TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The National Guard is all over Brooklyn, and there are no cops anywhere. It's only the National Guard now everywhere. Martial law is coming.

A 911 call was placed, but police were allegedly not allowed to enter the premises. The speaker questions why police responding to a 911 call must wait for a supervisor to grant them access. The speaker finds it strange that police are restricted from entering after a 911 call and expresses a need to relocate.

The National Guard is all over Brooklyn, and there are no cops anywhere. It's only the National Guard now. Martial law is coming.

The speaker is providing an update because people keep asking what's going on. They are rotated off and supposed to be asleep but can't sleep. They state that they are doing as they're told and doing the best they can. The speaker explains that they can't reach certain locations with Humvees due to mudslides, landslides, size constraints, and rubble. They are learning information and trying to relay it, but can't share everything. Approvals are needed before using alternative methods like animals or 4-wheelers. The speaker says they are giving out food and water and helping people, but there's a chain of command, limiting what they can do. If they are told "no," they have to comply. They understand the frustration, but there's nothing they can do. Civilians can do whatever they want, but those in uniform must answer to someone and can only do so much.

The National Guard is all over Brooklyn, and there are no cops anywhere. It's only the National Guard now. Martial law is coming.

An individual questions whether an action is due to a security concern or an intimidation tactic. The response indicates it is a security matter. Later, the individual asks why they are not being arrested and demands to see video footage. They express distress, stating "That is not okay." Another person urges calm. The individual mentions "FinCEO" and claims they will be arrested despite knowing nothing. They thank someone for their support and ask why another person isn't being arrested, claiming to have witnessed them slap someone. They deny anyone said "stab him." They state that even asking an impolite question could lead to arrest.

An individual asks another to step outside, threatening to call the police. The other person welcomes the threat and suggests calling 911. One of the individuals claims they are looking at a 12-story building and accuses someone of treason. They allege the building was renovated to house illegal aliens while US citizens are sleeping in tents. They state they followed two individuals, who appeared to be from Venezuela, into the building. They claim they were cursed out and the police were called on them when they asked for some of the "free shit," referencing their own Airbnb expenses.

Nick Shirley initiates the exchange by stating his name and pressing for permission to record, noting that the other person “doesn’t have any permission to record me, period.” He proposes, “Can we talk outside? Permission to record.” The other person counters that there is no permission from either party, saying, “She doesn’t either have she doesn’t have permission or … for me. You cannot stop people on the street and question them.” Nick states, “We can ask them,” and the other person repeats, “Have any permission.” The dialogue shifts to a concern about the whereabouts of children. Nick asks, “Where are the children?” The other person responds, “I will sue you. You don't have any permission. We have nothing to do with this. Okay, sir? And are there … So leave.” Nick persists, asking again, “Are there children here?” The other person repeats, “Please leave.” Nick inquires, “Where are the children?” and the other person insists, “Leave. Leave.” Nick questions, “We’re wondering what's happening. Tell us what's happening here then.” The other person commands, “I said leave.” Nick clarifies, “We're wondering what's happening.” The other person states, “We are not a childcare. We have nothing to do with it. We're the common people walking. Yes. We're not … we're not accusing you. We're asking where the children are at.” The other person repeats, “Don't ask me anything.” Nick emphasizes his intent: “We're not accusing you. We're asking the daycare centers.” The other person refuses to answer, “I am not gonna answer. You have.” Nick presses, “Where are the children … who do you work for? My name is Nick Shirley.” The other person asks, “Who do you work for?” Nick responds, “I work for myself. Nick Shirley.” The other person inquires, “Okay what are you recording?” Nick answers, “We're wondering where are the children $2,660,000 for the Minnesota child care center. You're not talking to the right person. Are there children that come here?” The other person demands, “Answer the question. Are there children?” Nick states, “There's no children inside the building.”

The exchange centers on filming rights and the status of the location. Speaker 0 challenges whether they are allowed to film, asking, “Oh, turn off the camera? Yeah. Do I not have a right to have the camera? I’m not giving you permission to check my face.” They then inquire about authority, asking, “Are you a public servant? Or United Nations against the city. Okay. Does because this is my city, and so I have a right to film.” This line underscores Speaker 0’s insistence on their right to record within the space, coupled with a demand for clarity about the other party’s authority to restrict that right. Speaker 1 responds by questioning the premise of the filmed area, asking, “This is United Nations compound?” and clarifies the location’s status by confirming whether it is a compound. The conversation shifts to the status and sovereignty of the area, with Speaker 1 asserting control and jurisdiction over the space in question. A pivotal point in the dialogue arises when Speaker 1 provides a long claim about the compound’s ownership and territorial status. They state, “Since Sunday evening, we took over this compound. This is international territory.” They further elaborate the contrasting jurisdictions, stating, “When you step outside, it’s US. Here is international territory.” This statement frames the location as international territory within the compound, implying a distinct legal or political status compared to the surrounding area. Overall, the interaction is a brief confrontation over visual documentation and the governing authority of the space. Speaker 0 emphasizes the right to film and presses for clarity on who can permit or deny that right, while Speaker 1 asserts that the space is an international territory under their control since Sunday evening, differentiating it from the surrounding US jurisdiction. The dialogue highlights tensions between individual or press rights to film and a claimed change in sovereignty or control of a contested compound.

What's happening at this hotel? Reports indicate that individuals have been filming children at a nearby primary school. Don't touch me; I'm just trying to understand the situation. You're pushing me away, but I need answers. This is unacceptable. Illegals have been filming children here. Why are you preventing me from getting information? It's ironic that you're calling the police on me when there are serious allegations about people filming children just up the road. You have no evidence? There is evidence. Where is it? The community deserves answers about what's going on with the children.

An individual questions the presence of the army at a public hotel. They ask if the army has taken over the hotel and inquire about the reason for their presence. An individual states the army is there at the request of the state of New York. The questioner expresses disbelief that the state of New York would place the army in hotels. They attempt to record the interaction but are told they cannot. The individual then questions whether the army's presence is beneficial to the public.

An individual questions the presence of the army at a public hotel in New York City, asking why they are there and if they have taken over the hotel. The army's presence is reportedly at the request of the state of New York. The individual expresses disbelief that the state of New York has put the army in hotels. They are told that recording is not allowed. The individual questions whether the army is there to help the public.

A man states he wants legal representation, claiming police officers have not allowed him any. He says he doesn't know what is going on. An officer asks if he shot the president and if he was in the building at the time. The man confirms he works in the building, so naturally he was there. He claims he is being taken in because he lives in Missouri and that he is just a patsy.

An individual is confronted on a property and told to leave because it is military property. The individual claims to be a citizen journalist investigating who is staying on the property. They state that the gate is open to the public and that they drove in without issue. They also mention concern for women and children allegedly harmed by unvetted men. The other individual repeatedly demands they leave and threatens arrest, telling them to call the station for information but refusing to provide details themselves. They ask who the journalist represents and who they signed a non-disclosure agreement with.

Hey, how's it going? I'm just curious about the facilities back here. Are they being used? I noticed there aren't many workers coming in or out. We can't allow recording on-site, but we can answer questions. This area is for rapid response in emergencies, mainly for first responders. They stay here to rest between their duties. People think it's for housing illegals, but it's not. The workers are out doing their jobs during the day, which is why you might not see them. Thanks for the clarification. It's important to get accurate information instead of assumptions. Have a great day!

The video shows a confrontation where someone is being arrested. The person being arrested asks why they are being arrested, but the police officers do not provide a clear answer. The person also asks for their phone and microphone, but it is unclear if they receive them.

A person asks if they can conduct business in the Tesla store. The response is no, it is closed. The person questions why the NYPD is allowed to disassemble in front of a business, closing it down, and claims that this is not the first amendment. They express that it is ridiculous that this is allowed.

Let's go outside. What's happening, officer? They want you to leave. Why? It doesn't matter; they've asked you to go. We were just recording. I don't know why they said you were uninvited. They asked me to escort you out. Did they say you couldn't record? Everyone's using their phones. I can't answer any more questions, but she's looking into it.

The Poland army is present, but they are not engaging in any actions. There’s a sense of confusion and frustration expressed, with someone mentioning they are recording everything. They plan to share their recordings with humanity next year. Acknowledgment is given to a foreign army for their presence.

The speaker asks an officer what is happening and what is going on. The speaker repeats, "What's that?" and "What?" The officer responds that they can't describe exactly what's going on, stating, "It's an ongoing investigation." The speaker repeats the word "crime" multiple times.

The speaker questions the army's presence at a New York hotel. They ask if the army is turning the hotel into a migrant shelter and why they are there. The speaker states the army is there at the request of the state of New York. The speaker expresses disbelief that the state of New York has put the army in hotels. They ask if the army has taken over the hotel, and state that they are not in court and can record. The speaker questions why the army is taking over civilian hotels in New York City, and whether the army is there to help the people.

Hey guys, can I pause for a moment? Are there any armed individuals here? Yes, the police. Law enforcement. Can you please provide your credentials? Okay. What was the reason for your call? You need to do...

An individual questions whether an action is due to security concerns or intimidation. The response indicates it is a security matter. Another person is told to stay away from someone. An individual asks why they aren't being arrested and demands to see video footage. Someone is told to calm down. An individual states "They will arrest me. I know nothing." Another person is asked if they would arrest someone else, claiming to have seen that person slap someone. It is asserted that no one said "stab him." Someone states they are on the side of another person.

The National Guard and Marines are being stationed at federal buildings across the country where riots are taking place, not deployed against US citizens. They remain on federal property to provide security for those buildings. If people do not storm the federal building or attack the National Guard, they will not be attacked. As an investigative journalist who covers protests, the speaker says they stood two inches from the National Guard, who did nothing. The National Guard is not allowed to operate in a law enforcement capacity because the cities will not allow it.

A man states he wants legal representation, claiming police officers have not allowed him any. He says he doesn't know what is going on. An officer asks if he shot the president and if he was in the building at the time. The man replies that he works in the building, so naturally he was there. He claims he is being taken in because he lives in Missouri and that he is just a patsy.