Ok Chris, you said to go back and I accidentally did that. I was looking at people and watched the questionable second sniper on picnic table. He goes in and out and talks with - I am guessing would be FBI guy. This guy appears to go in and check on things for him. Notice how he points in this shot toward a higher place. Makes me think of asking about his equipment in two story window?
Then later G.Nicol comes out with hardware looking for him even as he comes to the door. Lots of body language. You caught it. Then, I was looking at GN coming out, body language speaks to looking for the guy and and I have the hardware. One thing that bugs me is that bottom of the pic of the rifle heâs carrying. Sure looks like the bottom of what everyone was saying was a Halligan but looks like it is something more in relation to the big rifle. (against his leg)
Thanks for reading closely and asking politely. I sometimes donât get that courtesy in this forum. Perhaps Iâm over the target. Anyways, here is the explanation.
As for the windows, Iâm working on my Timeline Maps and Evidence Logs for the time the patsy was on the ground at AGT as we speak. I havenât kept close tabs on the times of window openings, but I will be including that. It will also address the specific locations of Nicol and Butler throughout that period, since the purpose of this slide deck is to track their activities as opposed to the patsyâs.
The only reference I have found regarding Butlerâs position in any documents is this from the After Report, but I havenât double checked the radio comms or the media interviews.
I made a mistake to only read the the text of the After Action report. In the images of the following pages there is additional information that is not explicitly written down. For example discrepancies between maps and maps on the wall etc.
As a note on the open windows: Richard, the guy in the Grassley Bodycam footage, pointed to the nearest open window where Greg was stationed. It is possible that he was indicating the whole building not just the window though, but talking about âthat windowâ instead of âthose windowsâ might mean something.
Quote: âSee, if you go to that window that is open and yell for Greg, that is the guy that sent the original picturesâŠâ [19:08:41 Bodycam timestamp]
Edit: Just to reiterate, I do not rate the testimony of the snipers very highly, so I try to work through the process while not taking their words as reliable. It might be true that they did only sit in those windows.
For those of you who donât have a good grasp on what happened on the AGR grounds before Crooks got on the roof, I put together a good resource for you. Itâs a graphical and chronological look at the events. Of special interest, even to those of you intimately familiar with the events, other than my goofy graphics, is the combining of radio traffic (WP) and witness interview (ABC & CNN) statements in chronological order. All I add in the way of my analysis are 3 key observations in the final slide. I hope it offers some value to you.
Thanks again, @sorey and @RawRoku, itâs always a pleasure getting your input and feedback!
As for Greg Nicol, âYour actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what you say.â (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Good work on the slides. Man, the testimony of GN is all over the place. I agree that GN did not actually think Crooks was important at first, but I canât completely understand what the two snipers were doing.
If Crooks was automatically elevated from Suspicious to Person of Interest when the Range finder was spotted, as Ben Shaffer testified yesterday, how come GN and Butler did not work together to keep an eye on Crooks? They were a team right? Did they even talk to each other?
Some minor notes on the slides:
- The WTAE video starts at 17:06:49, but Crooks was not on screen yet. You first see him at 17:06:54. He only turned around and walk towards the west at 17:07:28.
- On slide 9 you accidentally indicated that Butler was moving, not GN.
- I already mentioned it, but just reiterating that GNâs final position was at the NW corner of Building 4 when shots were fired as stated in the AAR on page 16.
I think we need to pin down which two vehicles the AAR was talking about. I made a mistake in my timeline which says the vehicles stopping at 18:09:03 was 1 unmarked and another marked, but both were patrol vehicles. After 20 seconds a grey vehicle pulled in behind Officer Rossâs vehicle.
On the east side of the parking lot there were 3 parked vehicles in the bodycam footage, one of whom was a patrol vehicle. On the west side no vehicles were parked according to bodycam 122109. If we can get footage of the east parking lot before 18:08 or even 18:02 that would help pin down that event. Anyone helping us out here would help greatly.
I could be wrong, but in my mind, those two vehicles have to be the marked police car of the officer who got boosted up (Ross?) and the gray unmarked SUV thing.
We canât see what happened, but in my mind, it was like Officer Boosted says âyou see that guy running?â and starts driving toward the AGR building with the guy he was talking to close behind him.
I would also think that, but in the dashcam video GN did not come out. Either he lied or he talked about other vehicles. We need to eliminate one of them, hence looking for earlier footage.
So one: what happened to the initial claim that GN was locked out and had to be let back in by his partner?
According to Beaver team now, the only guy left in the AGR 2nd story was the Butler sniper.
Two: neither GN nor the Butler sniper would have witnesses to their actions as individuals if they supposedly split up.
Three: what was the Butler sniper doing while Crooks was wiggling all over the roof?
Four: who is the Butler sniper and why doesnât he have anything to say?
Five: what happened to four men originally and then 3 left in AGR per the congressional testimony?
Six: why did the story change from two Beaver on 2nd story and 1 Butler on first floor to now 1 Beaver and 1 Butler on second story??
ITâS WEIRD.
They are just making shit up as they go.
Itâs interesting. I remember this too, but Iâm not sure now where that story originated. As far as I know, it has vanished from the story. Edit: 
did that story come from that Bennie whats-his-name? Edit 2: yes. x.com
Itâs totally amazing. If he was looking out the western window, he somehow wasnât seeing agitated people in the crowd pointing. If he was looking south, he somehow wasnât seeing Crooks. If he wasnât doing either of those, he heard rifle shots like no more than 100â away and didnât rush to the window and shoot with his sidearm.
No, it was part of the Congressional testimony.
The initial testimony was that there were 4 locals assigned to AGR. 1 had to leave early and that was known in advance.
Per testimony, 1 sniper left to go help with Crooks and got locked out. Another sniper had to go let him in. At the time, they seemed to indicate these were both Beaver snipers.
The whereabouts of the 3rd sniper were not discussed. It seemed likely that the 3rd sniper was from Butler.
Well, now the story is entirely different.
Other changes:
-
The roof was too sloped.
-
It was hot outside so they were given permission to be inside.
-
No, they were always assigned inside. They were told to be at specific windows.
-
Butler was downstairs. Two Beaver were upstairs.
-
No, 1 Beaver and 1 Butler upstairsâŠ
WTF?
I guess I want to go find and watch some of this testimony just so I can make a mental note of whoâs a liar 
None of it makes sense because Beaver team members now claim they werenât even spoken to at all after the shooting.
Like, what?
Why wouldnât they be included in the internal USSS after report??? Isnât it really important to interview them to determine what went wrong from a USSS standpoint?
Has the FBI told the USSS not to talk to others involved?
Honestly, it just seems like they are all throwing shit and seeing what sticks.
Other points of contention:
There was a command center and everyone from all agencies were in there.
No. Locals had their own and the USSS/state command center was separate.
ââ-------------------------
They had a meeting.
No, they never had a meeting.
â-------------------------
They had shared radio coms.
No, they never picked up local radios.
The most annoying of all of these was when âRowe your own boatâ testified that they had an interoperability communication system that failed. He should be charged with lying under oath (he knew the âfailureâ was that his people did not want to communicate with LEO.
When I came across that group on the news, I had no clue who Nicol was back then. I just kept thinking that guy is lying.
Same here!
I can see BS a mile away and GN must have brown eyes because he is full of it.
Actually you made it up by an hour. The video was taken at 17:âŠ
Watch here at 0:50
You are correct. Typo there.
I caught Nicol in the one blatant lie, the first thing he did was send out the photo my ass. The way the ABC and CNN made GN sound as if heâs a national hero was also telling to me when reading it along side the radio comes. Generally speaking, his high level of concern, and the urgency he tries to convey, is simply not supported by the timeline or his texts/radio comms.
When I first saw the 14 minute gap between his retaining wall and bicycle photos, I expected to see him trying to notify others in the radio comes. But what I found was crickets.
The slant of the interview articles is telling, too. They were going for the blame the system or process angle, as I read them, and propping Nicol up as a one brigade trying to save the day, which he wasnât.
I get the impression that the ABC and CNN stuff was kind of an attempt by the regime to appear transparent while lying in a way that dissipates responsibility, i.e., we donât hear many of GNâs statements directly, but CNN reports him as having made certain statements. If those statements turn out to be wrong, GN can say he was misquoted and the fake news orgs will just shrug because theyâre indifferent whether they write the truth or not. But to 99% of people, it appears as if reporters went and interviewed crucial witnesses immediately.
That thought definitely came to mind, that the media accounts regarding the statements made but not quoted were just that, the MSMâs account. Thatâs why I labeled the heading, âMedia Reports of Witness Interviews.â
BTW, were these the statements or articles you were thinking of?
