Failed Trump Assassination Attempt

Joe said:
The real question that remains unanswered is why the building Crooks was on, and the adjacent buildings, were not being constantly surveilled. It seems there were several different but associated security teams involved in security that day, from the SS to the local beat cops to local or state SWAT teams to police snipers. Were all of them in radio contact with each other? Probably not. And that's the real lapse in security that Crooks (and his likely handlers) exploited.
Click to expand...
One would think that they these days they would have a few drones monitoring the airspace and a control room checking those eyes in the sky for anything suspicious. No guys on the roof is indeed strange.
 
youlik said:
Here you are imposing on me a meaning that I did not introduce and I indicated this separately. What is it called? In my opinion, this is manipulation.
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps you are correct. I have been guilty of projection on more than one occasion.

youlik said:
I am ready to admit that these things are not malicious, but simply the result of, let's say, carelessness (including my carelessness in the form of insufficient English proficiency), but at the same time there is something else.
Click to expand...
Possibly.

youlik said:
All these things of yours are very similar to the banal desire to keep the last word for yourself at all costs. God be with you, so be it, although I consider it, at least, ugly.
Click to expand...
There is no wish on my part to have the last word. I will not trouble you any further. There is much else to discuss.
 
Joe said:
They trashed Biden to the world and made him basically unelectable in anticipation of Trump being dead, and Haley being ushered in to effectively replace Biden as "their" POTUS.
Click to expand...
That would certainly help to explain why Nicky Haley stayed in the race long after it was clear that she stood no chance, except if Trump was taken out before the election.
 
whitecoast said:
It's been really odd seeing some people in this thread insisting it was a hoax or a staging by Trump. No sane person would agree to a staged plot that involves bullets whizzing past their head -- too much room for error and anomalous events. I suspect some people here are too overly attached to their own cynicism and self-indulgent in their disillusionment. Sort of like a hipster who is incapable of sincerity but who obsesses over what he sees as insincerity in others.
Click to expand...
This is something I've been thinking about, and I have a possilbe explanation from the book What Makes Your Brain Happy And Why You Should Do The Opposite - by David DiSalvo

Alleged Causes, Presumed Effects
Imagine that a study on the effects of drinking coffee comes out in the news
indicating that drinking at least three cups a day significantly improves attention
and memory. Someone reads this news and immediately increases her morning
coffee ritual to three cups. For the next month she thinks she is more attentive
and remembering things better because she's drinking more coffee. Then she
reads a newer study that says drinking more than two cups of coffee a day is
linked to significantly decreased attention and heightened anxiety. The second
study has been promoted with as much gusto as the first, and the credentials of
the researchers are just as impressive. She thinks, You know, I have been feeling
more anxious lately, and maybe I'm not as focused as I thought, and she
decreases her coffee intake down to two cups.
For the next couple weeks, she feels more attentive and not nearly as anxious
—until she reads an article a few weeks later discrediting the second study and
upholding the findings of the first. At each step along the way, the effects she
was experiencing had far less to do with coffee and far more to do with her
belief that causal links existed between a behavior and an outcome.
My analogy of choice for highlighting this tendency is the “smoking monkey,”
referring to a kitschy novelty item popular in the 1960s. A small plastic or
ceramic monkey is packaged with a tiny cigarette that is placed into a hole in its
mouth, and when lit the monkey appears to smoke the cigarette, even blowing
smoke rings. The monkey is hollow, and there is a second hole in its bottom,
allowing air to circulate through its body and keep the tiny cigarette smoldering.
At least, that's the cause-and-effect takeaway someone might have when the hole
in the bottom is shown to them and the air circulation link is suggested. In much
the same way, when a person smokes, air circulates through the cigarette and
keeps it going.
That would be a neat and tidy analogy that makes sense of the original puzzle
—except, the smoking monkey does not work at all the same as a smoking
human, and the explanation is wrong. In truth, the hole has nothing to do with
the cigarette—which is instead made of paper designed to smolder without
burning. We are usually like the person who sees the other hole, gets a little
information, and concludes a cause-and-effect link (what psychologists call
causation). We're faced with smoking monkeys every day, and our brains are
happy to fill in the blanks with causal relationships that don't really exist. What
our brains are searching for in each smoking-monkey scenario is a “story” that
makes sense. Next we will discuss why.

It Must Mean Something, Right?
Storytelling is powerful medicine for the mind. One of the reasons stories appeal
to us (in books, on TV, or otherwise) is that they link together shards of meaning
that eventually yield even greater meaning. In other words, stories make sense of
the world. Making sense of the world makes our brains happy. But some of the
stories we hear lack an adequate wrap-up. Here's a true story that illustrates the
point.
A few years ago I was working on a public health campaign in Birmingham,
Alabama, and heard some news that put a tragically capital R in Random. A
woman driving downtown stopped at an intersection and waited for the light to
change. What she didn't know is that she had stopped her car directly over a
water main manhole cover. What she also didn't know, and could not have
known, is that the city was experiencing a massive pressure surge in the water
main, which was building in intensity as she approached the intersection.
In the handful of minutes that she waited for a green light, the pressure surge
reached the part of the water main where her car had stopped, and—having hit
the weakest part of the pipeline—erupted as a geyser of scorching hot steam
through the manhole. She was steamed to death in her car like a lobster in a pot
of boiling water.
It's difficult to imagine the odds of such an exceptionally random event, but I
did some rough figuring and came up with about 1 in 500,000 (taking into
account the average number of drivers in downtown Birmingham, the number of
manholes, and the chance of that sort of water-pipeline problem happening; I
later learned that it's called a “water hammer”). I'm sure my figures are far from
perfect, but whatever the actual number is, there's no question the chances of
dying that way are remote. And yet, on one idle afternoon when everything
seemed just as normal as any other day, it happened. Upon hearing a story like
this, we can actually “feel” how our brain wants to string together the chance
events leading up to the outcome in an effort to make sense of the tragedy. But
even with a physical explanation as to why it happened (pressure surge), the
story lacks closure at the level of Why (capital W) it occurred.
The reason this open-endedness is hard to accept is because it reinforces the
sense that random tragedies can happen to anyone, including us—and that is
mighty threatening to a threat-sensitive brain. Said another way, the lack of a
Why underscores the power of randomness in our lives. We crave a reason.
Hence the oft-quoted statement, “Everything happens for a reason.” What is the
reason? We don't know, but asserting that there must be one acts as a surrogate
for closure. It also provides us with something absolutely necessary for a reason
to exist: agency. An “agent” in psychological literature is a person or thing
responsible for causing something to happen. We search for agents all the time—
personal and impersonal—and we select words that imply agency even when we
know it doesn't exist. For example, a professor is attempting to give a
presentation to his class using a computer and projector. The projector isn't
working, and after several attempts to fix it he says, “It seems this projector is
determined to wreck my class.” He knows, as does everyone in the room, that
the projector is not an action-causing agent, but his words betray the brain's
desire to assign agency no matter the physical facts. We blame our car for not
starting, software for not saving documents, plants for not growing, and on and
on. The philosopher Daniel Dennett calls this the intentional stance: we refer to
objects both animate and inanimate as if they have minds as a shortcut to
figuring out what is really going on.

Again, we can find a likely evolutionary underpinning for this tendency of a
happy brain—namely that identifying what is causing an action could save our
lives. Picture one of our ancestors gathering food in the thick of the forest.
Suddenly he hears a rustling in a nearby tree. Is it the wind, a harmless bird, or a
massive man-eating cat? Decoding the clues quickly and finding the actual cause
could be the difference between returning to the family with dinner or becoming
dinner. Leaving the forest, we can also see how this tendency would evolve for
deciphering the intentions of others. The human animal is the most formidable
on the planet not only against other species but also against other humans. Not
correctly identifying another's real intentions could very well be the last mistake
a person makes
Click to expand...
The crux of the book is our brains are always trying to get back to 'normal'. If it detects (real or imagined) a threat, it will go onto high alert until we 'identify' and 'conclude' what the threat was. The faster you can do this (the faster you can avoid the uncomfortable energy intensive act of paying attention to reality, and being stressed) - the better (from an energy expenditure point of view).
People who fall into the category of 'hoax' or 'it doesn't seem real' etc are simply well practiced at nullifying stress/energy expenditure in their brains automatically and without thought. This is not a judgement, its actually (for those so inclined) a useful piece of data when it comes to self-observation.
Everyone does it to some degree - unless you practice doing the opposite. First though is awareness of how the brain (your brain) works.

Taking the above, I can say for sure that I am still in the state described above about the women looking for a story to alleviate her anxiety about coffee. I'm trying to not let it control my behaviour or observations though, and jump to a 'satisfying' conclusion.
On that topic:

Timótheos said:
Rather odd behaviour from a woman in the crowd behind Trump. Seen holding a Biden sign and doesn't react or flinch when the shots began and calmly brings out her phone to start filming. She even seems to start smirking at some point. Could be normalcy bias, could be something else?
Click to expand...
This reminds me of the meme "If the titanic happened today":
CiEZFViUgAEjuS0.jpg

It's very easy to disassociate from reality by filming something on a phone, it's like a mental shield. You are watching it on a screen and are 'not in the reality as it happens'. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on context.
We revert to habit when stressed/in danger. It's likely this is her brains chosen method of 'stress relief'. People don't even need phones to disconnect from reality when danger shows up.
It's very easy to find things amusing when you are disconnected from the reality of the situation. "What a bunch of drama queens jumping on Trump!"

We all know so little of danger, of guns, of war - unless we've had direct lived experience. And our brains want us 'happy'.

Cosmos said:
I think that this could just be a person that reacted to all people suddenly going down by deciding “let’s film/capture what is happening“. But, having said that, there is another footage that I‘m more suspicious about which apparently shows a press/camera guy who took some of the iconic pictures of Trump filming himself doing just that and the whole assassination attempt!:
Click to expand...

Some possible explanations are that this would make excellent advertising for the guys work - 'Here's a video of me taking photos'. Or maybe he can use the footage for additional shots. Or maybe (like a football game) he can go over his footage and analyse where he could have done better. etc
Or perhaps simply he was a fan/excited to be there and wanted to record the whole day.

Having said that - be careful to not accept those explanations as 'the truth' because it makes your brain happy. We simply do not know (that terrible uncertainty again!), and to be honest I'm glad people are spotting things that may or may not be suspicious.
 
Aeneas said:
That would certainly help to explain why Nicky Haley stayed in the race long after it was clear that she stood no chance, except if Trump was taken out before the election.
Click to expand...

Right, and the botched and sloppy nature of the hit job. They had to do it before the RNC, and this weekend was their last chance. Wow.

Somehow, divine intervention stepped in, and we may have just witnessed a remarkable reality juncture!
 
Joe said:
There's always a "day after" plan behind presidential assassinations. So what was the plan here?

Obviously the idea was to kill Trump. So let's imagine that happened as they expected...

Trump is dead.

The RNC meets today with no nominee for POTUS. They have to come up with one.

Who gets the nomination?

Nikki Haley.

Can you imagine HER as the Rep. candidate? A vile neocon, Israel-first, deep stater?

Biden would be put to pasture and the entire "establishment" (CNN etc. included) are happy to tacitly support Haley, 'their' woman.

She would probably have been allowed to win in Nov, or she would have won legitimately (albeit with record low turn out in the election).

Now, consider that scenario in the context of the last 2 weeks, post debate, where the entire establishment rounded on Biden and presented him as a doddering old fool who had no chance of winning.

Why would they do that? Why would they publicly and almost unanimously trash their own candidate? Why would they shoot themselves in the foot that way and give massive support to Trump in the election?

It's not like Biden was any worse in the debate as he had been over the past two years, and yet none of them said a word about his 'frailty' during that time.

It was inexplicable.

Until two days ago when Trump was scheduled to be taken out.

They trashed Biden to the world and made him basically unelectable in anticipation of Trump being dead, and Haley being ushered in to effectively replace Biden as "their" POTUS.

But Trump's alive, about to be nominated, and "they" are completely screwed.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Had been thinking along these lines too. This is the only thing that would explain the whole throwing Biden away routine.

Perhaps they had different scenarios in mind, including just holding out with Biden and maybe offing Trump later, but then realized Biden just won't happen cause the decline is too much, at which point they switched to the Haley option, which means they must off Trump before the convention. This might also explain the somewhat sloppy job, even without divine intervention.
 
Maybe this is something some of us here can look into...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1812761598190133297

Is this correct: did CNN (and/or other major networks) broadcast - or intend to broadcast until Trump was shot - the whole Trump rally in Pennsylvania live?

And have they previously not been doing so?

Did they go against form by sending a team to broadcast this particular one?
 
I say to myself that by failing, they reinforce all this hope that Trump can bring, the closer we are to this election, the more the rally around Trump is more intense. So If another assassination attemps occurs, the energy gathered by people supporting Trump will probably blow up in not a very good direction, but it will expose more those who are on the top. Trying to kill Trump 4 years ago, and trying to kill him very close to the election.. I mean how you will react if your last hope dies in front of you ?
 
Niall said:
The Secret Service is currently led by someone who had all her agents wipe their text messages from January 6th, indicating an interest on its part in seeing that Trump didn't survive J13:
Click to expand...

Here's a sniper guy analyzing the situation - nothing new really, except one bit: he says that it's actually the snipers' job to scan for possible sniper positions of an assassin before the event. They would basically go on the stage and look around to identify possible positions. Which would make sense given that they are the experts on these things.

If that's true, one has to ask about the involvement of the counter sniper team - were they Secret Service? This doesn't mean that the 2 guys in the video were in on it necessarily, but at least someone must have seen to it that they get the right orders as to where to focus their attention, and have someone who's in on it do the initial assessment or break the chain of information somewhere.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1812651095287865834
 
Seems that Trump really got a feel that something weird happened....

Donald Trump said he is “supposed to be dead” and went on to describe the attempt on his life as a “surreal” experience.

“I’m not supposed to be here, I’m supposed to be dead,” he said in one of his first interviews after a gunman opened fire at his rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday, killing a spectator and wounding two.
Click to expand...

Speaking about the moment he raised his fist in the air after the gun attack, he said: “I just wanted to keep speaking, but I just got shot.”
Click to expand...

:lol: That's the thinking of a guy who really loves the limelight!
 
I have noticed german mainstream media emphasizing on every report about what happened and the get together of republicans today that “the secret service says there is no need for extra protection of Trump“! No, need? Hello?!? You can hardly make it more clear for people with half a brain cell left that this is a very strange and revealing statement. They are quite unhinged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom