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 :

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.