"my leg got really hot" might help to actually listen to the interviews. Go ahead, keep rejecting this testimony. It's laughable, it really is. I wonder how someone survives with such poor analytical abilities. Maybe you don't. Maybe you have an a.g.e.n.d.a.
Proving the Aurora Theater Shooting's official story false
- Thread starter Neveos
- Start date
"my leg got really hot" might help to actually listen to the interviews. Go ahead, keep rejecting this testimony. It's laughable, it really is. I wonder how someone survives with such poor analytical abilities. Maybe you don't. Maybe you have an a.g.e.n.d.a.
nah, bro, how about you. I kinda did. The walls are towering over the people sitting there. Kinda caused the witness, Ostergaard, to become perplexed at the official story... And the walls are probably not dry wall, given how many kids have to impact it. It's probably plywood.
Well, this is not a contradiction, sorry. But, yes, I do suspect this is a coached interview.
There are plenty of late interviews and institutional analysis that you can reference which are designed to conflict with their original testimonies. And, when it comes to conspiracy theory, you will have such contradictions occur as time progresses, making earliest accounts the most valuable. So you have to look at the earliest reports and go from there. Ostergaard contradicts himself. Fedelli does, Seeger does, Dates does, etc etc. That's because there's a cover-up occurring.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
Yet another CTer declares victory, throws the board across the room, and storms out the door. Any wagers on how many hours or days it'll be before he returns?
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
Apparently you don't read other people's posts very well in your own thread.
Not plywood, not wooden studs. High occupancy commercial building codes require minimizing the amount of flammable materials. Drywall, possibly 2 layers or 1 layer over 1 layer of fire resistant sound board, possibly using offset double-row studs possibly with insulation interwoven for sound dampening between theaters.
Good...now go away...
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Don't go away mad...
Skibum
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,659
Having built a few theaters you are mostly correct. Offset metal studs, lots of insulation, 3-4 layers of 5/8ths firecode drywall on each side with resilient channel between at least one of the layers. On top of that is a thick sound absorbing fabric.
Eta...of course I can only attest to what I have built. Designs can change depending on budget and differing needs of the client.
Last edited:
BazBear
Possible Suspect
Yet another example of why so many CTists remind me of the The Black Knight; they always triumph...even with their figurative arms and legs completely chopped off.
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
Hey, just because you believe that initial eyewitness testimony is infallible and we don't1, doesn't mean we cannot have a meaningful discussion. Oh, wait - it does.
You don't have to go away in a huff. You can, if you prefer, go away in a minute and a huff.
With a tip of the hat to the Marx Brothers
..............................
(1) citations supporting this position are readily available.
NoahFence
Banned
Good riddance. I Hope to learn one day of a tragedy that befalls a loved one of yours so I can mock it.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
Noah: I've actually fantasized myself about hearing of, say, Alex Jones losing a loved one, preferrably in a terrorist attack, for then to attack him mercilessly with a heartless CT about how the loved one never existed and he's a crisis actor for the NWO.
Cruel, I know, and I don't know if I would have the heart to actually do it, but it would probably get at least a few of the CTers to actually stop and think about what they're doing.
Cruel, I know, and I don't know if I would have the heart to actually do it, but it would probably get at least a few of the CTers to actually stop and think about what they're doing.
Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
If you truly are leaving the most important lesson you can take with you is in regards to the burden of proof. It's on you when you make a claim.
Skibum
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,659
A .40 caliber round similar to one of the rounds the suspect was using will penetrate at least 17 sheets of 1/2 inch drywall.
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...ullet-resistant-multiple-layered-drywall.html
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
Insightful posts like the ones above are what makes the charge of "official stories" so ridiculous. We know what happened in tragedies due to eye-witness accounts, investigation, expert testimonies and media coverage -- all of which is in turn sifted through by other experts, journalists, and so on...
For example, we know that two hijacked planes crashed into the Twin Towers, causing them to collapse, because tens of thousands of people saw, heard and experienced these events, not because some random government official stepped up on a podium and gave us some "official story".
If, say, the Americans lost a ship with all hands far out at sea with no eyewitnesses, and the only information we had about the incident was what the US Navy told us in a press release, then maybe you could talk about an "official story".
But a gunman walking into a theater to shoot people, and people frantically calling 911, and media, emergency responders and police officers arriving on the scene, and eyewitnesses describing what they experienced in the theater? I don't see where an "official story" even enters into the picture.
Except if you're a conspira-troll, of course
.
For example, we know that two hijacked planes crashed into the Twin Towers, causing them to collapse, because tens of thousands of people saw, heard and experienced these events, not because some random government official stepped up on a podium and gave us some "official story".
If, say, the Americans lost a ship with all hands far out at sea with no eyewitnesses, and the only information we had about the incident was what the US Navy told us in a press release, then maybe you could talk about an "official story".
But a gunman walking into a theater to shoot people, and people frantically calling 911, and media, emergency responders and police officers arriving on the scene, and eyewitnesses describing what they experienced in the theater? I don't see where an "official story" even enters into the picture.
Except if you're a conspira-troll, of course
.dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
What would this content be?
So, what exactly makes you so sure that whatever "whizzed" past Ostergaard's neck was what hit Hankins? Hankins had three pieces of "shrapnel" in his arm, so it was probably not a bullet in one piece that hit him (I imagine a bullet fragmenting inside his arm to create more serious injuries), maybe not even a bullet at all but pieces of something that was struck by one. Ostergaard said himself, as quoted by you, that a part of the stairwell was "blown off", which might just as well been caused by a bullet strike - especially if the bullet was deformed and/or fragmented already after passing through a wall before - even though you obviously choose to ignore that possibility.
And again, there is no "official story" and you have no clue where all the bullets where fired from, in what direction he fired them, what the targets were at what point, if they moved or were stationary, which bullets were deflected by what, what exactly was hit and when, and what damages were caused by this. Every shot is a new roll of the dice depending on where the bullet goes, what it hits and how the bullet reacts to it, so you calling "impropability" is a rather weak argument, especially if there are dozens and dozens of rounds fired in a situation of utter chaos. You're just guessing.
Then you were kinda wrong. If we assume that the handrails were built according to the Denver Building Code, which adopted the International Building Code in this respect, the handrails must be between 34" and 38" above the ground. If you look at the several pictures available of the cinemas at Century 16, this leads to the conclusion that the height of the stairwell walls is probably somewhere between 40" and 45" and the height you made up (the wall being almost as tall as a standing person) is a gross exaggeration. Might be just a detail, but it once again shows sloppy work on your side. Also, if the walls were actually as high as you said, some people at the lower seats directly at the outer walls would have parts of the screen blocked from their view.