In Support of the OP's Information
Admittedly, I've only read this thread and a few pages of another a few years back. So, I'm not able to gauge the value of the forum in whole. If this thread is fairly representative of the greater forum, what we have here is a fussy, analytical type watering hole; an oasis for the keepers (and stiflers) of science no less!
Because my time here will likely be cut short, I'll get my broader critiques on record before addressing the topic of this thread.
Skepticism
Skepticism is a good thing. In fact, I employ it more than belief. "The only thing I know is that I know nothing" is my motto. Truth is easier to disprove. But in deeming something a fallacy one is claiming to to have arrived at a kind of truth; the truth of a fallacy.
In my experience, the person claiming to be "skeptical" of a conspiracy is likely to be skeptical of all conspiracies. Doubt 9/11 conspiracies and you're not likely to suspect Oswald was Hoover's most important agent or that he was involved in cancer research. Why do certain people doubt even the conspiracies backed by credible evidence? Because they're dupes, and it's tragic.
Being a skeptic doesn't guarantee you'll have a good job, the respect of peers or any friends at all really. But, if you're a "good skeptic" who only snickers at conspiracies involving institutional authority you can have all these things and more! What will you deny yourself? Scientific breakthroughs, discoveries, self-respect, wonderment.
Introduction to New Ideas
The claims and observances of even the most weak-minded person hold treasures of truth; data that can be used to acquire knowledge. Conversely, the claims made by the most accredited and respected person in a given field can amount to "anti-data" and can set you back immeasurably.
So, when new ideas are presented to you can you be sure that dismissing it is in your best interest? In terms of knowledge acquisition, not in terms of Facebook friends.
OK. You've considered and disregarded the new ideas and can make a case for fallacy. What might you still derive from the exchange? What other goals could you achieve? I see that the goals for many here are often to ridicule the author and further establish the veil of intellectuality. Others seem to be employed to run interference for groups seeking to conceal the truth. I disregard those people, as there's not much to achieve on either end of disinformation. There are those in pursuit of other goals, but these are the most common amongst "skeptics". IMO.
What about setting a goal to avoid ridicule of others, in agreement or not? How might that benefit you? How might that benefit all parties? Why do so few "skeptics", quick to offer a quip and a giggle find it beneficial to enlighten the other party? Is intellectual debate really just a more complicated form of survival of the fittest? It's us against them? There will always be idiots, and I don't want that to rub off on me!?
And lastly on this topic, (and this is meant to hurt a little) how much better are you than a confused conspiracy theorist if you're unable to convince them of your counter-claims?
Proving the Theater Shooting Account False (events in theater 8)
The OP doesn't claim to have a theory. His primary claim appears to be "proving the official story false." He does claim that explosives went off, and that may be more difficult to prove. But, I don't wish to prove that. If it can be proven, then I hope it leads to removing "truth's protective layers." The evidence I've compiled convince me that the official account is a cartoonish made-for-tv myth with only 30% of the official account being accurate, roughly.
Why can't I just accept that the account of events in theater 8 are mostly true? If I had only the evidence specific to theater 8 and none of the related evidence, I'd be more inclined but still have suspicions. But much evidence exists, unrelated to theater 8 that reads like a toddler's excuse for vandalizing the kitchen wall! In short, I'd be embarrassed if I didn't suspect deception.
Sticking to the topic, I noticed that some of you have asked what the desired outcome was supposed to be. I could respect someone asking that question with a genuine interest in the response, but not if they're making the response a requirement. I definitely don't respect someone asking the question sprinkled with insults.
Seriously? Is it even possible that the learned members of this forum are not aware of Gladio? Dirty war? What is preventing the very same actors involved in tearing apart the social and economic fabric of other nations from doing the same in Colorado?
The Notebook
So, you may have heard about the reports quoting "official sources" that a notebook was found belonging to James Holmes in which was drawings depicting the theater massacre. Of course, the notebook was reportedly mailed only 1 day before the event. That was revised to earlier in the same day. Maybe it was mailed after the event? Naahhh! The notebook reportedly sat, undelivered in the mailroom at UC for quite a while. AAANNND, the investigators stumbled upon it while they happened to be there for another reason.
OK, it is convenient that the "confession" of sorts was in cartoon form so that handwriting analysis couldn't disprove it as a fraud. But the notebook might actually exist as reported. Later, the defense team made headway in tracking down the source of the notebook "scandal", a Fox News reporter. The reported, Jana Winter said she learned of it from "unnamed law enforcement" sources. I was surprised when a subpoena was issued for her to appear on the matter.
Wouldn't you know it, she's based in New York where shield laws protect news sources! So, it's unlikely that she'll even appear in court.
Can you count all of the amazing coincidences that converge like a recipe for authorities to conceal their lies? But, I remain "skeptical." Skeptical of a government conspiracy to stage a shooting and skeptical of the government's use of secrecy and claims of authority.
The Secret CCTV Footage
Speaking of secrecy, is it customary to withhold all CCTV footage in cases like this? I've seen hidden-camera video of a nanny punching a baby filmed in a private residence broadcast on the evening news. Yet, we don't even get a 10 second glimpse of Holmes at the snack counter?
Astonishing Accuracy
From what the "official" reports indicate, the "shooter" had an astonishing rate of accuracy with most bullets at least wounding a person. In all, 70 people were shot. The 100-round magazine reportedly jammed after 30-40 rounds were discharged. Official sources say they found 76 shells from 3 guns at the scene.
Yet, James Holmes the sharpshooter sent rounds into the adjacent theater? Those rounds would not have been from either a shotgun or Glock pistol, as the main dividing wall is substantial based on the building plans I obtained. Are those witness statements of secondary shooters beginning to make more sense?
Reports of Substantial Damage in Theater 8
To support the OP's data, two witnesses in theater 8 reported seeing "explosives" and "substantial" damage to the short wall flanking a staircase.
Lastly, CS gas grenades aren't easy to obtain outside of LE and hard to synthesize.
