The notion of 'thousands of victims' was crucial to generate universal public outrage. However, having 3000 angry families breathing down their necks was never part of the perps' demented plan. Our ongoing analyses and investigations suggest that NO one died on 9/11.
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:41 pm
Yes. I do plan to ask the question. And I understand the reason for the doubt as you explained. To be clear I am interested to find out as well. I want to have discretion in how I approach it. Given it's been over a decade, I'm ok if it takes a little time for the right opportunity.
simonshack wrote:Dear elmoastro,
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.
My post was philosophical, dealing with my own personal experiences with cutting through my own belief and was directed at human psychology, not an attempt to link CF with religion. If it was taken that way, I apologize. It wasn't an attack or degradation. Religion should be kept out of it, I agree. Belief in any form is what I refer to and applies across any discipline in my opinion.
simonshack wrote: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".
Not at all. It is my own mantra. I ask myself "What is my own flat-earth thinking." It's my own koan that breaks my ego from wanting to be right or wrong. It allows me to leave room for the things I personally may be blind to. It is what I use to cut through my own belief programs. It allows me to keep an open mind. And it seems to work for me. Having done personal work on belief and seeing the results, it is my opinion that it is very difficult to understand and apply how we wire emotion and belief. The biggest example is 9/11. The majority believe what they saw on TV and still do to this day. I learned to cut through that belief for myself as have members of this forum. It's not an attempt to subvert or sway others. Yes, I have opinions, but I try to be open to information that may go against something I hold to be true. I don't believe CF to be a group of flat-earthers. Since I use "lens" as a metaphor for how I personally look at things, I've tried to strip away old, out-dated lenses in my own life and replace them with ones that allow for more clarity in a situation. Again, if it was taken as a direct shot at CF, then I apologize. Keep in mind, I'm not the one that made this the focus as I had no clue it was historically charged with your prior experiences. To you, I'm a troll. To me, I made a statement that has been taken as a direct shot at your research. A troll pursues an agenda. I have no agenda and have only tried to answer in response--not put forth alternatives to counter your research. I'm only trying to fit what I've learned here with my own experience and try to fit it into a semblance of truth. I didn't even reopen this thread. I've explained it before so I won't repeat. As far as the future, do what you gotta do.
simonshack wrote: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. Your next post may be your last on this forum.
- Posts: 2231
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA
elmoastro wrote: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.
This personal testimony/philosophy is incredibly boring.
William Tselepsis > P[l]ease Limit Swill