Beyond Incompetence; The Shooters & The Water Tower
(rumble.com)
Comments (15)
sorted by:
Chris Martenson at Peak Prosperity has been going off the past few days. He's, uh, kind of had it with the "incompetence" and the Mockingbird Media disinterest in asking substantive questions.
This video breaks down the shooter positions and where the bullets went, includes 3 eyewitness news segments that I had somehow not seen yet in which 3 people claim that they heard shots from both the roof and the water tower.
Other videos of his worth checking out: Be Careful, We’re Entering the Wild & Unpredictable Stage - Peak Prosperity and Trump Assassination Attempt... What happened, What's Next?
I'd say of all of the coverage I've looked at over the past few days, these 3 videos are probably the best and most cogent breakdowns of not only the assassination attempt, but also the state that we are in with the utterly evil, corrupt cretins that currently occupy our government.
I don't put much stock in any second shooter theories... the known shooter already had a fairly low difficulty shot to make and Trump needed a miracle to escape. If there was another shooter on top of that then Trump would need yet another miracle, like an angel deflecting the bullet in flight. Not at all impossible, just an unnecessary theory.
edit: the video is decent overall. Good callbacks to the Zapruder film
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on a second shooter, except that it would make it make sense as to why there was no friendly security posted on the water tower.
I do not believe that they were incompetent enough to just not think to use the highest easily accessible point that gave them eyes on the entire event.
And "we didn't put someone on that roof because it was pitched (at like 8 degrees) and wasn't safe" ... as they had snipers on other roofs with steeper pitches ... that's just insultingly stupid. Nobody believes that (except perhaps the DEI idiot running the Secret Service).
I don't have time to watch all of this tonight, and will finish it tomorrow, but so far this seems to confirm exactly what I've been saying.
I started suspecting a second shooter as soon as I started hearing reports that an officer had engaged him prior to the shooting; that's the real tipoff for me.
A calm, orderly, and aimed shot at 130 yards that is nearly a headshot is pretty good, but nothing to write home about. At a range. Real world, it's still not shocking, but it get's a little more impressive, for a novice.
But, once you throw that officer into the mix...you have to break off target to aim at the officer, your target acquisition is gone, your adrenaline spikes even more than it already was (unless he was on some serious tranqs or something, I suppose), you know your life is over, and your timeframe went from 'all the time in the world' to 'the next few seconds.'
We're supposed to believe an amateur nutjob managed to whip back on target under that pressure, and clip his target's head at 130 yards, while he knows police are waiting to kill him, and does it all in a few seconds? It's possible of course, but I have serious, serious doubts. That's when I started thinking he probably wasn't even the one that landed the shot on Trump. He probably fired - and at least that one eye witness says he definitely did - but I now rather doubt he landed his shot, and suspect a second sniper was the one that nearly splattered Trump's head.
New information is still coming out, so I'm not saying anything definitely, but that's my current working theory; second sniper was the one that winged Trump, Crooks was a groomed nutjob who was always planned to be the patsy.
One of the interesting things about the shot is that ONLY the first shot is the one that hit Trump and got close. The rest of the shots were fucking wild.
One of the rounds grazed a family member of a congressman who was sitting 15-30 feet to Trump's right, and 3' below him.
To me, this actually makes sense for the assassin being a poor shot. The only round that got close was the first shot he took, with the most time to do it with. After he missed, panic set in a bit and he started pulling his shots and making bad adjustments until he got smoked.
A second shooter is very unlikely. A second shooter wouldn't have missed all the other rounds, even if he missed the first. A second shooter would be audible. A second shooter could not have timed his shots with the primary shooter (especially being untrained).
Second shooters, frankly, are stupid. You're adding way more risk and complexity for very little gain.
I won't claim one way or another, but I will say that after his Covid and financial reporting, I'd seriously consider anything that Martensen says.
If I were guessing and there were two shooters, I'd say that the second shooter was the one that took the shot that grazed Trump's ear, and the patsy (let's face it, even if he was the lone shooter, he was a patsy) took the rest. The ear shot was a perfectly placed kill shot; Trump just moved at the last instant.
I will say, if the second shooter is the one that hit Trump, he probably wasn't on the water tower; I don't think the trajectories would line up.
I was/am suspecting a second shooter (as I've said, assuming the whole story about the officer on the roof is true, at least), but after looking at and thinking about the water tower theory more, I'm not sure I buy that specific part.
As for witnesses, people are hyped up, and trying to make sense of things. Gunshots also create echoes, and the tower will catch some of that. People are trying to make sense of a dramatic situation that just happened, and the water tower would be a prime location, so they may simply be subconsciously building a scenario that makes sense to them at the time.
If there was a second shooter, and if the second shooter is the one who winged Trump...I don't think he was in the water tower...which means you're now talking about a second and third shooter. Which is just getting more absurd.
If there was a second shooter, he was either farther out, or in the building that Crooks was on top of. Again, all this is just my theorizing, of course.
Certainly possible. I'm not saying anything definitively; we simply don't know enough. Maybe he was the sole shooter. I still think it would have been an amazing shot, if - if - the reporting is true that he'd just engaged an officer seconds earlier. If that story isn't completely correct though, it makes the 'Crooks was the lone shooter' theory completely plausible.
The shot timing would be easy, just fire as soon as Crooks does. That said...yeah, it does seem somewhat unlikely, since it does seem the first bullet hit Trump. You have to get really crazy, like completely suppressed shot fired right after the first shot, or something, for it to work at all.
So you're right that it gets unnecessarily and unrealistically complicated. Maybe Crooks did just get that (almost) lucky, maybe the reporting on the officer interaction was wrong. Because, again, that's my main reason for suspecting a second shooter and, if there are inaccuracies in that officer story, then I have no reason to think Crooks couldn't have made the shot as alleged.
Simultaneous shots are way harder than that. Ask the US Navy SEALs.
I'm not even clear on who fired the killing shot yet. I don't even know if it was the snipers on the roof that could be seen in the same frame as Trump. It might have been other snipers.
I'm talking about the officer who is alleged to have climbed up the ladder and then retreat after having Crooks aim a gun at him, directly prior to shooting at Trump.
If that's true, it raises serious doubts for me because in my opinion it makes Crooks' alleged shot really good under those circumstances. If that's what happened, I don't think he would be capable of that shot.
But, yeah, just to be clear, I'm not saying there was definitely a second shooter (and I'm not really buying the water tower theory, the more I think about it), just that there might have been, and it would explain some things.
It seems totally doable to have an automated sniper gun for this kind of fixed target.
Set it up, give it the wind speed and range, and it makes the perfect shot at any time without concern for breathing or heartbeat. Have the automated trigger shoot when the patsy shoots. Even much farther away the bullet will go faster than reaction time.
How would clandestine groups not have something like this? It seems so obvious. One that can track somebody in a motorcade or moving around, that might be too big and clumsy to deploy but something that can take a perfect fixed shot?
Smarter Every Day has made this kind of thing in their garage to show bullets hitting each other and other stuff like that.
It's wildly fucking difficult because it can't make the perfect shot each time. Talk to any sniper about how much you have to know about the temperature of your gun, the air, the terrain, humidity, the Coriolis Effect, and more. Bullets fire in a cone of fire. The further away you are, the larger the cone becomes.
An automated trigger? Bullets are fast. That electrical signal better not have any interference... on a metal roof.
These are spectacularly awful ideas that lead to a level of complexity that is astronomically impractical. Normally bribes are a lot easier and cheaper. There is literally no reason to go full "Shooter" when you can groom a retard and bribe a cop having a custody battle.
There's a reason we just used a bomb on that Iranian General.
In other words, things that are easily measured and quantified. Like you think a human can factor in the rotation of the earth better than something that knows the position down to the inch and angle to the arcsecond?
There's no feat of skill that a machine can't be made to do better than a person. The only question is if somebody has reason to make it.
You're being totally irrational. Cell towers 50 miles away can get signal through a metal roof transmitted with milliwatts of power. What an insane cope.
Because we didn't have anybody a few hundred meters away? Jesus you're like triggered for some reason. I don't know why, but slow your breathing and think for a few seconds.
You have to build the machine, and you have to tune the machine with a gun. It's a lot of work and a lot of testing. Or, you could just give a cop $5,000 to look away.
Cell towers are even worse to try and use for a communication signal. The timing is never going to be reliable! Wi-fi is even worse because, holy shit, concrete and rebar can stop that easy.
Yes, I'm triggered that you would be silly enough to suggest synchronous fire from simultaneous shooters; or worse: drone snipers.
That is Hollywood crap that only creates added unnecessary risk and complexity.