• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proving the Aurora Theater Shooting's official story false

Neveos

Scholar
N
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
91
Explosives went off in theater 8 (the theater adjacent to the theater that shooting occurred [theater 9]). Multiple people witnessed the smoke, the flashes, the "popping" noises. Some people actually injured with "shrapnel" injuries. One individual, a Rachel Fedelli, in theater 8 actually tweeted that gas cans were thrown into her theater. Witnesses were actually perplexed by the story of bullets coming through the walls (as certain injured individuals had multiple "walls" in the way) and wished to return to see how this could explain the injuries they recieved, but both the theaters were torn down for renovation purposes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG-Su7ZIFjA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nUJmtJ0sHM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1XAxuXHEKk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dcy4nPUM10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUiKKJgbN4E

Debunking attempt slammed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcgGtg2olt4

_________________________________________________________

A working theory is that the explosives were set off in order to justify blocking a football team in the theater who might have interfered with the operation.

So blatant and damaging is this contradiction, that it has come out, much later, that James Holmes bought a ticket for the showing in theater 8. The case might be made that Holmes planted timed explosives in the adjacent theater, and that this simply has not been reported (with the gag order) prior to the trial. Regardless such a story, and especially stories such as Zack Golditch's, would be extremely damaging to the confidence in the official story, since Golditch was originally told he had a "shrapnel" injury (with Zack saying he felt a "firecracker" go off behind his head) and the doctor refuting that description, saying he was "shot" by a bullet penetrating through the wall.
 
Okay then.

eYlERTL.gif
 
Gosh, people in a high stress situation have conflicting accounts? How could such a thing possibly happen?
 
Neveos said:
Explosives went off in theater 8 (the theater adjacent to the theater that shooting occurred [theater 9]). Multiple people witnessed the smoke, the flashes, the "popping" noises. Some people actually injured with "shrapnel" injuries. One individual, a Rachel Fedelli, in theater 8 actually tweeted that gas cans were thrown into her theater. Witnesses were actually perplexed by the story of bullets coming through the walls (as certain injured individuals had multiple "walls" in the way) and wished to return to see how this could explain the injuries they recieved, but both the theaters were torn down for renovation purposes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG-Su7ZIFjA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nUJmtJ0sHM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1XAxuXHEKk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dcy4nPUM10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUiKKJgbN4E

Debunking attempt slammed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcgGtg2olt4

_________________________________________________________

A working theory is that the explosives were set off in order to justify blocking a football team in the theater who might have interfered with the operation.

So blatant and damaging is this contradiction, that it has come out, much later, that James Holmes bought a ticket for the showing in theater 8. The case might be made that Holmes planted timed explosives in the adjacent theater, and that this simply has not been reported (with the gag order) prior to the trial. Regardless such a story, and especially stories such as Zack Golditch's, would be extremely damaging to the confidence in the official story, since Golditch was originally told he had a "shrapnel" injury (with Zack saying he felt a "firecracker" go off behind his head) and the doctor refuting that description, saying he was "shot" by a bullet penetrating through the wall.
Click to expand...

There is a 17-minute video in which the debunking was slammed. I am not going to sit through a 17-minute video. Can you provide a summary or transcript?

ETA: Given that memory and perceptions of people receiving head injuries are not always accurate, why should the description by a person with a head injury be considered more useful than the description provided by the doctor who treated him?

MORE ETA: I still don't yet know what the "operation" was, so perhaps the question is premature, but; how many people have knowledge of this conspiracy and are keeping quiet about it?
 
Last edited:
Let me guess this was an operation designed to allow FEMA to confiscate all our guns but the brave Internet sleuths were able to thwart these evil plans via YouTube videos.
 
1) What "official story"?
2) There's at least one witness that said the gas entered theater 8 through the ventilation system.
 
The propellant charge of a bullet is technically an explosive, yes. Gunshots make flashes. Gunshots make popping noisee. Bullets hitting an object create shrapnel that can carry on to people behind it.

Gas cans are not explosives. They are incendiary. There was no massive fire.

Bullets can travel through a wall. Full-metal jacket ammo can travel through multiple walls.

I have spent too much time and effort on this thread.
 
hahahaha. predictable. I remember the purpose of the forum.

Anyway, someone basically posed as a conspiracy theorist, and "discovered" the anomaly on their blog (despite our already having made a big deal out of it). They attempted to invite me and other investigators to do a "show" with them at some point a few days later. I refused, regardless, but before the show was to even begin, the person attempted to say the explosive device was a wall-vent situated close to the floor, next to meghan walton's leg. This was to account for the "heat" she experienced since the explosive was simply the gas can thrown in 9 landing near the wall-vent. How convenient?

Lo and behold, we discovered their teacher "Ostergaard" who describes where they were seated (in conjunction with another article who claims Gage Hankins is sitting "four seats in"), and they are no where near the adjoining wall to theater 9.

In fact, they are in the worst possible place to experience a penetrating bullet: they are in the middle section next to the stair-well. The stair well has a wall keeping people from falling into the gap created by the ascending stairway). This is why Ostergaard has a hard time reconciling his experience with the official story for their injuries- not to mention there is an -additional- stairwell-wall in the other theater: meaning the number of walls needed to be penetrated is likely to be 3.

This is besides the fact that the shooter is firing the -opposite direction- of theater 8 while ascending the stairs, according to the earliest interviews with Jennifer Seeger. She and Dates (who saw the person with a goatee opening the door to the right "waving someone to his location" before the shooting) were sitting on the right side of the theater, and describes waiting for the shooter to ascend the stairs on the left side. While it is not necesarily the case, the shooter ascending the left side of the theater would have been firing the opposite direction of theater 8 to fire into the crowd.
 
Last edited:
Why would a football team be able to thwart this? Was the objective a wildcat offense?
 
Neveos said:
hahahaha. predictable. I remember the purpose of the forum.

Anyway, someone basically posed as a conspiracy theorist, and "discovered" the anomaly on their blog (despite our already having made a big deal out of it). They attempted to invite me and other investigators to do a "show" with them at some point a few days later. I refused, regardless, but before the show was to even begin, the person attempted to say the explosive device was a wall-vent situated close to the floor, next to meghan walton's leg. This was to account for the "heat" she experienced since the explosive was simply the gas can thrown in 9 landing near the wall-vent. How convenient?

Lo and behold, we discovered their teacher "Ostergaard" who describes where they were seated (in conjunction with another article who claims Gage Hankins is sitting "four seats in"), and they are no where near the adjoining wall to theater 9.

In fact, they are in the worst possible place to experience a penetrating bullet: they are in the middle section next to the stair-well. The stair well has a wall keeping people from falling into the gap created by the ascending stairway). This is why Ostergaard has a hard time reconciling his experience with the official story for their injuries- not to mention there is an -additional- stairwell-wall in the other theater: meaning the number of walls needed to be penetrated is likely to be 3.

This is besides the fact that the shooter is firing the -opposite direction- of theater 8 while ascending the stairs, according to the earliest interviews with Jennifer Seeger. She and Dates (who saw the person with a goatee opening the door to the right "waving someone to his location" before the shooting) were sitting on the right side of the theater, and describes waiting for the shooter to ascend the stairs on the left side. While it is not necesarily the case, the shooter ascending the left side of the theater would have been firing the opposite direction of theater 8 to fire into the crowd.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it might be best to postpone arguments about the exact locations of gas canisters and start at the beginning. Would you provide a brief summary of what happened on that day and who performed what?
 
Neveos said:
Explosives went off in theater 8 (the theater adjacent to the theater that shooting occurred [theater 9]). Multiple people witnessed the smoke, the flashes, the "popping" noises. Some people actually injured with "shrapnel" injuries. One individual, a Rachel Fedelli, in theater 8 actually tweeted that gas cans were thrown into her theater. Witnesses were actually perplexed by the story of bullets coming through the walls (as certain injured individuals had multiple "walls" in the way) and wished to return to see how this could explain the injuries they recieved, but both the theaters were torn down for renovation purposes.

A working theory is that the explosives were set off in order to justify blocking a football team in the theater who might have interfered with the operation.

So blatant and damaging is this contradiction, that it has come out, much later, that James Holmes bought a ticket for the showing in theater 8. The case might be made that Holmes planted timed explosives in the adjacent theater, and that this simply has not been reported (with the gag order) prior to the trial. Regardless such a story, and especially stories such as Zack Golditch's, would be extremely damaging to the confidence in the official story, since Golditch was originally told he had a "shrapnel" injury (with Zack saying he felt a "firecracker" go off behind his head) and the doctor refuting that description, saying he was "shot" by a bullet penetrating through the wall.
Click to expand...

Ah how did 'they' know that a football team would show up in that theatre?
 
Last edited:
I guess this issue will just be ignored? I certainly don't expect people to go "ah, oh my god, what are the implications of there being a conspiracy?"

No. In fact, I'll just do everyone a nice favor and let you know what you should do in light of this revelation:
Keep the story on your minds.
Spread the word of the issue. (trust me, there are -plenty- more, which I will ignore for now)
And finally, extrapolate upon the notion that such an event could be an act of conspiracy, and what enormous implications quickly become apparent.
 
What you presented is not a 'revelation'.

Question: of the 62 mass shootings that have occurred in the last 30 years how many of them were conspiracies by the government and how many were what they appeared to be - and how do you know the difference?
 
Neveos said:
I guess this issue will just be ignored? I certainly don't expect people to go "ah, oh my god, what are the implications of there being a conspiracy?"

No. In fact, I'll just do everyone a nice favor and let you know what you should do in light of this revelation:
Keep the story on your minds.
Spread the word of the issue. (trust me, there are -plenty- more, which I will ignore for now)
And finally, extrapolate upon the notion that such an event could be an act of conspiracy, and what enormous implications quickly become apparent.
Click to expand...

No thanks.I'll pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom