Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

There were three actions: one person raised his hand, another fired, and a third placed a piece of paper to obstruct the cameras behind the suspect who fired. Clear evidence became visible after the shot. This aligns with Mr. Eric's testimony regarding the sound and type of weapon that... might have been used in Kirk's assassination, as he described the shot as a 9mm, and its sound was not deep, but more like a cherry bomb. The camera that was behind Charlie was capable of capturing everything happening in front of him with high precision, but it was removed and the SD card was seized. However, here is a note: it seems that the leaking of the clips is being controlled. Whenever people suspect one individual, the next day a different suspect appears with evidence suggesting that he is the culprit. Moreover, the leaked clips are of poor quality. All of this supports the theory of flooding the crime scene with distractions in all directions, indicating that someone reviewed the assassination plan from both legal and psychological perspectives. This suggests that this carefully orchestrated plan to carry out a daytime assassination was not improvised but took considerable time to prepare and even train for. The purpose of this distraction and doubt is to deflect suspicion from those who were around Charlie Kirk's tent in the front rows, on the right, in front, and behind, as I mentioned earlier in previous comments.show more

Isaac Ali 🇳🇿 إسحاق الجيزاني

33,698 subscribers

252,334 views • 10 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Comedy News & Politics Health & Wellness

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🚨THE SHOOTER WAS MUCH CLOSER - CHARLIE KIRK WAS SHOT FROM THE CROWD 🚨 CANDACE OWENS: “It is totally plausible that there were multiple people there that day, maybe even deciding in the last hour which one of them would take the shot.” “It is likely that a rifle was fired to muffle the sound of a smaller gun… which had to come from the front of Charlie.” “We are looking for a person that was a lot closer to Charlie, and likely in the audience.” “That goes a long way in explaining why they’re hiding the footage from behind Charlie’s head.” “Of all the cameras, why grab that one first?” “There’s a lot of hiding and definitively a lot of lying going on.”

🚨THE SHOOTER WAS MUCH CLOSER - CHARLIE KIRK WAS SHOT FROM THE CROWD 🚨 CANDACE OWENS: “It is totally plausible that there were multiple people there that day, maybe even deciding in the last hour which one of them would take the shot.” “It is likely that a rifle was fired to muffle the sound of a smaller gun… which had to come from the front of Charlie.” “We are looking for a person that was a lot closer to Charlie, and likely in the audience.” “That goes a long way in explaining why they’re hiding the footage from behind Charlie’s head.” “Of all the cameras, why grab that one first?” “There’s a lot of hiding and definitively a lot of lying going on.”

HustleBitch

101,606 views • 9 months ago

Leaked video from behind Charlie Kirk at the moment of the assassination. This is damning evidence for the prosecution’s case. There are black marks visible on Charlie’s hand after the projectile hit. This is evidence in favour of some kind of explosion, and is not conducive with a gunshot wound. How much evidence do people need to know for sure it was not Tyler Robinson with a .30-06?

Leaked video from behind Charlie Kirk at the moment of the assassination. This is damning evidence for the prosecution’s case. There are black marks visible on Charlie’s hand after the projectile hit. This is evidence in favour of some kind of explosion, and is not conducive with a gunshot wound. How much evidence do people need to know for sure it was not Tyler Robinson with a .30-06?

John Galt

149,866 views • 1 day ago

New ASSASSINATION RECREATION video shows that Charlie Kirk's shooter was most likely located to the BACK/SIDE RIGHT of Charlie and NOT in front of him. The results are very compelling and explain why many do not believe the official story. The ballistics gel dummy with a skeletal system mimicking the human body reacts in the same ways that Charlie did when he was shot, from the shirt puffing up, to Charlie's necklace even blowing off. The results from this test speak for themselves and you even get to see them in slow motion and from different angles. The test was not perfect and will be done again for even more accuracy but lines up with the theory that the shooter was located up and to the back right of Charlie's position, located in the picture below. cc: Range Day Bro

New ASSASSINATION RECREATION video shows that Charlie Kirk's shooter was most likely located to the BACK/SIDE RIGHT of Charlie and NOT in front of him. The results are very compelling and explain why many do not believe the official story. The ballistics gel dummy with a skeletal system mimicking the human body reacts in the same ways that Charlie did when he was shot, from the shirt puffing up, to Charlie's necklace even blowing off. The results from this test speak for themselves and you even get to see them in slow motion and from different angles. The test was not perfect and will be done again for even more accuracy but lines up with the theory that the shooter was located up and to the back right of Charlie's position, located in the picture below. cc: Range Day Bro

The SCIF

159,870 views • 8 months ago

‼️🇺🇸: Candace Owens SHARES ALL HER VIDEO & PHOTO EVIDENCE OF CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION Candace Owens just dropped the ENTIRE video segment from the camera directly behind Charlie Kirk when he was shot. The SD card from this camera was removed at the scene by Terryl Farnsworth. 🤨 She notes that remarkably THERE IS NO BLOOD VISIBLE on the back of Charlie, highlighting that the "30-06" round did not go through. She also released photos from inside the SUV with the plastic debris that took Charlie to the hospital that fateful day. This is ALL of it.

‼️🇺🇸: Candace Owens SHARES ALL HER VIDEO & PHOTO EVIDENCE OF CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION Candace Owens just dropped the ENTIRE video segment from the camera directly behind Charlie Kirk when he was shot. The SD card from this camera was removed at the scene by Terryl Farnsworth. 🤨 She notes that remarkably THERE IS NO BLOOD VISIBLE on the back of Charlie, highlighting that the "30-06" round did not go through. She also released photos from inside the SUV with the plastic debris that took Charlie to the hospital that fateful day. This is ALL of it.

Diligent Denizen 🇺🇸

968,163 views • 4 months ago

CNN Law Enforcement Analyst: Kirk’s Killer Was a Skilled Sniper “This wasn’t an amateur.” “You’ve got an individual who went to a rooftop dressed in dark clothing. Found a sniper’s perch and made a very long shot, a single shot that resulted in this assassination. … This is the kind of person who would have planned to get in silently. Try to be invisible. Take this shot. Accomplish the mission. Take the gun with them and leave little evidence behind.” “That tells you that the person is not new to shooting, that they understood exactly what type of long rifle to bring, what kind of optics in terms of scopes and sights to have on that. What the windage was that might affect a shot from that distance. This is someone who knew exactly what they were doing, and is probably known to others… This wasn’t an amateur.”

CNN Law Enforcement Analyst: Kirk’s Killer Was a Skilled Sniper “This wasn’t an amateur.” “You’ve got an individual who went to a rooftop dressed in dark clothing. Found a sniper’s perch and made a very long shot, a single shot that resulted in this assassination. … This is the kind of person who would have planned to get in silently. Try to be invisible. Take this shot. Accomplish the mission. Take the gun with them and leave little evidence behind.” “That tells you that the person is not new to shooting, that they understood exactly what type of long rifle to bring, what kind of optics in terms of scopes and sights to have on that. What the windage was that might affect a shot from that distance. This is someone who knew exactly what they were doing, and is probably known to others… This wasn’t an amateur.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,774,947 views • 10 months ago

Robert Kennedy JR says that a CIA operative killed his father, explains how the autopsy report brings damning evidence that Sirhan couldn't have possibly killed his father, and the attorney for Sirhan coincidently was the same exact attorney for a mob boss implicated in the JFK assassination and ended up disappearing and cut into pieces before a committee could question him. "When I sat down and read the autopsy report it became clear to me as it would to anyone who read that report that Sirhan did not kill my father. -Sirhan fired two shots at my father. He was five feet away. It was absolute mayhem. - Waiting in the kitchen was Sirhan Sirhan. As my father approached the table Sirhan fired at him, two shots. One of those hit Paul Schrade. The other one went past my father's ear and hit a wooden door jam. -Sirhan was then grabbed in a dog pile and pointing the gun away from my father shot six shots. There were eight shots in the barrel. All of those shots hit people. We know who they hit. We know what happened to all of those bullets. -Sirhan was the distractor. The real shooter was behind my father he was called Eugene Cesar who was a security guard who worked for Lockheed. He was a CIA operative. He was a vocal racist who hated the Kennedys. -My father was shot four times from behind. All of the shots had an uphill trajectory. All of them, this is what the autopsy found, were contact shots. So the barrel of the gun was touching my father’s body or clothing. Less than an inch of his skin. They left carbon tattoos on his flesh. -There were 77 eyewitnesses who saw that Sirhan was never behind my father. -The police did not confiscate Cesar's gun that night - There was no trial. It was a show trial. The attorney for Sirhan was the attorney for Johnny Roselli, the mobster who was implicated in John Kennedy's assassination five years earlier and was later chopped up and put in a barrel when the assassination committee summoned him to give testimony. He disappeared the day he was supposed to testify." Thread Who Shot Robert Kennedy?

Robert Kennedy JR says that a CIA operative killed his father, explains how the autopsy report brings damning evidence that Sirhan couldn't have possibly killed his father, and the attorney for Sirhan coincidently was the same exact attorney for a mob boss implicated in the JFK assassination and ended up disappearing and cut into pieces before a committee could question him. "When I sat down and read the autopsy report it became clear to me as it would to anyone who read that report that Sirhan did not kill my father. -Sirhan fired two shots at my father. He was five feet away. It was absolute mayhem. - Waiting in the kitchen was Sirhan Sirhan. As my father approached the table Sirhan fired at him, two shots. One of those hit Paul Schrade. The other one went past my father's ear and hit a wooden door jam. -Sirhan was then grabbed in a dog pile and pointing the gun away from my father shot six shots. There were eight shots in the barrel. All of those shots hit people. We know who they hit. We know what happened to all of those bullets. -Sirhan was the distractor. The real shooter was behind my father he was called Eugene Cesar who was a security guard who worked for Lockheed. He was a CIA operative. He was a vocal racist who hated the Kennedys. -My father was shot four times from behind. All of the shots had an uphill trajectory. All of them, this is what the autopsy found, were contact shots. So the barrel of the gun was touching my father’s body or clothing. Less than an inch of his skin. They left carbon tattoos on his flesh. -There were 77 eyewitnesses who saw that Sirhan was never behind my father. -The police did not confiscate Cesar's gun that night - There was no trial. It was a show trial. The attorney for Sirhan was the attorney for Johnny Roselli, the mobster who was implicated in John Kennedy's assassination five years earlier and was later chopped up and put in a barrel when the assassination committee summoned him to give testimony. He disappeared the day he was supposed to testify." Thread Who Shot Robert Kennedy?

Green Lives Matter

908,072 views • 3 years ago

Is this the SNIPER'S NEST and the real SUSPECT that shot Charlie? You have to watch this breakdown. The INTEL in this video is extremely important and explains A LOT of things that logically puts the puzzle pieces together. - Ex-Military gentleman named NORMAN goes through finding: - The alleged SNIPER suspect - The SNIPER'S SHOOTING POSITION - EXPLAINS the GUN SHOT FLASH REFLECTION that was caught in the window that was seen on video that's perfectly TIMED with the GUN SHOT that hit Charlie. - Shows and explains the alleged SNIPER'S LASER BEAM which was caught on one of Charlie's SECURITY GUARDS phones' reflection right after the shot. - Also EXPLAINS and SHOWS on video how and where the alleged SNIPER left the crime scene and the path he took. It all is VERY COMPELLING. There are MANY things in this video that make a lot of sense. I'm not concluding this is what happened exactly because we might and probably are looking for 2 shooters. The intel in this video makes a lot of sense and solves a lot of the puzzle for the SNIPER'S alleged position and especially how we see that reflection in the window by the reflective wall capturing the gun shot and it lining up with the reflection on the window is very logical in my opinion. The timing of that flash with the timing of the sound of the gun shot is just too perfect to ignore and the ALLEGED SNIPER'S NEST lines up perfectly. This is SPECULATION, but I will tell you that this, I believe, is on the right path. Please watch the FULL VIDEO to understand the full context of this video. Thought's and comments below. cc: Norman, Project Constitution

Is this the SNIPER'S NEST and the real SUSPECT that shot Charlie? You have to watch this breakdown. The INTEL in this video is extremely important and explains A LOT of things that logically puts the puzzle pieces together. - Ex-Military gentleman named NORMAN goes through finding: - The alleged SNIPER suspect - The SNIPER'S SHOOTING POSITION - EXPLAINS the GUN SHOT FLASH REFLECTION that was caught in the window that was seen on video that's perfectly TIMED with the GUN SHOT that hit Charlie. - Shows and explains the alleged SNIPER'S LASER BEAM which was caught on one of Charlie's SECURITY GUARDS phones' reflection right after the shot. - Also EXPLAINS and SHOWS on video how and where the alleged SNIPER left the crime scene and the path he took. It all is VERY COMPELLING. There are MANY things in this video that make a lot of sense. I'm not concluding this is what happened exactly because we might and probably are looking for 2 shooters. The intel in this video makes a lot of sense and solves a lot of the puzzle for the SNIPER'S alleged position and especially how we see that reflection in the window by the reflective wall capturing the gun shot and it lining up with the reflection on the window is very logical in my opinion. The timing of that flash with the timing of the sound of the gun shot is just too perfect to ignore and the ALLEGED SNIPER'S NEST lines up perfectly. This is SPECULATION, but I will tell you that this, I believe, is on the right path. Please watch the FULL VIDEO to understand the full context of this video. Thought's and comments below. cc: Norman, Project Constitution

The SCIF

41,502 views • 9 months ago

//The Wire//2300Z September 11, 2025// //ROUTINE// //BLUF: CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSIN REMAINS AT LARGE AS THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES. MULTIPLE HOAX SWATTING INCIDENTS REPORTED AT UNIVERSITIES AROUND THE NATION. CUBAN ILLEGAL ARRESTED AFTER BRUTAL MURDER AT DALLAS HOTEL. SHOOTING REPORTED AT US NAVAL ACADEMY IN ANNAPOLIS.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE----- -HomeFront- Utah: The situation regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk continues to develop, with many new details coming to light overnight. At the moment, multiple individuals seem to be involved in this case in one way or another: One actual shooter, and many more persons that caused confusion during the initial reaction to the shooting. The individual identified as George Zinn was initially arrested after he verbally confessed to the crime, stating that he was the shooter. He screamed "I did it" and "shoot me" immediately as the shot was heard. This could have been a case of mental illness (as Zinn has a criminal history that reflects such and he was known to authorities for this kind of thing) or this could also have been an intentional act of diversion to allow the real shooter time to escape. Whatever the intent was, this did function as a diversionary tactic, and the shooter was able to egress from the area. Nevertheless, local reports state that Zinn was released from custody. Another unidentified individual was initially arrested at the scene as well, in possession of a pellet rifle. No further information regarding this individual's status at this time. Idaho: A fight broke out at a candlelight vigil at the Idaho Capitol (which was arranged to memorialize Charlie Kirk) when leftist activists began to interrupt proceedings. Several leftist demonstrators were removed after they attempted to gain entry to the crowd and scream obscenities during the vigil. Colorado: Yesterday afternoon a school shooting was reported at Evergreen High School near Denver. Local authorities state that Desmond Holly, a 16-year-old student at the school, shot two students before taking his own life. Texas: Yesterday afternoon a woman was beheaded at a motel in Dallas. Local authorities state that Yordanis Cobo-Martinez, an illegal migrant from Cuba, murdered his employer (Chandra Nagamallaiah) with a machete after a brief argument at the Downtown Suites Hotel. Cobo-Martinez was arrested at the scene. Maryland: This afternoon, an active shooter was reported at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. This is a developing situation at this time, but initial reports indicate that a former Midshipmen returned to the institution to conduct the attack. Early reports indicate as many as 1-3 casualties, however the scene is still locked down at this time. More details to follow as information becomes available. USA: This afternoon the recent wave of swatting calls flared up again, with several calls being made around Boston this afternoon. An active shooter situation was reported at the University of Massachusetts (UMass), which turned out to be a hoax. Several other locations around Boston were also host to swatting incidents, which also were hoaxes. This morning a bomb threat was called in to the DNC headquarters in Washington, which was also confirmed to be a hoax. Throughout the afternoon the University of Central Florida also reported a similar hoax being called in at their campus. -----END TEARLINE----- Analyst Comments: When it comes to risk assessment and mitigation, making decisions based on details that are speculative is acceptable if time is of the essence, such as when a high-profile assassin is still on the loose. However, it would be wise to focus on the details that help with that assessment, rather than getting dragged down rabbit holes that eat up time that we don't have. Panicking helps no one, and though it is a challenging skill to develop when the general mood is that of extreme anger, remaining calm and collected during a crisis is the option that will help the most people. The real distinction that must be noted is whether or not the persons that caused diversions, knew of the attack ahead of time. Several people were observed cheering in the crowd, George Zinn shouted and was tackled, and others were behaving suspiciously in and around the venue during the bedlam after the shooting. Right now there is not much linking all of these individuals together definitively, beyond the common goal of disrupting events. For a terror cell to be indicated, the individuals identified would have to know each other and have communicated ahead of time, which is not possible to determine at the moment based on open source information. The individual spotted on top of the roof before the shooting (the person who appears to have been the actual shooter) might not have been the actual shooter either. The exceptionally graphic video evidence of the attack might be playing tricks on the eyes; the wound that was visible in the video evidence so far may have in actuality been an exit wound for a shot that came from Kirk's 4 o' clock position. Some video evidence supports this, however much higher quality footage (such as from the professional media equipment recording the rally) will be necessary to determine if that is a viable line of investigative effort. Again, focusing on details that can help find the killer and eliminate future threats is worth the speculation, especially as the FBI has stated that they recovered the rifle used to conduct the attack from a wooded treeline near the campus. This rifle appears to have sported an optic which was mounted too far too the rear to provide a feasible shooting platform. This detail has caused many to doubt that this rifle was the one used in the shooting (as in, it's yet another decoy), or that the shooter did not have the experience to know that the scope was in the wrong position for it to be used properly. In short: If this rifle was used, the suspect is either of a very small body type (much smaller than the suspects sought so far), or they are now sporting a facial wound caused by the recoil of the firearm driving the scope into their face. Or, this rifle was not used at all, and whomever staged it did not have the forethought to position the scope correctly. As with most high-profile events like this, some discrepancy among the initial details is very much expected. However, there is a LOT of debate right now regarding whether or not the murder of Charlie Kirk was a professional assassination. Right now, all of the evidence in the public eye suggests that Kirk could have been killed in a more coordinated manner (as in more than one person might have been involved), but also by someone displaying very amateur tradecraft. On the other hand, if the multiple misdirections were deliberately planted to confuse and slow down investigative efforts, this would be a strong indicator of more organized planning. Sometimes the most likely explanation is the simplest, and based on the sheer number of people celebrating his murder the chances of this being one of the usual suspects is rather high, even though the door must remain open to other possibilities. The cold hard truth right now is that regardless of how Kirk was killed, he was killed for a reason. And right now there are millions of people celebrating his murder, both online and in the real world. It is this important observation that will have lasting impact for some time, both in terms of societal shift, but also in terms of real-world threats and security concerns. Charlie Kirk was a moderate conservative. Despite what the mainstream media says, he was one of the few conservative commentators willing to actually speak face-to-face with his opposition and debate them in open forum. He was not a politician or an elected official who could make policy; the most impact that he could possibly have had was simply to change minds by speaking to people. He could have made a living shouting his ideas from a safe podcast studio, but he chose instead to speak to people in person at these types of public debates over the years. There are a thousand people in the public eye more "radical" than he was, yet he was the one killed for it. Much like many other political assassinations throughout history, sometimes the more impactful events involve the removal of the last peaceful option, or the last peaceful moderate. Time will tell if this troubling idea is true, but it's possible that with Charlie Kirk died the last hope for reconciliation between a large portion of the United States. The knee-jerk reactions of this horrific murder being that of joy and celebration from a large number of people, is abhorrent to the degree of indicating that there is little chance of cooperation or lasting peace with a good portion of the nation. Regardless of one's political beliefs, this is a sobering reminder in the context of how millions of people are now openly calling for the violent murder of conservatives, solely for the crime of not being politically liberal. Even in "far-right" circles, which agreed with Kirk on nearly zero issues, the general mood is that of mourning. The actual "far-right" in this country has shown more decency for a man who they did not agree with and a man who has admonished them publicly, than most center-left personalities who have bloodlust in their hearts regarding this case. More broadly, this means that these types of attacks will unfortunately continue. Whether it's organic or not can be argued later, but what's clear is that most big voices on the political left are either openly calling for continued violence, or are behaving without a single shred of human decency. Most Democrat politicians interviewed today by the media on this event have become belligerent on the subject, with some going so far as to interrupt a moment of silence for Kirk at the Capitol. A similar incident was observed today at the European Parliament as well. There is already enough spin, distraction, commentary, and speculation regarding the exact details of the murder. What would be a more productive line of effort is to be aware of the societal atmospherics surrounding this case (as in the threats that continue to persist), but not dwelling on the evil that is consuming the world. Acknowledge where we are at, conduct risk assessments, and mitigate those risks as best you can. Despair and apathy will solve no problems, and there will be plenty of opportunity to keep focus on moving forward and doing good wherever possible. More details on this case will come in due time, but until then more localized threats and individuals that seek to continue this violence are a bigger priority to be aware of. Analyst: S2A1 Research: //END REPORT//

S2 Underground

16,913 views • 10 months ago

Fuentes is SICK of the conspiracy nonsense over Charlie Kirk's murder "People are more willing to believe that there are technologies that humanity is not aware of that were used in this assassination, than believe that Tyler Robinson's blood was actually found at the scene of the crime."

Fuentes is SICK of the conspiracy nonsense over Charlie Kirk's murder "People are more willing to believe that there are technologies that humanity is not aware of that were used in this assassination, than believe that Tyler Robinson's blood was actually found at the scene of the crime."

Fuentes Updates

110,348 views • 9 months ago

Aragorn vs. Sauron unreleased scene was not cut because it wasn’t in the books. The real reason it was removed is entirely related to the decision throughout the film trilogy to portray Sauron as disembodied, existing only as the Great Eye in Barad-dûr. In The Two Towers, Gollum, while being tortured in Mordor, describes Sauron with the words: ‘The Black Hand has four fingers on it, but they are enough.’ This suggests that the finger cut off by Isildur never regrew, implying that Sauron still possesses a physical hand and therefore a physical form of flesh and bone. Additionally, Tolkien describes Sauron’s form in the Third Age in his letters as: ‘Sauron’s shape was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. He was a visible incarnation of malice and hatred.’ Taking all of this into account, Sauron was a fallen Maia with a physical form, but he was too weakened and diminished in power to directly confront Aragorn.

Aragorn vs. Sauron unreleased scene was not cut because it wasn’t in the books. The real reason it was removed is entirely related to the decision throughout the film trilogy to portray Sauron as disembodied, existing only as the Great Eye in Barad-dûr. In The Two Towers, Gollum, while being tortured in Mordor, describes Sauron with the words: ‘The Black Hand has four fingers on it, but they are enough.’ This suggests that the finger cut off by Isildur never regrew, implying that Sauron still possesses a physical hand and therefore a physical form of flesh and bone. Additionally, Tolkien describes Sauron’s form in the Third Age in his letters as: ‘Sauron’s shape was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. He was a visible incarnation of malice and hatred.’ Taking all of this into account, Sauron was a fallen Maia with a physical form, but he was too weakened and diminished in power to directly confront Aragorn.

LOTR Universe

138,280 views • 1 month ago

There’s a new claim that “essentially, all that happened was Trump got tired, took control and forced it on Netanyahu, and this is basically the same deal that could have been reached a year earlier,” with the disturbing implication, that’s horrible to say, that IDF soldiers died in vain for a cause that had already been achieved. So, let’s revisit the plans that were laid out by both the current and former American administrations to see if they match up. For example, the Biden plan from June 1, 2024, which was met with considerable enthusiasm, and was even later acknowledged as Netanyahu’s plan. I want to highlight the difference. In the first phase, the IDF should have already pulled back to roughly its current position, and then it was just about releasing humanitarian hostages. As if not all of them are “humanitarian.” Then it transitioned to discussing the release of living hostages. In this phase, the IDF would withdraw from all of Gaza, until the last centimetre, while all the dead hostages remain in Gaza. It’s as different as day and night. Here, everyone is returning, including the dead, and the IDF is still in half of Gaza. This isn’t just about some desire to maintain an occupation or garrison force, but rather to ensure that Hamas disarms — something that didn’t happen in the Biden proposal. So now let’s move on to the Witkoff plan, much closer to us, much better for Israel, but still different. There was talk of releasing half of the dead hostages, but then a temporary ceasefire for two months of negotiations to end the war, and then the IDF would withdraw from more places than it is now, and there would be a guarantee that the war would not be renewed. Once again, we see that there was no connection between the IDF remaining on the ground and the promise that Hamas would disarm, especially while some of the hostages are still there. The greatness of this outline is this issue. I also want to say something general about the matter of responsibility. As ridiculous as it was on October 7 and afterwards to hear from Netanyahu’s supporters that the one who is to blame is the IDF chief of staff, the Shin Bet chief, the attorney general and the Military Advocate General, and that Netanyahu has no part in it — it’s as ridiculous as it is that now they’re saying, “Thank you Trump and thank you Nitzan Alon, and thank you to all of them and to the Qatari prime minister, and Netanyahu and Ron Dermer have nothing to do with it at all.” Indeed, Netanyahu had a very large part in the failure of October 7, and he also has a very large part together with Dermer in this deal. By the way, how does that connect to what Kushner said tonight in Egypt? He said that both the prime minister and Dermer made very big compromises and took risks to see the end of the war. I would like to make a suggestion. Once upon a time, when there was only one channel and people didn’t like the commentators, they said, “Watch the game without the commentary.” I say, let’s watch Trump and Netanyahu’s move without the commentary, because there are a lot of conversations, and this and that, and slander, and sometimes even quotes, but in practice there has never been a president and a prime minister who acted like this, and the results are evident from Iran, through the Golan Heights, through the embassy and now Gaza.

There’s a new claim that “essentially, all that happened was Trump got tired, took control and forced it on Netanyahu, and this is basically the same deal that could have been reached a year earlier,” with the disturbing implication, that’s horrible to say, that IDF soldiers died in vain for a cause that had already been achieved. So, let’s revisit the plans that were laid out by both the current and former American administrations to see if they match up. For example, the Biden plan from June 1, 2024, which was met with considerable enthusiasm, and was even later acknowledged as Netanyahu’s plan. I want to highlight the difference. In the first phase, the IDF should have already pulled back to roughly its current position, and then it was just about releasing humanitarian hostages. As if not all of them are “humanitarian.” Then it transitioned to discussing the release of living hostages. In this phase, the IDF would withdraw from all of Gaza, until the last centimetre, while all the dead hostages remain in Gaza. It’s as different as day and night. Here, everyone is returning, including the dead, and the IDF is still in half of Gaza. This isn’t just about some desire to maintain an occupation or garrison force, but rather to ensure that Hamas disarms — something that didn’t happen in the Biden proposal. So now let’s move on to the Witkoff plan, much closer to us, much better for Israel, but still different. There was talk of releasing half of the dead hostages, but then a temporary ceasefire for two months of negotiations to end the war, and then the IDF would withdraw from more places than it is now, and there would be a guarantee that the war would not be renewed. Once again, we see that there was no connection between the IDF remaining on the ground and the promise that Hamas would disarm, especially while some of the hostages are still there. The greatness of this outline is this issue. I also want to say something general about the matter of responsibility. As ridiculous as it was on October 7 and afterwards to hear from Netanyahu’s supporters that the one who is to blame is the IDF chief of staff, the Shin Bet chief, the attorney general and the Military Advocate General, and that Netanyahu has no part in it — it’s as ridiculous as it is that now they’re saying, “Thank you Trump and thank you Nitzan Alon, and thank you to all of them and to the Qatari prime minister, and Netanyahu and Ron Dermer have nothing to do with it at all.” Indeed, Netanyahu had a very large part in the failure of October 7, and he also has a very large part together with Dermer in this deal. By the way, how does that connect to what Kushner said tonight in Egypt? He said that both the prime minister and Dermer made very big compromises and took risks to see the end of the war. I would like to make a suggestion. Once upon a time, when there was only one channel and people didn’t like the commentators, they said, “Watch the game without the commentary.” I say, let’s watch Trump and Netanyahu’s move without the commentary, because there are a lot of conversations, and this and that, and slander, and sometimes even quotes, but in practice there has never been a president and a prime minister who acted like this, and the results are evident from Iran, through the Golan Heights, through the embassy and now Gaza.

Amit Segal

298,292 views • 9 months ago

Tim Dillon: “Does your source—who’s a highly-placed Trump confidant—believe there’s any potential that forces outside of this gunman were responsible for Charlie Kirk’s assassination?” Max Blumenthal: “Yes.” “They don’t accept the official story.” Dillon: “A highly-placed person in the Trump inner circle doesn’t believe the official story of Charlie's murder?” Blumenthal: “No one does, but the phrase I remember hearing is, ‘it feels like there’s more at play here.’” “That’s not the only person with more power than me in Washington that I’m hearing that from.” Dillon: “So you’re hearing from multiple people that are connected and tapped in, that they believe that there’s more at play or more to the story than simply one radicalized young man?” Blumenthal: “Subsequent to publishing this story from another source who I would describe as an Administration insider, that corroborated the account in this story.” “First, that, Charlie Kirk was actively and aggressively personally lobbying Trump against bombing Iran in June.” “Two, that right now the FBI is not being forthcoming and there’s a lot of frustration with the FBI not sharing information.” Dillon: “That’s pretty shocking.” Blumenthal: “There was this pre-fabricated narrative on the right that the killer was a leftist or a Muslim.” “They clearly wanted that.” “Now, people on the left are saying he was a groyper.” “I don’t know what will be the case, but the reason I wrote this story was because I was able to get this background about Charlie Kirk and … what was coloring his final days, and the kind of pressure he was under—which tells a larger story about Israeli influence in the US.” “I didn’t report this story to prove that Israel has a direct role in his assassination.” “But there is a real reason why many people who are not able to talk to people with any proximity to power believe that is the case, and it’s because of the way Israel’s conducting itself around the globe.” Tim Dillon Max Blumenthal

Tim Dillon: “Does your source—who’s a highly-placed Trump confidant—believe there’s any potential that forces outside of this gunman were responsible for Charlie Kirk’s assassination?” Max Blumenthal: “Yes.” “They don’t accept the official story.” Dillon: “A highly-placed person in the Trump inner circle doesn’t believe the official story of Charlie's murder?” Blumenthal: “No one does, but the phrase I remember hearing is, ‘it feels like there’s more at play here.’” “That’s not the only person with more power than me in Washington that I’m hearing that from.” Dillon: “So you’re hearing from multiple people that are connected and tapped in, that they believe that there’s more at play or more to the story than simply one radicalized young man?” Blumenthal: “Subsequent to publishing this story from another source who I would describe as an Administration insider, that corroborated the account in this story.” “First, that, Charlie Kirk was actively and aggressively personally lobbying Trump against bombing Iran in June.” “Two, that right now the FBI is not being forthcoming and there’s a lot of frustration with the FBI not sharing information.” Dillon: “That’s pretty shocking.” Blumenthal: “There was this pre-fabricated narrative on the right that the killer was a leftist or a Muslim.” “They clearly wanted that.” “Now, people on the left are saying he was a groyper.” “I don’t know what will be the case, but the reason I wrote this story was because I was able to get this background about Charlie Kirk and … what was coloring his final days, and the kind of pressure he was under—which tells a larger story about Israeli influence in the US.” “I didn’t report this story to prove that Israel has a direct role in his assassination.” “But there is a real reason why many people who are not able to talk to people with any proximity to power believe that is the case, and it’s because of the way Israel’s conducting itself around the globe.” Tim Dillon Max Blumenthal

Holden Culotta

1,039,493 views • 10 months ago

Let’s get this straight: it’s SUSPICIOUS that Charlie Kirk opposed war with Iran and was then killed - but we’re supposed to ignore the fact that he had been publicly warning for years, right up until his death, about the direct threats he was receiving from leftist transtifa and the alarming rise in an assassination culture he saw spreading from that group? You know, the same group that the very suspect the mountain of evidence points to was part of. But I’m sure that’s all part of the conspiracy too, right? People who buy into this conspiracy nonsense aren't living in the real world and should resign or be removed from positions of significant power in government.

Let’s get this straight: it’s SUSPICIOUS that Charlie Kirk opposed war with Iran and was then killed - but we’re supposed to ignore the fact that he had been publicly warning for years, right up until his death, about the direct threats he was receiving from leftist transtifa and the alarming rise in an assassination culture he saw spreading from that group? You know, the same group that the very suspect the mountain of evidence points to was part of. But I’m sure that’s all part of the conspiracy too, right? People who buy into this conspiracy nonsense aren't living in the real world and should resign or be removed from positions of significant power in government.

Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV)

28,461 views • 4 months ago

Q: What exactly was the evidence that led you to this person of interest? A: There was a tip that came in just like we were taking any other tips and that one came in specifically identifying a person of interest, which was this individual. And so we are detectives, just like the others, but this specific one it was actually picked up by the, by the FBI, and they followed through with it, and they ended up coming and locating this individual of interest.

Q: What exactly was the evidence that led you to this person of interest? A: There was a tip that came in just like we were taking any other tips and that one came in specifically identifying a person of interest, which was this individual. And so we are detectives, just like the others, but this specific one it was actually picked up by the, by the FBI, and they followed through with it, and they ended up coming and locating this individual of interest.

Acyn

893,158 views • 7 months ago

'Larijani was killed after he lost his status as the main candidate for the leadership of the transition period,' — CNN host Amanpour. 'What's even worse for the US and Israel, even analysts on their side are now actually saying that it is Iran that is currently driving the situation. And we don't see any end to it. At least from the American side, it is believed that there is no way out of this situation, because everything is in the hands of the IRGC. Larijani was the Speaker of Parliament for many years, he is very close to the IRGC, was close to the former Supreme Leader. He was considered a preferred figure for the transition period. If they were looking for someone with whom they could agree, then in September last year, that is, about six months ago, he was the main candidate. But then in February this year, that is, about a month ago, he lost this status and became a target, as he took, as expected, a tough stance in response to the actions of the US and Israel after the start of the war. And this again raises the question: what is the plan of Israel and Trump, except to continue the bombings and, as the targets are exhausted, to increasingly approach strikes on civilian objects? And the number of civilian victims continues to grow.' - SK

'Larijani was killed after he lost his status as the main candidate for the leadership of the transition period,' — CNN host Amanpour. 'What's even worse for the US and Israel, even analysts on their side are now actually saying that it is Iran that is currently driving the situation. And we don't see any end to it. At least from the American side, it is believed that there is no way out of this situation, because everything is in the hands of the IRGC. Larijani was the Speaker of Parliament for many years, he is very close to the IRGC, was close to the former Supreme Leader. He was considered a preferred figure for the transition period. If they were looking for someone with whom they could agree, then in September last year, that is, about six months ago, he was the main candidate. But then in February this year, that is, about a month ago, he lost this status and became a target, as he took, as expected, a tough stance in response to the actions of the US and Israel after the start of the war. And this again raises the question: what is the plan of Israel and Trump, except to continue the bombings and, as the targets are exhausted, to increasingly approach strikes on civilian objects? And the number of civilian victims continues to grow.' - SK

Zlatti71

15,270 views • 3 months ago

🇺🇸 TUCKER CARLSON ON CHARLIE KIRK'S MEMORIAL: “THIS IS THE WAY” “There’s sort of many stages with Charlie calling for various people to be elected, particularly Trump. And I’m proud of that. But what Charlie was really saying is that change begins, the only change that matters, when we repent of our sins. We! Me! That was the reason Charlie was truly fearless to his last moment. He was unafraid, not defensive, and had no hate in his heart.” He would always say, ‘That’s a sad person… a broken person… someone who needs Jesus.’ He said that in private, because he meant it. This gathering and God’s very obvious presence in this room, is a reminder that any attempt to extinguish the light causes it to burn brighter. This is the way. Right here. This is the way.” Source: TPUSA, Tucker Carlson

🇺🇸 TUCKER CARLSON ON CHARLIE KIRK'S MEMORIAL: “THIS IS THE WAY” “There’s sort of many stages with Charlie calling for various people to be elected, particularly Trump. And I’m proud of that. But what Charlie was really saying is that change begins, the only change that matters, when we repent of our sins. We! Me! That was the reason Charlie was truly fearless to his last moment. He was unafraid, not defensive, and had no hate in his heart.” He would always say, ‘That’s a sad person… a broken person… someone who needs Jesus.’ He said that in private, because he meant it. This gathering and God’s very obvious presence in this room, is a reminder that any attempt to extinguish the light causes it to burn brighter. This is the way. Right here. This is the way.” Source: TPUSA, Tucker Carlson

Mario Nawfal

177,919 views • 9 months ago

This is important. Someone in the crowd confessed to the shooting immediately after it happened, despite not having a weapon? Why? Does this mean they were a decoy, and this was a joint operation? They have now apprehended multiple people, yet the shooter is still at large. An eyewitness claims that the shot was fired immediately after someone asked Charlie Kirk about trans violence and that he believes there were several people in on it. Did they wait for this specific question? The FBI and Kash Patel need to get to the bottom of this horrific crime as soon as possible. They cannot be allowed to get away with this.

This is important. Someone in the crowd confessed to the shooting immediately after it happened, despite not having a weapon? Why? Does this mean they were a decoy, and this was a joint operation? They have now apprehended multiple people, yet the shooter is still at large. An eyewitness claims that the shot was fired immediately after someone asked Charlie Kirk about trans violence and that he believes there were several people in on it. Did they wait for this specific question? The FBI and Kash Patel need to get to the bottom of this horrific crime as soon as possible. They cannot be allowed to get away with this.

Green Lives Matter

713,627 views • 10 months ago

“I Took His Eye Out” - A First-Hand Account of the Old Dominion Shooting “He walked in the room and he was like, kind of like nervous. He’s like, ‘Is this ROTC or is this seminar?’ I don’t know who it was, but somebody in the front was like, ‘Yeah, that was ROTC.’ And as soon as that person said, ‘Yeah,’ he drew his gun. Yelled allahu akbar and started shooting my professor.”

“I Took His Eye Out” - A First-Hand Account of the Old Dominion Shooting “He walked in the room and he was like, kind of like nervous. He’s like, ‘Is this ROTC or is this seminar?’ I don’t know who it was, but somebody in the front was like, ‘Yeah, that was ROTC.’ And as soon as that person said, ‘Yeah,’ he drew his gun. Yelled allahu akbar and started shooting my professor.”

Shawn Ryan

373,572 views • 3 months ago

BREAKING🚨A backpack and items initially believed to have been left behind by a SUSPECT in the Charlie Kirk assassination were tested for forensic DNA analysis. Investigators later contacted the lab to inform them it belonged to Charlie Kirk’s “DETAILEES”. Maybe it is an innocent backpack left behind, but maybe it’s not. The public deserves answers to the following questions: -Where was that backpack found? -Why was it initially presumed to have been left behind by a suspect? -What were the contents of the backpack? -Who in Charlie’s detail did it belong to? -Was that person properly investigated and to what extent? -Did that person have any contact with the person on UVU footage alleged to be Tyler Robinson? Forensic examiner Amanda Bakker was asked about it on the stand. Watch.👇🏻

BREAKING🚨A backpack and items initially believed to have been left behind by a SUSPECT in the Charlie Kirk assassination were tested for forensic DNA analysis. Investigators later contacted the lab to inform them it belonged to Charlie Kirk’s “DETAILEES”. Maybe it is an innocent backpack left behind, but maybe it’s not. The public deserves answers to the following questions: -Where was that backpack found? -Why was it initially presumed to have been left behind by a suspect? -What were the contents of the backpack? -Who in Charlie’s detail did it belong to? -Was that person properly investigated and to what extent? -Did that person have any contact with the person on UVU footage alleged to be Tyler Robinson? Forensic examiner Amanda Bakker was asked about it on the stand. Watch.👇🏻

Heather Mullins

145,216 views • 8 days ago

Candace stands her ground that this was an INTELLIGENCE/MILITARY type operation with multiple ACTORS for distractions. -Was Lance "Twiggs" one of the other people than we seen at UVU on the day of the shooting? - George Zinn had to receive medical attention the day of the shooting and stated to multiple people at the hospital that he said he acted like he k*lled Charlie because he said he was going to be paid for doing it. - We know of 4 potential "ACTORS" George Zinn, Maroon shirt guy, The guy on the stairs, and the guy on the Losee building. These could all and MOST LIKELY all be distractions to take attention away from the real killer. - Candace states that she believes Tyler's role in all of it had something to do with the changing of outfits to confuse investigators because he was seen putting a change of clothes in the graveyard and then is seen at the DQ in the infamous picture. - The reason coming to this conclusion is because we never see the "person" on the Losee building ever take a shot, we just see him running, and the guy in the maroon shirt, looks, and has a different build from the guy on the stairs in the black shirt and hat. - We know now with all the evidence we have gathered and concluded from this point that there is no way Charlie was shot with a .30-06 round or from the roof of the Losee building because of the alleged autopsy report that claims his C2 vertebrae broke first and by the location and angle of the alleged "entrance wound" that looks more like an "exit wound." - The bullet would of had to enter Charlie through his mouth or jaw in order to physically break the C2 bone first, pull a 90 degree angle and continue to break the C7. None of it makes any sense if the alleged autopsy report is 100% official as it claims. Plus they said they found the bullet right beneath the skin. - He had to be shot from a different location with a smaller round or some kind of other projectile weapon/round. This was a highly orchestrated hit and it has intelligence written all over it. I have came to all the same conclusions in my previous posts and stand with Candace. The writing is on the wall. cc: Candace Owens

Candace stands her ground that this was an INTELLIGENCE/MILITARY type operation with multiple ACTORS for distractions. -Was Lance "Twiggs" one of the other people than we seen at UVU on the day of the shooting? - George Zinn had to receive medical attention the day of the shooting and stated to multiple people at the hospital that he said he acted like he k*lled Charlie because he said he was going to be paid for doing it. - We know of 4 potential "ACTORS" George Zinn, Maroon shirt guy, The guy on the stairs, and the guy on the Losee building. These could all and MOST LIKELY all be distractions to take attention away from the real killer. - Candace states that she believes Tyler's role in all of it had something to do with the changing of outfits to confuse investigators because he was seen putting a change of clothes in the graveyard and then is seen at the DQ in the infamous picture. - The reason coming to this conclusion is because we never see the "person" on the Losee building ever take a shot, we just see him running, and the guy in the maroon shirt, looks, and has a different build from the guy on the stairs in the black shirt and hat. - We know now with all the evidence we have gathered and concluded from this point that there is no way Charlie was shot with a .30-06 round or from the roof of the Losee building because of the alleged autopsy report that claims his C2 vertebrae broke first and by the location and angle of the alleged "entrance wound" that looks more like an "exit wound." - The bullet would of had to enter Charlie through his mouth or jaw in order to physically break the C2 bone first, pull a 90 degree angle and continue to break the C7. None of it makes any sense if the alleged autopsy report is 100% official as it claims. Plus they said they found the bullet right beneath the skin. - He had to be shot from a different location with a smaller round or some kind of other projectile weapon/round. This was a highly orchestrated hit and it has intelligence written all over it. I have came to all the same conclusions in my previous posts and stand with Candace. The writing is on the wall. cc: Candace Owens

The SCIF

146,753 views • 9 months ago