TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

- "earliest it was 12:22 that the individual ran across, set up, took the shots." - "The metadata begins at 12:22 and goes into 12:23, the very minute that Charlie gets shot." - "I saw the shots. I had just stopped recording about twenty seconds before the shot rang out." - "this person looked to him like a foreign agent." - "this person was dressed in tactical gear, and he was wearing a face mask." - "this is the wrong person. I observed this person with my eyes. You have the complete wrong description." - "the gun that the FBI found was not the gun that he saw, that the gun that he saw was smaller."

The discussion centers on Charlie Kirk and the handling of his death. The speakers are uncertain about the official account and call for a truly rigorous and honest federal investigation. Specific points raised include: - A claim that Canada said Egyptian-registered aircraft followed Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, around for years in various places; the speaker asserts this is factually true and notes it is a very strange data point, though its meaning is unclear. - A claim that Erika Kirk’s event had a disproportionately large number of foreign-registered cell phones, which is also stated as true. - The speakers emphasize that the FBI has a moral and legal obligation to investigate openly and to consider all possibilities, applying the same process as in science, journalism, and law enforcement. They express a lack of confidence in the FBI and the officials who run it, and argue that honesty and a coherent narrative are needed to restore public trust. - Foreknowledge of the incident is discussed: posts on X allegedly predicted that Charlie Kirk would be killed on the date of the college event in Utah. The question is raised about whether those posts were just guessing and whether those involved have been interviewed by the FBI to determine how they knew what they knew. - The speakers compare the investigation to other events, suggesting that if they investigated, they would examine who publicly posted foreknowledge and seek detailed explanations: who they spoke to, what they know, and how to verify it. - There is a request for an explanation of how the killer transformed into a radical, violent actor, with a note that the speaker does not automatically endorse trans ideologies but wants to understand the radicalization process. - The speakers discuss Candace Owens’ role: the controversy and turmoil surrounding her claims, and the idea that those in authority are responsible for the investigation, not individuals like Candace or podcasters. - A concluding sentiment expresses greater trust in Candace Owens’ intent than in the average DOJ official, framing Candace’s presence as filling a vacuum left by authorities, while insisting that the people in charge must restore confidence through honest reporting and a plausible narrative.

Ryan Mehta discusses the claim about Charlie Kirk’s shooting, addressing Candace Owens’ assertion that Kirk was hit from the front and that the bullet shot straight. He argues that the neck entry wound with no exit wound suggests the spinal area stopped the bullet, implying a near-straight-on or slightly angled front impact (01:00 or 11:00 position). He explains that if the shot were from the side or at a different angle, the jugular area would likely have the bullet exit through the neck or the other side, making a front shot the most logical conclusion. Mehta notes the possibility of a drone surveillance setup and a second shooter at a much farther distance, referencing Gary Melton at Paramount Tactical. He mentions drone renderings and images of the campus layout to determine if anyone else at an elevated position could have had a clear line of sight to shoot Kirk from the front, asserting that the research will provide definitive evidence of such a position. He rejects ideas of trapdoors or a bullet coming from the ground and AI manipulation, stating he is not buying those theories. He emphasizes that the observed body reaction—“something blew him out of the chair”—would require further explanation. He discusses the necklace coming off and suggests that overlapping devices might have simulated another type of event at the moment of the shooting, implying a simultaneous device could be involved. Mehta speculates about adversary tech, referencing Mossad or similar agencies with gas-powered or air-powered guns that could be used to create a front-shot camera device capable of shooting Charlie while appearing to originate from the front. He maintains the chain of events supports a front-shot scenario with the bullet entering Kirk’s neck, possibly hitting the spine, and causing a dramatic bodily reaction. He invites viewers to share opinions in the comments, asking them to indicate whether they think Kirk was shot from the front or the side, and to participate in a Twitter Space at 5 PM with an expert to discuss Charlie Kirk’s security detail. He signs off as Ryan Mehta, inviting participation at 05:00. Key points: - The neck entry wound with no exit is argued to indicate a front-on or near-front shot, potentially around 01:00 or 11:00 trajectory. - The possibility of a drone and a second shooter at a distant location is discussed, with Gary Melton’s Paramount Tactical drone surveillance cited as providing three-dimensional renderings of the campus layout. - Rejected theories include trapdoors or ground-level shots and AI manipulation; suggested alternative is a device/camera that could shoot from the front while appearing to come from elsewhere. - Observed physical reactions (neck and spine) are used to support the front-shot claim, though further evidence is called for. - Audience engagement and a forthcoming expert discussion on Charlie Kirk’s security detail are announced.

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 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."

They push back on critics who say they can't investigate online, declaring "We're FBI agents. We're the investigators." They highlight Blake Bednar's rise—from about 500 to 23,700 followers—saying "he deserved... a 100." They discuss the Meta Glasses story: "the button on these glasses... it's on the right side" and "hit it once... that is a picture" and "hold it down... record." They say "snapping photos... for confirmation" to use facial recognition to verify a target, and note Blake "jump over to rescue Charlie Kirk" while wearing Meta glasses, "standing over his body." Speaker 2 confirms the sunglasses case: a security guard wearing "meta Ray Bans" records over Charlie's body. They critique the FBI/media narrative about a trans shooter and speculate Candice may reveal GPS and receipts to challenge the timeline, ending with "Save me the fucking lecture."

The speaker challenges the credibility of the narrative about Charlie Kirk’s incident and points to security footage to raise questions. They reference a security detail member wearing “meta AI shades” who appears to be filming. According to the speaker, when Charlie is hit, the security person turns on the shades, films, and then, as chaos unfolds with a crowd rushing the stage, carries out a handoff. The speaker describes a handoff occurring to a gentleman in a shirt. They claim that this is the moment when someone takes something off Charlie and hands it to the man in the black shirt, who then runs off. The speaker asserts that the item being handed off is the “laugh mic” that allegedly contained an explosive device, implying that the security detail’s first priority was to remove the suspicious object from Charlie and pass it to the other person rather than ensuring Charlie’s safety. The speaker emphasizes that the security detail “knew exactly what to do” and questions how the person receiving the item would know what to do in such chaotic moments, suggesting coordinated movement. They argue that the security actions undermine the official narrative about Charlie Kirk and Tyler Robinson, indicating that the FBI should be questioned and accountability demanded from the FBI and this administration. In summary, the speaker uses the footage to claim that the security team’s behavior—specifically the meta AI shades operator filming, the rapid handoff of an object from Charlie to a man in black, and the subsequent actions—casts doubt on the established story and points to potential coordination and a failure to prioritize Charlie’s immediate safety. The call is for greater scrutiny and accountability of the FBI and the administration.

The clip centers on Skyler, a man seen in multiple interviews right after the Charlie Kirk assassination. The presenters highlight that Skyler appeared in about four online interviews, and he’s pictured with sunglasses on top of his head behind Charlie’s head. They note that the day Charlie Kirk was shot, Skyler was front row to witness it, and in the interviews he never claims to be press or someone important, yet he sits on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial. They question how this is possible and point to oddities in his interviews. In one sequence, Skyler is described as being only about 10 to 15 feet away when it happened, with security to his left and nothing else in front of him—“Close as he could.” They show Skyler and Charlie’s bodyguard moving to a different area once Charlie arrives and questions begin. Skyler is described as front row and center, with the bodyguard directly in front of Charlie and Skyler off to the side with sunglasses on his head. The footage is contrasted with his Facebook activity, which the speakers examine afterward. They state that at the memorial service Skyler was “sitting on the Main Floor” with a floor pass for a press conference, seated literally “maybe 10 or so rows from the front of the stage.” They contrast this with Skyler’s Facebook page, noting that he has “two point, I think, k followings,” and that from 2018 to 02/2025 there are “maybe seven posts and like 10 pictures.” The presenters remark that there is little material on his page, suggesting a discrepancy between his apparent access and his online footprint. Further, the speakers recount Skyler’s account of entering the stadium. He says, “There is an unlimited amount of security, Secret service, military, police, empty. Steel barricades all around. Yeah. They’re definitely protecting this place,” and adds that there had been “an overflow,” with people waiting since 05:30 in the morning. Yet Skyler ends up with a floor pass and sits just a few rows back on the Main Floor with a badge that says media, prompting the question: “How?” They describe how another person explained the process of passing through multiple layers to obtain a media badge and access the floor. The discussion turns speculative: Skyler “was handpicked to do all these interviews,” to have “front row” seating, and to be present at key moments. The dialogue then shifts to a series of unusual videos by Skyler, described as “bizarre.” One clip contains a speaker describing an “indecision night” where they say, “I photoshopped in my mind the blood away,” “I rewound the tape,” and “the shooter… goes down the stairs,” with continued vivid, fantastical editing of the event.

Two participants watch a video and debate whether the footage is stock and whether 'it's a compositing trick'. 'Let's see how he proves that it's not stock footage' is asked. They claim, 'as a statement of fact, those do not match,' while another counters, 'Dude, it is exact.' They discuss alignment: 'It's not though. See that the black actually does not line up.' They ask, 'Right? You see how it's not the same on the, like, the edges?' and 'All dispersal patterns look the same.' 'Did you do that?' 'All the dispersal no.' 'No. No. No.' A blunter line appears: 'This is like saying that my butthole is your butthole because they're similar.' 'What?' 'Okay. That's wild.'

Speaker 0 appears to be trying to move the conversation along, indicating a desire to shift focus and figure out what happened. The scene then shifts to a visual moment that draws attention: “Wow. Look at that. Beautiful. Look at that,” suggesting a notable or striking image or location. The core narrative centers on Mikey McCoy, identified as Charlie Kirk’s chief of staff and friend. It is stated that Mikey spent the entire morning dutifully and loyally by Charlie’s side, filming everything. The tension arises at the moment Charlie is killed: according to the speaker, Mikey abandoned Charlie in that instant. The crucial question posed is whether Charlie was actually dead and whether he needed help at that moment. The speaker then asks if Mikey rushed to Charlie’s aid or instead pulled out his phone to continue filming, implying that Mikey’s actions or inactions could be revealing of his priorities at the critical moment. The line “Anything?” echoes a probing or accusatory tone, followed by a blunt “No. Nothing.” This sequence reinforces the claim that Mikey did not intervene or assist Charlie as the situation deteriorated. The narration emphasizes the abrupt change in Mikey McCoy’s behavior, asserting that “All of a sudden, Mikey McCoy didn't care about Charlie Kirk at all and just left him behind.” This creates a stark contrast between the earlier portrayal of Mikey as a loyal companion who documented the day and the sudden implication of neglect or abandonment at Charlie’s time of need. The passage culminates with a direct, open-ended inquiry: “What is going on?” This question underscores the overall mystery and suggests that the relationship dynamics and the sequence of events surrounding Charlie’s death, as well as Mikey’s actions, are the focus of concern. In summary, the speaker contrasts Mikey McCoy’s supposed early devotion and his later alleged abandonment of Charlie Kirk at the moment of a fatal incident, raising questions about whether Charlie was dead, whether help was needed, and whether Mikey prioritized filming over aiding Charlie. The framing invites scrutiny of Mikey’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances.

Stephen Gardner and Jack Buzovic argue that the smoking gun will be the geolocation data next to the DNA evidence on the rifle. They say, essentially, you steal my car and commit a crime, you’ll likely find my DNA in the vehicle and on the trigger, so now we’re going to trust some expert to provide magical geolocation data. They question how Tyler Robinson could be involved and suggest this should be a single, big government conspiracy if he didn’t actually take the shot. They insist CCTV video would show Tyler Robinson moving through the parking garage, onto the roof, and through various locations, and that the investigation should not avoid showing the video. They ask how a juror would be convinced without video footage when there are twenty different videos, and whether geolocation data could hurt the case when a murder has been committed. They complain about having to trust another expert and mention past high-profile investigations. They demand to see CCTV video showing Tyler Robinson walking across the campus, onto the roof, getting into his car, running through neighborhoods, because all that has been presented is “slop.” Ryan Mehta introduces this segment as a critique of the presented evidence. Speaker 1 (questioning the forensic approach) asks about cell phone tracking and geofencing data, noting that the same method was used in January 6 to determine who was on the steps or on the lawn. They ask what was found regarding that data in this case. Speaker 2 responds that the case will reveal with great clarity whether Tyler Robinson was in the Orem area and whether the texts that many have questions about were sent from Orem to Lance Twigg, and whether Lance Twigg was in Southern Utah or in Orem. The main point is that people are asking how he could have known given the terrain and that Google Maps could not have allowed planning of the murder. They say the data will show paths, including whether he went the day before or weeks before, and will track all of that. Joseph Scott Morgan told them they would be able to track him from 8 Hundredth Street down through the tunnel, up around the Losey Building, up the stairs, onto the roof, from the roof out to the roofline, take the shot, jump off the Losey Building, run into the woods. They mention conspiracy videos claiming he was spotted at a cafe on security footage; some claimed the cafe owner saw him on security cameras, while others claimed it wasn’t consistent with a murderer’s behavior. They argue the FBI tracked him to that location, and that the next morning at 07:15 AM, a Cedar City Maverick gas station records his credit card use and follows his phone, his movements home, visits to Lance, and visits to his parents, with all phone calls, texts, and other data available. The forensic expert, Joseph Scott Morgan, asserts that next to the gun, the cell phone data will be the thing that ties Tyler Robinson directly to the person on that building, and there is doubt among some about trusting the FBI. The discussion ends with the assertion that geotracking will provide the crucial link.

The transcript depicts a police or federal agent moving to the left of a vehicle, approaching as the motorist is present. The agent grabs his gun, opens fire on the motorist, and continues firing as she drives past. The moment the agent fires, he is described as standing to the left of the SUV, with the wheels pointing to the right, away from the agent. The sequence is punctuated with the word “Shake.” The narration notes that this depiction appears to conflict with allegations that the SUV was ramming or about to ram the officer. The speaker references statements attributed to President Trump and others, who said that the federal agent was hit by the SUV, pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. It is asserted that, in this moment of grainy, low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV. However, when this clip is synchronized with the first clip, the conclusion drawn is that the agent is not being run over. The claim made is that the agent’s feet are positioned away from the s...

Saluting Charlie Kirk, he says, "Rest in peace, my friend." He adds, "There was nobody that was gonna make a bigger impact than Charlie Kirk" and "the voice of American youth." He demonstrates inspecting video on a Mac: "hit command I" to view the inspector card, noting "This is four k. That is standard four k" and that the video shows "a 150 by 58" resolution versus "3,840 by 2,160." He argues the Charlie clip is smaller and has likely been "uploaded to x at 30 frames per second" and "slowed down by 50% and they reuploaded it." He covers frame rates: iPhones "29.97 frames per second," "GoPro" "flat 30 frames per second," and "60 frames per second" equals "59.94." He warns that "if it's not the original, it is so compressed that you can't every pixel in that video is not original." He ends with, "I definitely still don't think the dude on the roof is a trans shooter, and he has a boyfriend that wears furry things, and they had butt sex in the congress."

Speaker lauds Charlie Kirk but shifts to showing how video metadata can reveal manipulation. 'the inspector card shows your your resolution and your frame rate.' He notes a 4K frame size of '3,840 times 2,160' and contrasts it with 'A 150 by 58', showing the clip’s actual size. He says 'everything we film is pretty much in 30 frames per second,' and that 'when you talk about a clip being at 15 frames per second, command I again, you can see we're at 15 frames per second'—implying alteration. They claim: 'This video has already been altered' and 'This has been rendered one time,' then 'reuploaded, downloaded again, reuploaded again.' Uploading to X and re-downloading could 'erase facial details' such as wrinkles. He adds: most iPhones film at 29.97 fps; 'the only device that films at flat 30 frames per second is an actual GoPro'; '60 frames per second' equals '59.94 frames per second,' and compressions degrade quality.

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?'

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.'

The speaker discusses inconsistencies in photos of Derek Chauvin, the officer involved in the George Floyd case. They compare different angles, skin hue, hairline, and other facial features to argue that the photos do not represent the same person. They emphasize the importance of original source evidence and question the authenticity of the photos. The speaker also mentions the lack of videos and small channels discussing the topic. They conclude that some photos may be of Chauvin, but others are questionable. Overall, they provide a thorough analysis of the photos.

In this video, the speaker analyzes a slow-motion footage of a shooting incident. They question the authenticity of the scene, suggesting that the pistol magically appears in the shooter's hand through CGI effects. They also point out that there is no visible damage to the shooter's arm despite being shot. The speaker finds it suspicious that the gun only becomes shiny and reflective after the shooter's hands cover it. They conclude that the situation seems fishy due to the mysterious appearance of the gun and the lack of harm to the shooter's arm.

"This man right here, Blake Benares, just blew the roof off of this investigation and proved that Tyler's a patsy." "Blake only has 652 followers." "I've been working on this case nonstop for a week, and this is the one video that I think changes everybody's perspective on everything." "Let's get this guy up to 5,000 followers tomorrow." "What is in the view of that camera? This is what's really important." "This is the video of the cops, and they're zooming in to show us that Tyler was running across that building." "watch right here. Watch this freaking vent." "Something flies out of this gosh damn vent so fast at such a mock speed that you have to slow this down." "after he took the shot, he disassembled the rifle before jumping off the roof."

"So we're supposed to believe 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." "Was this when he was walking into the building, the then he must have already had planted the gun on the roof prior, and he somehow managed to walk back in the second time without the weapon." "And then because if he left with a weapon and hid it in the woods, then why didn't he have it on him when he was leaving?" "Didn't we watch criminal minds as a kid? Like, they have this super advanced software where they upload the image, and then the FBI just does their like, where's the BAU at and shit?" "Face recognition software. Match on the nose, ears, Boom. There he is."

The speakers discuss campus CCTV coverage, insisting, "There should be cameras everywhere. Every fucking where." They critique the released footage, saying it "only shows the suspect running and jumping off the roof," and note a "15 minute gap" where he’s allegedly unseen, with cameras supposedly everywhere. They argue the CCTV would have captured him on multiple rooftops—specifically the Losey Center roof at about 12:41, with a jump at 12:23—and say the cops should have that footage. They question the 10 frames per second video and the storage needs, "'76 terabytes' mentioned by an expert." They explore an alternate theory involving the Woodbury Building and the FG Building, needing footage of both for angles and heights, and mention Candace's reporting could throw it out. They reference "two protesters on roofs," Uvalde-style CCTV quality, and a $200 payment to obtain additional footage, with a drive link to be shared.