There was a 2nd Shooter...

originally posted by: TruthJava

originally posted by: TheRickestRick
From the very minute I heard the shots while watching the rally I felt there were two shooters.

Haven't been able to keep up with everthing since so much is going on. If there was a second shooter, it only makes me wonder WHY? Why didn't they take Trump out? What was the purpose of the whole thing? scare tactic? What do you think? I sure can't figure out why they would do it unless maybe to send a message/threat to Trump about something.

To make him look like a hero, obviously.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TruthJava

originally posted by: TheRickestRick
From the very minute I heard the shots while watching the rally I felt there were two shooters.

Haven't been able to keep up with everthing since so much is going on. If there was a second shooter, it only makes me wonder WHY? Why didn't they take Trump out? What was the purpose of the whole thing? scare tactic? What do you think? I sure can't figure out why they would do it unless maybe to send a message/threat to Trump about something.

To make him look like a hero, obviously.

...or...maybe, this event just showed him for the hero he really is.

Images of a possibly related suspicious character.

A side by side view of Maxwell's face and the dead shooter Crooks. files.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Assassination attempts are historically notable for making would be victims more popular. Not that he doesn't deserve to be popular, but some idiot just made their anti trump campaign that much harder to sell outside of the TDS crowd.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

That is a Very Intriguing Theory and quite Possuble ...

a reply to: CarlLaFong

MIB ? Now MIG ? Or a Different Branch of an Unknown Organization ?

originally posted by: MissBeck
Too be honest, who knows which pictures are fakes.

I hadn't noticed but that one seems fake.

Footage shows he was about 30 feet from the edge and on that side there is a parking lot, a gravel bed with a bush and a couple trees, but they wouldn't have been visible from that angle.

Also, the blood on his face is dried but the one on the hot metal roof seems fresh.

originally posted by: Lazy88
I’m going with the theory if there was another weapon fired than Crooks’s and the sniper’s, I’m going with a civilian taking pop shots at Crooks. And law enforcement didn’t want to hassle with the red tape. Prove me wrong.

Nope. More info coming out tomorrow. There was more than 2 shooters. Wait and see what's revealed.

originally posted by: McUrnsalso
a reply to: TheRickestRick

I watched this video this morning...

... another shooter, either number 2 or number 3 on the water tower, video at 19:15 in..

... and FBI director Janeen Diguiseppi acting as mission go go go announcer, video at 21:20 in..

... and a possible number 3 or number 4 shooter being told to stand down, video in 23:50 in..

I don't know if this is real but i thought i'd bring it to the table...

Oh yeah. This is an evolving topic in real time. Tomorrow there will be additional evidence supporting there may be as many as 4 shooters.

A massive number of prior-service special operations snipers are all coming out calling 100% BS on the MSM led false narrative that Crooks "acted alone". More coming out tomorrow.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TheRickestRick

We will never get to the bottom of this and it's a waste of time to even try.

How could we?

There are people who have already made up their minds.

Your OP states in no uncertain terms a second shooter is proved. At best there’s evidence to suggest there may be a second shooter, but people are just so quick to speak in absolutes.

Then in the post I’m replying to, you’ve already drawn the conclusion TPTB did this and will do it again.

I won’t dismiss that as a possibility, but I’m far from saying it’s certainly the case.

It would imply they had multiple shooters, SS, PD, planners involved, and they missed. They’re competent enough to have inner agency involvement, a conspiring crew, keep it a secret, but two shooters miss?

People point out the holes in a lone shooter and security failure, which is fair. But they refuse to apply the same scrutiny to the inverse theory.

There are people who are curious about the truth, and others interested in proving their “truth”.

I'm speaking in absolutes because the information we have access to 100% proves there is at least a 2nd shooter and now with even more information coming out there may be as many as 4 shooters.

1. The MSM began falsely misstating the location of Crooks. They did this to intentionally make it appear his shots could line up and they don't based on where he was shot on the roof.

2. There is ZERO doubt there are multiple rifles being fired based simply on the sound.

3. The obvious and intentional lack of security ON A ROOF TOP in direct line of sight of the stage where Trump was speaking was devoid of any security. This is the set up for the patsy, Crooks.

Basic logic should tell you clearly what's going on. However, I will go back to what I said in my OP. This is the distraction. I'm not going to get wrapped around what I already know to be true. There were multiple shooters, Crooks is nothing more than a patsy, and the bigger question is when are TPTB going to take another attempt on Trump and what are their plans for the American public once this happens?

They quietly been pushing the civil war narrative for 3 years and the past 2 years have been all about how close to nuclear war we are. It's unbelievable we are in a proxy war in the Ukraine for the express purpose of creating conflict with Russia and China.

Afghanistan winds down and no more money is flowing into the MIC so another boogey man must be created. Enter stage left "I stand with Ukraine" BS to push for an all out conflict with 3 countries.

The MIC can't do that if Trump is in office and therefore he must go.

This is crystal clear and very easy to see what's happening.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TheRickestRick

I told everyone I know those first 3 shots sounded suppressed and the volley before Crooks was taken out by the USSS Snipers sounds like rapid fire erratic BS from an off the shelf AR-15.

I’m no professional, but I don’t think the mics would pick up suppressed/silenced shots from over 100yrds away.

The only way you can suppress is if you use subsonic ammo. If the bullet breaks the sound barrier after the barrel, the only good of a suppressor is going to be to the person behind the barrel.

I'm not going to go through a lengthy explanation of sound suppression. I know based off of personal first hand experience, multiple deployments, my ability to identify the type round and rifle being fired simply based off of sound alone. You get that level of experience when you live that life for a decade. Not bragging, it is what it is.

A rifle doesn't change its sound profile from one shot group to the next. I can distinctly hear 2 different rifles being fired and maybe a 3rd at the end of that section. I say maybe because the audio is stepped on by someone screaming.

a reply to: TheRickestRick

I'm speaking in absolutes because the information we have access to 100% proves there is at least a 2nd shooter and now with even more information coming out there may be as many as 4 shooters. 1. The MSM began falsely misstating the location of Crooks. They did this to intentionally make it appear his shots could line up and they don't based on where he was shot on the roof.

How can you hold the media to a standard you don’t hold yourself up to.

Many of us started catching on with language problems in articles.

Things like “So and so with ______ department alleges…”

Changing over time to “new quote from anonymous source proves….”

You could say things like from the evidence we have it’s highly likely that _______.

I just don’t see how we suddenly fix the honesty and problems with hyperbole in society if we don’t hold ourselves to the same standards.

Nor can I see how we all agree on truths if people are so invested in finding a version that fits their bias.

a reply to: TheRickestRick

I'm not going to go through a lengthy explanation of sound suppression. I know based off of personal first hand experience, multiple deployments, my ability to identify the type round and rifle being fired simply based off of sound alone. You get that level of experience when you live that life for a decade. Not bragging, it is what it is.

Experience doesn’t change physics either. A suppressor does very little to a round traveling faster than the speed of sound. It breaks the sound barrier. You might redirect the report from the barrel, but that does nothing for the round after the fact.

Edit: the only audio that really supports that theory anyways is the cell phone footage near the shooter. You can see the phone is pointing in the opposite direction, and the sound of the shots change when the video turns around.

The mic is on the back of the phone, pointing in the same direction as the camera. So if the beginning of the video is pointed away and then changes in sound when the video shifts to the direction of the shooter.

A rifle doesn't change its sound profile from one shot group to the next. I can distinctly hear 2 different rifles being fired and maybe a 3rd at the end of that section. I say maybe because the audio is stepped on by someone screaming.

It usually doesn’t, unless you have a staggered load in the mag.

But you’re not going off of what you heard from the guns. You’re going off of what you heard from the recording.

Unless we know the mics, mixers, and software that compiled the digital recording we heard, we’re not solely analyzing the sound coming from the guns.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TruthJava

originally posted by: TheRickestRick
From the very minute I heard the shots while watching the rally I felt there were two shooters.

Haven't been able to keep up with everthing since so much is going on. If there was a second shooter, it only makes me wonder WHY? Why didn't they take Trump out? What was the purpose of the whole thing? scare tactic? What do you think? I sure can't figure out why they would do it unless maybe to send a message/threat to Trump about something.

To make him look like a hero, obviously.

...or...maybe, this event just showed him for the hero he really is.

BINGO !

a reply to: WeMustCare

Interesting, but it has no legs. No acknowledgement of a water tower shooter is problematic if people say they saw one or two.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: MissBeck
Too be honest, who knows which pictures are fakes.

I hadn't noticed but that one seems fake.

Footage shows he was about 30 feet from the edge and on that side there is a parking lot, a gravel bed with a bush and a couple trees, but they wouldn't have been visible from that angle.

Also, the blood on his face is dried but the one on the hot metal roof seems fresh.

I think the blood on his face looks dried because I think this is way after the event and they had to get him off the roof. They could only do that in two ways. Airlift him off or drag him to the edge of the building and manually handle him down, which I think is when this picture was taken, as it shows the edge of a building. They wouldn't have done that until the area was empty and cleared I don't think so his body had been lay in the sun, making the blood dry quicker.

But as there is no footage or pictures of how they got him off the building, this is my opinion only.

a reply to: MissBeck

i believe you are correct, in the skynews video he is lying dead on the roof all by his lonesome with the rifle pretty far away.
there's also pictures of the cops pullin the rifle out of his hand.

i think once he was shot and cops that removed the weapon and confirmed he was no longer a threat were done, he was left on the roof until CSU /Forensic Investigators and the coroner could get there which could have taken quite a bit. plus my understanding it was hot that day and on a hot metal roof things dry fast.

originally posted by: MissBeck
I think the blood on his face looks dried because I think this is way after the event and they had to get him off the roof.

Of course that is the reason, but the blood on the metal roof would have dried out even faster yet it looks fresh.

Add to that the fact that there is an asphalt parking lot on the side of the building he was on. Where did the vegetation between him and the guy lifting his head come from?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: MissBeck
I think the blood on his face looks dried because I think this is way after the event and they had to get him off the roof.

Of course that is the reason, but the blood on the metal roof would have dried out even faster yet it looks fresh.

Add to that the fact that there is an asphalt parking lot on the side of the building he was on. Where did the vegetation between him and the guy lifting his head come from?

Who said he was took off the car park side?? I didn't. Maybe, just maybe they wanted to get him off discreetly, on one of the sides where there was grass all around?

originally posted by: MissBeck
Who said he was took off the car park side?? I didn't. Maybe, just maybe they wanted to get him off discreetly, on one of the sides where there was grass all around?

It has nothing to do with what you said.

The blood on the hot metal roof would have dried out before the blood on his face but instead it looks fresh.

He was on the side of the building close to the parking lot, but around 30 feet from the edge. You wouldn't see grass regardless of where they took him down and since you see the streak of blood he hadn't been moved.

Also why wouldn't you drive a vehicle to take him away into that parking lot instead of driving over the grass? It wasn't like the area hadn't been sealed off by then.

ETA: by the way the second pic you posted is mine. The blue line shows the approximate area where his body was.