It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

page: 144
31
<< 141  142  143    145  146  147 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
actually his point is clear and very much pertinent to the discussion. i will take the liberty to explain it(if im wrong Roth correct me). what he is stating is that the civil war is not at his door step, but may very well be at anothers. the same for all who cant answer that question clearly. just becuase we are not fighting for our lives doesnt mean others are not.

heres a perspective change in ww2 when did the war start? 1939.
ok now ask a jew that was stripped from there home and confined in a camp, when did the war start? his answer is much earlier that 1939, for him it was the day his town was overrun by fascism.

He asked when the world war started. The world war started in '39.
As I've stated earlier there were PLENTY of events leading up to the war. But the world war, as it's defined, began in 1939.
Titor spoke as if things leading up to the civil war were occuring. So when he said the civil war would start in 2004, that means there were events leading up to that time in which the civil war, as it's defined, would begin. Titor didn't say events leading up to the war would begin in 2004, he said the war would begin, and he defined what he meant by war.

Also, 2004 was THREE YEARS AGO!
If the war was supposed to start as events that no one in the world would notice and steadily get worse we'd still notice it by now! Titor didn't say it would begin with events we wouldn't notice which means we REALLY should notice it by now.




posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

BS
Titor stated, the war would start in 2004 with Waco type events that steadily get worse.




Now if you are refering to the Titor quote below, some of it's in random order.

2008
2004
Waco type
2012
2015

Titor:
The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world
they thought they were living in was over. The civil war in the United States will
start in 2004. I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that
steadily gets worse. The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012 and
end in 2015 with a very short WWIII.


The whole paragraph is just a generalization of his past... Yes he said it would start in 2004, but remember it steadily gets worse, especially by 2012....



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Here is another way of viewing it, goes with some of Vitchilo's post.....

Titor warns of something that will be at our doorstep in 2008, a wakening of a new world maybe.... Ah perhaps! Vitchilo's rant about "Bilderberg Group."

Now days we hear plenty about shadowy elite groups and corporate globalist building a North American Union in our mist.

2004 - 2005 Independent Task Force on North America


Independent Task Force on North America was a project organized by the United States Council on Foreign Relations, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. It was chaired by former Canadian politician John Manley and advocates a North American Union, entailing a greater integration between Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

It was launched in October 2004 and published two documents - Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 (March 2005) and its final report Building a North American Community[1] (May 2005). en.wikipedia.org...



October 15, 2004—The Council has launched an independent task force on the future of North America to examine regional integration since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement ten years ago.
www.cfr.org...


www.nascocorridor.com...


If we are split up like that in the future, I don't think five presidents is too far fetched in the Titor story.

Does anyone keep up with The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America? www.spp.gov... 911, has served the matter at hand for those whose goal is to establish a NWO. Are You Ready for Your North American Union ID Card


Titor:
You must realize that why people are fighting is more important that what they are
fighting with. The conflict was not about taking and holding ground it was about
order and rights. They were betting that people wanted security instead of
freedom and they were wrong.


"Brought to you by Three Amigos"




[edit on 26-11-2006 by XPhiles]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
You're learning. And so from Titor's viewpoint, the second US civil war started with the actions, decisions of this present Administration

BS
Titor stated, the war would start in 2004 with Waco type events that steadily get worse.

No, Titor did not say the second US civil war would start with Waco type events. He simply stated that from his viewpoint, the second US civil war would start in 2004/2005. Furthermore Titor mentions the Waco type events as his description of that war, as he remembers it, looking back on it with his memory from 2036!…. and his description is very clear: “having a Waco type every month that steadily gets worse”….. US law enforcement against US civilians…… starting out as occasional incidents…… now growing worse in quantity and quality….. one only has to focus on the growing bizarre taser-deaths……


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
Yes he did and he also made it very clear we would not find ourselves in a sudden full blown civil war, but we would grow into it.

OK!
Yes we're to grow into it. It was supposed to start in 2004, it's now 3 years later!!!

Since you're incapable of answering simple questions with a simple yes or no. I'll take this as your answer.
Since we haven't grown into anything in three years and your inability to say yes or no, it's obvious that even you don't think the war has started yet.

That's all I wanted you to answer Roth! Thank you!
It's not that hard! lol

I guess you coming out and just saying no would make you lose whatever credibility you still had with the other Titorites, right?
Just saying no would go against Titor and then you'd have to admit to your friends that Titor was wrong. It's ok roth, it really is...

It’s growing fast. And it all started when taser-deaths were discovered and reported by the media, starting from the second Bush term in 2004 and becoming a national issue in 2005….. that’s probably why Titor used the 2 dates 2004 and 2005…..


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
Yes or No ThatsJustWeird
A simple yes or no.

Do you believe believe the second World War actually started in 1937?

I answered this in the other post, if you had taken the time to read it.
1. The answer is NO! As stated already, it started in 1939 (based on the definition of "World War" - please read my previous post.)

2. What does this have to do with John Titor? You pathetic attempts to change the subject are well...pathetic. If you trying to make some point, you're doing a horrible job. Again, trying to compare anything is beyond silly as both situations are as different as night and day. Now that the question is answered will you stop with this nonsense and keep the discussion on Titor?

That's how you answer a yes or no question Roth. With a yes or no.

Many historians will be happy to disagree with you with very solid arguments as to why the second World War actually started in 1937. The comparison with the second World War is a valid and proper one. From Titor’s viewpoint the second US Civil War started in 2004/2005 (read: taser-deaths and decisions of Bush Administration starting from second term) but bigger Waco type events (read: US law enforcement against US civilians) will probably get out of hand around 2008 when it’s pretty much on everyone’s doorstep….. and with a culmination around 2011-2015……The second World War culminated in systematic genocide as the years passed on…….



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human87
I understand he cant be specific about these events but it would help prove that he is for real.


titor addresses this, he states that hes not sharing his story to change the future. he is on the web because in the future its the major form of communication. and states that if he did reveal more info, he would still be disregarded as a crazy on a soap box.


Yes, I realize people become hostile. I don't expect anyone to believe me and I have nothing to sell. I take no offense by it. Just out of curiosity, if you were a time traveler, what do you think it would take to get people to believe you?



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
He asked when the world war started. The world war started in '39.
As I've stated earlier there were PLENTY of events leading up to the war...


yes i understand your point of view, but as Roth pointed out many ppl dont agree with this date as the definitive date. some scholars refuse to say ww1 even ended. this common date that you believe is the date that the educational systems agreed apon. im willing to agree the ww2 started in 1939, but if someone is going to argue it started earlier or even later im not going to debate over it. the main point is that it happened



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Titor spoke as if things leading up to the civil war were occuring. So when he said the civil war would start in 2004, that means there were events leading up to that time ....


ok first of all time itself leads upto everything, what titor did was choose vague but significant events that were connected to the war.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Titor didn't say events leading up to the war would begin in 2004, he said the war would begin...


this is where you are assuming things. true titor never specifically said this is when the chain of events started, but he also never stated that this is the point after the chain of events took place. the nature of titors speech when he spoke of the civil conflict was loose and coded(compared to the speech of his own life)


and finally...


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
he defined what he meant by war.


your definition of war and titors (i cant find either right now), went something like this organized units using tactical maneuvers against an opposition(if im way off shoot me :/). titor never stated who was using this form of procedure at the start of the civil conflict. but later in time both sides were active.----im sure the nazi had organized units using tactical maneuvers when apprehending the prisoners. and if you were to accept that, then ww2 started much earlier.



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roth Joint
No, Titor did not say the second US civil war would start with Waco type events. He simply stated that from his viewpoint, the second US civil war would start in 2004/2005. Furthermore Titor mentions the Waco type events as his description of that war, as he remembers it, looking back on it with his memory from 2036!…

1. Titor is a historian
2. He's a time traveller
It's not based solely on his memory
If he said it started in 2004, then he means it started in 2004.

Glad to know you think he's wrong! You're getting close Roth






It’s growing fast. And it all started when taser-deaths were discovered and reported by the media, starting from the second Bush term in 2004 and becoming a national issue in 2005….. that’s probably why Titor used the 2 dates 2004 and 2005…..

LMAO!!!
Wow.

I had to read this twice to make sure I read it write.

I'm still not sure I just read what I think I read lol...so....seeing as nothing I just read is based on facts, could you please explain this before I go over it....




Many historians will be happy to disagree with you with very solid arguments as to why the second World War actually started in 1937.

Please show these historians.



The comparison with the second World War is a valid and proper one. From Titor’s viewpoint the second US Civil War started in 2004/2005 (read: taser-deaths and decisions of Bush Administration starting from second term)

lol, you and your tasers
Titor stated that the war (as he defines war) would begin in 2004.
It's 2007.
Titor's definition of war has not started. Period. If the war doesn't start in 2004, then why would he say that (and go out of his way to describe his definition of war)?
If he meant things leading up to the war would begin in 2004, then he should have said that, right?




Newscaster: Hello everyone, apparantly the most powerful nation on earth is three years into a civil war and no one has noticed or cares. In more important news, more Playstation 3s and Tickle Me Elmos were shipped today, making for more happy consumers.



[edit on 26-11-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
yes i understand your point of view, but as Roth pointed out many ppl dont agree with this date as the definitive date. some scholars refuse to say ww1 even ended. this common date that you believe is the date that the educational systems agreed apon.

No, that's the date when war began.
Again, there were plenty of events before this date, but war began with the invasion.

We've been attacking Iraq since the end of the Gulf War, but war didn't start until 2003.



----im sure the nazi had organized units using tactical maneuvers when apprehending the prisoners. and if you were to accept that, then ww2 started much earlier.

Doesn't matter how they apprehended prisoners. Apprehending prisoners is just that....apprehending prisoners.
Fact remains actual war didn't break out until '39.

(Titor's definition is groups moving and engaging in armed conflict)



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 03:08 AM
link   

1. Titor is a historian
2. He's a time traveller
It's not based solely on his memory
If he said it started in 2004, then he means it started in 2004.

Glad to know you think he's wrong! You're getting close Roth

1.He's not a historian, he studied history.
It's based on his views of history, according with what he saw and experienced. He both said 2005 and 2004, and IMO, it's because first he wanted to say when it was more spread, then he really said when it started at first, when it was not that spread.



LMAO!!!
Wow.

I had to read this twice to make sure I read it write.

I'm still not sure I just read what I think I read lol...so....seeing as nothing I just read is based on facts, could you please explain this before I go over it....

It's like the 100th time you ask that, go back and read and stop asking the same questions.



Please show these historians.

They exists and they are more than 1000 world-wide i'm sure. So stop trying us to prove every stupid point like, TJW, i won't talk to you until you prove me that you exist for real.




No, that's the date when war began.
Again, there were plenty of events before this date, but war began with the invasion.

We've been attacking Iraq since the end of the Gulf War, but war didn't start until 2003.

Sorry, but history is a thing that winners write and that the majority agree upon. If you can't see that, shame on you.

For Iraq war 2, some could say it begun when an embargo started.


Doesn't matter how they apprehended prisoners. Apprehending prisoners is just that....apprehending prisoners.
Fact remains actual war didn't break out until '39.

(Titor's definition is groups moving and engaging in armed conflict)


Apprehending prisonner is for sure accompagnied with some fights and armed resistance. So it could be seen at a beginning of armed conflict engaging in conflicts.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Has anyone considered that the civil war could have been outsourced to Iraq? The two ideologies decide to fight out thier differences on a battlefield 3 thousand miles away instead of here at home. We are engaged in a civil war in another country, but we are already engaged none the less.

This thread has 158,000 views and 2,800 replies.


Fearful that the war would spread to the homeland they take measures to secure themselves. The war spreads to the homeland anyways, once they realize that outsourcing the war won't work.


[edit on 27-11-2006 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 04:25 AM
link   
70 000 Outsourced Soldiers of Fortune are currently in Iraq so it doesnt take much to see who is causing all the current chaos.

www.rense.com...



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   
As I said earlier in this thread, mexicans are now setting a parallel government to fight the rig of their elections. This could lead to civil war in Mexico and affect USA.

Article

You want armed group in conflict? You have them in Mexico, now. And Mexico is a part of the US... because of the North American Union that is pushed in the Titor's future. So he could consider Mexico as a part of the US. Even if not, a civil war in Mexico will affect USA for sure.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
1.He's not a historian, he studied history.
It's based on his views of history, according with what he saw and experienced. He both said 2005 and 2004, and IMO, it's because first he wanted to say when it was more spread, then he really said when it started at first, when it was not that spread.

Yeah, and it's 2007 now...



It's like the 100th time you ask that, go back and read and stop asking the same questions.

100th time asking what? I just told Roth to explain what he just wrote...
Since that's my first time seeing Titor write that, I challange you to go back and see where I asked him to explain that before.

(also, if I'm asking the same questions, it's because you all are refusing to answer them)



They exists and they are more than 1000 world-wide i'm sure. So stop trying us to prove every stupid point like

Do you even know what we're talking about?
I'm not the one trying to prove a point, Roth is.

This is what you get for butting into other people's conversations...



For Iraq war 2, some could say it begun when an embargo started.

No, the embargo started when the embargo started.
The war started when the war started.

Your last post...ridiculous
You're really stretching the truth now.
Mexico is not part of the US and never will be. And please post Titor's quotes about a North American Union...I think I missed that part



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Titor also gives us hints of the type of person he is...historically.
Just take a look at the way he describes a what if WWII scenario.




As a time traveler it would be easy for me to take a short hike up that hill where the RADAR operators were and point out to them that indeed the equipment was working just fine and they should probably call it in. Assuming they believed me, it is arguable that my lone single action could start a chain of events that would allow the US to meet the Japanese planes and stop them from attacking the battleships. As a result, the US people would still be angry but not motivated to enter the war fully since the Japanese were not a perceived threat. Thus, you don't begin research on the atomic bomb until well after Hitler has already dropped a couple on London.


Now he most certainly does not sound like a 'sensible' historian to me...
Hitler with nukes?

Instead of waiting for 'the 2008', 2007 should be a pivotal point as if you will the- beginning-of-the-end. So stock up on those bicycle tires because you will need them!


[edit on 27-11-2006 by Firestorm]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   


I have no idea of wtf is going on in this thread


We have people argueing if they are in a civil war or not (or when its going to start...

People argueing about when world war 2 started...

and almost 150 pages (that I'm NOT going through)...
Why not change the threads name? maybe "Civil-World war 3 coming to a city/country near you?"



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
No, Titor did not say the second US civil war would start with Waco type events. He simply stated that from his viewpoint, the second US civil war would start in 2004/2005. Furthermore Titor mentions the Waco type events as his description of that war, as he remembers it, looking back on it with his memory from 2036!…

1. Titor is a historian
2. He's a time traveller
It's not based solely on his memory
If he said it started in 2004, then he means it started in 2004.

Glad to know you think he's wrong! You're getting close Roth


You sound like a teenager thatsjustweird, but yes John Titor was probably a historian (or at least interested in history) and yes he said the second US Civil War would start in 2004/2005 from his viewpoint. But no, he did not say it would start with Waco type events, though they would certainly be a part of that war….. the part he most certainly remembered when looking back on that war with his memory from 2036…..



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
It’s growing fast. And it all started when taser-deaths were discovered and reported by the media, starting from the second Bush term in 2004 and becoming a national issue in 2005….. that’s probably why Titor used the 2 dates 2004 and 2005…..

LMAO!!!
Wow.
I had to read this twice to make sure I read it write.
I'm still not sure I just read what I think I read lol...so....seeing as nothing I just read is based on facts, could you please explain this before I go over it....

It’s a nice trick trying to laugh it away…when you are a teenager…….but aren’t you a bit too old for that thatsjustweird?....you just can’t get around it……..try some solid arguments instead....



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
Many historians will be happy to disagree with you with very solid arguments as to why the second World War actually started in 1937.

Please show these historians.

That’s a really cheap one thatsjustweird. How sad.
Your pathetic attempt to divert the conversation won’t work. The historians are real. Please do some research. (You may start by reading the book: Murray, Williamson and Allan R. Millett. A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War, 1937-1945.)

However, what’s more important is, that in the view of other historians the second World War started in 1937. Period. And therefore it is not so strange that from the viewpoint of John Titor, perhaps also being a historian himself indeed!, the second US Civil War started in 2004/2005! Many historians have a way of observing a situation much in the sense that a philosopher looks at a situation….and that is, they are both trying to get to the basic/underlying cause of things…. the root cause that put things in motion…..
John Titor: "Again, it's hard to judge good and bad outcomes, only good and bad decisions."



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
The comparison with the second World War is a valid and proper one. From Titor’s viewpoint the second US Civil War started in 2004/2005 (read: taser-deaths and decisions of Bush Administration starting from second term)

lol, you and your tasers
Titor stated that the war (as he defines war) would begin in 2004.
It's 2007.
Titor's definition of war has not started. Period. If the war doesn't start in 2004, then why would he say that (and go out of his way to describe his definition of war)?
If he meant things leading up to the war would begin in 2004, then he should have said that, right?

Newscaster: Hello everyone, apparantly the most powerful nation on earth is three years into a civil war and no one has noticed or cares. In more important news, more Playstation 3s and Tickle Me Elmos were shipped today, making for more happy consumers.


You are making this into a puberty discussion. It’s embarrassing. Grow up. Taser-deaths have become a very uncomforting national issue not to be underestimated Ofcourse there’s so much more. But John Titor made no mistake by mentioning “non-lethal’ weapons being quite lethal! How true and how tragic….


[edit on 27-11-2006 by Roth Joint]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Firestorm

you said...
Now he most certainly does not sound like a 'sensible' historian to me...
Hitler with nukes?

The Germans were working on Nuclear devices and there is ample evidence to prove this claim. There are other reports by authors that they actually tested a nuclear device as early as 1943 and were refered to by Hitler as the Wonder Weapons about to win the war for him, but delays and allied bombing prevented him from realising being the first nuclear power.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by mazzroth]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Thanks for the quote Firestorm... I saw something in it...


As a time traveler it would be easy for me to take a short hike up that hill where the RADAR operators were and point out to them that indeed the equipment was working just fine and they should probably call it in. Assuming they believed me, it is arguable that my lone single action could start a chain of events that would allow the US to meet the Japanese planes and stop them from attacking the battleships. As a result, the US people would still be angry but not motivated to enter the war fully since the Japanese were not a perceived threat. Thus, you don't begin research on the atomic bomb until well after Hitler has already dropped a couple on London.


Hinting at the change of war doctrine of Bush? The pre-emptive doctrine? That stopped the research of ``WMDs`` in Iraq? Like Bush said, you don't want to wait until a nuclear smoking gun appears...Like you don't want to strike Iraq after they nuked Iraq, but before.

Or I'm too streching...


And the US citizens have dozens of reason to uprise... The US is becoming a fascist state.

Here's the fascist program:
- For nationalism... they are for global nationalism, a NWO.
- For a totaliarian state... yes they are and with technology, you won't be able to escape it.
- For order and a police state... yes, and they are going farer every day.
- Propaganda... yes Fox, CNN, ect... it's not working very well for a certain part of the population but it's working for the majority of US citizens and the occidental world.
-

[edit on 27-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
i won't talk to you until you prove me that you exist for real.


har har i laughed





Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
1. Titor is a historian
2. He's a time traveller
It's not based solely on his memory
If he said it started in 2004, then he means it started in 2004.


ok i agree here but as i said before he was/is a child right now, so some one taught him this date , who?? i dont know. in his time the civil conflict ended with the start of ww3, 3million ppl die, the water supply poisoned, haveing to support a community or face corproal punishment. with all these things accurring do you think they will have a precise date for a civil war?

No i dont think so, the nature of a civil war is far different than a WW. i also think its safe to assume that the gov't would try to contain and maintain a low radar while dealing with resistance. now if this could be a logical step to take then the war would not be widly known until it reaches beyond containment, maybe 2008 when it at nearly everyones doorstep.

2008 is the date we are all involved but by then its to late to change anything, why because it been going on for some time now, so when did these events start 1999, 2007, or 2004 when extreme changes started occurring in our countries policies.



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Doesn't matter how they apprehended prisoners. Apprehending prisoners is just that....apprehending prisoners.
Fact remains actual war didn't break out until '39.


as a matter of fact is does matter, it matters more than your own life. because saying WW2 started in 1939 suggests what came before was not important enough historically to be mentioned.



Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Has anyone considered that the civil war could have been outsourced to Iraq? The two ideologies decide to fight out thier differences on a battlefield 3 thousand miles away instead of here at home. We are engaged in a civil war in another country, but we are already engaged none the less.


although i agree it does seem like but Titor says this

Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency. This becomes apparent around 2004 as civil unrest develops near the next presidential election. The Jewish population in Israel is not prepared for a true offensive war. They are prepared for the ultimate defense. Wavering western support for Israel is what gives Israel's neighbors the confidence to attack. The last resort for a defensive Israel and its offensive Arab neighbors is to use weapons of mass destruction. In the grand scheme of things, the war in the Middle East is a part of what's to come, not the cause.


TJW i was begining to assume somthing about you then Roth suggested it first, how old are you? becuase your info seems gathered but your angle is very immature. Your unwilling to accept the possiblity that some ppl dont eat everything their feed. which is quite funny seeing as where we are right now in time with the whole mess of WMD's, and the fact that you are at a conspiracy site



befor you counter to suggest that we are eating what titor feed us. ill say this i did research on this subject in many more in my time here on earth, and i wont willing tell somthing someone said without first doing a little or a great deal of research. why? for the simple fact i dont every want to look like a tool. at this point in titors story is holding up , this is not a belief this is apparent with the current state of things, with the acception of the date of the civil conflict, maybe in time 2004 will make more sense.....im willing to wait and find out.


[edit on 27-11-2006 by Glyph_D]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
i have a question- who exactly decides these dates that your holding as if they are infallible decisions?

is it a wizard hidden in a volcano with massive power to dictate the live of millions with a single spell?

or a group of ppl not invovled in the incident who just decide on a date, then stamp appoved on the report?

as cool as Sauron sounds, its probly the latter



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roth Joint
You sound like a teenager thatsjustweird, but yes John Titor was probably a historian (or at least interested in history) and yes he said the second US Civil War would start in 2004/2005 from his viewpoint.

Why do you keep saying from his viewpoint?
He's from the future, meaning he's been through it already. If he stated something will happen at such and such a time, then by the time we get to it, we should be seeing the same things.

Unless you believe Titor was wrong, which I'm starting to get a sense from you...


But no, he did not say it would start with Waco type events, though they would certainly be a part of that war

English 101 buddy. Sentences in the same paragraph generally support each other.
YOU'RE saying that he didn't say that, because you're trying to make your views fit.
He stated that the war will start in 2004, the VERY NEXT sentence he states how it will be.

The war will start in 2004. I would describe it as waco events that steadily get worse.

Why do you assume the two sentences are unrelated??




….. the part he most certainly remembered when looking back on that war with his memory from 2036…..

Again, he's not looking at this from his memory only. You keep saying that, again, to justify your views

JT about the start of the war:

I remember the exact date. When it comes, it will not be a surprise.




Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
It’s growing fast. And it all started when taser-deaths were discovered and reported by the media, starting from the second Bush term in 2004 and becoming a national issue in 2005….. that’s probably why Titor used the 2 dates 2004 and 2005…..

LMAO!!!
Wow.
I had to read this twice to make sure I read it write.
I'm still not sure I just read what I think I read lol...so....seeing as nothing I just read is based on facts, could you please explain this before I go over it....



It’s a nice trick trying to laugh it away…when you are a teenager…….but aren’t you a bit too old for that thatsjustweird?....you just can’t get around it……..try solid arguments instead....

Nice way to skip addressing this.

I asked you to explain.

Since nothing you just stated is based on facts, I asked you to explain where you got that from.
Of course you can't, that's you you resort to calling me a teenager

Pathetic.

Out of all that, the only thing you saw was my laugh??



Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
That’s a really cheap one thatsjustweird. How sad.
Your pathetic attempt to divert the conversation won’t work.

lmao!
I'm the one trying to keep this on Titor buddy!
You're the one who keeps mentioning WW2!
How am I the one diverting the conversation!? I asked you a question based on what you said!!!!
lol


And therefore it is not so strange that from the viewpoint of John Titor, perhaps also being a historian himself indeed!, the second US Civil War started in 2004/2005!

I never said it was strange!
This is where you're trying to get off by not answering my question!

We ALL agree that Titor stated that the war would begin in 2004!
I'm asking, are we three years into the war!? From Titor's viewpoint, from your viewpoint, from John Doe #34's viewpoint....are we three years into the war???


TJW i was begining to assume somthing about you then Roth suggested it first, how old are you? becuase your info seems gathered but your angle is very immature. Your unwilling to accept the possiblity that some ppl dont eat everything their feed.

lol
Read through this thread my friend.
I have tried to have "mature" conversations, but it's hopeless.

Know thy audience.....


Oh, and I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that people eat everything they're fed. This thread is a perfect example

Yes I accpet it, but I'm trying to figure out why this is.
Why are some people so much more gullible than others and are so willing and determined to defend even the most ridiculous of notions?

Man, I LOVE the Human brain


at this point in titors story is holding up , this is not a belief this is apparent with the current state of things, with the acception of the date of the civil conflict, maybe in time 2004 will make more sense.....im willing to wait and find out.

Wait how long!?
It's 2007 already.
And absolutely nothing Titor has stated is holding up.

The west has not collapsed yet
The US is not in a civil war
The middle eastern countries are not shooting WMDs at each other
Mad Cow disease is not a major epidemic
No matter how hard Roth tries to spin it, George Bush is NOTHING like Lincoln.
People aren't leaving cities for fear of conflicts
The line between city and country is becoming more blurred not more defined
etc.
Time travel is still not possible (if it's possible in the future and especially after a 10 year civil war and a nuclear war in which half the world is destroyed then it should be possible now right?)

etc.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 141  142  143    145  146  147 >>

log in

join