• 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 said:
arguments relying on institutional analysis lose weight when arguing on matters of corruption and conspiracy. In fact, as time progresses, the more weight they lose. Do they have weight? Sure. But one wishing to rely solely upon it must first counter the criticism that the institution could be corrupt, and would therefor act unreliably.

Indeed just looking at the evidence and witness testimony for yourselves should do exactly that: wager a case for corruption.
Click to expand...

So science is in on the conspiracy to shoot a few people in a Colorado movie theatre?
 
Just an aside. So does anyone feel like explaining these testimonies suggesting explosives went off in theater 8?
 
Last edited:
Neveos said:
Just an aside. So does anyone feel like explaining these testimonies suggesting explosives went off in theater 8?
Click to expand...

No.

You're the one posting vague theories of conspiracy based on unsure eyewitness testimony. Therefore you wade through all the evidence and provide a theory that better explains all of it. Posting outrageous claims with nothing more than a passing reference to YouTube, and expecting others to accept the onus to disprove them is lazy.

My friend Will was in the theater. I spent most of the next morning trying to keep him from vomiting. He didn't hear any "hiss" and doesn't care to try to explain the testimony of those who say they did. Understandably he doesn't like talking about it a lot.

I'd tell you what he thinks about the conspiracy theories, but I'd get kicked off the forum if I repeated his statements verbatim.
 
Horatius said:
So, would you like to turn this into a discussion of the limitations on eyewitness testimony in general, or would you rather continue asking us for evidence that you've already decided to wave away?
Click to expand...

Neveos said:
Just an aside. So does anyone feel like explaining these testimonies suggesting explosives went off in theater 8?
Click to expand...



That's the "wave away option", then.
 
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...

I believe the proper response to that OP would be "Go Pound Sand".
 
Neveos said:
kinda like that first welcoming rebuttal, right? ;)

So let's take it slow :D

"we heard a hiss"

Anybody feel like explaining this "hiss"?
Click to expand...

STOP.

Instead of insisting that your evidence is unimpeachable and cannot be explained in any other way, please tell us what your theory is.

I, and many others, are not going to watch you YouTube videos. Please briefly explain who was doing what on the day of the incident. Also, include what you think everyone's motivation was.

Why is it so hard to get you to briefly explain your position?
 
Oh so the news sources, themselves, are ok? Just the multiple eye witnesses and some of the reports are not. As well as the officer who announced over the radio: "I don't know if this information has already been put out but I've been talking to people getting statements. It sounds like we have possibly 2 shooters, one that was in theater 8, seated." Suspects seated in theater 8? Added to the theater 8 witness who said "They set gas bombs as they were leaving", well my my my...
Click to expand...
After the July 22nd attacks, media reported that at least two bombs had gone off in the government quarter; that there was up to several shooters on Utøya; and that less than 10, then 10-20, then 80, then 84, then 60, and then 69 had been killed on Utøya alone.

In fact, if you look at every single disaster, there are things that are contradictory or "don't add up". I suppose that to your mind, that means that even the smallest car crash is a False Flag Illuminati/NWO Inside Job.

...ooooor it just means that eyewitness reports are far from 100% reliable, and that gathering and reporting accurate information in a chaotic situation is very difficult.
 
Neveos said:
Just an aside. So does anyone feel like explaining these testimonies suggesting explosives went off in theater 8?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out what exactly you think suggest explosives.

For example, does a "hiss" suggest an explosive to you? If so, why? Do you think that bombs are like something you'd see on a Road Runner cartoon?

What about the "burning" sensations? You realize that explosives don't burn, right?
 
I'm trying to figure out what exactly you think suggest explosives.
Click to expand...
Same reason poor English skills means you can't fly a 757, amateurs can't make a 360 degrees turn with an airliner, and a person going "pull it" means a building was demolished, a random hissing sound means a bomb was planet because conspiracy theorists don't need facts, they make **** up as they go along.

ETA:
Do you think that bombs are like something you'd see on a Road Runner cartoon?
Click to expand...
See the above paragraphs. He's a CTer, he doesn't need facts, he can arbitrarily decide how the world works and accuse everyone more knowledgeable than him of eing a sheep.
 
Last edited:
Neveos said:
[...]

Debunking attempt slammed:

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

[...]
Click to expand...

Confession time: I watched this whole video. Spoiler alert: It is not worth it.

If you still want to get a small amount of punishment without having to watch the whole thing, I will summarize for you.

The first five minutes in their entirety and the last two minutes in their entirety are solely conspiracy theories about a conspiracy blogger called Beelzebub. Nearly half the video is about how this blogger has been compromised and no one should ever trust him again because he said Aurora was not a false flag, and no longer blogs for the Devil's Advocate blog. This of course means "they" got to him and he is now part of the cover-up and will be coming out with a disinfo conspiracy theory to fool and discredit the conspiracy theorists who know Aurora was a false flag. And yes, I have listed the evidence for this claim in its entirety: he said it was not a false flag and now does not blog for Devil's Advocate. That is half the video.

The rest of the video is based on two things: a girl in theater 8 says she felt heat on her leg, and a guy in theater 8 got shrapnel in his forearm.

The maker of the video says the girl could not have felt the heat through a vent because she was not near the wall, even though she said she was. His reasoning is that she also said she was next to two other people, and there are only two seats between the wall and the aisle. Thus, he accepts that part of her testimony, interprets it to mean all three people were in the same row and thus she must have been away from the wall in another part of the theater.

Regarding the guy with the shrapnel, he was four seats in and two to three walls away from shooter, so the YouTuber concludes he could not have been hit by bullets or bullet fragments at all, or at least not without people near him getting hit. Thus, explosives in theater 8.

The funny thing is, he has a fairly specific theory. He says that someone sitting behind the guy and near the girl slipped a flash-bang grenade under the dude's seat, which caused unexpected shrapnel when it went off. The shrapnel hit only the guy in that seat (though only in the arm for some reason), and caused the girl to feel heat on her leg. He never explains why they did this, though my guess is they were trying to beat the world record for the dumbest plan ever.

There you go, conclusive proof that I am willing to completely waste my time for no gain at all.
 
BenjaminTR said:
The funny thing is, he has a fairly specific theory. He says that someone sitting behind the guy and near the girl slipped a flash-bang grenade under the dude's seat, which caused unexpected shrapnel when it went off. The shrapnel hit only the guy in that seat (though only in the arm for some reason), and caused the girl to feel heat on her leg. He never explains why they did this, though my guess is they were trying to beat the world record for the dumbest plan ever.
Click to expand...


Flashbang going off:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZM8Mq9ll1g


Yes, I'm sure that only two people in the whole theatre would have reported something if one of these had gone off :rolleyes:
 
Neveos said:
kinda like that first welcoming rebuttal, right? ;)

So let's take it slow :D

"we heard a hiss"

Anybody feel like explaining this "hiss"?
Click to expand...
you first. You provide evidence there actually was a hiss. Then you provide an evidence based explanation that anyone should even care.

Then and only then should anyone with half a brain even respond.
 
So nobody is going to explain how bullets going through the wall will explain these phenomena:

Flashes, bangs, popping noises, sounds of hissing, smoke, heat on leg, shrapnel?

This is besides the problem of where the shooter is pointing, or that even if he were pointing the direction: the bullet trajectory.
 
Neveos said:
So nobody is going to explain how bullets going through the wall will explain these phenomena:

Flashes, bangs, popping noises, sounds of hissing, smoke, heat on leg, shrapnel?

This is besides the problem of where the shooter is pointing, or that even if he were pointing the direction: the bullet trajectory.
Click to expand...

If a gun doesn't produce flashes, bangs, or popping sounds there's a problem. Guns also produce shrapnel. And heat.

As for the smoke, he was using smoke bombs. Which would also be the hissing.

The only "explosives" involved were the propellent charges of the bullets.
 
Neveos said:
hypothesis? That these people are telling the truth. That there are explosive devices in theater 8. Official story says these experiences are to be accounted for by bullets penetrating through the walls. From the looks of this thread, it would appear no one is yet agreeing with the official explanation.
Click to expand...

hypothesis

You've avoid two direct question on the topic of the OP

Why is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom