• 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:
I'm not making the case that bullets couldn't pass through the wall. I already strongly suspect a fragmenting bullet or some sort of debris hit Mikayla Hicks in her mouth, given where she was seated (right next to the wall in the upper left corner of theater 8). I'm just saying the chances decrease the further away from the wall, and the more walls that are in the way (which could very well have been three). I'm also saying maybe this experience suggests an explosive went off:

heard a hiss, saw smoke, saw a flash, heard a loud bang (a "boom") accompanied by a lot of popping sounds (similar to a black cat, probably), felt heat on leg, received shrapnel injury,

"Firecracker hit me in the back of the head" golditch
"they set gas bombs as they were leaving" glasses girl
"thought kids were throwing fire crackers into the theater" ostergaard
"they threw gas bombs into our theater" fedelli
"my ears were ringing" golditch
"it was louder than it hurt" golditch
"I saw an explosion" ostergaard
"My leg got really hot" walton
"2 pops and a big cloud of smoke, then another pop, and more smoke... people were saying it could have been fireworks... no one knew there was a shooting in theater 9" fedelli
Click to expand...

It's rude and disingenuous to quote people out of context.
 
"My leg got really hot" walton
Click to expand...
Being hit by a bullet can feel like that, far as I know (layman opinion warning).

It's rude and disingenuous to quote people out of context.
Click to expand...
Sshhh, don't attack him, that's very mean and immature:p.
 
...Getting hit in the head with shrapnel and being near repeated gun fire with out ear protection can have that effect on you.
Click to expand...

The reports stated the man being referred to here was seated in theater 8 when injured. So, how would the sound of gunfire in an adjoining theater be the cause of ringing in his ears?

Even at a movie's loudest moments, the sound-deadening walls that separate the theaters reduces the sound enough that it doesn't disturb moviegoers in the adjoining theaters.
 
skepticidal said:
The reports stated the man being referred to here was seated in theater 8 when injured. So, how would the sound of gunfire in an adjoining theater be the cause of ringing in his ears?

Even at a movie's loudest moments, the sound-deadening walls that separate the theaters reduces the sound enough that it doesn't disturb moviegoers in the adjoining theaters.
Click to expand...
How does it matter?
 
I would add that their emotional investment in being "in the know" is nearly impossible to break down.
Click to expand...

In an earlier post, I stated my motto was "All I know is that I know nothing." To that I will add that I've experienced low self-esteem and even experienced panic when speaking to large groups. I go as far as to consciously avoid using common phrases like, "You're right", or "That's true" since those phrases imply that I'm an authority on a topic when I'm not.

Additionally, I earlier tried to explain that I don't tend to develop theories. I don't like thinking of myself as a debunker, but the claims made by authorities sometimes deserve a critical eye. So I express my disbelief.

I guess, if I'm somehow locked into a belief-system that elevates me from others it's that "I know nothing."

Given what I've just written, does that change your analysis of me; another "conspiracy theorist?"
 
...he is attempting to kill skepticism
Click to expand...

"I think" you just made a statement of fact. Maybe a better way of putting is, "I think he is attempting to kill skepticism."

I think you're trying to kill this discourse by convincing others that I am somehow disingenuous. It reminds me of how some folks go beyond ignoring evidence and completely discount it. I try very hard not to discount evidence and actually accept any and all evidence.

You might, at some point notice that I tend to focus on what's not there instead of what is. This is how crimes are solved, when obstructions or distractions prevent seeing enough evidence to form a conclusion.

Finally, I employ true skepticism; even of my own ideas. That's not often something a person advertising themselves as a skeptic will do.
 
Is it your contention that the vast majority of shootings in the past few years were influenced or even initiated by a specific cabal? Are you broadly asserting that virtually nothing that dominates a news cycle for more than 48 hours happens by accident?
Click to expand...

Thank you for asking. This is probably an area where assumptions take over for most people on either side of controversial events. I prefer to know someone's ideas instead of making assumptions, but I probably do anyway.

To the first question, I suspect that virtually all 21st century acts of terror in the USA are acts of state.

To the second question, I don't usually find anything conspiratorial or untoward in the general flow of news, including bigger stories and scandals. Why the media chooses to report on an event and not another is a different issue.

I'm absolutely willing to provide clarification of my responses, if interested. It's important to me that the efforts to label all who question official accounts of events as "conspiracy theorists" be challenged. My experience shows that, as many as half of those being labeled are on solid ground and it's only the other half that could be gullible and make unsupported claims.
 
You might, at some point notice that I tend to focus on what's not there instead of what is. This is how crimes are solved, when obstructions or distractions prevent seeing enough evidence to form a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Crimes are solved by ignoring reality? How's that work, exactly?
 
Neveos said:
ok, I'll entertain you:
Click to expand...

You ceased being "entertaining" a while ago...

I think we can all safely assume, (since you continue to ignore questions, and would rather play "games") that your "promise" of the OP was an unevidenced "boast" and nothing more...

...just another CTer full of hot air...
 
R.A.F. said:
No...it is certainly not "objective" to credulously accept just about every CT "theory" out there...

Just sayin'...:D
Click to expand...

Haha. Sure, many conspiracy theories are complete nonsense but it's very easy to be open to all ideas, including official stories, and then choose from the total picture instead of ONLY choosing the official versions.
 
skepticidal said:
...I suspect that virtually all 21st century acts of terror in the USA are acts of state.
Click to expand...

So virtually all acts of terror are actually perpetrated by the US government against it's own people?

...I'm asking because I don't want there to be any mistake about what you are claiming.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Haha. Sure, many conspiracy theories are complete nonsense but it's very easy to be open to all ideas, including official stories, and then choose from the total picture instead of ONLY choosing the official versions.
Click to expand...

Glad you thought that "funny"...I know I'm laughing....:D

Unfortunately, it's at you, not with you...
 
Neveos said:
Me and NoahFence and FrederickEason versus all of the rest of you.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize I was on your team. In fact, I didn't even realize we had teams, or were competing.

You said that witnesses heard explosions and hissing and saw shrapnel and damage and holes through walls (and therefore some unknown entity placed some sort of bomb that the police/government/media/NWO were covering up as to hide their involvement in the massacre).

I said that such noises and sights are entirely consistent with the guns and smoke bombs utilized by James Holmes.

I wouldn't consider my statement as supporting your position.
 
Neveos said:
I'm not making the case that bullets couldn't pass through the wall. I already strongly suspect a fragmenting bullet or some sort of debris hit Mikayla Hicks in her mouth, given where she was seated (right next to the wall in the upper left corner of theater 8). I'm just saying the chances decrease the further away from the wall, and the more walls that are in the way (which could very well have been three). I'm also saying maybe this experience suggests an explosive went off:

heard a hiss, saw smoke, saw a flash, heard a loud bang (a "boom") accompanied by a lot of popping sounds (similar to a black cat, probably), felt heat on leg, received shrapnel injury,

"Firecracker hit me in the back of the head" golditch
"they set gas bombs as they were leaving" glasses girl
"thought kids were throwing fire crackers into the theater" ostergaard
"they threw gas bombs into our theater" fedelli
"my ears were ringing" golditch
"it was louder than it hurt" golditch
"I saw an explosion" ostergaard
"My leg got really hot" walton
"2 pops and a big cloud of smoke, then another pop, and more smoke... people were saying it could have been fireworks... no one knew there was a shooting in theater 9" fedelli
Click to expand...

None of that implies that some agent other than James Holmes was involved in attacking the theater patrons.
 
skepticidal said:
Additionally, I earlier tried to explain that I don't tend to develop theories.
Click to expand...

You have that in common with a lot of conspiracy theorists. Many realize how ridiculous they would sound if they actually articulated what they believed. They don't have the intellectual courage to "own" it, so they claim to be agnostic about the issue.
 
That is true, Fantasy is never ending. Like 911 truth claims and other failed claims of CT, the OP is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Since I noted how many posts you've accumulated, I think you're someone I might be able to come to some agreement on. Either that, or after so long you still maintain a reluctance to consider theories that challenge that of officialdom.

What bothers me a little is your use of the word, "Fantasy" in reference to why some people reject official accounts and sometimes accept others. If you were inside my head and thinking what I do, you'd have avoided using the word.

Consider this if you will. IF 9/11 was essentially a real crime that killed thousands AND also was a cover-up crime to destroy evidence and thwart investigations of previous crimes going back years, wouldn't suspicion of this be breaking a person's heart possibly?

Wouldn't the despair of seeing the tragedy of the event as viewed by most be magnified exponentially by concerns that the whole of society was not able to see the far greater damage done by the true perpetrators?

The above describes in rough form how I perceive the 9/11 events. Does this sound "Fanciful?"

Implying certain ideas held by a person are flights of fancy diminishes any worthy motivations they might have, no matter how misguided they may be regarding the truth. Although I use 9/11 in my example, there are some nearly as concerned about the truth behind the Aurora shooting event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom