Trump Shooter and BlackRock Connection

[VulcanWerks]

I’ve seen several outlets and commenters around the web discuss how Trump’s shooter was in a BlackRock (BR) commercial - this BR is somehow involved with the attempt on Trump’s life.

I don’t think that BR was involved and the fact the shooter was in a commercial is pure coincidence. Lots of people have been in random videos. My wife randomly ended up in a music video once, for instance. She doesn’t know the artist and they needed someone so there she was.

Point being that the shooter could have ended up in that shoot for all kinds of reasons that are entirely benign.

However, since many on the interwebs have looked to somehow tie BR into it I have to at least explore that angle for a moment.

For it to “make sense” that BR was somehow involved in this plot to shoot Trump, I think the “plan” or “story” would look something like this:

BR decides to do commercials and highlight teachers. Makes sense for their business and gives them a good guy image.

They probably viewed a dozen creatives and finally what you saw in the video was the winner. They found a teacher that fits the narrative and went to the school to shoot the footage.

The marketing creative called for the use of students. Again, like the teacher, they needed students who fit the mold. Some combination of students were identified.

This is where things change.

We know they used real students as the shooter proves that. Some process was deployed to get the students. Some looked the part and since they didn’t have to do much that’s really all thats needed.

If you’re a HS student, you probably want to be “cool” and more visible - being in a commercial could be a feather in your cap. Even if not true, there was likely the interest in being in the commercial exceeded the number of people the commercial needed.

If you’re BR, you likely background check a number of students before putting them in the commercial.

And that is the connection.

All BR had to do was have a member of the “team” join as a “consultant” to “get to know” the students involved. This consultant could be directly connected to who wanted someone recruited. You’ve already don’t a background and probably have some assistance from .gov because you’re looking for students that meet the right criteria to being them in to be used in many ways not by BR but by someone who might want Trump shot.

This would be incredibly easy to add a “contractor” for this purpose under a whole bunch of false pretenses that are very believable.

If BR did a series of commercials like the one that contained the shooter, they could have background information of hundreds of impressionable teenagers.

Once the right student(s) is identified, they can be further tested/screened. How do they behave? If we give them small amounts of information do they talk about it online? Trustworthy? Reliable?

Note: The shooter had a very very small social media presence.

From there the individual gets an unglamorous job that doesn’t have a lot of upward mobility and in the background train and prepare them for this occasion. Brainwash the shooter with “inside information” and threats of action against non-compliance.

A puppet assassin who is not a well known or visible individual and of unnotable repute, if you will.

So, BlackRock’s job was the intake specialist (in this story). To be fair, they have something to lose by having Trump get back in office - never mind all of the institutions connected to BR that rely on BR to facilitate their agendas (at least in part).

That may also mean there’s more like the shooter (or were). It’s a program of sorts.

To sum it up, the radicalization starts by putting someone who is of the right combination of things in a commercial, make them feel special and then turn them into a useful tool as you need them.

And when they fail, eliminate them.

While that’s a logical and somewhat believable story that doesn’t have many theatrics or much hyperbole to it, I still don’t think that’s the case - or really anything like it.

The fact the guy was in a commercial is just a coincidence. Nothing exciting unless you’re a member of upper BR leadership. :)

---

I’ve seen several outlets and commenters around the web discuss how Trump’s shooter was in a BlackRock (BR) commercial - this BR is somehow involved with the attempt on Trump’s life.

I don’t think that BR was involved and the fact the shooter was in a commercial is pure coincidence. Lots of people have been in random videos. My wife randomly ended up in a music video once, for instance. She doesn’t know the artist and they needed someone so there she was.

Point being that the shooter could have ended up in that shoot for all kinds of reasons that are entirely benign.

However, since many on the interwebs have looked to somehow tie BR into it I have to at least explore that angle for a moment.

For it to “make sense” that BR was somehow involved in this plot to shoot Trump, I think the “plan” or “story” would look something like this:

BR decides to do commercials and highlight teachers. Makes sense for their business and gives them a good guy image.

They probably viewed a dozen creatives and finally what you saw in the video was the winner. They found a teacher that fits the narrative and went to the school to shoot the footage.

The marketing creative called for the use of students. Again, like the teacher, they needed students who fit the mold. Some combination of students were identified.

This is where things change.

We know they used real students as the shooter proves that. Some process was deployed to get the students. Some looked the part and since they didn’t have to do much that’s really all thats needed.

If you’re a HS student, you probably want to be “cool” and more visible - being in a commercial could be a feather in your cap. Even if not true, there was likely the interest in being in the commercial exceeded the number of people the commercial needed.

If you’re BR, you likely background check a number of students before putting them in the commercial.

And that is the connection.

All BR had to do was have a member of the “team” join as a “consultant” to “get to know” the students involved. This consultant could be directly connected to who wanted someone recruited. You’ve already got a background and probably have some assistance from .gov because you’re looking for students that meet the right criteria to being them in to be used in many ways not by BR but by someone who might want Trump shot.

This would be incredibly easy to add a “contractor” for this purpose under a whole bunch of false pretenses that are very believable.

If BR did a series of commercials like the one that contained the shooter, they could have background information of hundreds of impressionable teenagers.

Once the right student(s) is identified, they can be further tested/screened. How do they behave? If we give them small amounts of information do they talk about it online? Trustworthy? Reliable?

Note: The shooter had a very very small social media presence.

From there the individual gets an unglamorous job that doesn’t have a lot of upward mobility and in the background train and prepare them for this occasion. Brainwash the shooter with “inside information” and threats of action against non-compliance.

A puppet assassin who is not a well known or visible individual and of unnotable repute, if you will.

So, BlackRock’s job was the intake specialist (in this story). To be fair, they have something to lose by having Trump get back in office - never mind all of the institutions connected to BR that rely on BR to facilitate their agendas (at least in part).

That may also mean there’s more like the shooter (or were). It’s a program of sorts.

To sum it up, the radicalization starts by putting someone who is of the right combination of things in a commercial, make them feel special and then turn them into a useful tool as you need them.

And when they fail, eliminate them.

While that’s a logical and somewhat believable story that doesn’t have many theatrics or much hyperbole to it, I still don’t think that’s the case - or really anything like it.

The fact the guy was in a commercial is just a coincidence. Nothing exciting unless you’re a member of upper BR leadership. :)

[KKLoco]

Maybe it was a one-off. However, Do you believe in coincidences?

I don’t.

I’ll just put this here:

Now, the Oversight Project, a watchdog group with the Heritage Foundation, released a report that could potentially link Thomas Crooks, a relatively unknown figure until now, to critical locations in the Washington D.C. area. According to the group’s findings, geo-tracking data from various devices suggests that Crooks had been in close proximity to key sites, including the FBI headquarters and Allegheny Arms—a location of particular interest to investigators.

https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/breakin...o-dc-mace/

[VulcanWerks]

Maybe it was a one-off. However, Do you believe in coincidences?

I don’t.

I’ll just put this here:

https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/breakin...o-dc-mace/

Fair enough. But that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with BlackRock.

Do I think the shooter was a lone wolf? No. I do think he was working for someone or an entity. He likely agreed with them and minimal coercion was required.

I look at it like this - if BR was actually involved and then put him on a commercial that will be captured forever that doesn’t seem bright if you’re covering your tracks. But, BR can just say it’s nothing but an unfortunate PR issue for them who would say otherwise? Maybe the commercial was the cover for making the shooter feel like all of this was organic.

Highlighting teachers is a heck of an idea to find opportunities with the kids/young adults. Teacher thinks they’re being celebrated, BR supports the type of causes that modern education does, and a student gets to participate - teacher is completely in the dark and thinking nothing nefarious.

It’s also conceivable BR, or very very few at BR, had any idea about this if they were even involved.

To your point about coincidences - no, I dont believe in them as a general rule.

I do have some exposure to branded advertising. There are many ways that this rando kid ended up in their commercial. That rando kid happened to go on to so some not great stuff.

[KKLoco]

I agree with you, for the most part. As you mentioned, BR could have identified a potential ‘asset’ during the filming of it, and referred them to the FBI. 

Hell, my conspiracy wheels are spinning over this. They wouldn’t be, if the government wasn’t lying and evading so damn much.

Don’t underestimate just how evil BR is. They have much to do with our hyperinflation.

[Lysergic]

It's always the old ass foto they show the drivers license one. 

Dude was going full blown tranny

[KKLoco]

It's always the old ass foto they show the drivers license one. 

Dude was going full blown tranny

If you’re referring to this one:



I do not believe that’s him.

[VulcanWerks]

I don’t know about the picture.

Could be him. Could not be him.

But, we don’t have much context about the image. Lots of supposition.

If it is him, the image does introduce a who additional set of variables.

[KKLoco]

I don’t know about the picture.

Could be him. Could not be him.

But, we don’t have much context about the image. Lots of supposition.

If it is him, the image does introduce a who additional set of variables.

Very similar indeed.

The main reason I don’t believe it’s him is due to the hair. From all the pics I’ve seen, it appears that he just started growing his hair out. With the day of the shooting being the longest it had been. The trannies is a good 6 inches longer. He face doesn’t look the same either. Similar underbite, though.

Now look at this one. The two on the right are the same person. They are not the shooter though. 

[Maxmars]

The point of the image is to create doubt.

Just like at least half of all the 'details' foisted on the public.

It helps to narrow and channel the discussion... increasing the likelihood of 'anticipated' opportunities to counter attack and delegitimize inquiry.

God forbid anyone say anything that could be considered 'prejudiced.'  Bam! Now all questioners of the events can be colored as 'biased.'  And all those entertaining them can be said to be products of 'prejudiced thinking.' 

It's the 'bait' part of an old political trick (those are always the best.)

Note the imagery, don't embrace it... hesitate when you don't 'know'.

[VulcanWerks]

Fair points Max.

There’s a lot we don’t know.

I think of cases like the Trump Shooting in a way that defines what we know, contextualizes what we know, scale everything and follow what you assess to be the highest probabilities from there.

That’s what led me to my stance that BR wasn’t involved, if they were it was a few BR insiders that used BR as a way “in” or its dumb luck.

But, to the observation that was quickly made once the public learned of this commercial: what are the odds that out of all the schools and students in the country it was the one from a BR commercial that shot at Trump. :)