Response to Ben

What I see in Ben’s answers is well constructed hypothetical castles on specific points. Let me be clear. There is always circumstantial evidence in cases. The more of it there is, the more likely the suspect is guilty. What I mean with well constructed hypothetical castles and perhaps this is Titus not elaborating enough on the huge amount of suspicious activity is that Ben works so hard to argue against one symbol but there is a whole lot more and so close together.

Ben says:
AOL, Streets and Time Warner have spiral logos. This dismisses the claim that since the FBI has listed specific spiral logos as pedophile symbols that this makes Titus’s claim invalid.
Firstly AOL does not even resemble the FBI symbols, but that is not the major issue I have with this weak argument. Streets and Time Warner both resemble these images close enough. We all know that the TV industry has never ever had pedophiles. That was sarcasm. Yes, yes they have, but this can be just a coincidence. Also these probably are local pedophile symbols (which seems like a fitting position for Ben) so Streets, being British-Dutch and an international brand does not even apply. Circumstantial evidence starts to heap up with the symbols. Besta, Terasol and Comet all have the symbols associated with pedophilia. Creepy, but let us play that off as another coincidence. All these pizza places are in the same street. This can also be another coincidence. And finally, Terasol’s logo is a heart in a heart which Ben dismissed off the bat when referring to Streets. A child’s hand in an adult’s hand with a heart in a heart is much more suspicious anyway. So only looking at the symbols in this one street and considering that the FBI has labeled these as pedophile symbols at least locally makes this for a valuable piece of circumstantial evidence. This does not mean they are guilty, but it does raise suspicion. Ben also played a little straw man card when saying the infinity symbol is no where to be seen. He dismissed his opponents points by pointing out an error of labeling symbol. Obviously Titus was just pointing out the many coincidences. Ben never answered these.
I agree with Ben on the server mostly. Suspicion only raises in retrospect personally.
Ben says:
(Again this can be due to Titus not elaborating enough) Alefantis’s response is reasonable. He is trying to defend his mom.
Ben has obviously not seen the whole conversation. Alefantis asked the threatened party to delete a video about a room he supposedly found. Multiple death threats were involved and I would advise anyone to read the whole chat before dismissing Titus here. Alefantis sent pictures of who he thought the threatened party’s girlfriend was. He added death threats as well. This is not a good sign.
Ben says:
The pictures are used for comedic value and here I guess our interpretation of what circumstantial evidence is, differs. Ben addresses only two pictures. The pizza slut of the family friendly restaurant and the child duct taped to a table. If this does not raise suspicion further, you must be a tad blind. In light of it all not even mentioning one of the comments on some the other pictures calling someone. “My favourite pedo.”
Take note that the profile picture of Alefantis is Roman Emperor Hadrian. Was he perhaps a pedophile? Oh, yeah. Lucky guess.
I agree with Ben’s conclusion about the claims that everything is strongly connected. They may be loosely connected. I would recommend people looking at the art in Podesta’s home, the pictures of Alefantis. (In one he mockingly puts a price on a baby) Funny stuff. My guess is Ben is just trying to make Pizzagate more sound and I respect him for that.
Stefan. (All the way from South Africa.)