speaker says this behavior is a major red flag and cites it as the most troubling aspect. The running scene is described further: as the person runs out, he looks to his left and, in the footage, is seen climbing up, then reacting to the news that Charlie was shot. The voiceover emphasizes the emotional state (or lack thereof) as the footage shows the stampede of people and chaos. The speaker underscores that, to them, the absence of emotion on the person’s face during these events is “the biggest red flag of all.”

The transcript presents a video analysis centered on Frank Turek during an event with Charlie, focusing on whether Frank was FaceTiming his wife and son/daughter-in-law or viewing drone surveillance footage. The speaker asserts that Frank, initially seen on the left of Charlie and later to Charlie’s right, was FaceTiming someone but then shifted to viewing surveillance footage, likely from a drone, rather than the FaceTime call. Key claims and sequence: - The narrator describes Frank standing to Charlie’s right behind him, holding a phone, and initially FaceTiming someone while Charlie sits and asks questions. The claim is that Frank’s FaceTime feed shows a woman and a picture-in-picture frame, suggesting FaceTiming with someone. - The speaker contends that the phone Frank is using for the FaceTime appears different from the phone he uses to view drone footage, noting discrepancies in phone appearance (dimensions, front/back features, button color). - The analysis shifts to allegedly showing that Frank’s phone screen is displaying drone surveillance footage rather than faces. The speaker points to frames where objects on the screen resemble a car, trees, a building with a spire or fountain, and a golf cart, arguing these are not faces or reflections. - A key part of the argument is a claimed cross-angle discrepancy: Dan Flood’s tattooed arm appears on Frank’s phone screen at angles inconsistent with the real arm’s orientation, implying the feed is from a different camera angle than Frank’s own position. The speaker argues this mismatch indicates a surveillance feed, possibly from a drone, rather than a direct FaceTime view of a person. - The footage sequence allegedly shows movement synchronized between Frank’s phone screen and what’s happening off-screen, including observations of an arm, two legs, and later a moment that might depict Charlie tipping over after an incident. - The presenter points out a potential visual link between a tire/hubcap and a vehicle seen earlier on Frank’s phone, inviting viewers to compare frames and decide if they are the same. - The speaker invites the audience to review the footage themselves, proposes that Frank was not FaceTiming anyone, and suggests that he may have switched to drone footage. They emphasize that this is a theory that should be investigated and encourage downloading the footage to form a conclusion. - Acknowledgment is given to Indi Rose of the Let Me Stop You There podcast, whose analysis influenced the video, with an invitation to followers to review her work and compare viewpoints. Overall, the transcript details a contested interpretation: whether Frank used FaceTime as claimed or was viewing drone surveillance footage, with emphasis on frame-by-frame inconsistencies, angle mismatches, and the appearance of drone imagery on Frank’s screen, culminating in a call for independent review of the footage.

Two speakers discuss a tip about video footage of Tyler Robinson. The informant says "I've been trying to get in touch with Candace Owens" and that "the FBI came to my job... and informed me that his phone pinged in this parking lot." They say the FBI was "going in her shopping center... to retrieve video footage" and shows "Tyler Robinson's car pulling into the parking lot" with a "white SUV" nearby. They claim "This video specifically doesn't make sense" because a person who just committed an assassination would not linger in a parking lot. They reference "surveillance footage" from the FBI in Utah that shows Tyler jumping off the roof and argue the rifle was "reassembled again." They cite Candace Owens' insider saying Tyler never admitted to being on UVU campus and question why law enforcement has not released the full footage, suggesting possible involvement of others.

I was about 10 feet to Charlie's left when it happened. It was one of those moments that will crystallize in your mind forever. You hear the pop, and it’s not completely clear what it is at first. I looked to my right and immediately saw what had happened. It was just one shot. The security got him immediately, got him into the car immediately, and then out again. They could not have done their job any better. Then, what do we do? I sent a message on Telegram to Turning Point, telling them to lockdown. I imagined they’d already seen it, but I said, lockdown Turning Point. I called my mom and said, I can’t say more, but mom, Charlie got shot. I love you. I have to go. Then I met with other team members, and we got to the hospital within about twenty-five minutes, and the rest of the day unfolded from there. Staff decided to address this head on because there’s so much intrigue, and I’m going to do a generous thing. The intrigue is because people care about Charlie. Blake, you were there and you interacted with Mikey. You left the scene and then reconnected with Mikey. So, explain what the video is. The video is by someone who attacked Mikey, Charlie’s friend, Charlie’s chief of staff, a guy we’ve seen on the show the last few weeks. They claim, based on a few seconds of clips, that he allegedly has a nonchalant or calm reaction to Charlie’s murder. This is an extremely disgusting attack. I was there when it happened and I was next to Mikey when it happened. When the shooting occurs, we both hear a loud crack and turn to see Charlie who has been shot. We both realize there is a shooter on the scene. We hear the crack and don’t know if it came from far or close, or if a mass shooting is unfolding. My reaction, and Mikey’s, was to get out of there before we were both shot. That is not us abandoning Charlie. Charlie had a security team; they leapt into action and got Charlie out, which was their job. My job was not to be a hero or get in the way. I remember running past the SUV we came in on, thinking, should I get in that car? Then I thought that would be stupid, and I kept going. I was ahead of Mikey as we left. We got out and ran for more than fifteen or twenty seconds. I paused, looked around, and saw Mikey. I will never forget what I saw. Mikey is usually bubbly and happy, but he was profoundly freaked out. His lip was quivering, something I’d never seen from him. He said, I think he literally said, he needs to call Erica, then he calls Erica. He also calls his dad, Rob McCoy, and says, Dad, someone shot Charlie. You need to call all of your pastor friends. We then gathered to direct actions: to get to the hospital and to relay information to Erica. After the call, Mikey regained control and stepped up, directing a battle-like flow: get to the hospital, wait here, and get information to Erica.

The speaker states that Pam Bondi claimed to have ten thousand hours of video. The speaker had dinner with the Vice President who told them that the video was commercial pornography. According to the Vice President, the videos do not show any powerful person in a compromising position, which is the party line. The speaker questions why Pam Bondi would call it evidence if that is the case.

- Erica Kirkburg has allegedly been seen at Fort Huachuca the day before her husband died. - Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss this sighting, noting a photo of Erica Kirk with a ponytail from her past and claiming she matched the person seen at Fort Huachuca in the lobby the night before, who was with a man present at that meeting. - Mitch, described as a veteran who uncovered US involvement in cartels and was silenced, is claimed to have seen Erica. He is also said to have identified the same person in the lobby as Erica. - Speaker 2 notes another picture of Erica Kirk with a ponytail from the past, asserting the person in that photo matches who was seen at Fort Huachuca, and that the man with Erica was present at the meeting. - Stu Peters is brought in, with Speaker 1 summarizing that, in plain English, Erica is “sketchy.” Stu Peters claims he is 99% sure he saw Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca with Brian Harpole, congressman Mark Amity, and a group of military officers; Mitch similarly says he is 99% certain of what he saw. - A directive is issued to “Shut it down, Stu,” and a private meeting is referenced where Candace is told to walk back statements and “simmer down,” with a threat that she could end up like Jackie. - The discussion considers the possibility that Erica was in a motel on the eighth and suggests she might have been there for a different reason, noting her mother moved to Arizona because she got involved with the military, which could be unrelated to the meeting on the ninth. - Speaker 5 defends Erica indirectly by saying that just because Erica’s parents have ties to Raytheon and Israel, and her mom moved to Arizona and are seen at Huachuca two days prior to a shooting, does not mean “we” did it. Candace is pressed not to inquire further. - The dialogue shifts to a broader comment about Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk; Speaker 1 questions why the widow of Charlie Kirk would inspire a public nervous breakdown by Ben, and speculates about Israel’s involvement with 9/11. - The conversation includes explicit antisemitic and inflammatory remarks from Speaker 5, including “You stupid little Goyim. How dare you insult my chosenness?” and references to “dark people.” - A Son of the record remark about the slave trade is made, with a claim that “the trading day” landed on a Jewish holiday, affecting operation. - The exchange ends with a directive to Candace to “match” and a retort about choosing a private meeting to stop questions, followed by a return to derisive comments about Jewish holidays.

Claim: 'Because we now have CCTV footage of Tyler Robinson at a different location than the university twenty minutes after the shooting.' The footage comes from 'convict to conservative,' a channel with 536 followers, pushed to 5-10k. 'Les Effer Lounge' (Pia) DM’d Ryan that she has footage of Tyler twenty minutes after the shooting; the FBI pinged Tyler's cell phone at this location and asked for CCTV. She shows security cams and asks, 'do you guys want me to do anything with this?' The FBI replied, 'That's all we needed. We got copies of it.' Time stamps: 12:44; 12:46; 12:47. The footage 'shed so much shade on the FBI's narrative' and questions why Tyler would be in a parking lot after the allegedly 'blew Charlie Kirk's head off.' Text messages: 'the FBI, when the cell phone was turned on, it sent a signal, and he said it was here.'

- 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?'

The speaker mentions that videos of the events on January 6th are easily accessible on the internet. They encourage viewers to find these videos themselves, as they believe they may contain information that contradicts the prevailing narrative about that day. The speaker suggests that the situation was more complex than commonly portrayed.

Speaker 0 questions if the claim of the bunkers being a major command center is true, as no conclusive proof has been shown. Speaker 1 interrupts and says "Christian" before the transcript ends.

- Mitch testified that he is 99% sure he saw Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca with Brian Harpole, congressman Mark Amity, and a group of military officers, and he is taking a great personal risk in going public. - Fort Huachuca is described as the home to the only unmanned aircraft training center in the United States. The discussion connects Fort Huachuca to drone activity and to manned aircraft capable of releasing and retrieving drones, including the Bombardier Global 65,000 military jet with tail number N1098 Lima, which allegedly performed nine-eleven level maneuvers on the day Charlie Kirk was killed. - It is claimed that Fort Huachuca is also the military’s only site in the country that tests EMP blasts, electromagnetic pulse blasts that can disable telecommunications, and that these EMP blasts can be carried out by drones, such as the drone reported around UVU at the time Charlie Kirk was killed, where people on the ground said their cell phone service was disrupted. - The speaker suggests that, given Mitch’s information and previous discussions, the Fort Huachuca angle may be the explanation for what happened, implying that an EMP carried out by a drone from Fort Huachuca could be involved. - Lori Fransvi V is described as the founder of E3 Tech, a defense contractor that claims to produce EMP-proof technology for the military and that earns millions of dollars in government contracts. E3 Tech is said to be closely linked to Israel under the guise of allied defense contracting and cooperation. - It is stated that E3 Tech’s EMP-proof technology would have to pass through Fort Huachuca, making Fort Huachuca the lifeblood of E3 Tech’s work. - The narrative asserts a backstory about Erica Kirk’s mother, Lori Fransky, portraying her as a hardworking single mom who fought and clawed to get by, moving to Arizona because of her work. The speaker says, given what is now known, that Lori Fransky didn’t just have to be in Arizona for work, but had to be at Fort Huachuca, and that Erica also had to be there because of her mother’s defense contract. - It is claimed that Lori Fransby/Fransky’s parents are connected to Fort Huachuca as well: Kent Fransby with ties to Raytheon, Israel, LTD, and the Iron Dome, and involved in defense contracts with the same military base where Mitch says he saw Erica Kirk before Charlie Kirk’s assassination. - The overall assertion is that Fort Huachuca is central to Erica Kirk, to Ken Fransby, to Lori Fransby, and to Erica Kirk’s connection to Charlie Kirk’s assassination.