Proving the Aurora Theater Shooting's official story false

[Ladewig]

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.

Thanks. I didn't really want to get into which group or groups were behind these acts, I was asking my question because some people do not define some of those incidents as acts of terror. I was merely trying to understand the definition you are using.

I am not trying to change your mind, I am trying to understand exactly what your position is.

So is it accurate to say that while most major news sources, the White House Press Secretary's office, and most Americans state that these incidents are not related in any meaningful way (aside from mental illness being a contributing factor), you maintain that there is a strong, but not-easily-recognizable link?

 

[beachnut]

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.

... .

A fantasy like the OP. You like fantasy and love to spread nonsense. This is why you support the OP which failed to prove anything except maybe you guys have no clue you are at a skeptic forum where evidence beats fantasy except in your fantasy.

 

[Stamuel]

[...]

"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

You have quotes from five people. How many were in theater 8? I can only assume that these witness quotes are the absolute best you have to support your claims (if they are not, let me know). So far you have statements from a tiny minority of witnesses. Let's look at them, anyway.

Golditch was hit in the head by a bullet or shrapnel, if I recall. Here is an experiment. Tap on your head. Now tap on your knee. The tap on the head sounds remarkably louder doesn't it? If that was a bullet strike, imagine how much louder. Also, the ringing could be due to injury rather than noise. I do not know the exact injuries, so that is a possibility I cannot rule out. Every single part of his testimony is perfectly consistent with being hit by a bullet/fragment.

Walton says her leg got hot. This could mean just about anything. If your leg falls asleep, it can feel hot as feeling comes back. If she hit or scraped her leg it could feel hot. Or heat could be from a vent. The subjective sense of heat alone could be anything. If it was from an explosion and she was close enough to feel the heat, there should be other signs of this, injuries, and she should have bloody well heard the explosion. Do you have more information? Do these other signs exist? If not, other explanations are more likely.

Fedelli heard pops, not booms or explosions, and saw gas and/or smoke. The pops fit gunfire next door, which we already know happened. So we only have to explain his smoke testimony. "Glasses girl" said gas bomb, which I assume means she saw smoke? Again this could be from vents.

That leaves Ostergaard, who says he saw an explosion, though describes the sound as like firecrackers. The sound again is likely gunfire next door. Then a flash and smoke in the stairwell. Smoke could be from vents. Flash could be a lot of things, from the movie, spark from bullet strike, breaking light bulb.

Notice, I have assumed that the witness are accurately reporting what they witnessed, that their memory is not faulty, and that the quotes are not out of context. Almost all of it can be easily and better explained without explosives of any kind in theater 8. You have at best one witness from the entire theater who saw something explosive-like, but describes a decidedly unexplosive sound.

If almost everyone in the theater saw or heard an explosion, then you would have something. Without the testimony of the rest of the people in that theater, I provisionally assume that these isolated statements are either misinterpreted or are outliers specifically selected because they are the absolute best for making the case for conspiracy, which turns out to be not very good.

I will end by pointing out I am not an expert in any of this, and have researched this "theory" only a little. I welcome any corrections.

 

[R.A.F.]

Very nicely articulated...rational and reasoned...

...but I don't think that our "bomb proponents" are looking for rational explanations...they are "looking" for a conspiracy.

...and if one is not readily available, then they'll just make "stuff" up.


Nothing at all, "new".

 

[FrederickEason]

Sounds like someone is being blinded by an a.g.e.n.d.a....

Are you saying the "official story" denies the existence of smoke bombs?

According to Aurora police chief Dan Oates (source):

We believe that as part of this assault, Mr. Holmes set off two devices to distract the crowd. They ignited in some form and released some sort of irritant or smoke, and we know that his car was parked nearby in the back.

Smoke bombs are certainly part of this "official story" you're trying to disprove.

 

[FrederickEason]

So Neveos, we have "hissing", which can be explained by the smoke bombs, "explosions", which can be explained by the guns, "shrapnel", which can also be explained by the guns, holes in walls, which can be explained by the guns, patrons in an adjacent theater who sustained injuries, which can be explained by the guns.

How does any of this "prove the official story false"?

 

[SezMe]

<snip>

To be fair, if we're going to rag on Skeptical for not properly using the quote function, you should get your share.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Guilty as charged.

 

[BStrong]

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.

The reason that the word "fantasy" is applied in a general way to various conspiracy theories is the simple fact that many of the proposed "what ifs" are straight out of popular fiction with omnipotent evil planers with armies of professional psychopaths that carry out orders without question or failure - it's pure ********! - add that to the notion that every investigatory agency involved can't find it's collective ass with both hands and overlook/ignore "evidence" found by amateurs with a DSL connection and the ability to watch youtube videos.

I was a cop for 15 years, what passes for "investigation" by most of these goofballs would get you bounced for incompetence by any LEA I'm familiar with.

I'm sure there are individuals with heavy hearts that look into these terrible incidents and see things they don't understand or fail to comprehend because they are not trained investigators or trained professionals with knowledge in specific fields that would give them insight into what they're looking into, but the moment some "investigator" decides to rewrite the laws of physics or invents a army of professional evil-doers that act with impunity, the only thing you can call it reasonably is fantasy.

 

[OneTime]

Just because the news says a man dressed in a batman outfit shot up a cinema doesn't make it true. The television/media has brain washed too many people and it's about time the masses start to acknowledge a few facts regarding the manipulated imagery that is being fed to us.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

I haven't the time to delve into the numerous "issues" you raise (and it hasn't escaped me that you did not respond to my earlier post directed to you), but this tripe you're beginning to ladle out needs to be addressed.

Enough with puerile attempts to use the label "official story" as a pejorative. Facts and evidence lead to a conclusion, "official" or not.

Second, please refrain from subtle or overt attempts to set yourself, and your way of thinking, as above that of others. Pin people to the mat with evidence; don't instead try to "work the ref".

Thank you.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

Off topic, but warrants a quick rebuttal:

Nonsense.

 

[BStrong]

Just because the news says a man dressed in a batman outfit shot up a cinema doesn't make it true. The television/media has brain washed too many people and it's about time the masses start to acknowledge a few facts regarding the manipulated imagery that is being fed to us.

I didn't know batman had orange hair.

The shooter wore black, had a lbe vest and a gas mask on his face.

Which villain do you want to pin for the Aurora shooting?

 

[OneTime]

There was no shooting, it was a made up story. This is the only conclusion a logical thinking person can come to, and goes the same for all the other big 'shock' stories that get the most coverage.

 

[BStrong]

There was no shooting, it was a made up story. This is the only conclusion a logical thinking person can come to, and goes the same for all the other big 'shock' stories that get the most coverage.

I believe that the bolded term must mean something in a unique way to you, but to me it doesn't support your stated position.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Just because the news says a man dressed in a batman outfit shot up a cinema doesn't make it true. The television/media has brain washed too many people and it's about time the masses start to acknowledge a few facts regarding the manipulated imagery that is being fed to us.

There was no shooting, it was a made up story. This is the only conclusion a logical thinking person can come to, and goes the same for all the other big 'shock' stories that get the most coverage.

Sure thing. Gimme the proof and I'll believe you. Define what you mean with "brainwashed" and give us concrete evidence that the media has indeed brainwashed people. Prove that they made up the shooting. Prove that they make up most "shock stories" they report. Prove that the rate of disasters, mass murders, and terrorist attacks have hit nearly zero all at sudden (since, you know, "they" have to make stuff up). This is a sceptical forum. You post proof, we believe. That's kinda the whole idea.

If you can't do that, though, I find it hugely disrespectful that you choose to turn such disasters into some sort of live role-playing charade. CTs were bad enough when they only targetted once-in-a-century events like 9/11 and the Moon Landing. When you decide to attack every catastrophe, on no factual basis, though, you're seriously crossing a line.

This might be a game to you, but it isn't to all the people out there who are actually affected by these tragedies. Give us proof. Don't give us one-liners or insults or evasions. Give us concrete proof, and defend it against rebuttals. In short, put up or shut up.

 

[EventHorizon]

There was no shooting, it was a made up story. This is the only conclusion a logical thinking person can come to, and goes the same for all the other big 'shock' stories that get the most coverage.

OK, just for a minute I'm going to pretend you're being serious and not a caricature of absurd conspiracy theorists. Would you mind telling us what happened to the people who died in that theater if there was no shooting? I don't think somebody running in and shouting, "bang" would be enough to do it. You'd have to have a pretty weak heart in that case.

 

[OneTime]

saying "put up or shut up is a bit of an aggressive tone for someone demanding proof. The burden of proof isn't on me, i've made up my mind so the burden is on you to prove to me that it was real and there was actual real people and guns and death involved. Considering this was just another psy op I find it insulting to my intelligence that you would insinuate this was a disaster to any family members involved, the only disaster is that all you skeptics keep sucking up their fairy tale propaganda nonsense as if it was fact and consequently spreading misinformation.

 

[BStrong]

saying "put up or shut up is a bit of an aggressive tone for someone demanding proof. The burden of proof isn't on me, i've made up my mind so the burden is on you to prove to me that it was real and there was actual real people and guns and death involved. Considering this was just another psy op I find it insulting to my intelligence that you would insinuate this was a disaster to any family members involved, the only disaster is that all you skeptics keep sucking up their fairy tale propaganda nonsense as if it was fact and consequently spreading misinformation.

What part of the story do you find particularly insulting?

 

[beachnut]

There was no shooting, it was a made up story. This is the only conclusion a logical thinking person can come to, and goes the same for all the other big 'shock' stories that get the most coverage.

Madonna had a song for this. Just change material for delusional.

Would asking for evidence be invalid in the fantasy world of nonsense you have built? Did you figure this out with the Internet alone?

Oh, you made up your mind, proof is not needed. Wow, the Fetzer version of logic; say it is so, and it is so. Wow, fantasy³
You are putting us on. LOL, a plane, on a train, on the subway??? does it pay to be hip?