• 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

skepticidal said:
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?"
Click to expand...

Nope. Like all CTers you enjoy self pontificating word vomit in place of actually saying anything. You're the special one, everyone else is a sheep.
 
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...

Perhaps the injury to the head was the cause of the ringing? Does the person you are quoting out of context question the events as presented?
 
Was it the old caretaker, diguised as an ice cream seller with a false beard and glasses? I always thought that guy looked shifty.
Click to expand...

Is your username a reference to "Jack in the Green?" For others, Jack in the Green is a symbolical figure sometimes acted out in some western-European parades on May 1st by covering oneself in green foliage.

In any case, your comment seems to mock the OP's point and I wonder what you hoped to provide or derive from that?
 
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...

Asking questions to feed your fantasy. Cool, not new for CTers who ignore evidence and can't figure out why. Why ask questions when you know it was a fake event? Expose the event, earn a Pulitzer, be famous. What is stopping you? You have no clue and have to ask questions instead of solving your own inability to understand reality.

I can hear the other movies in adjacent theaters. How loud are weapons? How loud is a bullet passing your ear? How fast are the bullets moving? Why is there air? Why does Rice play Texas? Answer the questions; lol...

Try some evidence; wait, do you have a point? The OP title is false, not true, as in based on nonsense. Can you prove otherwise? no
 
skepticidal said:
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?"
Click to expand...

Some of it sounds fanciful, some (such as the third paragraph) sounds incoherent.

Bottom line is: There is no plausible hypothesis that allows for anyone other than Islamic extremists to have pulled off the 9/11 attacks. There is no plausible hypothesis that allows for anyone other than James Holmes to have pulled off the theater shootings.

If you know one, then let's hear it. Otherwise, you now know why we think these claims are ridiculous.
 
*slight aside*

Skepticidal, can you try to quote people properly (clicking on the "quote" button on the bottom right of the post you're responding to will achieve this).

It helps with establishing context when reading your response to another forum member, making their identity clear and making it easier to find the location/page number of their quote.
 
R.A.F. said:
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...
Click to expand...

kinda like this post of yours that cut out the not-hot-air part of my quote?
 
Skepticidal is the icing on the cake. Once a reader sees that my opposition is incredibly credulous in support of the official story, they can then bond with the normal dialogue which skepticidal might offer. Oh, I love psy-oping...
 
skepticidal said:
... To the first question, I suspect that virtually all 21st century acts of terror in the USA are acts of state.

...it's only the other half that could be gullible and make unsupported claims.
Click to expand...
Which half were you in?
Another fantasy. McVeigh, did OKC, 19 nuts for UBL did 911, and a kid who claims he was insane did this act. Not the state; strike three, you innings at bat are short and to the woo.


skepticidal said:
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. .
Click to expand...
How many post will it take to figure out the quote button?

There is no offiical story, there is what happened; the OP failed to make a point, defending it is failure. You must like fantasy, you have the illusion or delusion all terrorists acts in the USA are by the state. You offer BS as your evidence; and BS is not evidence.

skepticidal said:
... 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. ...
Click to expand...
You clearly have the a fantasy terror attacks are by the state in the USA. If not a fantasy then something more serious? Lies? Or what?

skepticidal said:
... 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.
Click to expand...
The OP is nonsense, and proves people cherry-pick junk to make up doubt in their minds to go along will sill claims like, "all terror in the US is state sponsored".

A kid kills people, so people make up fantasy. If you prefer, call them lies based on ignorance. Why do they make up lies? Why do people spread lies about an event, unable to answer their own questions with research and evidence? What is their motive at a skeptic forum? Did you make a mistake and think JREF was Jokes Rejecting Education Forum?
 
...show me evidence of the detonation of an explosive device...
Click to expand...

Well, there's the rub in all of this.

First, you assume there's going to be an investigation based on them being carried out so often in the past. But, this isn't a typical event, is it?

If it were typical, then it wouldn't have been plastered across the news for days.

If it were typical, the police chief wouldn't announce his conviction that only 1 perp was involved within 12 hours and before being briefed by his lead investigators.

If it were typical, the police would be more inclined to watch as victims die before even considering placing them in their squad-cars and personally driving them to the hospital.

You want official reports containing very specific kinds of evidence. Those reports are not available currently, and it's my suspicion that they never will be. Once witness statement included that they witness significant damage to a well flanking the stairwell. But, as has been demonstrated here all witness accounts will be dismissed arbitrarily rather than even considered as evidence at all.
 
Neveos said:
FrederickEason said:
Neveos said:
Nothing quite says it better than:

"To the right of us, right by the stairwell, all 12 of us, heard hissing, and started seeing smoke, saw a/heard a boom and a flash, we heard what we thought were fire crackers, we thought kids were throwing fire crackers"

ETA:

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Click to expand...

Sounds like guns and smoke bombs to me.
Click to expand...
AHHHH, a new ally. Welcome to the cause!
Click to expand...

FrederickEason said:
I wouldn't consider my statement as supporting your position.
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone is being blinded by an a.g.e.n.d.a....
 
Last edited:
Skepticidal, thank you for the answers.

skepticidal said:
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.
Click to expand...

I want to make sure I fully understand your response. When you say "acts of terror" your list includes, but is not limited to,:

2912 Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut.
2012 Aurora, Colorado
2009 Fort Hood, Texas
2007 Virginia Tech, Virginia
2005 Red Lake High School, Minnesota.

[Out of politeness for your viewpoints, I labeled the incidents by location rather than by alleged shooters.]
 
...wouldn't it be better to put all the speculation on hold and wait to see what comes out in the trial...It looks like there is still a good year before everything is ready...Why the rush to arm-chair judge it all before then?
Click to expand...

I'm salivating to respond to this comment. What you're recommending is that we wait. Wait for what? I understand you recommend waiting until after the trial takes place, but to do what then?

In the past, waiting has achieved literally nothing. In the case of Columbine, the transcripts included multiple witnesses recounting the involvement of the 2 known perps and as many as 3 others. Of course, the names of the other 3 are redacted. But, by then it was too late. Each person was allowed the time to develop their position, they had time to examine the accounts of others and consider their place in the overall scheme and time was allowed for the cover-up to be fully constructed while certain evidence was intentionally lost.

In the case of Waco, while weeks passed many outraged people did nothing to intervene. In the end, what we got from waiting was a basement shelter fully of kid-stew with their spines arched backwards in impossible contortion from the cyanide gas the officials will never admit to.

And all this does nothing to address the overall problem of waiting when each day that passes means flighty American's grow less and less concerned about any crimes of state as they learn to live with the official accounts.
 
Neveos said:
Sounds like someone is being blinded by an a.g.e.n.d.a....
Click to expand...

Calm down, Mr. Giggles.

We are still waiting for you to answer some questions

(1) Do you have a specific reason to eliminate the possibility that Holmes planted bomb(s) in theater 8? If you do, then present it. I am not married to the official story and am willing to accept evidence showing that the story is false or incorrect, but I am going to need more that conflicting eyewitness testimony to discount the commonly held viewpoint.

(2a) Do you agree that there is conflicting eyewitness testimony from people in theater 8?
(2b) Do you agree that there is conflicting eyewitness testimony from people in theater 9?

(3) how did you eliminate rifle spalling as the source of what was described as the bomb damage to the wall? The two things look remarkably alike to people who are not combat engineers.

(4) Is it your contention that the majority of mass killings in the past few years were influenced, initiated, controlled or otherwise manipulated by a specific group, organization, government agency, or cabal? I.e. the same people were behind Newton and Aurora and the Boston Marathon.
 
Nothing like a little self stimulation to get the old blood flowing, right?
Click to expand...

I just want to put it into thread history that this member is almost certainly making a joke where he implies the OP has masturbated to the activities of this thread.

This raises the point that we're all different people, regardless of which position taken. Some people will engage the group in an exchange of information and ideas. Others will sometimes inject a bit of comic relief.

Still, others will make efforts to demonize a member or insult them likely because they disagree with their ideas or the way they express them. What makes their behavior even more appalling is when they sometimes argue the best way to interact and that we should all adhere to the facts.

To me, they act like a Pimp awarding himself the Nobel prize.
 
Ladewig said:
Calm down, Mr. Giggles.

We are still waiting for you to answer some questions

(1) Do you have a specific reason to eliminate the possibility that Holmes planted bomb(s) in theater 8? If you do, then present it. I am not married to the official story
Click to expand...
Oh, no, I already answered that, didn't I? So why are you asking it?


(2a) Do you agree that there is conflicting eyewitness testimony from people in theater 8?
(2b) Do you agree that there is conflicting eyewitness testimony from people in theater 9?

(3) how did you eliminate rifle spalling as the source of what was described as the bomb damage to the wall? The two things look remarkably alike to people who are not combat engineers.

(4) Is it your contention that the majority of mass killings in the past few years were influenced, initiated, controlled or otherwise manipulated by a specific group, organization, government agency, or cabal? I.e. the same people were behind Newton and Aurora and the Boston Marathon.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Jargon. "did you tell your mother you're gay" questions.

At no point did I say I believe damage occurred to "the wall". Of course there are conflicting eye witness testimonies, and not just in the usual sense. Just like institutional analysis being compromised when it comes to matters of conspiracy, so can witness testimonies. It's a time game.

Why are you asking me something about other conspiracy theories? Oh, is it not obvious enough whether or not I entertain them? Instead you reveal something else entirely about your question (so it's totally backwards why you even bother):

a.g.e.n.d.a.
 
Don't know whether smoke and flashes were from vents, confusion or faulty memory.
Click to expand...

So, the only possibilities worthy of consideration are that smoke and flashes resulted from...

  • vents
  • confusion
  • faulty memory

To me, this is an indication that you're not considering the OP's information. IMO, in order to effectively discern what really happened you have to at minimum listen to what is being presented and to consider its value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom