I don`t think you will find the “ladder footage”, i have been trying to find it myself without success. Maybe this is because the person who took the video may not have uploaded it to any social media platform. Not yet anyway.
1 Like
As far as i know, the only information the FBI has releases so far. Crooks went to an ammunition store, and bought “ammunition”. and 8 bullitt castings were recovered on the roof. I think the FBI will hold onto this information for now.
I find it uncanny how ladders have somehow held such a grip on everyone interested in this assassination attempt. From the very beginning, with the information released about the patsy’s ladder purchase coincidentally that very day. To date the very receipt tipping off this information has not come to light, and I don’t recall who it was that initially reported this, but I feel it has thus far been nothing more than a red herring. And a prolific one at that! As with the second shooter theory, we find ourselves engaged in a series of discussions and investigations that mislead and distract from more relevant evidence-based investigations, which buys valuable time for anyone on any level that may have been complicit with any event leading up to or including the rally shooting. Not only do we end up squabbling over details of things that none of us have enough tangible evidence to fully prove or disprove, but with the evolution or more and more wild claims and speculation without evidence, we all suffer the collective stigma of conspiracy theorist whilst anyone truly guilty of conspiring gains credibility. The intrigue of each of these theories is exceptional, the juiciness of such a plot against our president is not surprisingly alluring regardless of which theory you follow, benefitting greatly from an inherent lack of trust and heavy skepticism to the point of extreme cynicism, in every aspect of the system, government, law enforcement, journalism, education, you name it.
Now, were there to be an individual or a group involved in conspiring toward such an event, being fully aware of the general current of opinion towards these systems, I would think it plausible ‘information’ (more accurately misinformation) be released to divert relevant investigation, illustrated by a slew of wild suppositions, a lot of the time provided with shoddy or manipulated ‘evidence’, and nothing provided to thoroughly verify what is claimed.
As far as a conspiracy goes in terms of this, let’s think about it. It could be local, state, or federal in nature, it could be some other organization entirely, or possibly some combination of the above. Regardless of who it was conspiring, clearly this would result in at least one if not multiple federal level investigations. No matter the organization, they would have had it in their mind in advance that not only would they have to perform the assassination, but then following they would also have to evade federal investigation. It would take quite an unhinged individual with some huge balls to think that they could conspire a presidential assassination, execute it, live to tell the tale, and somehow evade any federal level investigation. And to find that style unhinged persona amongst not only one individual but a group of people amongst vetted agencies seems even less likely. And considering success would be tied inversely to the number of people involved, if we are truly talking of conspiracy I’m thinking somewhere along the lines of upper echelon federal level involvement, not merely some local cops half-assedly hatching up a plan to off Trump.
If the conspiracy involves a group or organization outside law enforcement, it still takes a certain level of unhingedness, huge balls, but also the confidence to be able to outwit and outmaneuver the highest levels of American law enforcement (and then the actual ability to seemingly have done so!).
Now, I’m not saying that there is no possibility of these conspiracies, just that in terms of the evidence surrounding the events and the reports that have followed investigating, and time that has passed, it appears less and less likely to me a conspiracy of this caliber could have existed.
Even down to the claims that the patsy had ‘help’ in manufacturing the explosives, I find somewhat unfounded. He was said to have been highly intelligent, and in terms of the explosives he was also said to have studied a DHS released document detailing IED’s.
FBI discovered a DHS document describing improvised explosive devices during investigation of Trump’s would-be assassin | CNN Politics
Interestingly, the Clairton gun club logs seemed to point to DHS also training at that facility, though it is never made clear if ever both parties were at the facility at the same time, which also gives ground to a DHS level conspiracy, but again we’re only given so much. Enough to speculate, and nothing more really. Possibly, if not likely by design.
I had a thought about you doing something like this the other day, something cataloging debunked theories and arguments against them! Thank you for this, and your other releases from a few days ago, Armor & ESU Response Timeline was fantastic, well worth the hype!! 
2 Likes
You’re welcome, and I’ll most likely be adding more to the Theories Debunked folder in the near future.
Now, about that amazingly insightful article you just wrote. Yes, an article and not a mere post, one that reads like it came from a well-educated, informed, and truth-seeking political think tank. I’m duly impressed. Nice work!
At every turn in my investigative efforts I sense this. It’s hard to NOT think this is by design, though I could attribute alot of it to agenda driven investigations by Congress and the DHS Independent Review Panel, especially in the interview transcripts and reports. Their questions only go so far in drawing out information. They fail to peel away the onion layers to get to some of the more pertinent facts. Once they get enough information to support their agenda, they move on to their next pre-planned question. It’s all valuable infomation, but it’s obvious to me it’s agenda driven and not intended to seek a detailed understanding of the events that day. For example, the questioning regarding shots heard going between the Hercules 2 operators. Something that should, upon first hearing the responses, make an investigator want to dig deeper due to the potential implications of a second shooter, does not interest them enough to ask followup fact-finding questions.
I guess what I’m saying is that so much of the interview evidence seems agenda driven that it makes me wonder if that’s by design. Maybe not to cover up an assassination plot, but to, like you say, force us to speculate and debate over many of the details, forcing us to feed on the crumbs they leave us.
2 Likes
Exellent! Even if as a group we don’t all necessarily agree or come to the same conclusion, having a compilation of claims vs counters is most helpful in the long run if ever it is necessary to reference, and is a good way to separate this investigative effort from others on basis of evidence.
Why thank you! I wanted to sum up a few thoughts I had on the conspiracy concept, as much of what I see involving theories doesn’t seem to necessarily take into account the broader implications of the theory. It’s easy to come up with a claim, and if going just based on theoretical ideas we can easily get lost down that rabbit hole of making claims that possibly support our ideas, but without checking those ideas against the facts we slide back into the conspiracy theorist role. This is not a slight against anyone pushing the ladder theories or otherwise, these ideas are necessary as they give us other lenses to view things through. But at a point we have to come to some conclusion, and thus far any ladder theories seem to me to point nowhere productive, thus red herring.
And then even beyond the implication of a second shooter, which one would think is an absolutely huge finding in this matter, at the very least you would expect a certain level of concern for the fact that this implies the targeting of our protective entities altogether, vividly demonstrating yet another glaring vulnerability most likely not considered before.
It also reasons that regardless of motive, anyone involved that are truly accountable, maliciously or inadvertently, would (potentially) attempt to skirt taking accountability as no matter the reason the repercussions are unfavorable. Exemplified by the immediate finger-pointing between agencies.
Fortunately, truth has seemingly been the agenda of several, and thanks to such efforts we have as much information as we do with much of it being unredacted, but at the same time I can’t help but feel like things are being withheld. An example that comes to mind, the patsy’s social media, lack thereof or whatever. But then also there was claim that he had account x or account y on this site or that site, some info seep out kind of, and since I have seen no indication in any direction as to his social media accounts, posts, or otherwise. Not even a verification as to it actually being his, nor the rebuff that it was not his either. Another loose end left untied for observers to speculate, discuss, and argue over leading to a dead end.
2 Likes
Case in point, the disingenguous testimony by Nicol who said the first thing he did after spotting Crooks was notify command. His failure to do so in a timely matter, proven by radio and text message hard evidence, has been the most significant contributing factor and most agregious CYA testimony I’ve exposed so far, as far as local law enforcement goes anyways. That failure to timely report a suspicious person is also the only potential evidence of local LEOs being complicit in a LIHOP scenario, the key word being potential, that I’ve seen so far.
2 Likes
Exactly, he will cover his ass no matter what. I wonder if anyone popular in the media sphere would spotlight the discrepancies discovered between his testimony and the evidence produced. I think there is quite enough evidence to show his behavior as unusual if not suspicious of at the very least delaying action to prevent the shooting. It truly is remarkable how Nicol dropped the ball in that regard, and I feel that his actions played a huge role in this especially in the critical last minutes. Yet beyond him, there are still questions I have of the other members involved. Collins’s response raises questions, as does Kuss’s (speaking beyond direct collusion and complicity), and many others. Local involvement and response from the top down lend to more and more questions.
But then again, it was the Secret Service that came up with the site plan covering everything except AGR. Locals aside from CS teams were set up as per SS plan within the perimeter of the event, and the main initial response to the suspicious person Nicol alerted late was made by LOCAL local cops who addressed the issue and responded after working traffic duty to ensure the motorcade arrived unimpeded. The only allocated team outside the event perimeter was a pair of local ESU CS’s, and all planning pointed to them being within the building instead of on the rooftop regardless of who it was that initially made that decision, it was approved by SS and the DJT protective detail to be ample protection. This unique scenario of using elite SS CS units to protect a former president and current candidate at a rally warranted all that but didn’t warrant securing the rooftop or grounds outside the closest rooftop to the podium where one could take shots from or other protective measures? Split command centers? Fuzzy, ineffective, if not counterproductive communication network and chain of command? I could go on, but as much as it stinks at the local level, I think that stink amplifies in regard to actions taken and planning done by higher level agencies.
1 Like
I’m currently updating my Door 9 & 13 Events analysis and the bomb related theory came to mind as I was reading Officer Paul Kuss’ Task Force testimony. On the one hand, Kuss spots Crooks on the roof and lets Command and the rest of Butler Twp LEOs know by radioing it in. Ponder the implication of him doing so in relation to a LIHOP scenario. On the other hand, we were criticized for not believing Kruss was trying to lead eyewitnesses towards the bombs in Crooks’ trunk to allegedly eliminate them so they couldn’t testify. It’s pretty hard trying to reconcile those opposing motives, helping LEOs find and eliminate the threat Crooks presented, then helping to eliminate the threat of eyewitnesses testifying.
2 Likes
It would be especially hard to reconcile Kuss helping track down the suspected individual and then to turn around and try to murder the witnesses!
Coincidentally, I’ve started working on another thing, frames from Kuss’s bodycam with corresponding radio transmissions on PDOps3 the channel he was monitoring. It’s not finished yet but I will update it as I go:
I also hope to do the same or similar with other bodycams, especially the ones we don’t have audio for.
I have also reuploaded the current version of the radio callsigns spreadsheet, under the same name as previous so your link in the Research Tools is still accurate. I’m not sure if there is much changed from before, but it is current to my understanding of the callsigns so far.
(Of interest I did find something in our radio transcripts pretty much confirming our suspected link of Niederlander to ‘Ned’, can post later)
You can also catch a very candid reaction from Kuss “I’d say this was a fuck-up!” around 29:20 of Wittlinger’s footage, timestamp 18:51:16 or so. For context, this conversation occurs and ends right before the Kuss footage that he transports the witnesses begins. “Are you recording?” “…yeah…” 
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/z2q10wfcgbmu6gp0knctb/AF1pe9N3t5qmxD9DrTbGy3M?e=16&preview=1383_202407131821_BWC2122117-0.mp4&rlkey=fdgi2c93cpooyh8q453rc8fxs&st=1fkrfes2&dl=0
3 Likes
No need to reconcile everything. But these are valid opportunities or alternatives. Where is the B-plan? Ought to be.
By the way, the usual movie quotes:
“No sense defusing a bomb after it’s already gone off.”
2 Likes
As we speak, I am analyzing an odd Kuss radio message as part of my Door 13 analysis. Having just started analyzing it, I will just share it for now. Note the messages before it, though, and the time of Kuss’ message. Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Ask yourself, “Why is there only early evidence regarding the Door 13 event, and why do the Congressional investigations avoid addressing it?”
“When he pushed open the door, the kid was nowhere to be seen. Just then two police officers pulled up outside AGR and Nicol shouted to them about where he’d last seen the suspect. The officers took off on foot in opposite directions around the sprawling AGR complex.” (Source: CNN)
3 Likes
I wonder who it was they detained, that is quite an interesting time reference! 
I was under the impression that Dayve was the only one truly ‘detained’, he was put in cuffs, but that wasn’t til after the shooting. I wonder if we could match the other witnesses in footage, perhaps one could be from the west side, even someone who sat at the retaining wall? There was images of a person sitting on that same retaining wall with a white ball cap I believe, could he have possibly been detained? This is all speculation and guesswork, I’ll have to come back to this idea in the morning, but that’s a great piece to pick up on! I’ll match you with another interesting Kuss dialogue!:
I mean, I think I understand what he’s trying to say, but without seeing his pov it’s not a very clear message really. The “we got him” is still rather misleading regardless…
1 Like
Great.
1 Like
“We see him” or “We got him in sight” would be much clearer, but it was a former/future president being protected, and they were in sort of a mad dash to find Crooks, s0 I can understand some abbreviated and/or misleading language.
This is interesting, too. How did he know? Was it an assumption, likely having knowledge of how the AGR complex was configured and not seeing him climb up from the east side? Does it relate to his odd 18:03:26 message?
Your work putting the radio messages on the video slides is great, by the way. Good thinking!
2 Likes
As I know the owner of the bike was detained too.
However, it kooks to me a bad cop vs. good cop game.
It was a little more than two minutes before the shots rang out. And somehow I feel it was too optimistic and downplaying the threat. Unfortunate wording. Which might lead to Mr. Trump was not evacuated from the stage.
Now I must go back to sniper testimony what they did hear.
2 Likes
Seems I got the radio channel wrong on that one. Oops! Sorry.
1 Like
I guess it would seem a logical assumption, were he to know the layout of the AGR, otherwise not so much. He is local, like BT local, so chances aren’t bad that he knows the lay of the land, and I would second that with the fact that he was able to locate the kid from searching through the brush off in the distance. But there a quite a number of oddities in his speech as well as some actions, like not turning on his audio at any point during his bodycam recording, although I wouldn’t be surprised if that turned out to be due to some form of redaction. Wittlinger’s cam footage, even during his audio enabled footage, displays a segment where the audio is still redacted. I don’t have a time stamp at the moment but I will provide it asap.
True, but as far as I was aware the only one handcuffed was Dayve Stewart.
From the statements Dayve made, I would be inclined to agree!
SS CS Herc teams would have been on SS frequencies, and did not have comms on PDOps3 or PDOps4, while other CS units from BuC, BeC, and WRSWAT would have been on PDOps4, if not another channel/subchannel, and also would not have heard transmissions on PDOps3.
Thanks! Considering we had no audio to go by I figured the radio transcript would give us a good understanding of the context behind the bodycams, and so far, matching cams to transmissions hasn’t disappointed!
2 Likes
By the way, Dayve had no back pack as I know.
That was my point. Thanks for the radio message transcript.
2 Likes
Nope, but he has a flat face, long shoulder length hair, and was wearing cargo shorts! That’s as close a match as they need at that point! [All echoed points from cam footage]
1 Like
Speaking of redactions, here is another interesting fact (2 redacted radio messages) likely related to Kuss’ odd question and Lenz’s response. Note the sequential call number on PD Ops 4 when Lenze responds to Nicol about the 6:02 sighting of Crooks…258.
Kuss’ question suggests, to me anyways, that he may have been referring to the 2 officers Nicol saw outside of Door 13, and those officers had the person detained, or Kuss was wondering if they did. Lenz responds “Yes.” But if that is the meaning of Kuss’ question, how would Lenz know? Well, the next radio message we see on PD Ops 4 is sequential number 261.
When did call numbers 259 and 260 occur, were they between Nicol and Lenz like the previous and subsequent messages, and what did those messages say?
Here is a logical assumption, Nicol may have told Lenz that the 2 officers did find and approach Crooks, if only for a few minutes and possibly after speaking with him they did not consider him a threat and let him go. That would certainly look bad for local law enforcement, just like the sighting of Crooks with a rangefinder at the magnometers would be for USSS. That would explain a lot in regards to the lack of later evidence and confusing or contradictory testimony pertaining to both…coverups.
How would Kuss have known the 2 police had him? If he did know, his use of the word “detained” is understandable. In other words, ‘they do have him detained, right, they didn’t let him go?’
I’m just noodling here in the middle of my analysis and am not making any inferences or drawing any conclusions at this point, so don’t hold me to any of this. Feel free to comment, or better yet, provide corroborating or contradicting evidence, though.
2 Likes