I base this thesis on this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ROi_9G3lE (automatic translation good enough). At this point I am not sure of anything except the fact that the official story is BS. So please consider it logically and don't accept or reject it blindly. Here is a summary of the arguments of this video, made with Claude AI :
- Impossibility of a real security breach:
- Trump is described as the most protected president in history, with ultra-competent security teams.
- The speaker emphasizes that Trump's security detail includes special forces veterans with extensive experience in high-threat environments like Iraq and Afghanistan.
- He argues that the security system around Trump has been designed to be flawless since 2015, making it highly improbable for a lone, inexperienced shooter to breach it.
- The speaker contends that it's statistically impossible for a 20-year-old to outsmart a security apparatus that has successfully protected Trump from numerous sophisticated threats over the years.
- Social engineering and perception management:
- The central argument is that Trump likely anticipated, neutralized, and redirected the threat to his advantage.
- This is presented as a consistent tactic Trump has employed throughout his political career, citing examples such as the Russian collusion narrative, impeachment proceedings, and the coronavirus pandemic response.
- The speaker suggests that Trump and his team excel at turning potential threats into political advantages, often allowing situations to develop before redirecting them for maximum benefit.
- He argues that the event produced the best possible political outcome for Trump, which is seen as evidence of careful orchestration rather than coincidence.
- Inconsistencies in the official version:
- The reaction of the Secret Service is portrayed as inconsistent with standard protocols, particularly the decision to allow Trump to re-emerge after the incident.
- The speaker points out that in a real assassination attempt, security would typically be concerned about the possibility of multiple shooters, making Trump's quick return to the podium highly unusual.
- Trump's failure to contact the victim's family is highlighted as uncharacteristic, given his usual courtesy in such situations. This is presented as a potential indication that there's more to the story than what's being officially reported.
- Parallels with other events:
- The speaker draws a comparison to the October 7 events in Israel, suggesting that a small-scale attack might have been amplified for political purposes.
- He references other historical "intelligence failures" like Pearl Harbor and 9/11, implying that these were actually planned operations disguised as security breaches.
- These parallels are used to support the idea that the Butler incident could be part of a larger strategic plan rather than a genuine security lapse.
- Broader context:
- The event is framed within the context of what the speaker describes as a military presidency aimed at regaining control of the country from the "deep state."
- It's presented as part of Trump's ongoing strategy to expose corruption within established institutions and rally support for his cause.
- The speaker suggests that this incident fits into a larger narrative of Trump as a disruptive force against entrenched power structures.
- Critique of reactions:
- There's strong criticism of those who accept the official version without critical reflection, especially among groups typically skeptical of official narratives.
- The speaker expresses frustration with supporters who usually question mainstream accounts but seem to accept this incident at face value.
- Clarifications on the speaker's position:
- He stresses that he's not claiming Trump orchestrated the entire event, but rather that Trump's team likely took advantage of a real threat to create a politically beneficial outcome.
- The speaker maintains his support for Trump while arguing for a critical analysis of the event.
- He positions his theory as more statistically probable than the official version, given Trump's history and the capabilities of his security team.
Throughout the video, the speaker emphasizes the need for critical thinking and encourages viewers to consider the broader implications and possibilities beyond the official narrative. He presents his analysis as an attempt to understand the event within the complex landscape of American politics and Trump's unique approach to governance and public perception.
Given that the bullet missed Trump's skull by an inch or less and that had Trump NOT turned his head a fraction of a second earlier he would have been killed, I don't for one second believe this situation was orchestrated (or "redirected", whatever that means) by the White Hats. NO possible benefit would be worth loss of Trump's life.
Are the White Hats using the situation (now that it's happened) to our advantage?
Of course.
Is the corrupt MSM and every other Cabal-adjacent mouthpiece spewing lies and distortions about the event and the situation generally?
Of course.
As for the "Impossibility of a real security breach" -- that can NEVER be literally true, but yes Trump's security has been top-notch until recently. With the Biden Admin controlling the Secret Service, with DEI hires replacing seasoned agents, and with obvious instructions that countermanded normal security procedures (like, say, securing obvious sniper positions within easy target distance of the President) -- it is clear to me that the White Hats were somehow NOT in charge of the security at this event.
Matthew Murphy, retired Green Beret and Special Forces sniper, agrees:
https://greatawakening.win/p/17teJ87l8Z/retired-green-beret-sniper-expla/c/
The attack was "heavily planned, coordinated, and with people on the inside making it happen"
He adresses the bullet situation in this video. The picture seen in the picture could have been shot by another patriot sniper in three feet away from Trump, and the blood could be entirely fake. I thought about the possibility about the sabotage from within but if there is a ongoing devolution process, if the military is protecting Trump since 2015 or before, it means Biden is not in charge whatsoever (even if we assume this is the real Biden), and there was no possibility to weaken the security of Trump. And I cannot understand why the WH would not foresee this obvious possibility to eliminate Trump and so prevent it. I think the situation is too recent, at this point you should consider every possibilities and take into account the fog of war.
Always good advice.
I'm open to new information and prefer knowing the truth to shoring up my presuppositions. We'll see what we see as new info comes out.
Yeah, the fact that Trump was hit by a bullet that would have gone straight through his head had he not turned at the exact moment he did kind of makes the whole argument moot.
Meanwhile, in Chicago;
https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-man-ski-mask-arrested-while-approaching-republican-national-convention-perimeter-milwaukee
I too have built a scenario where there was a real attempt - but it was allowed to play out in COMPLETE SAFETY for Trump.
Key points: It is not possible to defeat SS security in the ways shown. If Qplan is real (yes) then security was there and Trump was in no danger, so how:
First, there could have been NO bullet injuring Trump, at least, no potentially-lethal projectile. That must have been stage magic, a remote controlled covert injury-maker, like a small charge on the ear from the start (sub micro, invisible)
Next the shooters gun would have been disabled (if this was not done, then the WH would have had to kill him before he shot, and have someone else take the shots from elsewhere)
Allow a compromised temporary security team to believe they have control, while a second team operates covertly.
Man killed in crowd - also an assassin (or faked).
Trump team knew this was a backstop plan of the DS (ed: with a fixed date), so they watched it assemble. Intervened to disable gun, and position second attacker in plausible line of sight of the roof gun.
When the time came and roof shooter shot his blank-firing gun, he also triggered the sequence:
This also explains the small and open crowd without enclosure - prevents a stampede with deaths.
So - it could be possible to foil the plan AND have it play out in a controlled manner, WITHOUT relying on shooting a potentially deadly bullet close to Trump. I think the injury to Trump was real, but would have needed to be a device of some sort that was only capable of a minor injury.
The above statements are JUST SPECULATION. Could be real, could turn out the guy in the stands who was shot really was (edit: innocent), and that tends to make the whole thing real because I don't think innocent deaths would have been permitted. But if those shot were primary/secondary/tertiary assassins it is reasonable to kill them/shoot them.
Vapourface - Excellent post. Thanks