Demonstration of a Shaped Charge
This page presents a video demonstration of what a real shaped charge looks like when it detonates. The clip is notable because it was circulated by skeptics of the exploding mic theory — not its supporters. Their argument is a counterpoint to the theory documented across the rest of this section: if a shaped charge had detonated on Charlie Kirk, the event footage should show a large smoke and debris signature like the one in this demonstration, and (they argue) it does not. The material below is presented as opposing analysis to give readers both sides.
Demonstration of a real shaped charge detonating, producing a large smoke cloud. Originally posted by @Trillion0x on X and quote-shared by @troofevades, June 2026.
The Skeptic's Argument
The video was originally posted by @Trillion0x, who used it to push back on the exploding-mic theory as it went viral again. According to @Trillion0x:
"CK exploding RODE mic is going viral again, bc it's wrong. More absurd CK theories go more viral. It would take less than an afternoon to demonstrate the theory. Jon Bray has been promising to do a simulated test of his theory for over 6mo. Where's that at? Shaped charges are [as shown]."
The clip was then quote-shared by @troofevades, who added:
"Well, thats a lot of smoke that I dont see at the CK event. Holy fuck."
The core of the counterargument is straightforward: a genuine shaped charge produces a violent, highly visible blast — a fireball, a substantial smoke cloud, and scattered debris, as the demonstration shows. Skeptics contend that no comparable smoke or blast signature is visible in the Utah Valley University event footage, and that this absence is evidence against the claim that an explosive device hidden in the microphone or pendant detonated on Kirk.
How This Fits the Investigation
This page is included for balance. The rest of the Microphone section documents the case made by Jon Bray's video analysis, the RØDE Wireless PRO mic, the exploding pendant variant, and the Navy SEAL testimony of Rob O'Neill. Supporters of the theory argue the device was very small — a micro-charge or explosively formed penetrator (EFP) rather than a large breaching charge — and would not necessarily produce the smoke cloud seen in this demonstration.
Skeptics counter that even a small charge capable of producing a fatal wound would leave a visible signature, and they point to @Trillion0x's standing challenge: that the theory could be tested in "less than an afternoon" but its proponents have not produced a simulated test. Readers should weigh the demonstration against the frame-by-frame claims made elsewhere in this section and judge the evidence for themselves.