William Tselepis

[The_Thinker]

"Well, I guess all my hard work is worth nothing because none of you believe me! BOO HOO! I worked so hard researching and everything!"

Oh give it a rest! Really.

The point is here, you didn't need to do any hard graft.

You just needed to ask the man ONE simple question!

[anonjedi2]

I'm not a die-hard 9/11 researcher and my motivation is not in exposing a few folks who gamed the system.

Then what is your motivation? Why bother researching if you're not going to expose a criminal if you find one? It makes no sense that you'd hide this information from the members of a website to which you belong to. If you were in good faith, you would add your research to the rest of the research here for the benefit of others and for the investigation as a whole.

It seems it's easier to sit and pass judgment than it is to do work. It's academic for me and I like the work. Putting together the pieces was very satisfying and I was content with that. There's no approval here that I'd want other than those who may find the information helps to fill some of the holes in how and why sims were created in the first place.

How can anyone find the information helpful unless you post it? I just don't understand why you wouldn't post the information as soon as you finished your research.

[elmoastro]

So far, everything I've posted on this has been met with hostility. Belong? I'm not here to belong. It might be nice to not be ridiculed but so what? I'm interested in much of the research here on most topics and do want to share what I find. I don't know how to continue here in regards to this thread. It's not like it's an intelligent discussion (in regards to this thread). People think it's simple to jump in and derail someone's life with questions on something that most of the world doesn't care about any longer, and may in reality uncover something that person has spent ten years trying to hide. I don't know and I'm not the cops.

The stuff I posted is available to all. I'm not here to cry about not being believed. And the material I held back isn't much. The logical conclusions (and I'm speaking only of sims listed on the patent docs) is there are sims, sims who control sims, and real people who control that. The patent docs lead to that very conclusion.

For instance, Periera, in the video, looks like an older version of the Tselepis photo and may be who they used for his profile. There's no other photos of either. "Sterg" looks awfully like the younger version of George who is also on the foundation. They're all on the patents and they're all linked to spouses or CF entities (BGC, eSpeed, etc), but not directly. Mary Tselepis is most likely a sim. The point is, 9/11 shows how easy it is to fake a death if the goal is document control and financial windfall from the very people responsible--with virtually no investigation whatsoever.

Let's say you just wrote a paper and saw not only the impact of it but also the potential for it. But you just saw it go to DARPA or whoever. You see that it's not patented but you can't patent it. So what do you do? Your husband is a trader at Cantor, has inside dope on the demo scheme, and you see it as an opportunity to control the patents, start a foundation, cash in. It's a stretch, I know, but it is human nature. And I may be 100% wrong. It's just speculation that seems like it can be backed up with some documents. And what's on the internet points to that very scenario (in this case). As for the computer generated rest, that's a domain for you all.

It's not like it's a smoking gun or anything and it does nothing to derail the Vicsim Report. If anything, it fills in some holes on a few people NOT covered by the Vicsim Report.

My fatal error here was in stating the fact that I know of a brother of a sim. That's what people can't seem to get past. They'll accept all day long, other anomolies and connections, but for some reason, this is rejected outright. I can't change the fact. But if there's a real brother and a fake brother, instead of shooting the messenger, maybe consider that the real brother created the fake one. Until either one is proven, it should be considered. Now that does fly in the face of 100% computer generated. But why not 99% with 1% as insiders who "traded" on the information. You can't have "Cantor Fitzgerald" and not consider the profile of humans who make up the company---traders, brokers, arbitragers, insiders--all looking for an edge every day of their lives.

It's a personal decision to not pursue further communication and I can live with the blowback.

As for good faith, I don't owe this forum anything and in fact it has taught me to distrust pretty much everything--including everyone on here. That I posted my own personal research should be good faith enough. I read through about fifty ridiculously boring patents, sifted through real and fake people profiles, dug up news items from 20 years ago, matched people with photos, trolled facebook... Big deal. No tears here. But I'm happy with what I was able to contribute. If it's all nonsense to the aim of this forum, say so. Like I said, I'm satisied with the results.

As for motivation, I just like puzzles.

[XQB]

What are you guys a tag-team?

This thread has been dormant for months, yet today we see a (prepared) question and a verbose reply - eh, here's one I made earlier!!

@XQB How did you know that elmoasspro would be around to answer? Didn't it seem like he had disappeared from the thread, yet you communicate your question directly to him. And he then replies, despite not being around for several months? Can you check the logs Simon?

Brianv,
I realize the topic was dormant, but I am in the process of trying to read every post on this this board. I happened to be finishing up reading the Intro thread, and found his posts rather odd regarding the sim brother of a Cantor vicsim. Frankly, I wasn't really expecting any sort of response since he abandoned the thread without updating anyone about his mysterious breakfast meeting with Peter. I am surprised he responded so quickly, but also not shocked that his so called breakfast meeting never took place. Maybe because Peter is a sim and doesn't exist?

Simon is free to check the logs, I am in the southern part of the United States if that helps.

[XQB]

As for good faith, I don't owe this forum anything and in fact it has taught me to distrust pretty much everything--including everyone on here. That I posted my own personal research should be good faith enough. I read through about fifty ridiculously boring patents, sifted through real and fake people profiles, dug up news items from 20 years ago, matched people with photos, trolled facebook... Big deal. No tears here. But I'm happy with what I was able to contribute. If it's all nonsense to the aim of this forum, say so. Like I said, I'm satisied with the results.

As for motivation, I just like puzzles.

I doubt anyone here is looking for your trust. As others have pointed out, the whole patent thing seems to be a big distraction away from the topic at hand. You were asked by the forum to ask the sim brother, Peter, a very simple and straightforward question: Does he realize that his deceased (sim) brother is missing from the Cantor memorial site?

[The_Thinker]

It's not like it's an intelligent discussion (in regards to this thread). People think it's simple to jump in and derail someone's life with questions on something that most of the world doesn't care about any longer, and may in reality uncover something that person has spent ten years trying to hide. I don't know and I'm not the cops.

*Emphasis added*

I'm sorry, but isn't that the point?

Isn't the very point of this forum to uncover the truth? And surely, if you were in the apparent position of knowing (fairly well) the relative of a vicsim, then you might wish to ask him pertinent questions to the effect of discovering the facts. It strikes me as rather odd that you declare yourself in total support of the vicsim research presented on this site and forum, YET you are not willing to ask any pertinent questions to the relative of a vicsim!?

If I was in the position to have met or know any of the supposed 9/11 relatives, I would definitely not shy at asking them these questions. It seems a particularly strange factor that on one hand you claim to support and endorse vicsim research, but on the other, are not at all prepared to ask the relative something as simple as why the Cantor memorial is in error. In asking this question, you would simply come across as concerned about the omission, nothing more! So why can't you ask that question? Is it because you don't know this man at all? You certainly haven't provided any kind of real proof that you do know him, so why shouldn't people be suspicious of your story? After all, when asked these questions you continually revert to distraction techniques instead of addressing them and proving your case.

[hoi.polloi]

It's just speculation that seems like it can be backed up with some documents.

Can't pretty much any "speculation" be, particularly these days?

[elmoastro]

It's just speculation that seems like it can be backed up with some documents.

Can't pretty much any "speculation" be, particularly these days?

Absolutely. And that's why I no longer trust any information that streams in uninvited--much like your distrust of anyone who signs up here. It's fully warranted. Especially when you understand how people operate and have no idea how beliefs and emotional wirings play in. Add to that the deliberate troll/hijack/derail/subversive aspect and you could make a case for keeping it a closed, small group of fully vetted people. The internet isn't the place you can do that though (unless you start in person) so the tradeoff is that more people get to be exposed to cutting edge, outlier, but pretty sound thinking at the expense of having to houseclean trolls.

I have to let my rabbit holes have some sort of bottom for my own sake/protection/sanity. For my own life, I'm getting to where the fakery is a given and I'm close to leaving the media-fakery and other various puzzles behind in favor of a more real life of doing, learning and being passionate about something. Knowing most is fake, I have to ask myself why do I continue to participate. It sickens me that trying to figure out all the bullshit takes up so much of my time. The answer for me may be to close the book and walk away.

At the same time, I believe (haha) I'm better off for the knowledge of how things work, man behind the curtain, etc. It's the puzzle aspect that is fascinating. Going through the exercise was satisfying to me because it gave a clearer picture of what people call "reality", than most will ever have in the mainstream. That's my passion.

[brianv]

much like your distrust of anyone who signs up here

...claiming to know a "9/11" "family member", who then prevaricates and beats about the bush when asked to present evidence.

[elmoastro]

I hesitate saying this but if truth is what is desired, consider this.

I visit what I understand to be the most cutting-edge site in it's decryption and dissection of what has to be the biggest "War of the Worlds" show ever to become exposed. It flies in the face of all conventional learning and understanding in that it's outlier and heretical to many. It exposes fakery in real time, with not 100% accuracy (how can it ever be?) and dissects history with the tools of perspective and open-mindedness. It uncovered years of lies and deceit. That's my opinion.

But I sit here knowing that I am the one with the outlier position. And whatever others believe, I no longer feel the urge or need to convince anyone. I may have felt that way upon being questioned initially, but the site has changed my thinking. The lonliest position is the one where you have some knowledge and everyone else thinks you're a dick and doesn't believe you. It's the Cassandra Complex. The only reason I'm sharing this is because I believe the mirror is the best tool for self-understanding. I have my reasons for not pursuing the answer to your question(s).

In all fairness, the admin has shown the open-mindedness that the site has by allowing this discussion and tolerating my presence. I appreciate that. There is a belief in place, however, that is, from my perspective, a huge blindspot. I realize I haven't provided one thread of data regarding my statement and at this point it's not about anyone believing me. My contribution, if you ever come to see it as that, is pointing it out so you can adjust your filters and data process for future understanding.

Cutting through years of religious belief and societal programming, I've learned to understand how dogma seeps in--how beliefs are formed--how they result in religions and religious sciences. The seed of belief is in dismissing something that goes against a held belief without consideration that the belief program that is running may need a tweak. To the extreme, it becomes religion or religious-science. You all know that. All I am saying is your filters need adjustment.

There's certain things to dismiss for sure and it's a fine line sometimes what subjects should be allowed or to what level a troll can be tolerated. But when it comes to data for research purposes (and again, none presented so far--I get that), it should at least be noted with an asterisk--again, you have done that by allowing this process to unfold. I have no more to say at this time regarding him. I opted for a path of research that differed from the desired path you folks wanted me to take. If the result is that it makes my case look weak, that is the leak or affect I'm willing to allow for.

This site has taught me much about 9/11 and other scams. Of all the people online, the members here have blown their minds wide open to allow for this type of investigation without it getting off into the outer fringes of non-provable speculation. And so with already extreme positions you are being asked to widen the envelope and choose a slightly different lens.

In my first post, I came here to learn. The valid research here put up the red flag immediately that a statement in my post was suspect. Any why shouldn't it be--haha. I'd be the one guy out of everyone so far who wasn't found to be lying. That I won't pursue it, even adds to that belief. It's warranted for sure, but it's a hole in your process. I know you have to draw lines somewhere and I guess that's the potential fallout of doing research. If the line in your program says this does not compute, then reject it. That's the beauty of belief. But it's also the potential flat-earth lens.

Peace.

[brianv]

[quote="elmoastro"][/quote]

I rest my case!

[elmoastro]

I rest my case!

I rest mine.

[brianv]

I rest my case!

I rest mine.

You don't have one unless you present the evidence which you claim to have! Put up or shut up!

[The_Thinker]

The lonliest position is the one where you have some knowledge and everyone else thinks you're a dick and doesn't believe you. It's the Cassandra Complex. The only reason I'm sharing this is because I believe the mirror is the best tool for self-understanding. I have my reasons for not pursuing the answer to your question(s).

Again, another ridiculous "distraction-tactic" post that adds nothing at all to the topic at hand, and fails again to answer any questions asked of you, or in any way prove your stated position.

There's a reason people think you're a dick and don't believe you; it's because this 'knowledge' that you claim to have has amounted to absolute bugger all as you do not, and will not back up your claims. Instead, you sidestep every issue and question put to you ad nauseam.

You claim you have your reasons for not pursuing the answers to people's questions: are these reasons more important than trying to find out the truth about this monumental hoax? I would think not. I'd propose another theory: that your reasons are simply that you have lied about your supposed connection to the William Tselepis vicsim, and would never be able to answer any of these questions on any kind of provable basis.

[simonshack]

Elmoastro,

Here are my own two cents about this case, if I may.

You signed up to this forum with an interesting introduction which mentioned that you knew a brother of an alleged 9/11 victim, "William Tselepis". Here's an extract of your intro to this forum:

I guess the first question I'd ask him is, "How well did you know your brother?" But as you can see, I'm not sure I want to open a can of worms. I'd rather re-connect and feel him out over a little time as to his ability to discuss the subject. You see, I'm not close to him but am in a way. I have close ties to the circle he travels in and know him well enough to call and meet for a coffee/beer. The data and theory here contradict this guy's experience and I want to probe it on this end.

Since then, you have not "lived up to our expectations", if you will. That is, to meet with this person you know well enough to call and meet for a coffee or beer.

Fair enough, I guess - you just haven't had the time or opportunity to do so yet.

My very simple question would be: do you still plan to do so, one fine day? If not - why? I have even provided you with a 'soft' way of doing so (William Tselepsis' absurd absence from Cantor's own 9/11 memorial) which allows you to submit to your friend/acquaintance a simple, non-offensive question: "How come your brother is missing from the Cantor Memorial?"

See, the reason you are met with skepticism and impatience here is also very simple: to this day, and for almost half a decade now, every single entity who has mentioned "knowing someone who perished on 9/11" has - unfailingly - ended up either talking his/her way out of the issue, dodging it altogether, disappearing from the forum or, (as is your case) suggesting that we all need to be more open-minded about - or to reconsider - the basic postulation of our longstanding VicSim research: that no one was killed 'as advertised in the media' (in towers or airplanes) on 9/11.

Now, your last post above even brought up the notion of 'religious belief' which, quite frankly, raises a tall red flag as to what may be your actual, underlying agenda. To be sure, we are all very tired of the relentless attempts to liken this forum to some "cult" or "religion". I am, for one, growing pretty weary of it all. What we do here is the exact opposite of that - as we valiantly keep calling out the dogmatic Official 9/11 Tale, sold to the public as an incontestable Bible through the mighty and cultish powers of the "Infallible Church of Television". All Cluesforum does is to alert people - through rational and empirical brain use - to the worldwide cult of TV, and to try and relieve this planet of this plague.

Lastly, the last sentence of your above post tells me that you are most likely just a silly troll: "But it's also the potential flat-earth lens." I suppose this is a crude innuendo aimed at associating us all to flat-earthers? If not, please explain - to the best of your capacities, elmoastro. Failing that, your next post may be your last on this forum.