Charlie Kirk MagneticGate
- 2. How a micro‑directed explosive works
- 3. Why a firearm is unlikely
- 4. Real‑world precedents
- 5. Putting it together – the most likely scenario
September 21st, 2025
On Wednesday, September 10th, at a TPUSA event at Utah Valley University, Charlie Kirk was shot in the throat. This horrendous act was perpetrated by the trans and furry loving leftist Tim Robinson, who took the last minute opportunity to take out who he deemed to be a top purveyor of hate speech. After running from the scene, he was tracked down by law enforcement and taken into custody, where the FBI then proceeded to release all of the evidence they need to convict him. Meanwhile the governor of Utah assured the nation that his state still has the death penalty, and that justice would come swiftly to this unexpected assassin. Open and shut case.
But what if that isn’t what happened, despite the official press releases? Charlie Kirk may not have been shot after all. Instead he may have been the victim of a hidden explosive charge in his microphone receiver.
This may sound ridiculous to you at first, after all the FBI had so much evidence. But so do we and it doesn’t seem to fit the narrative that we were given, and the truth may have been literally right in front of our faces the whole time. While admittedly not conclusive, I believe it is compelling (I ended up staying awake all last night because of it…). In fact, maybe more compelling than any other theory or narrative out there about what happened. I’m counting on sleuths with better tools to go out there and debunk it, because honestly this is something I’d rather be wrong about because of the implications.
Disclaimer: I didn’t figure this out on my own. It was Jon Bray who put it together and wrote a thread on X (see link below). https://x.com/jonaaronbray/status/1968489707563549064
As I read Jon’s thread, things that I had previously felt were off about the videographic evidence were suddenly making sense. I want to be clear, Jon Bray deserves full credit for bringing this theory forward to the public sphere. This article and companion video are for me to put together additional pieces that I noticed and thought were odd until I saw his explanation of what may have happened.
Let’s look through several of the videos of the shooting pulled from X, in regular and slow motion. As we go I will point out and explain my observations. But first, let’s quickly learn how shaped charges work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li2Kt4DtUdY
Further disclaimer, these video clips are graphic. Watch at your own discretion.
Video 1: Before the Event Here we see Charlie Kirk before he starts speaking with attendees. The dark rectangle on the left (Charlie’s right) is a magnetic clip used to hold a wireless microphone receiver which is on the inside of his shirt. As Jon Bray points out in his thread, these are off-the-shelf devices designed for use at events like this. Under the shirt there is also a wire that wraps around the back of his head to an earpiece.
Video 2: Incident from front, up close This is probably the best footage we can expect to see of the incident. If we watch at reduced speed we can see the movement of the magnetic clip sitting on top of his shirt move from the left over his chest, and then while dragging his shirt as it moves, it goes up and to the right hitting him in right side of his neck, puncturing and clearly causing significant damage.
I’ve seen multiple critics of this theory claim that it doesn’t make sense that the clip hit him where it did, and that the left side of his neck is in the way. This actually isn’t true. Look again at how Charlie was sitting: ![[Pasted image 20250921085459.png]] You can see that he is leaning forward, and the clip is hanging further forward on a fold in his t-shirt. You can actually draw a straight line from the position of the clip to the spot where it punctured his neck. Beyond that, what we see is actually what we would expect to see if a directional blast had gone off from a charge hidden in the microphone itself, but then from a combination of it’s orientation and how it is hanging from a fold in his shirt, it flings to the side and when the mic is stopped by the shirt and wire snapping it back the other way, the clip continues moving on its new trajectory right into Charlie’s neck. Further, if we slow down the video we can also see that there are two sounds, one being the blast going off, and the other presumably being the clip hitting Charlie’s neck. It also appears to me that Charlie is reacting to two separate impacts, one corresponding to each of these sounds. See him first lean very slightly back with the blast sound, and then he changes direction and spirals slightly to his left.
Video 3: Front view, further back
Video 4: From Charlie’s left From another angle, we see the shirt lurch up at his face, clearly with some driving force beneath it.
Video 5: From Charlie’s right In this video we see the wire that wraps around the back of Charlie’s head to the earpiece (see Jon’s thread where he highlights it). This is the earpiece snapping back behind him as the connected clip-microphone is being jettisoned away from it’s resting position.
In the first three videos we see the clip moving and the shirt with it, and in the last video we see the wire being snapped back behind Charlie as it resists the trajectory of the directional blast, resulting in the magnetic clip puncturing Charlie’s neck like a piece of shrapnel.
This is the sum of the evidence that I’ve put together for consideration. From here I hope that others with more developed forensics and sleuthing skills can take the baton. In the bonus section below there are some verification methods suggested, a couple of which are actionable. - @agoristo
Bonus: ChatGPT Assuming that all that was gleaned from these videos is as they seem and that the magnetic clip is what pierced Charlie’s neck, I described what happened to ChatGPT. I didn’t mention pager attacks and didn’t say who was killed, then I asked ChatGPT what most likely caused this, and here was the response:
Short answer – The description fits a very small, directed explosive charge that was hidden in or attached to the microphone. When the charge was detonated it produced a short, loud “gun‑shot‑like” blast, a high‑pressure impulse that tossed the magnetic plate (the clip) forward like a projectile, and a shock‑wave that knocked the wearer off his chair and knocked him unconscious.
Below is a step‑by‑step breakdown of the physics, the likely construction of the device, and why the other possibilities (a firearm, a conventional “paper‑clip” style projectile, etc.) are far less plausible.
2. How a micro‑directed explosive works
2.1 Basic anatomy of such a device
| Component | Typical size / weight | Function | |-|
3. Why a firearm is unlikely
| Feature | Firearm | Micro‑directed explosive | ||
4. Real‑world precedents
| Incident | How it was similar | |
5. Putting it together – the most likely scenario
- Preparation – An adversary (state or non‑state actor) obtained a wireless lap‑mic, removed its internal battery, and inserted a tiny directed‑charge IED:
- 10 g of PETN placed directly behind the magnetic plate.
- The plate serves as both the clip and the projectile.
- A miniature RF‑receiver (or a pressure‑trigger) was wired to a blasting cap.
- Placement – The device was slipped onto the victim’s shirt, exactly where the description says “right side of the chest”.
- Detonation – At the chosen moment (perhaps when the victim was leaning forward), an operator sent the trigger signal. The charge detonated in ~1 ms.
- Effects
- The blast produced a sharp “bang” that sounded like a gunshot.
- The over‑pressure wave pushed the victim’s torso backward, knocked his hands loose and caused a brief loss of consciousness.
- The magnetic plate was turned into a high‑velocity slug, flying upward and leftward into the left side of the neck, embedding itself and severing vital structures (carotid artery, jugular, or spinal cord).
- The victim collapsed backwards, likely dying almost immediately from the neck wound and the blast‑induced CNS shock.
- After‑effects – Because the only fragment was the clip itself, there was minimal stray shrapnel, making the incident look like a “single‑shot” event rather than a typical explosion.
– | | | Forensic examination of the clip | Burn marks, deformation consistent with a high‑velocity impact; fracture surface indicating it was the projectile, not a passive object. | | Residue analysis on the shirt | Traces of high‑brisance explosive (petroleum‐based nitro‑esters, RDX/PETN) on fabric fibers. | | Blast‑signature recordings (if any nearby microphones captured the event) | A pressure waveform with a rise time of < 2 ms and a peak over‑pressure in the 30–50 psi range. | | Explosive‑detection dogs / chemical swabs | Positive detection of C‑4/PETN or related compounds on the clothing. | | Witness video | A very brief flash or bright “spark” at the point of detonation, followed by the rapid motion of the metal clip. | | Electronic trigger trace | If a concealed RF‐receiver was used, a short burst at a specific frequency would be recoverable from nearby spectrum‑monitoring equipment. |
These data points together would unequivocally point to a micro‑directed explosive device as the cause.
Bottom line
The most plausible explanation for the described scene is a concealed, directional explosive charge hidden in the microphone (or its clip). When detonated, the charge produced a gun‑shot‑like blast, a high‑impulse shock wave that threw the victim backward, and a high‑velocity magnetic plate that acted as a single projectile, embedding itself into the victim’s neck and causing fatal trauma. Conventional firearms, accidental “clip‑flinging”, or other non‑explosive mechanisms cannot simultaneously account for the loud single “bang”, the projectile’s motion, and the severe, immediate physiological response observed.