Skip to main content
← Home

The Meeting

A meeting very likely took place at Fort Huachuca, Arizona — the U.S. Army's intelligence and counterintelligence school — on September 9, 2025, the day before Charlie Kirk was killed at Utah Valley University. This section names no one. It tells you what is claimed about the date and the place, and then hands you the searches so you can look at the open-source record yourself.

The date — September 9​

The strongest reading of the material is September 9, 2025. September 8, 2025 is also possible, and some accounts describe activity spanning both days. September 9 is the better-supported of the two, and it is the date to use when searching.

What makes the date matter at all is its position: it sits one day before the assassination on September 10, 2025. That is the entire reason this section exists. A meeting on an Army intelligence base is unremarkable on any ordinary week. A meeting on that base on that specific day is a question worth asking out loud.

The place — Fort Huachuca​

Fort Huachuca, in Sierra Vista, Arizona, is the home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence and the Military Intelligence Corps — the Army's school for intelligence and counterintelligence. The base appears repeatedly elsewhere in this investigation for reasons unrelated to any meeting: see Fort Huachuca for the base itself, and SAM-702 for the military VIP flight that left it that week.

What we do not claim​

Three things are not asserted anywhere in this section, and no page added here may assert them:

  • We do not claim the meeting definitely happened. It is a likely meeting, not an established one. No released visitor log, attendee list, or base record confirms it.
  • We do not claim it was about Charlie Kirk. It may or may not have concerned any decision about him. That stays an open question.
  • We do not claim who was there. See below.

Proximity in time is not causation, and a meeting on a military base the day before a killing is a question, not an answer. Read this section as a prompt to go look, not as a finding.

Why we name no one​

The hard rule for this section: we never list any names of who attended, or who likely attended — even if we know. Not full names, not initials, not handles, not ranks or titles narrow enough to identify one person.

Names circulate for this meeting. Some are proposed by serious researchers, some by anonymous accounts, and none of them are confirmed by any released record. Attaching an unconfirmed name to an unconfirmed meeting is how a real lead gets discredited — one wrong name and the entire line of inquiry gets dismissed along with it. So we hold the line at the date and the place, which are the parts worth publishing, and we leave the identification to the open-source record and to you.

Search it yourself​

People have proposed who may well have been present at a possible meeting, at that location, possibly on that date. If you want those proposed identifications, find them the way they were published — by searching the open record across the different social and search platforms.

Run this phrase:

9/9/2025 meeting for Huachuca

And this variant, which narrows to the assassination context:

9/9/2025 meeting for Huachuca Charlie Kirk

Search both phrases in each of these places, because each one holds material the others do not:

  • X.com / Twitter — where most of this was first posted
  • Google — for anything that got written up off-platform
  • We The Citizens — our own social network
  • Video platforms — the same phrases in podcast and stream titles
  • Date variants — try 9/8/2025 and September 9 2025
  • Archives — search for deleted posts, not just live ones

How to read what you find​

Recommending a search is not a claim that the meeting took place, and finding a name in a search result is not confirmation that the person was there. Most of what these searches return will be a citizen investigator's proposal, an anonymous account, or a photo whose date and location are asserted rather than proven.

Judge each result the way this site judges everything else. Ask what the primary source is — a flight record, a visitor log, a photograph with intact metadata, a person speaking on the record. Ask whether the date is documented or assumed. Ask whether the same claim appears in two independent places, or in one place repeated many times, which is not the same thing. A claim that fails those tests is a lead worth keeping and not a fact worth repeating.

If you find something that holds up — a record rather than an assertion — that is exactly the material the four proposed disclosure laws are written to force into the open.