Proving the Aurora Theater Shooting's official story false

[skepticidal]

I am curious about something. Do any of the witnesses you have quoted doubt the "official story" as you like to call it?

So, are you suggesting that you would consider the theories of a witness but not their simply first-hand account of events as they observed?

I wouldn't recommend the OP bother researching this area unless it interests him personally. From what I've seen here, this and other members will argue against any witness theories that contradict the official storyline.

 

[phunk]

If he was shooting from farther away from the screen, across the audience, there are lots of paths that would potentially cross three walls (the left stairwell wall in 9, the separating wall, and the right stairwell wall in 8).

The problem is the suggestion that these are the only trajectories possible.

I think they are not even likely trajectories, but it's hard to explain why without drawing pictures.

 

[skepticidal]

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.

I think the answer you're looking for is, yes I do. But, I warn you that oversimplifying the problem might cause people to think of the "government" as a single entity, possessing the same motivations and being equally culpable. I don't consider the CIA, for instance to even be a part of the US government. Still, the government has committed these acts I suspect.

Committing acts of terror against the population is actually one of the primary acts of government used to maintain authority. It's a part of "the noble lie" determined by the authority of a nation. Research the "noble lie" to learn how this has been the case going as far back as at least Plato.

 

[carlitos]

I think the answer you're looking for is, yes I do. But, I warn you that oversimplifying the problem might cause people to think of the "government" as a single entity, possessing the same motivations and being equally culpable. I don't consider the CIA, for instance to even be a part of the US government. Still, the government has committed these acts I suspect.

Committing acts of terror against the population is actually one of the primary acts of government used to maintain authority. It's a part of "the noble lie" determined by the authority of a nation. Research the "noble lie" to learn how this has been the case going as far back as at least Plato.

I replied to this post by using the Quote button. This is the button in the lower right that says "Quote." If you can figure out the Waco cyanide conspiracy, you should be able to figure out the quote button, so folks can follow the conversation more easily.

 

[Denver]

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?

If you want to 1) be an arm-chair investigator, or enjoy looking for ambiguities, eye-witness contradictions, un-answered questions, or rapidly changing revelations, to weave into speculative plot lines and conspiracy theories, then waiting is bad, and waiting is no fun.

If you want to 2) let the dust settle, allow an investigation to move through its ponderous and time-consuming processes, allow all witness testimony to be collected and evaluated and presented under oath, allow the big picture to be developed from all the best available evidence that can be gathered from all the little pieces, and want to hear the best understanding of the entire events to the best recollection and deductions of all involved, then waiting is good, and waiting is necessary.

If you believe 2 is impossible because there will be a cover-up, then you are pretty much saying you believe your interpretation at this point is superior to what that 2nd interpretation will be, even though you don't know what it will be (unless you are psychic). Which means ultimately there is no way to show your interpretation is as good as what has not yet been presented.

That's why.

 

[NoahFence]

Alright. Enough with the moronic chew toys...

 

[skepticidal]

There is no plausible hypothesis that allows for anyone other than Islamic extremists to have pulled off the 9/11 attacks...If you know one, then let's hear it. Otherwise, you now know why we think these claims are ridiculous.

I disagree, strongly with what you assert. Personally, I've done research into areas of the 9/11 events that others have not that only led me to the same conclusion that 9/11 was a staged attack with almost no involvement of "Islamist" extremists.

Get yourself a copy of the "Revised Commission Report", available in PDF form on the web and read it. From what you've stated, you will likely be learning it all for the first time.

But, here's a prediction. If, whether having read it or not you will respond with some critique of my abilities to discern truth or my overall character of which you know nothing. No offense intended. I'm just basing my prediction on statistics.

If you think it's worth it (because I'm not requiring that you do), please explain what you think Islamist extremists expected to achieve by the 9/11 attacks and why did they not broadcast that they were responsible?

And, please avoid using any claimed evidence that Usama bin Laden took responsibility for the events in any way, as that evidence is fabricated. If you didn't already know, 2 weeks after 9/11 bin Laden reported through a number of agencies that he was not responsible and for the US to look within its borders for the perpetrators. He expanded on his position by adding that in his religion it is forbidden to kill innocent women or children, even on the battlefield.

 

[skepticidal]

*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.

Dang! I thought clicking that did something else. Gotcha. Thank you. I agree that it should be known who I'm quoting.

 

[Garrison]

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

People keep trying to point out to you that what people perceive and remember is not the same as what actually happened. Here's a nice simple article from Cracked.com that explains just a few of the vagaries of perception(some NSFW language):


5 Illusions

And if that doesn't persuade you of the dubious value of eyewitnesses try the:

invisible gorilla

 

[kookbreaker]

I disagree, strongly with what you assert. Personally, I've done research into areas of the 9/11 events that others have not that only led me to the same conclusion that 9/11 was a staged attack with almost no involvement of "Islamist" extremists.

Get yourself a copy of the "Revised Commission Report", available in PDF form on the web and read it. From what you've stated, you will likely be learning it all for the first time.

You realize we have an entire subforum devoted to the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense and that most on this Conspiracy forum have been exposed to much the 9/11 Ct community 'offers' and found it severely wanting.

 

[dafydd]

. He expanded on his position by adding that in his religion it is forbidden to kill innocent women or children, even on the battlefield.

Only in theory, not in practice. What is your full theory about 911?

 

[Biscuit]

So, are you suggesting that you would consider the theories of a witness but not their simply first-hand account of events as they observed?

Nope. I am suggesting that quoting people out of context to support your own conspiracy theory is dishonest.

The question was yes or no one. Do any of the people that have been quoted, out of context, have a problem with the reality of the events that occurred? Yes or no.

 

[abaddon]

People keep trying to point out to you that what people perceive and remember is not the same as what actually happened. Here's a nice simple article from Cracked.com that explains just a few of the vagaries of perception(some NSFW language):


5 Illusions

And if that doesn't persuade you of the dubious value of eyewitnesses try the:

invisible gorilla

ROFL. By complete coincidence, last night I showed Abaddonette the elder the gorilla dealy. Epic fail. She was shocked. I had to reload and replay to show her that yes, it really happened. IIRC, I think I also missed it on the first go around some years ago.

 

[R.A.F.]

I think the answer you're looking for is, yes I do.

Well, is that your actual answer, or is it the answer you think I'm looking for?


I should know better than to play stupid word "games" with CTers...but I believe the more rope you are given, the faster you will hang yourself.

 

[Biscuit]

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?

What does this even mean?

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

The news doesn't tend to report on the mundane and everyday. Why is the extended coverage out of the norm?

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.

Citation needed as well as an explanation as to why this is atypical if it even occurred.

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.

What does "typical" mean to you in this situation? Why would the cops watch people die?

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.

They recently released a huge trove of documents regarding the Gifford's shooting now that the trial is over. This will probably be the same, there is no reason to think otherwise.

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.

It will be dismissed if there is no physical evidence to confirm it. If there is no damage to the wall then the witness is clearly confused. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

 

[Horatius]

Well, I think it may be time to quote this old post of mine:

You know, I think your inability to understand history is matched only by your inability to understand what it is you're doing here at JREF. Do you know what that is?


You're advertising.

You're trying to promote your beliefs (Holocaust denial) in the marketplace of ideas. We here are the potential consumers of those ideas, whom you wish to attract to your product.

Now, we skeptics here at JREF are a desirable consumer base in the marketplace of ideas. We are well-known for being smart shoppers, not easily swayed by the nonsense of the day. As such, purveyors of ideas come to us from all over, knowing that if they can convince us, they can convince almost anyone to believe as they do. Thus, we have people who believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, God, Angels, homeopathy, 9/11 Truth, and a thousand other ideas vying for our attention.

Now remember, you came to us. We did not go looking for your favourite forum to start a discussion of your videos, you came to our forum. If you want to compete against those others for our attention, you must give us something more than they do. I can go to any forum on this site, and find some earnest idea-pusher eager to engage me, and convince me to join them in their beliefs. Why should I engage with you, rather than any one of them?

Your posts here are your advertisements, and they are all you have to draw us in. Despite that, though, right from the very start, you have consistently refused to give us the information that we, as smart shoppers, have learned is needed to make any engagement with you worthwhile. We've shown you reports on your beliefs that indicate they are seriously flawed, which you have made no effort to rebut. It's as if a car salesman we to simply wave away a Consumers Report article that indicated the car he was selling was a fire hazard. Rejecting such a report out of hand may be easy, but it won't sell a car, will it?


You're competing in the marketplace of ideas. If you're incapable of expressing those ideas in a form that attracts our attention, then you'll surely lose.

Seriously: what is the point of coming here, and engaging in "discussions" with us, only to dismiss everything we say by laughing or calling us names? If you're not interested in a real critique of your claims, and are not open to changing them no matter what we say, just leave. We'll all be happier that way, you included.

 

[Ladewig]

Oh, no, I already answered that, didn't I? So why are you asking it?


Irrelevant. Jargon. "did you tell your mother you're gay" questions.

At no point did I say I believe damage occurred to "the wall".

My mistake. You are right. I confused skepticidal's posts with yours.

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.

So do you believe there was substantial damage to the short wall flanking the staircase?

Of course there are conflicting eye witness testimonies, and not just in the usual sense.

So if some people say, on the day of the incident, that there was a bomb and other people say there wasn't a bomb, why are you giving one group more credence than the other?

Why are you asking me something about other conspiracy theories?

I am trying to determine how far reaching the Aurora shooting conspiracy reaches?

Oh, is it not obvious enough whether or not I entertain them?

Not to me, it isn't.

Instead you reveal something else entirely about your question (so it's totally backwards why you even bother):

I have no idea why it is backwards, please explain.

 

[R.A.F.]

Good luck with your narrow view. You're gonna need it.

Show me the evidence...if you can't do that, then I am completely justified in having a "narrow view" of idiotic things like the stupid claims made in this thread.

 

[R.A.F.]

If you're not interested in a real critique of your claims, and are not open to changing them no matter what we say, just leave. We'll all be happier that way, you included.

Seconded...

 

[Safe-Keeper]

You might, at some point notice that I tend to focus on what's not there instead of what is.

Um, no, you seem to focus on trolling, dodging questions, and in general being obnoxious. Like playing a board game with a seven year old who realizes he's losing and decides to just throw the board across the room and throw a hissy fit, then declare that he won.

We get lots and lots of people like you in here, and you always follow the same pattern: you'll post some thread acting like you're the new Messiah, making various ridiculous claims and expecting us to swallow it whole and proclaim how awesome you are. When we point out that you're totally wrong aobout most everything you've posted, you go into troll mode, if you don't just vanish only to start a new thread with exactly the same claims when the waters have calmed.

This is how crimes are solved, when obstructions or distractions prevent seeing enough evidence to form a conclusion.

Again, no, crimes are solved by looking at evidence -- all the evidence -- and going from there, no matter if it leads to conclusions you don't personally like.