September 16, 2026 • 40 mins
In mere hours after the assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10th, 2025, conspiracy theories metastasized across the internet net. Within 33 hours, authorities claimed they had captured the assassin, and began to map out a timeline of the murder. However, a lot of people weren't buying the official explanation. Add to this, multiple people who were not involved faced serious reprecussions for airing their opinions about the murder, or about Kirk himself, in the public sphere. Despite these crackdowns, the number of folks who don't believe the official story is only growing. In the second chapter of this two-part series, Ben, Matt, and Noel explore the questions surrounding Kirk's assassination, and whether there is a conspiracy afoot. If so... why?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies, history is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Hello and welcome back to the show. My name is Matt.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
My name is Noel.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
They call me Ben. We're joined, as always, with our
super producer, Dylan the Tennessee Pal Fagan. Most importantly, you
are you.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
You are here.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
That makes this the stuff they don't want you to know.
And a word of warning at the beginning of this episode.
This is chapter two of a two-part series on the
assassination of Charlie Kirk. Please, please, please, folks, if you
haven't checked out our first episode, pause now, get thee
to thy podcast platform of choice and check out part
(01:02):
one before we dive into chapter two.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
And I don't know about you guys.
Speaker 5 (01:10):
We're recording.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
This is a little behind the scenes. We're recording this
after finishing chapter two and going back and recording this.
And guys, I keep looking at my microphone funny. Do
you guys feel that?
Speaker 3 (01:21):
I own multiple Rode products in the studio. Me too.
So I'm really hoping that they don't explode.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Well, it's this microphone that you're looking at, if you're
watching this on Netflix, was just sent to me. So
I've got that whole.
Speaker 5 (01:35):
You know.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Oh, God. Do I need to take this thing apart?
It didn't occur to me until I was doing a
lot of traveling and I kind of got the hang
of what you need to take out. You know, they
tell you to take out anything bigger than a laptop.
A microphone on a scanner at the airport looks a
hell of a lot like a bomb. I get stopped
every time.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
You guys know I got jammed up in Japan again,
and I was thinking the exact same thing.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
It's a metal case full of little wires connecting things together,
and it is the perfect thing to install something like
that in because it already looks like that.
Speaker 4 (02:07):
And it ties into all my other components I have
to bring with my.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Road kit, right? Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Generates a lot of shrapnel, potentially.
Speaker 4 (02:15):
There's a lot of stuff to think about, folks. So
after you've checked out chapter one, join us for chapter two.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Ben, I'm anxious to hear your thoughts on this one.
The college campus, Utah Valley University, where this took place,
the very next day, if I'm not mistaken, decided to
start a little construction project that involved paving over the
area where the murder took place.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Do you guys know how that's related to the situation?
Speaker 3 (02:50):
I mean, it doesn't seem very, it seems kind of sus,
but you tell me.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Yeah. Well, it's crazy sus, right? I mean, who needs
forensics or anything like that to be gathered after an
assassination of such high profile? There were allegedly, you know,
if it was an explosive device in that Rode Wireless
Pro lavalier that was on his chest with a shaped charge, right,
that potentially shot him, there would be shrapnel inside. from
(03:16):
all the plastic and metal that was inside that device.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
That ballistics experts could have, you know, pieced together and
made a case for that.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Well, hey, and look, I'm saying, I'm just going to
repeat what Sammy Obeid said, because the way he says
it is so convincing, and it makes so much sense,
especially when you think about the cementing of the thing,
that if there was an explosion like that, and it
didn't go off in the way it was planned, there
would be some kind of Schratmuller stuff lodged into the
cement just below because it was sitting on top of
(03:45):
Charlie Kirk's chest. An explosion that occurs here would have
gone everywhere. And, you know, it just makes too much
sense to me, and I wish it didn't. But there's
no way to prove any of that, so you can't
just go out and say that's what happened. Just going back,
it's weird that that website went down. Thank goodness there
is another website that I found that has some corroborating
(04:06):
and some repeated things. WhoAssassinatedCharlieKirk.com You can find some of
the same videos of the actual event, of the moments
in slow motion where you can analyze it yourself and
think about it yourself. I would just say this microphone
thing is pretty dang compelling to me just as an
(04:27):
outside viewer.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
I agree. Ben, any thoughts on the paving over? Do
you know in your research how far along in the
investigation they got? I heard that they only got footprints
and Palm print from the rooftop, but there was blood
evidence remaining on the lawn when it was paved over. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
At the very least, this is a massive case of negligence.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
At the very least.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
I mean, this is hard to explain away as incompetence.
Because even if they had a construction plan in place, right,
for property, like a year or so before beforehand, before
this occurred, before Charlie Kirk even thought of going to
this campus to debate, wouldn't the authorities ask them to
(05:16):
hold off on construction?
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Right.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
And then we know, we know that.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
It would be obstruction to do that.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Right.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
But the, what I'm saying guys that like that point
is now it enables people who are talking about this
official narrative to say with validity that that there was
no explosive residue, no forensic finding of a device or
blast anywhere in the case file. Right. And that's coming
from multiple sources, but why is it not there now?
(05:46):
We can never say it actually wasn't there because the
crime scene didn't just get contaminated. It got destroyed.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
It's so insane that that happened. That should never have
happened in a million years, unless there was something to hide.
And that is, that's just my opinion. But good God,
you don't do that. Have we heard about Charlie Kirk's necklace?
Speaker 3 (06:10):
No, I haven't.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Charlie Kirk was wearing a necklace when it happened. And
the necklace was a highly sought thing by folks. Again,
these are videos that you can find if they still
exist online as you hear this.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
You mean as in what happens to the necklace?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
You can hear people scrambling online. You know, get that
off him, like talking about the necklace, get all these
other things.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Oh, all the vultures that were doing TikToks, you mean?
Like on the scene trying to get bloody clothes and stuff?
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Well, there's people who are trying to help. There's people
who are acting as vultures. There's everything happening all at
once there at one time. And there's video of various
angles of people doing things. And there's all kinds of
allegations about stuff. There's one big allegation out there that
the necklace was taken because of the residue you're talking about, Ben. Potentially,
if there was an explosive device on his chest and
(06:58):
he's wearing that necklace, perhaps the necklace itself would be
metal that has explosive residue on it that could be tested, right?
So it was allegedly taken away. But again, these are
just allegations. I can't find anywhere about what actually happened
to that thing, where it went, why it got taken off.
Was it just taken off from a first responder standpoint?
(07:19):
The man has a wound. You'd get stuff off of him.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
We're asking Kennedy questions here, guys.
Speaker 5 (07:24):
I know.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Well, I mean, But I'm telling you, if you go
to that whoassassinatedcharliekirk.com website, it's like everything collected there. And
you can click on everything, and there's stuff backed up.
Then they cite it by individual people on social media
who have brought things to the website's attention. And it
is just such a freaking rabbit hole with zero answers.
Speaker 4 (07:49):
And it's one thing that really stood out to me
about this theory in particular, gents, is that the original
reporting comes from an anonymous source who claims to be
an Iranian hacker. And there is a, there is a
clip you can find with this person. And it's exactly
what you think about with the spoopy dupe stuff. He's
(08:11):
in a dark room. His face is pixelated. We assume
this is male, a male character. And this insider says, quote,
Charlie Kirk was never shot with a bullet. He was
accidentally decapitated by a piece of shrapnel from a miniature
explosive planted inside his microphone. And according to the source,
(08:32):
the device malfunctioned. It was supposed to blow out his
chest cavity. And instead of detonating downward to his chest,
it ripped upward and struck his neck. And now, you know,
the next question would be, how can we get more
information from this guy?
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
But we can't find him.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
So I want to jump to a YouTube video from
Sammy Obeid that came out in October, I think it
was October 2025, as part of his whole big thing
he was doing on Charlie Kirk. And I'm going to
read you just the notes I wrote down from this short.
It's only like three minutes long. And Ben, it's exactly
what you're talking about, that person that he is citing,
and it has just all these details. He talks about
(09:11):
this video from an Iranian general speaking in English. He
says that while Iran was hacking Kash Patel and the FBI...
they uncovered this government plot to murder Charlie Kirk. And
they said, yes, he would be killed by an explosive
device that was planted in his microphone that was clipped
to his shirt. That's that road.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
A pen microphone.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Yes, exactly. And that's a part of the road whole
system that would be attached to him. He says the
device was supposed to explode downward into his chest. Just
like you said, look like a clean shot. The device misfired.
Shrapnel came out of his neck. Shrapnel went into the concrete.
And the entire area is repaved the next morning. This
is the Iranian general speaking, but Samuel Bade repeating it
(09:51):
in his stand-up. And then he says that YouTube took
down his special that he made about Charlie Kirk, which
was made literally, guys, like, really, really soon after the assassination.
And at the end, he supposes he at least should
have waited for the cement to dry before doing his standup,
which again, like is a, is a calling shot at
that thing that we've just been talking about how insane
(10:13):
it was that that occurred.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Well, I mean, we're going to get there, but this
is part and parcel of the retaliation, the weaponized retaliation
against anybody asking questions or even potentially saying anything negative
about Kirk whatsoever following his tragic passing.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
We should also mention, we're talking about this a little
bit off air, that same insider says they have, they claim,
that the explosive itself was purchased from a company out
in Tennessee in May of 2025. And interestingly enough, one,
about a month after the Kirk assassination, that plant exploded
(10:59):
and 16 people died.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
This is the one we talked about on strange news,
the accurate energetic systems in McEwen, Tennessee. And it is,
there has been, you mean.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
Where they make the microphone?
Speaker 4 (11:15):
They make explosives, like bulk explosives, shape charges, that kind
of stuff.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Yeah, theoretically, the shape charge would have gone into the
mic that occurred.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Wouldn't it have been wild if, like, Sweetwater exploded, you know? Like,
so they had to cover their tracks.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
But seriously, guys. Sweetwater sells microphones. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
October 10th, 2025, exactly one month, as Ben was saying,
after the death of Charlie Kirk, an entire building, building 602,
just goes up. It disappears because of the explosion at
that building. And this, you know, potentially fake person impersonating
an Iranian general says this thing, and then the building explodes.
(11:58):
Is that type of coincidence possible? Or is that just
connections being done after the fact, which is probably more likely?
Speaker 3 (12:05):
It's damage control, man.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
Well, what about Candace Owens, a longtime Kirk associate, claiming
that she had access to FBI photographs showing small black
shards scattered through the vehicle that transported Kirk after the assassination.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
You can find those, those images of that, by the way. Um, God,
it was, it was on the who killed Charlie or
who killed ck.com website. I think they're on who assassinated
Charlie Kirk as well. You can see that you can
also see alleged videos in slow motion of the moment
he gets shot where you can, it looks like maybe
plastic black shards are, falling away from Charlie Kirk's shirt
(12:45):
or out of his shirt. Again, like gruesome, weird stuff,
but it is there and you can find it.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
Well, and I don't think any of us are Candace
Owen fans either.
Speaker 5 (12:55):
No.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
But she also had a lot to say regarding conspiracies
surrounding Erica Kirk's very speedy ascension in Turning Point USA
and potentially being in some way involved in a plot
to assassinate her own husband. And I'm not giving that
air or credence. I'm just saying it's something that she
(13:16):
has said. And it's also something that, uh, that Erica
Kirk herself commented on in that very bizarre video where
she breathes heavily while wearing a kind of a Janet
Jackson rhythm nation outfit. Um, and, and seems to be,
she's not the best public speaker reading from a script
about all of the people that are naysaying against her,
but that stuff.
Speaker 4 (13:37):
And again, you know, we, again, this is, we're seeing
these accusations. We're not seeing a lot of proof, but
we are seeing people who seem a hundred percent convinced
in their estimation, right? In their particular theory, another group
that caught strays, terrible choice of words there, Israel, because
(13:57):
people started to tie Kirk's murder to his earlier statements
regarding Jeffrey Epstein. He is, and again, you can tell,
we don't agree with a lot of stuff this guy said,
But like our show, Kirk was one of the more
prominent figures going on record to say that the human trafficker,
(14:17):
Jeffrey Epstein, could have been in some way involved with
intelligence agencies. Check out our episodes on that, because I
think we ended up building some interesting connections. And one
of those agencies that Kirk was talking about was Mossad,
one of Israel's intelligence agencies. And these conspiracy theories, just
by existing out there in the cloud, They gave rise
(14:40):
to serious concerns about a new wave of hate crimes
and anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish American people.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
And if folks were trying to keep Charlie in line
or use him as a kind of a bulwark, I guess,
for the Trump administration, these would be the kinds of
things that would be not particularly serving their agenda, right?
Speaker 4 (15:00):
Well, he also, yeah, because for people who believe in
this particular theory, Their smoking gun is a series of
private messages on a group chat in WhatsApp, wherein Kirk
claimed that a breakdown between him and a Jewish donor
would force him to leave the pro-Israel cause. The donor
(15:22):
was refusing to send along like $ 2 million or something
because one of Kirk's associates was saying some really messed
up stuff about the old school, in the line of
the old school anti-Semitic conspiracies. And Kirk definitely says some
(15:44):
pretty gross stuff regarding stereotypes, but there's no evidence that
this kind of trash talking and racism would have been
enough to trigger a state-run assassination attempt on U.S.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Soil.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
It's also weird because the government of Israel, this got
so much traction. that the government of Israel responded and
prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is not a good Ben.
He went on video multiple times. You guys releasing these
statements saying, yeah, look, we are not involved with this murder.
(16:19):
We are not, you know, we're thinking of the families.
We definitely didn't do this. It's very strange that we
would even have to make this video. The implication being like, Hey,
Remember that time we killed all those Iranian scientists and
we totally said we did it?
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Like, why would we lie about this? Hey, guys, why
don't we take a quick break, hear a word from
our sponsor, and then we'll come back with more on
the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And we're back.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Here's the thing that always gets me with the Charlie
Kirk is real thing. To my understanding, he has always
been a pretty staunch supporter. of any and all things Israel.
There is a, again, because of a lot of things,
because of the conservative Christian thing, because of, you know,
(17:10):
and background stuff, because of money, all that. You can
see people like Tucker Carlson, who, you know, he's been
a really interesting person to watch as his views and
talking points have evolved. You can see him early on
after the death of Kirk going forward and saying, hey,
I really do think this had something to do with
(17:31):
Israel because Charlie, you know, had the ear of the
president and a lot of the most important people in government.
As we said, his Rolodex was very deep. He was
spending a lot of time in Washington, you know, in
places of power, talking to people in power. And there
was a giant push by Benjamin Netanyahu to convince the
president and the administration to attack Iran. That was a
(17:52):
thing that had been ongoing, right? That whole hey, they're
about to get a nuke again. Remember, look, it's been
40 years since they've been about to get a nuke,
but they're about to get a nuke, so you need
to attack. And Charlie Kirk allegedly, according to Tucker Carlson
and a bunch of other people, was one of the
people attempting to speak reason to this administration and say, hey,
do not let them convince you to attack Iran. It
(18:13):
will not go well. It's not going to be good.
Do not attack Iran and do not go along with
them if they attack Iran. Which, you know, who knows
if that has anything to do with anything But Tucker
Carlson certainly thinks it had something to do with it.
And whether or not you believe him, that's up to you.
But he's not the only one stating that. There are
a lot of people who have come forward. We talked
(18:35):
about it on Strange News once. People coming forward saying
Charlie Kirk was extremely against the actions Israel was taking
when it came to what they wanted to do to Iran.
Something to think about.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
And while we're thinking about that, let's go back to
that point we were teasing earlier there, Noel. the retaliation
for reporting. So again, the internet is a contradictory, crazy, beautiful,
and disappointing place.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
A hive of scum and villainy.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
Yeah, and so a lot of folks online, some with
qualifications in certain fields, some just your regular person who
usually posts about Panera or whatever, they were going in
public forums and they would put out a take that,
you know, seemed to justify the murder or seemed to
(19:27):
dance on Kirk's grave or encouraging more politically motivated violence.
And then these folks got hit by this huge wave
of retaliation with direct support from the U.S.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
Government.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
They were on an anti bleep talking crusade. The president,
Donald Trump, released, I know we all saw it this
past barnstorming statement where he condemns the political left categorically
and he vows to target any groups he sees as left-wing.
He says we're going to monitor political speech much more aggressively.
(20:03):
He said, I'm going to designate Antifa and anyone who
rolls with them as domestic terrorists. He didn't say rolls
with him.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Donald Trump, who pretty regularly dances on the graves of
liberals who died tragically, one that comes to mind that
breaks my heart and is just the biggest example of
the level of hypocrisy that we're talking about here is
Rob Reiner. That was a man that we all were
huge fans of as a creator and as a person.
(20:33):
We interviewed him about, ironically, about his JFK story. fascination
which is an amazing show incredible show and uh he
was an outspoken trump uh you know rejecter trump critiquer
um and when he passed away uh under the most
horrific of circumstances uh taken by by his own child
(20:55):
um trump just callously said he had trump derangement syndrome
said more or less that he had it coming that
he deserved it i just want to I'm sorry, I'm
not trying to be divisive or soapboxy here, but good Lord,
double standard much? You can see.
Speaker 4 (21:12):
How it feels hypocritical to people, especially Trump also would
later state that any media network he felt was criticizing
Charlie Kirk too harshly could lose their license to broadcast.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
And not how it works.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
The day after the murder, the actual Department of State,
the United States Department of State, put out an announcement
saying that if you are a foreigner and you're praising, rationalizing,
or making light of the death of Charlie Kirk, you
will be penalized. That means cough, cough, deportation, to put
a fine point on it.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
Think how convenient his passing was for them to be
able to just hijack these types of laws. Exactly. I mean, obviously,
I'm stating the obvious here, but it's just what a
great excuse to Deprive people of their liberties. Deprive people
of freedom of speech. You know, further demonize immigrants. Look
(22:11):
for something. Have a line in the sand around which,
you know, you can take action against undesirables. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
Secretary of Defense also was leveraging this to give some
people in the military the boot. He said any service
members who made unseemly comments about Kirk would be punished.
There were people who were fired or dismissed. And to
your point, Noel, I am certain that some of those
people were already on a list and they were just
(22:40):
waiting for a reason to get rid of them.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
You're not allowed to say these things, even if it's nasty.
I mean, I'm just saying, evidenced by the president's own
social media accounts. It's just mind-boggling, the double standard of it.
George Orwell would be rolling in his grave.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
J.D.
Speaker 4 (22:57):
Vance was trying to create... what critics would call another
red scare by going on the Charlie Kirk show after
the assassination and telling all the listeners of that show
to report anybody that they heard being critical of Kirk.
Not like report them to the police.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
People were fired. Report them to.
Speaker 4 (23:15):
Their bosses and get them fired.
Speaker 5 (23:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
All in all, Reuters estimated 600 something people at least
were punished or retaliated against in 2025. So just in
like a few weeks, Gosh, it was November of 2025,
so just a few months. I don't know, man.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
It stinks.
Speaker 4 (23:36):
It's ghoulish and macabre to celebrate a lot of deaths.
At least that's what the critics say, although I'm glad
that Kissinger is dead.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
And you're allowed to say that, Ben. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
But the thing is, what we're saying here is a
ton of critics pointed out, hey, during his lifetime... Charlie
Kirk was an avowed champion of free speech. The guy
was actually known in these campus debates. He was actually
known for being respectful and civil when he was talking
(24:10):
to people, even when he was saying stuff that was
in wild disagreement with whatever they believed in. He would
often go on social media and he would say kind
of what you just said there. No, like even ugly,
gross or evil declarations are protected under the First Amendment.
And so his supporters at that time when he said it,
they seemed 10 toes down, right? They totally vibed with
(24:34):
what he was saying. But now a lot of people
bring up the fact that it appears we have different
interpretations of free speech. It's free speech so long as
we agree with what you're saying.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
Well, guys, I don't know about y'all. I'm going to
come out and say I'm not sure if our own
government assassinated Charlie Kirk. so that they could turn him
into a martyr and weaponize his followers and supporters and
use it in their own nefarious ways. I'm not sure
if they did. What I do know is it's possible,
(25:08):
and at the very least, they despicably used a tragedy
in order to serve their own gnarly ends.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
Yeah, undeniably opportunistic, at the very least, you know.
Speaker 3 (25:22):
And entirely plausible that they did it. Because there's so
many interesting, fascinating crossovers like the whole, oh, he's really
starting to get inconvenient with his anti-Israel talk. Oh, he's
starting to be a little too big for his britches.
We need to keep control of TPUSA, but install a
puppet that we can control because Charlie was starting to
(25:44):
become not controllable. And it seemed like his opinions were
starting to go the way of some of these big
pundits that we see now and no longer be in
lockstep with Trump.
Speaker 4 (25:55):
And maybe who is getting too powerful, too independent in action,
as well as just in, you know, playground theory.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Whereas Erica Kirk and her cozy, weird relationship with, you know, J.D.
Vance and all of those folks seems like a much
more convenient installation. Compliant.
Speaker 4 (26:13):
I mean, this is the thing, guys, that we keep
going back to. We're so grateful to you for tuning in, folks.
As we said, this is a two-parter, and we hope
you find it worth the time as much as we do.
the aftermath of the Kirk assassination, whatever theory we fall on,
it has forced the United States to once again re-examine
where it stands on foundational principles of liberty. That's the
(26:37):
albatross around this country's neck. It's a bag of badgers
that could break your nation's back because we have all
these genuinely bleeping, amazing ideas on paper, but when it
comes time to practice those concepts in the real world,
we're continually divided. There are no Real easy answers. And
we're huge proponents of free speech, even when we hate
(27:02):
having to be those people.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
I don't know where this leads us.
Speaker 4 (27:08):
I genuinely, guys, I genuinely feel that free speech is
deeply endangered by these moves to de-anonymize the internet, by
this further government overreach into what people say. in their
non-professional lives. It's not looking good. We'll pause here for
(27:30):
a word from our sponsors, and hopefully we'll return.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
And we're back.
Speaker 2 (27:40):
Guys, there's somebody we haven't talked about yet. Somebody named
George Zinn. Just talking about people being able to say
whatever they want. The moment after Charlie Kirk was shot,
there was an older gentleman that stood up and yelled, Hey,
I shot him. It was me.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
I shot him.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Do you remember hearing about that?
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
This is a really weird one, guys. There's a guy
named George Zinn. Z-I-N-N. I don't even know how to
begin with this. This is a man that was on
video giving testimony for something. I can't remember what it
was for, but it was... allegedly September 11 witnesses and
(28:23):
you could find him in a video of him from
a long time ago giving just kind of testimony this
is what I remember on September 11 what happened and
all this other stuff then there was a weird little
story that came out right after the Boston Marathon bombing
that occurred you guys and it was a story about
a man who made a bomb threat at a Salt
(28:44):
Lake City Marathon and it was the same guy George
Zinn It was a huge story about what he did.
And he was described as a gadfly. I wasn't familiar
with that term, you guys. I know horsefly.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
I know botfly.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
I didn't know gadfly.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
Gadfly is someone that, like, is a rabble rouser, a
shit stirrer. Mm-hmm.
Speaker 5 (29:07):
Right?
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Yeah. Now, how is it that this man who's been
a part of these two big things, again, he wasn't
at the Boston bombing marathon, and he allegedly wasn't even
at the September 11 attacks, or he wasn't a part
of it, or, you know, he wasn't. Involved in that,
he just somehow found his way to this video. But
he is the guy who's, you know, standing very close
to Charlie Kirk in that moment and stands up and says, hey,
(29:28):
it was me. I shot him. You know, come get me.
I'm the one who shot him. He ends up getting arrested.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
Yeah, he said, I won't tell you where the gun is.
And he told them to shoot him, right?
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Well, he says, I shot him. Now shoot me. That's
a quote, allegedly, coming from The Guardian. He told officers
he was, quote, glad he had shot the individual so
the real suspect could get away. I don't know what
that means. But, you know, he was telling officers in
the moment, That he was attempting to distract everybody near
the shooting so that the actual shooter could escape. Isn't
(30:03):
that freaking weird? Then they search his cell phone and
they find a bunch of child sexual abuse material on
it of children between 5 and 12. So now he goes,
I think, 15 years in prison, according to The Guardian,
January 30th, 2026.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
And he pled guilty to.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
He did. Possession of CSAM.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
But just what a weird set of circumstances that just
doesn't make sense to me. It's these kind of weird
little anomalies that happen and you just go, how in
the effing world does that occur? He just happens to
be there. He happens to do this thing. He happens
to be a part of these other big news stories.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
It doesn't prove anything, right? It's just freaking weird.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
Yeah, but it doesn't.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
The thing is, folks, what we're saying is it doesn't
disprove stuff either.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
And that's the.
Speaker 4 (30:54):
Confounding part of this exploration. We've done our best to
be objective and to be honest about what we do
and don't agree about with Kirk. We know that these
deaths are tragedies, but I keep returning to, and Noel,
I wasn't blowing smoke and rainbows. I really liked your
point on strange news. I'm sorry I missed it. This
(31:16):
idea of notable people. I looked up some statistics as
we were going in to record. And according to the
CDC here in Atlanta, around 55 people are murdered in
this country every single day. Not accidents, not heart attacks,
not peaceful passage of an elderly person in the night.
(31:37):
These are straight up homicides. And you don't hear about
the majority of these folks. The systems grind on, right?
Hopefully the law does their best to bring justice. the
families grieve, they get ignored because there's another shocking headline
or BS celebrity ephemera on the horizon. I just feel
(31:58):
like there is a depth of water here that we've
got to get into.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
Guys, before we head towards wrapping up here, I wondered
if we wanted to take a look at this this
Lego video that Iran produced that was cited.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
One of many, by the way, they've been expert trolls
in multiple aspects of this, uh, American clown show. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Well, I agreed. There's only one place I can, I
can find it right now. There are a couple of
places online that have attempted to mirror it and they've
all been taken down. This one I found on who
assassinated charliekirk.com. It's like Lego music video about Charlie Kirk's road. Mike,
We're going to watch it in full on our end,
(32:43):
but we can't show you the whole thing. So you
can look at it if you want. We'll maybe play
a clip or something just to show you what it
looks like. But we just want to have a response
to it, to talk about it. So we're going to
do that now.
Speaker 5 (32:56):
Check mic check he said no war now read the
rest before the bombs before the flex who needed charlie
off the set mic check mic check hot mic black
shards white text rifle story bullet test too many questions
left unchecked he told the right don't take that ride
i ran and i racked don't sell that lie raging
change transpire the flood 90 million lives Okay, guys. Me too.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
I think we got it.
Speaker 5 (33:18):
First of all, AI is so terrifying because that's so good.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
That's so clever. That's all AI.
Speaker 4 (33:22):
The vocal, the whole construction of the song.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
That's unbelievable. And the video. No, but it spells it
all right out.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Well, again, it spells out a version.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
But it's all the bits that we've been talking about.
That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
I think the scary thing for me is that that
version of events seems... I don't know why. Maybe you
can help me understand this, Ben and Noel. Why does
that seem more real to me than a random person
decides they need to kill Charlie Kirk So they go
to all the trouble to engrave bullets and get on
(34:19):
a rooftop and throw their life away to kill this
person that they've never met. Why does it seem more
plausible that a country would do that?
Speaker 3 (34:28):
I mean, we know people do that, Matt. People do
throw their lives away in exchange for some perceived act
of revolution. whatever it might be, right? There's also mental
health issues at play. But boy, oh boy, is it
all very convenient. That's all I'm going to say. Ben,
(34:50):
what do you think, man? Is it a mental health crisis?
Is it an individual who really was capable of doing
all this in the exact way that was spelled out
by the right? I just don't, I don't see it.
Speaker 4 (35:01):
There's not enough information to That is where I'm going
to fall on it. That's just personally. I don't have
any insider info on that one. But it is troubling
that the information that should be available seems to continually disappear,
almost as if there's stuff they don't want you to know.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Why is it more plausible? Like, why does it feel
so real and right? Is it just because we're in
the stuff they don't want you to know bubble?
Speaker 3 (35:31):
I don't think so, dude. I don't think so.
Speaker 4 (35:33):
It doesn't feel more plausible to me. I would just
say it feels like we need more information and it's
anomalous that the information keeps ghosting.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
I will just say, Ben, I hear you and I
appreciate your perspective. And Matt, I probably fall somewhere in
between you and Ben on this. Because I think it
rings true in a very eerie way as well, as
do some of the JFK theories. I've never been one
to like fully go out for these types of things,
but I find myself gravitating towards where you are on this, Matt.
(36:04):
I truly do. And I have for a long time.
Since even, I mean, it just felt so wrong. And
I just feel like this administration in particular, but again,
any administration, I think ours is just, this one's just
bad at it. I just think the other administrations that
are doing dirt like this, just do it a little
(36:26):
bit sneakier and creepier, and we don't catch it like this.
This just seems like a real ham-fisted way of accomplishing
this that is easily picked apart.
Speaker 4 (36:38):
Yeah, my counterfactual for you guys just thinking this through is,
if that were true, why do it this way? Why
not do something more simple? Maybe the answer is it
needed the publicity. We don't know because we were not
involved in an assassination. But I'd love to hear what
our fellow conspiracy realists think as well.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
Well, the thought was to take him out because so
that was September in 2025. And my understanding is the
thought is you got to take him out because.
Speaker 3 (37:05):
But also it needs to happen on TV. It needs
to be a big horror show like that in the
same way that the Trump assassination attempt is what turned
the election. You know, I just think that was the,
that that's the playbook where it's like, no, it needs
to be visible. I see what you're saying, Ben, and
there certainly are tidier ways of going about it, but
I would argue that they needed the spectacle.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
It just feels, it feels very complicated is where, is
where I'm coming from with it. So that's why I'm
on not all information.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
That makes sense. But if you want to martyr the
guy and then take over the organization that he represented,
and then, you know, you can basically say at that point,
you can, amplify whatever one of his views or old
views were and say whatever you want. You know, this
is what the guy believed.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
And install a puppet. And install a puppet.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
You know, again, that's just all theoretical in what it
could be. It goes back to, it happened September 10th, 2025.
It is February 2026 when Israel starts attacking Iran. Which,
you know, if you're thinking about mobilizing units and plans
and all the things you need to do prior to
(38:17):
making a large-scale attack on another country, that means Israel
is planning this stuff before Charlie Kirk dies.
Speaker 3 (38:26):
And you can have a lot of revisionist history and
a lot of revisionist lore and have people like Erica
Kirk saying– Well, that's not really what Charlie wanted. That's
not where he was headed. He actually, in private conversations,
we talked about it this way. Guys, we're not going
to solve this here. But I do think this is
all of our perspectives are fascinating and valid. And we
(38:47):
do truly want to know what y'all think.
Speaker 4 (38:51):
And we're going to put our money where our mouths
are or were. I don't know if that translates to Netflix.
But again, folks, thank you so much for tuning into
this two-part series. Let us know your thoughts. There are
multiple ways to hit us up.
Speaker 3 (39:04):
Sure are. You can find us on the internet at
The Handel's Conspiracy Stuff and Conspiracy Stuff Show, respectively.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
Our phone number is 1-833-STD-WYTK. It's a voicemail system. Give
it a call if you want to say something to
us with your mouth. Hey, do you want to email us?
Speaker 4 (39:19):
We are The entities that read each piece of correspondence
we receive be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes the void
writes back. And I bet we'll get some real heaters
about this one. So always hit us up. with suggestions
for an episode we could do in the future, something
you'd like to have on listener mail, or just some
sources if you want direct links to things we mentioned
(39:39):
in the past. We'll see you out here in the dark.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Conspiracy Stuff They Don't Want You To Know is a
(40:04):
production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
favorite shows.
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies, history is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Hello and welcome back to the show. My name is Matt.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
My name is Noel.
Speaker 4 (00:31):
They call me Ben. We're joined, as always, with our
super producer, Dylan the Tennessee Pal Fagan. Most importantly, you
are you.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
You are here.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
That makes this the stuff they don't want you to know.
And a word of warning at the beginning of this episode.
This is chapter two of a two-part series on the
assassination of Charlie Kirk. Please, please, please, folks, if you
haven't checked out our first episode, pause now, get thee
to thy podcast platform of choice and check out part
(01:02):
one before we dive into chapter two.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
And I don't know about you guys.
Speaker 5 (01:10):
We're recording.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
This is a little behind the scenes. We're recording this
after finishing chapter two and going back and recording this.
And guys, I keep looking at my microphone funny. Do
you guys feel that?
Speaker 3 (01:21):
I own multiple Rode products in the studio. Me too.
So I'm really hoping that they don't explode.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Well, it's this microphone that you're looking at, if you're
watching this on Netflix, was just sent to me. So
I've got that whole.
Speaker 5 (01:35):
You know.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Oh, God. Do I need to take this thing apart?
It didn't occur to me until I was doing a
lot of traveling and I kind of got the hang
of what you need to take out. You know, they
tell you to take out anything bigger than a laptop.
A microphone on a scanner at the airport looks a
hell of a lot like a bomb. I get stopped
every time.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
You guys know I got jammed up in Japan again,
and I was thinking the exact same thing.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
It's a metal case full of little wires connecting things together,
and it is the perfect thing to install something like
that in because it already looks like that.
Speaker 4 (02:07):
And it ties into all my other components I have
to bring with my.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Road kit, right? Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Generates a lot of shrapnel, potentially.
Speaker 4 (02:15):
There's a lot of stuff to think about, folks. So
after you've checked out chapter one, join us for chapter two.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
Ben, I'm anxious to hear your thoughts on this one.
The college campus, Utah Valley University, where this took place,
the very next day, if I'm not mistaken, decided to
start a little construction project that involved paving over the
area where the murder took place.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Do you guys know how that's related to the situation?
Speaker 3 (02:50):
I mean, it doesn't seem very, it seems kind of sus,
but you tell me.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Yeah. Well, it's crazy sus, right? I mean, who needs
forensics or anything like that to be gathered after an
assassination of such high profile? There were allegedly, you know,
if it was an explosive device in that Rode Wireless
Pro lavalier that was on his chest with a shaped charge, right,
that potentially shot him, there would be shrapnel inside. from
(03:16):
all the plastic and metal that was inside that device.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
That ballistics experts could have, you know, pieced together and
made a case for that.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Well, hey, and look, I'm saying, I'm just going to
repeat what Sammy Obeid said, because the way he says
it is so convincing, and it makes so much sense,
especially when you think about the cementing of the thing,
that if there was an explosion like that, and it
didn't go off in the way it was planned, there
would be some kind of Schratmuller stuff lodged into the
cement just below because it was sitting on top of
(03:45):
Charlie Kirk's chest. An explosion that occurs here would have
gone everywhere. And, you know, it just makes too much
sense to me, and I wish it didn't. But there's
no way to prove any of that, so you can't
just go out and say that's what happened. Just going back,
it's weird that that website went down. Thank goodness there
is another website that I found that has some corroborating
(04:06):
and some repeated things. WhoAssassinatedCharlieKirk.com You can find some of
the same videos of the actual event, of the moments
in slow motion where you can analyze it yourself and
think about it yourself. I would just say this microphone
thing is pretty dang compelling to me just as an
(04:27):
outside viewer.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
I agree. Ben, any thoughts on the paving over? Do
you know in your research how far along in the
investigation they got? I heard that they only got footprints
and Palm print from the rooftop, but there was blood
evidence remaining on the lawn when it was paved over. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
At the very least, this is a massive case of negligence.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
At the very least.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
I mean, this is hard to explain away as incompetence.
Because even if they had a construction plan in place, right,
for property, like a year or so before beforehand, before
this occurred, before Charlie Kirk even thought of going to
this campus to debate, wouldn't the authorities ask them to
(05:16):
hold off on construction?
Speaker 1 (05:19):
Right.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
And then we know, we know that.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
It would be obstruction to do that.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Right.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
But the, what I'm saying guys that like that point
is now it enables people who are talking about this
official narrative to say with validity that that there was
no explosive residue, no forensic finding of a device or
blast anywhere in the case file. Right. And that's coming
from multiple sources, but why is it not there now?
(05:46):
We can never say it actually wasn't there because the
crime scene didn't just get contaminated. It got destroyed.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
It's so insane that that happened. That should never have
happened in a million years, unless there was something to hide.
And that is, that's just my opinion. But good God,
you don't do that. Have we heard about Charlie Kirk's necklace?
Speaker 3 (06:10):
No, I haven't.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Charlie Kirk was wearing a necklace when it happened. And
the necklace was a highly sought thing by folks. Again,
these are videos that you can find if they still
exist online as you hear this.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
You mean as in what happens to the necklace?
Speaker 2 (06:27):
You can hear people scrambling online. You know, get that
off him, like talking about the necklace, get all these
other things.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
Oh, all the vultures that were doing TikToks, you mean?
Like on the scene trying to get bloody clothes and stuff?
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Well, there's people who are trying to help. There's people
who are acting as vultures. There's everything happening all at
once there at one time. And there's video of various
angles of people doing things. And there's all kinds of
allegations about stuff. There's one big allegation out there that
the necklace was taken because of the residue you're talking about, Ben. Potentially,
if there was an explosive device on his chest and
(06:58):
he's wearing that necklace, perhaps the necklace itself would be
metal that has explosive residue on it that could be tested, right?
So it was allegedly taken away. But again, these are
just allegations. I can't find anywhere about what actually happened
to that thing, where it went, why it got taken off.
Was it just taken off from a first responder standpoint?
(07:19):
The man has a wound. You'd get stuff off of him.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
We're asking Kennedy questions here, guys.
Speaker 5 (07:24):
I know.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Well, I mean, But I'm telling you, if you go
to that whoassassinatedcharliekirk.com website, it's like everything collected there. And
you can click on everything, and there's stuff backed up.
Then they cite it by individual people on social media
who have brought things to the website's attention. And it
is just such a freaking rabbit hole with zero answers.
Speaker 4 (07:49):
And it's one thing that really stood out to me
about this theory in particular, gents, is that the original
reporting comes from an anonymous source who claims to be
an Iranian hacker. And there is a, there is a
clip you can find with this person. And it's exactly
what you think about with the spoopy dupe stuff. He's
(08:11):
in a dark room. His face is pixelated. We assume
this is male, a male character. And this insider says, quote,
Charlie Kirk was never shot with a bullet. He was
accidentally decapitated by a piece of shrapnel from a miniature
explosive planted inside his microphone. And according to the source,
(08:32):
the device malfunctioned. It was supposed to blow out his
chest cavity. And instead of detonating downward to his chest,
it ripped upward and struck his neck. And now, you know,
the next question would be, how can we get more
information from this guy?
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
But we can't find him.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
So I want to jump to a YouTube video from
Sammy Obeid that came out in October, I think it
was October 2025, as part of his whole big thing
he was doing on Charlie Kirk. And I'm going to
read you just the notes I wrote down from this short.
It's only like three minutes long. And Ben, it's exactly
what you're talking about, that person that he is citing,
and it has just all these details. He talks about
(09:11):
this video from an Iranian general speaking in English. He
says that while Iran was hacking Kash Patel and the FBI...
they uncovered this government plot to murder Charlie Kirk. And
they said, yes, he would be killed by an explosive
device that was planted in his microphone that was clipped
to his shirt. That's that road.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
A pen microphone.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
Yes, exactly. And that's a part of the road whole
system that would be attached to him. He says the
device was supposed to explode downward into his chest. Just
like you said, look like a clean shot. The device misfired.
Shrapnel came out of his neck. Shrapnel went into the concrete.
And the entire area is repaved the next morning. This
is the Iranian general speaking, but Samuel Bade repeating it
(09:51):
in his stand-up. And then he says that YouTube took
down his special that he made about Charlie Kirk, which
was made literally, guys, like, really, really soon after the assassination.
And at the end, he supposes he at least should
have waited for the cement to dry before doing his standup,
which again, like is a, is a calling shot at
that thing that we've just been talking about how insane
(10:13):
it was that that occurred.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Well, I mean, we're going to get there, but this
is part and parcel of the retaliation, the weaponized retaliation
against anybody asking questions or even potentially saying anything negative
about Kirk whatsoever following his tragic passing.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
We should also mention, we're talking about this a little
bit off air, that same insider says they have, they claim,
that the explosive itself was purchased from a company out
in Tennessee in May of 2025. And interestingly enough, one,
about a month after the Kirk assassination, that plant exploded
(10:59):
and 16 people died.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
This is the one we talked about on strange news,
the accurate energetic systems in McEwen, Tennessee. And it is,
there has been, you mean.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
Where they make the microphone?
Speaker 4 (11:15):
They make explosives, like bulk explosives, shape charges, that kind
of stuff.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Yeah, theoretically, the shape charge would have gone into the
mic that occurred.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Wouldn't it have been wild if, like, Sweetwater exploded, you know? Like,
so they had to cover their tracks.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Oh, wow.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
But seriously, guys. Sweetwater sells microphones. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
October 10th, 2025, exactly one month, as Ben was saying,
after the death of Charlie Kirk, an entire building, building 602,
just goes up. It disappears because of the explosion at
that building. And this, you know, potentially fake person impersonating
an Iranian general says this thing, and then the building explodes.
(11:58):
Is that type of coincidence possible? Or is that just
connections being done after the fact, which is probably more likely?
Speaker 3 (12:05):
It's damage control, man.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
Well, what about Candace Owens, a longtime Kirk associate, claiming
that she had access to FBI photographs showing small black
shards scattered through the vehicle that transported Kirk after the assassination.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
You can find those, those images of that, by the way. Um, God,
it was, it was on the who killed Charlie or
who killed ck.com website. I think they're on who assassinated
Charlie Kirk as well. You can see that you can
also see alleged videos in slow motion of the moment
he gets shot where you can, it looks like maybe
plastic black shards are, falling away from Charlie Kirk's shirt
(12:45):
or out of his shirt. Again, like gruesome, weird stuff,
but it is there and you can find it.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
Well, and I don't think any of us are Candace
Owen fans either.
Speaker 5 (12:55):
No.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
But she also had a lot to say regarding conspiracies
surrounding Erica Kirk's very speedy ascension in Turning Point USA
and potentially being in some way involved in a plot
to assassinate her own husband. And I'm not giving that
air or credence. I'm just saying it's something that she
(13:16):
has said. And it's also something that, uh, that Erica
Kirk herself commented on in that very bizarre video where
she breathes heavily while wearing a kind of a Janet
Jackson rhythm nation outfit. Um, and, and seems to be,
she's not the best public speaker reading from a script
about all of the people that are naysaying against her,
but that stuff.
Speaker 4 (13:37):
And again, you know, we, again, this is, we're seeing
these accusations. We're not seeing a lot of proof, but
we are seeing people who seem a hundred percent convinced
in their estimation, right? In their particular theory, another group
that caught strays, terrible choice of words there, Israel, because
(13:57):
people started to tie Kirk's murder to his earlier statements
regarding Jeffrey Epstein. He is, and again, you can tell,
we don't agree with a lot of stuff this guy said,
But like our show, Kirk was one of the more
prominent figures going on record to say that the human trafficker,
(14:17):
Jeffrey Epstein, could have been in some way involved with
intelligence agencies. Check out our episodes on that, because I
think we ended up building some interesting connections. And one
of those agencies that Kirk was talking about was Mossad,
one of Israel's intelligence agencies. And these conspiracy theories, just
by existing out there in the cloud, They gave rise
(14:40):
to serious concerns about a new wave of hate crimes
and anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish American people.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
And if folks were trying to keep Charlie in line
or use him as a kind of a bulwark, I guess,
for the Trump administration, these would be the kinds of
things that would be not particularly serving their agenda, right?
Speaker 4 (15:00):
Well, he also, yeah, because for people who believe in
this particular theory, Their smoking gun is a series of
private messages on a group chat in WhatsApp, wherein Kirk
claimed that a breakdown between him and a Jewish donor
would force him to leave the pro-Israel cause. The donor
(15:22):
was refusing to send along like $ 2 million or something
because one of Kirk's associates was saying some really messed
up stuff about the old school, in the line of
the old school anti-Semitic conspiracies. And Kirk definitely says some
(15:44):
pretty gross stuff regarding stereotypes, but there's no evidence that
this kind of trash talking and racism would have been
enough to trigger a state-run assassination attempt on U.S.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Soil.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
It's also weird because the government of Israel, this got
so much traction. that the government of Israel responded and
prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is not a good Ben.
He went on video multiple times. You guys releasing these
statements saying, yeah, look, we are not involved with this murder.
(16:19):
We are not, you know, we're thinking of the families.
We definitely didn't do this. It's very strange that we
would even have to make this video. The implication being like, Hey,
Remember that time we killed all those Iranian scientists and
we totally said we did it?
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Like, why would we lie about this? Hey, guys, why
don't we take a quick break, hear a word from
our sponsor, and then we'll come back with more on
the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And we're back.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Here's the thing that always gets me with the Charlie
Kirk is real thing. To my understanding, he has always
been a pretty staunch supporter. of any and all things Israel.
There is a, again, because of a lot of things,
because of the conservative Christian thing, because of, you know,
(17:10):
and background stuff, because of money, all that. You can
see people like Tucker Carlson, who, you know, he's been
a really interesting person to watch as his views and
talking points have evolved. You can see him early on
after the death of Kirk going forward and saying, hey,
I really do think this had something to do with
(17:31):
Israel because Charlie, you know, had the ear of the
president and a lot of the most important people in government.
As we said, his Rolodex was very deep. He was
spending a lot of time in Washington, you know, in
places of power, talking to people in power. And there
was a giant push by Benjamin Netanyahu to convince the
president and the administration to attack Iran. That was a
(17:52):
thing that had been ongoing, right? That whole hey, they're
about to get a nuke again. Remember, look, it's been
40 years since they've been about to get a nuke,
but they're about to get a nuke, so you need
to attack. And Charlie Kirk allegedly, according to Tucker Carlson
and a bunch of other people, was one of the
people attempting to speak reason to this administration and say, hey,
do not let them convince you to attack Iran. It
(18:13):
will not go well. It's not going to be good.
Do not attack Iran and do not go along with
them if they attack Iran. Which, you know, who knows
if that has anything to do with anything But Tucker
Carlson certainly thinks it had something to do with it.
And whether or not you believe him, that's up to you.
But he's not the only one stating that. There are
a lot of people who have come forward. We talked
(18:35):
about it on Strange News once. People coming forward saying
Charlie Kirk was extremely against the actions Israel was taking
when it came to what they wanted to do to Iran.
Something to think about.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
And while we're thinking about that, let's go back to
that point we were teasing earlier there, Noel. the retaliation
for reporting. So again, the internet is a contradictory, crazy, beautiful,
and disappointing place.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
A hive of scum and villainy.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
Yeah, and so a lot of folks online, some with
qualifications in certain fields, some just your regular person who
usually posts about Panera or whatever, they were going in
public forums and they would put out a take that,
you know, seemed to justify the murder or seemed to
(19:27):
dance on Kirk's grave or encouraging more politically motivated violence.
And then these folks got hit by this huge wave
of retaliation with direct support from the U.S.
Speaker 3 (19:42):
Government.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
They were on an anti bleep talking crusade. The president,
Donald Trump, released, I know we all saw it this
past barnstorming statement where he condemns the political left categorically
and he vows to target any groups he sees as left-wing.
He says we're going to monitor political speech much more aggressively.
(20:03):
He said, I'm going to designate Antifa and anyone who
rolls with them as domestic terrorists. He didn't say rolls
with him.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
Donald Trump, who pretty regularly dances on the graves of
liberals who died tragically, one that comes to mind that
breaks my heart and is just the biggest example of
the level of hypocrisy that we're talking about here is
Rob Reiner. That was a man that we all were
huge fans of as a creator and as a person.
(20:33):
We interviewed him about, ironically, about his JFK story. fascination
which is an amazing show incredible show and uh he
was an outspoken trump uh you know rejecter trump critiquer
um and when he passed away uh under the most
horrific of circumstances uh taken by by his own child
(20:55):
um trump just callously said he had trump derangement syndrome
said more or less that he had it coming that
he deserved it i just want to I'm sorry, I'm
not trying to be divisive or soapboxy here, but good Lord,
double standard much? You can see.
Speaker 4 (21:12):
How it feels hypocritical to people, especially Trump also would
later state that any media network he felt was criticizing
Charlie Kirk too harshly could lose their license to broadcast.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
And not how it works.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
The day after the murder, the actual Department of State,
the United States Department of State, put out an announcement
saying that if you are a foreigner and you're praising, rationalizing,
or making light of the death of Charlie Kirk, you
will be penalized. That means cough, cough, deportation, to put
a fine point on it.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
Think how convenient his passing was for them to be
able to just hijack these types of laws. Exactly. I mean, obviously,
I'm stating the obvious here, but it's just what a
great excuse to Deprive people of their liberties. Deprive people
of freedom of speech. You know, further demonize immigrants. Look
(22:11):
for something. Have a line in the sand around which,
you know, you can take action against undesirables. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
Secretary of Defense also was leveraging this to give some
people in the military the boot. He said any service
members who made unseemly comments about Kirk would be punished.
There were people who were fired or dismissed. And to
your point, Noel, I am certain that some of those
people were already on a list and they were just
(22:40):
waiting for a reason to get rid of them.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
You're not allowed to say these things, even if it's nasty.
I mean, I'm just saying, evidenced by the president's own
social media accounts. It's just mind-boggling, the double standard of it.
George Orwell would be rolling in his grave.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
J.D.
Speaker 4 (22:57):
Vance was trying to create... what critics would call another
red scare by going on the Charlie Kirk show after
the assassination and telling all the listeners of that show
to report anybody that they heard being critical of Kirk.
Not like report them to the police.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
People were fired. Report them to.
Speaker 4 (23:15):
Their bosses and get them fired.
Speaker 5 (23:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
All in all, Reuters estimated 600 something people at least
were punished or retaliated against in 2025. So just in
like a few weeks, Gosh, it was November of 2025,
so just a few months. I don't know, man.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
It stinks.
Speaker 4 (23:36):
It's ghoulish and macabre to celebrate a lot of deaths.
At least that's what the critics say, although I'm glad
that Kissinger is dead.
Speaker 3 (23:45):
And you're allowed to say that, Ben. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
But the thing is, what we're saying here is a
ton of critics pointed out, hey, during his lifetime... Charlie
Kirk was an avowed champion of free speech. The guy
was actually known in these campus debates. He was actually
known for being respectful and civil when he was talking
(24:10):
to people, even when he was saying stuff that was
in wild disagreement with whatever they believed in. He would
often go on social media and he would say kind
of what you just said there. No, like even ugly,
gross or evil declarations are protected under the First Amendment.
And so his supporters at that time when he said it,
they seemed 10 toes down, right? They totally vibed with
(24:34):
what he was saying. But now a lot of people
bring up the fact that it appears we have different
interpretations of free speech. It's free speech so long as
we agree with what you're saying.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
Well, guys, I don't know about y'all. I'm going to
come out and say I'm not sure if our own
government assassinated Charlie Kirk. so that they could turn him
into a martyr and weaponize his followers and supporters and
use it in their own nefarious ways. I'm not sure
if they did. What I do know is it's possible,
(25:08):
and at the very least, they despicably used a tragedy
in order to serve their own gnarly ends.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
Yeah, undeniably opportunistic, at the very least, you know.
Speaker 3 (25:22):
And entirely plausible that they did it. Because there's so
many interesting, fascinating crossovers like the whole, oh, he's really
starting to get inconvenient with his anti-Israel talk. Oh, he's
starting to be a little too big for his britches.
We need to keep control of TPUSA, but install a
puppet that we can control because Charlie was starting to
(25:44):
become not controllable. And it seemed like his opinions were
starting to go the way of some of these big
pundits that we see now and no longer be in
lockstep with Trump.
Speaker 4 (25:55):
And maybe who is getting too powerful, too independent in action,
as well as just in, you know, playground theory.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Whereas Erica Kirk and her cozy, weird relationship with, you know, J.D.
Vance and all of those folks seems like a much
more convenient installation. Compliant.
Speaker 4 (26:13):
I mean, this is the thing, guys, that we keep
going back to. We're so grateful to you for tuning in, folks.
As we said, this is a two-parter, and we hope
you find it worth the time as much as we do.
the aftermath of the Kirk assassination, whatever theory we fall on,
it has forced the United States to once again re-examine
where it stands on foundational principles of liberty. That's the
(26:37):
albatross around this country's neck. It's a bag of badgers
that could break your nation's back because we have all
these genuinely bleeping, amazing ideas on paper, but when it
comes time to practice those concepts in the real world,
we're continually divided. There are no Real easy answers. And
we're huge proponents of free speech, even when we hate
(27:02):
having to be those people.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
I don't know where this leads us.
Speaker 4 (27:08):
I genuinely, guys, I genuinely feel that free speech is
deeply endangered by these moves to de-anonymize the internet, by
this further government overreach into what people say. in their
non-professional lives. It's not looking good. We'll pause here for
(27:30):
a word from our sponsors, and hopefully we'll return.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
And we're back.
Speaker 2 (27:40):
Guys, there's somebody we haven't talked about yet. Somebody named
George Zinn. Just talking about people being able to say
whatever they want. The moment after Charlie Kirk was shot,
there was an older gentleman that stood up and yelled, Hey,
I shot him. It was me.
Speaker 3 (27:56):
I shot him.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Do you remember hearing about that?
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
This is a really weird one, guys. There's a guy
named George Zinn. Z-I-N-N. I don't even know how to
begin with this. This is a man that was on
video giving testimony for something. I can't remember what it
was for, but it was... allegedly September 11 witnesses and
(28:23):
you could find him in a video of him from
a long time ago giving just kind of testimony this
is what I remember on September 11 what happened and
all this other stuff then there was a weird little
story that came out right after the Boston Marathon bombing
that occurred you guys and it was a story about
a man who made a bomb threat at a Salt
(28:44):
Lake City Marathon and it was the same guy George
Zinn It was a huge story about what he did.
And he was described as a gadfly. I wasn't familiar
with that term, you guys. I know horsefly.
Speaker 3 (28:59):
I know botfly.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
I didn't know gadfly.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
Gadfly is someone that, like, is a rabble rouser, a
shit stirrer. Mm-hmm.
Speaker 5 (29:07):
Right?
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Yeah. Now, how is it that this man who's been
a part of these two big things, again, he wasn't
at the Boston bombing marathon, and he allegedly wasn't even
at the September 11 attacks, or he wasn't a part
of it, or, you know, he wasn't. Involved in that,
he just somehow found his way to this video. But
he is the guy who's, you know, standing very close
to Charlie Kirk in that moment and stands up and says, hey,
(29:28):
it was me. I shot him. You know, come get me.
I'm the one who shot him. He ends up getting arrested.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
Yeah, he said, I won't tell you where the gun is.
And he told them to shoot him, right?
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Well, he says, I shot him. Now shoot me. That's
a quote, allegedly, coming from The Guardian. He told officers
he was, quote, glad he had shot the individual so
the real suspect could get away. I don't know what
that means. But, you know, he was telling officers in
the moment, That he was attempting to distract everybody near
the shooting so that the actual shooter could escape. Isn't
(30:03):
that freaking weird? Then they search his cell phone and
they find a bunch of child sexual abuse material on
it of children between 5 and 12. So now he goes,
I think, 15 years in prison, according to The Guardian,
January 30th, 2026.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
And he pled guilty to.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
He did. Possession of CSAM.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
But just what a weird set of circumstances that just
doesn't make sense to me. It's these kind of weird
little anomalies that happen and you just go, how in
the effing world does that occur? He just happens to
be there. He happens to do this thing. He happens
to be a part of these other big news stories.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
It doesn't prove anything, right? It's just freaking weird.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
Yeah, but it doesn't.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
The thing is, folks, what we're saying is it doesn't
disprove stuff either.
Speaker 3 (30:52):
And that's the.
Speaker 4 (30:54):
Confounding part of this exploration. We've done our best to
be objective and to be honest about what we do
and don't agree about with Kirk. We know that these
deaths are tragedies, but I keep returning to, and Noel,
I wasn't blowing smoke and rainbows. I really liked your
point on strange news. I'm sorry I missed it. This
(31:16):
idea of notable people. I looked up some statistics as
we were going in to record. And according to the
CDC here in Atlanta, around 55 people are murdered in
this country every single day. Not accidents, not heart attacks,
not peaceful passage of an elderly person in the night.
(31:37):
These are straight up homicides. And you don't hear about
the majority of these folks. The systems grind on, right?
Hopefully the law does their best to bring justice. the
families grieve, they get ignored because there's another shocking headline
or BS celebrity ephemera on the horizon. I just feel
(31:58):
like there is a depth of water here that we've
got to get into.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
Guys, before we head towards wrapping up here, I wondered
if we wanted to take a look at this this
Lego video that Iran produced that was cited.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
One of many, by the way, they've been expert trolls
in multiple aspects of this, uh, American clown show. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Well, I agreed. There's only one place I can, I
can find it right now. There are a couple of
places online that have attempted to mirror it and they've
all been taken down. This one I found on who
assassinated charliekirk.com. It's like Lego music video about Charlie Kirk's road. Mike,
We're going to watch it in full on our end,
(32:43):
but we can't show you the whole thing. So you
can look at it if you want. We'll maybe play
a clip or something just to show you what it
looks like. But we just want to have a response
to it, to talk about it. So we're going to
do that now.
Speaker 5 (32:56):
Check mic check he said no war now read the
rest before the bombs before the flex who needed charlie
off the set mic check mic check hot mic black
shards white text rifle story bullet test too many questions
left unchecked he told the right don't take that ride
i ran and i racked don't sell that lie raging
change transpire the flood 90 million lives Okay, guys. Me too.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
I think we got it.
Speaker 5 (33:18):
First of all, AI is so terrifying because that's so good.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
That's so clever. That's all AI.
Speaker 4 (33:22):
The vocal, the whole construction of the song.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
That's unbelievable. And the video. No, but it spells it
all right out.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Well, again, it spells out a version.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
But it's all the bits that we've been talking about.
That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (33:58):
I think the scary thing for me is that that
version of events seems... I don't know why. Maybe you
can help me understand this, Ben and Noel. Why does
that seem more real to me than a random person
decides they need to kill Charlie Kirk So they go
to all the trouble to engrave bullets and get on
(34:19):
a rooftop and throw their life away to kill this
person that they've never met. Why does it seem more
plausible that a country would do that?
Speaker 3 (34:28):
I mean, we know people do that, Matt. People do
throw their lives away in exchange for some perceived act
of revolution. whatever it might be, right? There's also mental
health issues at play. But boy, oh boy, is it
all very convenient. That's all I'm going to say. Ben,
(34:50):
what do you think, man? Is it a mental health crisis?
Is it an individual who really was capable of doing
all this in the exact way that was spelled out
by the right? I just don't, I don't see it.
Speaker 4 (35:01):
There's not enough information to That is where I'm going
to fall on it. That's just personally. I don't have
any insider info on that one. But it is troubling
that the information that should be available seems to continually disappear,
almost as if there's stuff they don't want you to know.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Why is it more plausible? Like, why does it feel
so real and right? Is it just because we're in
the stuff they don't want you to know bubble?
Speaker 3 (35:31):
I don't think so, dude. I don't think so.
Speaker 4 (35:33):
It doesn't feel more plausible to me. I would just
say it feels like we need more information and it's
anomalous that the information keeps ghosting.
Speaker 3 (35:41):
I will just say, Ben, I hear you and I
appreciate your perspective. And Matt, I probably fall somewhere in
between you and Ben on this. Because I think it
rings true in a very eerie way as well, as
do some of the JFK theories. I've never been one
to like fully go out for these types of things,
but I find myself gravitating towards where you are on this, Matt.
(36:04):
I truly do. And I have for a long time.
Since even, I mean, it just felt so wrong. And
I just feel like this administration in particular, but again,
any administration, I think ours is just, this one's just
bad at it. I just think the other administrations that
are doing dirt like this, just do it a little
(36:26):
bit sneakier and creepier, and we don't catch it like this.
This just seems like a real ham-fisted way of accomplishing
this that is easily picked apart.
Speaker 4 (36:38):
Yeah, my counterfactual for you guys just thinking this through is,
if that were true, why do it this way? Why
not do something more simple? Maybe the answer is it
needed the publicity. We don't know because we were not
involved in an assassination. But I'd love to hear what
our fellow conspiracy realists think as well.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
Well, the thought was to take him out because so
that was September in 2025. And my understanding is the
thought is you got to take him out because.
Speaker 3 (37:05):
But also it needs to happen on TV. It needs
to be a big horror show like that in the
same way that the Trump assassination attempt is what turned
the election. You know, I just think that was the,
that that's the playbook where it's like, no, it needs
to be visible. I see what you're saying, Ben, and
there certainly are tidier ways of going about it, but
I would argue that they needed the spectacle.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
It just feels, it feels very complicated is where, is
where I'm coming from with it. So that's why I'm
on not all information.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
That makes sense. But if you want to martyr the
guy and then take over the organization that he represented,
and then, you know, you can basically say at that point,
you can, amplify whatever one of his views or old
views were and say whatever you want. You know, this
is what the guy believed.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
And install a puppet. And install a puppet.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
You know, again, that's just all theoretical in what it
could be. It goes back to, it happened September 10th, 2025.
It is February 2026 when Israel starts attacking Iran. Which,
you know, if you're thinking about mobilizing units and plans
and all the things you need to do prior to
(38:17):
making a large-scale attack on another country, that means Israel
is planning this stuff before Charlie Kirk dies.
Speaker 3 (38:26):
And you can have a lot of revisionist history and
a lot of revisionist lore and have people like Erica
Kirk saying– Well, that's not really what Charlie wanted. That's
not where he was headed. He actually, in private conversations,
we talked about it this way. Guys, we're not going
to solve this here. But I do think this is
all of our perspectives are fascinating and valid. And we
(38:47):
do truly want to know what y'all think.
Speaker 4 (38:51):
And we're going to put our money where our mouths
are or were. I don't know if that translates to Netflix.
But again, folks, thank you so much for tuning into
this two-part series. Let us know your thoughts. There are
multiple ways to hit us up.
Speaker 3 (39:04):
Sure are. You can find us on the internet at
The Handel's Conspiracy Stuff and Conspiracy Stuff Show, respectively.
Speaker 2 (39:10):
Our phone number is 1-833-STD-WYTK. It's a voicemail system. Give
it a call if you want to say something to
us with your mouth. Hey, do you want to email us?
Speaker 4 (39:19):
We are The entities that read each piece of correspondence
we receive be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes the void
writes back. And I bet we'll get some real heaters
about this one. So always hit us up. with suggestions
for an episode we could do in the future, something
you'd like to have on listener mail, or just some
sources if you want direct links to things we mentioned
(39:39):
in the past. We'll see you out here in the dark.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Conspiracy Stuff They Don't Want You To Know is a
(40:04):
production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!