The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

Originally posted by Simulacra
No one wants disaster, but everyone wants disaster.

Apocalyptic imagination has plagued mankind for centuries. People see a certain ending as means to build something new and retribution for mankind. It's happened throughout history and it will continue to happen until we actually see an event that some would deem truly revolutionary.

I agree, Sim. I noticed you used the term "plagued" which has a very negative connotation. It's interesting to dream about global disaster as a force for positive change. The unfortunate thing is that there would have to be so much pain, suffering and loss of life to reach that final goal, and even then, the cycle would just be beginning again. We seem to be incapable of instituting and maintaining a 'peaceful paradise' on Earth ourselves. Why is that? Is it human nature, or has the Earth been hijacked by evil forces? Would anyone here, even the most die-hard conservatives, truly instigate a war with another country if given the choice? But I digress...

I feel that many Titorites romanticise about Titor's predictions coming true, but they would find themselves changing their minds if it actually did occur, with their lives turned upside down and their family and friends killed before their very eyes. If there is going to be a revolution and change on the Earth, lets hope it's instituted by someone who's going to be able to do it right, like ole JC.

.02

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
We seem to be incapable of instituting and maintaining a 'peaceful paradise' on Earth ourselves. Why is that?

A common held belief is that war prevents the progression of man from achieving global unity and peace. The achievement of a purely utopian society would be the pinnacle of civilization free from struggle, desire and distress. But we all know it has not been in the best interest of man to cease warfare. Again, the question remains 'Just why has man been addicted to war?' The answer can be found in the evolutionary apex of the human species, its search for liberation. Terrence McKenna states:

'The entire human experience, individual and collective, can be described as the pursuit of that which frees.'

Humans have manifested and then rejected numerous processions of religions, philosophies, societies, ideologies, cultures. All of these intangible concepts were spawned out of the goal to achieve liberation. Clearly, all efforts pioneered by man to achieve this intention have been met with failure. But this does not denote that there hasn't been progress. Warfare represents the ultimate finality of these systems of beliefs; it is literally the filter through which man evaluates whether or not these systems are suitable for the progression of the species. Conflict is the critical appraiser of liberation. Man need not wait for nature to start the gradual progression of Darwinism upon its civilization. This evolutionary process can expedited with mankind's initiative to pit two or more opposing systems of liberation against each other, and let the more righteous method prevail over the globe. Therefore every battle, whether fought on the endless plains of the early Babylonian landscape or in the urban back alleys of present day Iraq have all progressed our civilization based on the simple fact that, humankind still exist. Warfare is not a maladaptive process; it is merely an externality of the search for liberation.

No votes for Europe's new constitution:

Alarm grows at prospect of French and Dutch no votes

David Gow in Brussels
Saturday May 21, 2005
The Guardian

European Union leaders desperately appealed yesterday for a yes vote
in the French and Dutch referendums on the new constitution, warning
that rejection of the treaty in either country would be a "failure for
Europe" that would set the EU back 20 years.

In London José Manuel Barroso, the European commission president,
said: "I believe that in case there was a no in either of those
countries it would be perceived outside of Europe as a failure for
Europe. People will say: 'Those Europeans cannot even agree about a
treaty.'"

Taken from: www.guardian.co.uk...

JT: "...Western stability, which collapses in 2005."
"The West will become very unstable..."
"Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West..."

JT: "...Western stability, which collapses in 2005."
"The West will become very unstable..."
"Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West..."

Europe in disarray as Italian economy in crisis

BILL JAMIESON
Sun 22 May 2005

AMACABRE competition appears to have broken out across the Continent
ahead of the French vote on the EU constitution: which of the
Eurozone's economies are in the deepest trouble and could spark a
Europe-wide crisis?

Earlier this year it looked as if Germany was the real source of the
Eurozone's woes. Unemployment climbed to more than five million, and
even allowing for statistical blips, there is little doubt of a
widespread lack of confidence among consumers and business.

But the real basket case may be neither Germany nor France. According
to the Economist it is Italy that is in the deepest trouble. Figures
earlier this month showed the Italian economy fell back into
recession in the first quarter of the year. The latest OECD report on
Italy argues that the country's slow economic growth mainly reflects
its structural failings. With the traditional option of devaluation
now closed as Italy is part of the euro bloc, there are growing
worries of a serious crisis in the public finances as tax revenues
fall behind.

These outcomes are an appalling advertisement for the agenda of
integration that drives the EU constitution. Together these three
economies account for 70% of Eurozone GDP. And the Eurozone continues
to be the weakest performer in global comparisons of growth......

Taken from: business.scotsman.com...

When will you officially give up Roth and realize Titor was a hoax?
Are you going to wait all the way until January 1, 2006?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

When will you officially give up Roth and realize Titor was a hoax?
Are you going to wait all the way until January 1, 2006?

Technically, I'm going to hold onto Jan. 1st 2006. In the meantime, I'm leaving all options open for these John Titor events to occur and continue to occur.

Originally posted by Simulacra
In the meantime, I'm leaving all options open for these John Titor events to occur and continue to occur.

Well not one has occured so far. So I guess you'll be waiting 6 more months for something that was supposed to start happening 18 months ago.

I am getting bored though and haven't shot at anyone lately, so hopefully Titor is right. Take out some city boys! er.......or country boys!

...wait...

I live in the 'burbs which is neither urban nor rural. Who do I fight? I guess we 'burbanites fight both
Hmmmm......The United People's Army of Suburbia. Nice ring to it.

Too bad Titor never mentioned the millions and millions of people who don't live in the city or rural areas. Or how people would tell the difference between one who lives in the city and one who doesn't.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Simulacra
In the meantime, I'm leaving all options open for these John Titor events to occur and continue to occur.

Well not one has occured so far. So I guess you'll be waiting 6 more months for something that was supposed to start happening 18 months ago.

I am getting bored though and haven't shot at anyone lately, so hopefully Titor is right. Take out some city boys! er.......or country boys!

...wait...

I live in the 'burbs which is neither urban nor rural. Who do I fight? I guess we 'burbanites fight both

Hmmmm......The United People's Army of Suburbia. Nice ring to it.

Too bad Titor never mentioned the millions and millions of people who don't live in the city or rural areas. Or how people would tell the difference between one who lives in the city and one who doesn't.

JT: "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."

Originally posted by Roth Joint
JT: "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."

Ok.....
What does this have to do with anything???
You always do that. Someone posts something, then you post an irrelevant post and don't explain yourself.

Originally posted by Roth Joint

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Simulacra
In the meantime, I'm leaving all options open for these John Titor events to occur and continue to occur.

Well not one has occured so far. So I guess you'll be waiting 6 more months for something that was supposed to start happening 18 months ago.

I am getting bored though and haven't shot at anyone lately, so hopefully Titor is right. Take out some city boys! er.......or country boys!

...wait...

I live in the 'burbs which is neither urban nor rural. Who do I fight? I guess we 'burbanites fight both

Hmmmm......The United People's Army of Suburbia. Nice ring to it.

Too bad Titor never mentioned the millions and millions of people who don't live in the city or rural areas. Or how people would tell the difference between one who lives in the city and one who doesn't.

JT: "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."

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Ok.....
What does this have to do with anything???
You always do that. Someone posts something, then you post an irrelevant post and don't explain yourself.

You still don't get it? According to Titor America would grow into a "civil war," initiated by the federal forces of the Government. It would not be a war of American civilians against eachother, neither a war about taking and holding ground, but a war about ORDER AND RIGHTS. A war about the precious FREEDOM under the US Constitution.


John Titor’s War 2005-2015
The characteristics of the coming US Civil War starting in 2005

1. Signs of an unfolding US Civil War could already be seen around 2000:

Ø “I am here for personal reasons. For a few months now, I have bee trying to alert anyone that would listen to the possibility of a civil war in the United States in 2005. Does that seem more likely now? Actually it's quite amazing to see what's happening. I have been trying to get people to pay attention for the last few months but to see it unfold is very interesting.”
Ø “I would use the word "elections" a bit cautiously. Perhaps it's easier now to see a civil war in your future?”
Ø “How can you possibly criticize me for any conflict that comes to you? I watch every day what you are doing as a society. While you sit by and watch your Constitution being torn away from you.”
Ø “Please, please wake up. Look at the signposts around you now.”

2. Connection between 2000/2004 Presidential “election,” future “civil war” & restriction of People’s Rights:

Ø “I am curious… will anyone be upset if Florida's votes are not counted in the Electoral College because of the current "confusion"?”
Ø “I would use the word "elections" a bit cautiously. Perhaps it's easier now to see a civil war in your future?”
Ø “According to the Constitution, who do you think has the final word on choosing a President and why?”
Ø “Do you really think your government is telling you the truth?”
Ø “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.”
Ø “How can you possibly criticize me for any conflict that comes to you? I watch every day what you are doing as a society. While you sit by and watch your Constitution being torn away from you.”
Ø “Yes, we still have political and religious leaders who find it difficult to obey the law. I would submit to you that the law is only as good as the people's willingness to apply it evenly and swiftly.”
Ø “The original Constitution itself was not the problem it was the ignorance of the people that lived under it.”

3. The US Civil War (conflicts) would start in 2005 as a result of “unwavering belief in Presidential Leader”:

Ø “There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years.”
Ø “It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself in 2005.”
Ø “The President or "leader" in 2005 I believe tried desperately to be the next Lincoln and hold the country together but many of their policies drove a larger wedge into the Bill of Rights. The President in 2009 was interested only in keeping his/her power base.”
Ø “The original Constitution itself was not the problem it was the ignorance of the people that lived under it.”

4. The US Civil War doesn’t start as Democrats vs Republicans but as Civil Conflicts about Order & Rights:

Ø “I don't believe I ever said the war was between Democrats and Republicans.”
Ø “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.”
Ø “I would define it as a conflict where organized groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict.”
Ø “My definition of a patriot is anyone who defends the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Ø “As a result of the many conflicts, no, there were no official Olympics after 2004.”

5. US Civil Conflicts will grow into US Civil War as result of Waco type & other methods by US authorities:

Ø Question: Your prediction of (national politics) pending disintegration, beginning in three short years, is impossible. “Have you see the documentary on Waco? Just for argument's sake, what do you think would happen if information were discovered that confirmed the worst accusations made against the law enforcement officers there? Would you hope nothing?”
Ø “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…”
Ø “It doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression.”
Ø “If the federal forces learned anything from WACO it was to install more reliable suppressors on their automatic weapons and don't use flash grenades that leave shell casings after the fire.”
Ø “However, there are a great many “non lethal” weapon systems in development that turn out to be quite lethal. Sometimes I watch your television programs that show SWAT teams using new non-lethal weapons. They usually start out with, “In the future, the army and police will fight its enemies with new weapons systems”. When they use the word “enemy”, they’re talking about YOU! You don’t really think the Marines are going to jump out of helicopters overseas with sticky goop, pepper spray and seizure lights, do you?”
Ø Question: Does the civil war start in such a way that those willing will have time to remove themselves to safer
locations. “Yes. You will be forced to ask yourself how many civil rights you will give up to feel safe.”

6. US Gov. Policies & Safety Measures during US Civil War to stronger restrict People’s Rights NOT to serve:

Ø Question: What does this look like? Is it a stalemate with the resistance/militia hiding out until the cities are wiped
out allowing them to surface? “The cities were not isolated because of them [ the Militia ]; they were isolated because of
us.” [ the US population outside of the cities ]
Ø “When the civil "conflict" started and got worse, people generally decided to either stay in the cities and lose most of their
civil rights under the guise of security or leave the cities for more isolated and rural areas. Our home was searched once
and the neighbor across the street was arrested for some unknown reason. That convinced my father to leave the city.”
Ø “They were betting that people wanted security instead of freedom and they were wrong.”
Ø “From the age of 8 to 12, [ 2006 to 2010 ] we lived away from the cities and spent most of our time in a farm community with
other families avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard. By that time, it was pretty clear that we were
not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined.”
Ø “The President in 2009 was interested only in keeping his/her power base.”
Ø “I submit to you that when the moment comes it will be absolutely plain as day that you are unsafe in the cities.”
Ø Question: Can you tell me what year the police will stop busting people for smoking weed? “It happens about the
same time they stop coming to your house when you dial 911.”
Ø Question: Do they start pushing for legalization earlier than the war??? “It's not really an issue of the government
letting you do something, It’s more like they have other things to worry about.”
Ø Question: Will you readily be able to identify the enemy? “They will be the ones arresting and holding people without
due process.”
Ø “The "enemy" that was attacked by Russia in the U.S. was the forces of the government you live under right now."
Ø Question: Does the civil war start in such a way that those willing will have time to remove themselves to safer
locations. “Yes. You will be forced to ask yourself how many civil rights you will give up to feel safe.”
Ø “In my experience, evil may be powerful, but they aren't very bright.”
Ø “Yes, I think the New World Order idea tried to establish itself. I would consider them the combination of the old U.S. federal system, Europe, Canada and Australia.”
Ø “The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won.”

7. The US Civil War (conflicts) would not be recognized by the majority as such until around & after 2008:

Ø “There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years.”
Ø “It doesn't exactly escalate as much as it opens the door for other aggression.”
Ø “I don't remember a great deal about media coverage during the civil conflicts. I would probably characterize it the same way you see coverage of Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez.”
Ø “Do you really think the news industry doesn't have an agenda?”
Ø “By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep. Western instability during the conflict leads to the attack in 2015. WWIII is very short with a longer period of mop up.”
Ø “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…”
Ø Question: Does the civil war start in such a way that those willing will have time to remove themselves to safer
locations. “Yes. You will be forced to ask yourself how many civil rights you will give up to feel safe.”
Ø Question: You said that there will be a big war. Can you at least tell us which cities will be nuked? “No I won't do that.
However, I submit to you that when the moment comes it will be absolutely plain as day that you are unsafe in the cities. The
millions people that stay will choose to stay. That's what comes as a surprise..”
Ø “Perhaps I should let you all in on a little secret. No one likes you in the future. This time period is looked at as being full of lazy, self-centered, civically ignorant sheep. Perhaps you should be less concerned about me and more concerned about that.”
Ø “The people who understand what they are seeing are not aggressive.”


The destabilization of the West starting in 2005

Western stability collapses as a result of degrading US foreign policy & consistency:

Ø “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.”
Ø “They [ Arabs & Jews ] are not directly involved [ in the US civil war ] but political situations are dependant on Western stability, which collapses in 2005.”
Ø “On my world line in 2011, the United States is in the middle of a civil war that has dramatic effects on most of the other Western governments.”


Middle East War after 2005 and around 2008
Arab countries opposed to each other and War on Israel by it’s Arab neighbours

Israel attacked by Arab neighbours as a result of wavering Western support:

Ø “They [ Arabs & Jews ] are not directly involved [ in the US civil war ] but political situations are dependant on Western stability, which collapses in 2005.”
Ø “The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over.
Ø “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.”

Arab countries divided and using WMDs against each other:

Ø Question: The Arab countries appear to have weapons of mass destruction. Do they use them
against America? “Not against America but they are used against each other”
Ø “I'm glad to see it's so easy for to dismiss the Middle East. Yes, I suppose it is a no brainer but pretty soon it will be a "no arrmer" and a "no legger".”


N-Day (WW III) 2015
The end result of Western instability during the US Civil War

2005-2015: Faulty politics & desperation of Western leadership during US Civil War leads to N-Day:

Ø “By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep. Western instability during the conflict leads to the attack in 2015. WWIII is very short with a longer period of mop up.”
Ø “The war is a result of faulty politics and desperation from Western leadership during the US civil war. Yes, I suppose you could stop it.”

2011-2015: China forcefully annexes Taiwan, Japan & Korea and attempts to invade Australia:

Ø “On my world line in 2011, the United States is in the middle of a civil war that has dramatic effects on most of the other Western governments.”
Ø “The West will become very unstable which gives China the confidence to "expand". I'm assuming you are all aware that China has millions of male soldiers right now that they know will never be able to find wives.
Ø “Taiwan, Japan and Korea were all "forcefully annexed" before N Day”
Ø "Australia is sort of interesting in what is unknown. After the war, they were not very cooperative or friendly (can't blame them really). It is known they did repulse a Chinese invasion and most of their cities were hit.”

2011-2015: Europe forms a unified army moving east from Germany. In response China attacks Europe:

Ø "I never fought any Chinese but their ability to hit Western cities with missiles made a lot of people unhappy."
Ø “The West will become very unstable which gives China the confidence to "expand". I'm assuming you are all aware that China has millions of male soldiers right now that they know will never be able to find wives. The attack on Europe is in response to a unified European army that masses and moves East from Germany. “

2015: Russia attacks and destroys the major cities in the United States, which ends the US Civil War:

Ø "Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe. The United States counter attacks. The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won. The European Union and China were also destroyed. Russia is now our largest trading partner and the Capitol of the US was moved to Omaha Nebraska."
Ø "The civil war ended in 2015 when Russia attacked the U.S. cities (our enemy), China and Europe."

2015: Russia’s first nuclear “low altitude” triple paired-warheads made a direct hit on “Jacksonville” in US:

Ø "However, in the opening hours of N Day, the Russians did not launch any high altitude detonations. They knew we would most likely clean up after them so they wanted everyone outside the cities to be able to communicate. Most of the warheads that hit the cities came in threes and exploded close to the ground. The heavy EMP damage was isolated to those areas."
Ø " I know exactly where I was and every detail of the exact moment the first nuclear warheads began falling on Jacksonville."

2015: Russia attacks and destroys the major cities in China and Europe:

Ø "The civil war ended in 2015 when Russia attacked the U.S. cities (our enemy), China and Europe."
Ø "Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe. The United States counter attacks. The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won. The European Union and China were also destroyed.
Ø “Yes, Europe is a mess.”

2015: The United States counter the Russian attacks:

Ø “Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe. The United States counter attacks. “
Ø “Also, please be aware that from my viewpoint, Russia attacked my enemy who was in the U.S. cities. Yes, the U.S. did counter attack."

2015: N-Day – Nearly 3,000.000.000 people were killed:

Ø “A world war in 2015 killed nearly three billion people”

From John Titor’s viewpoint, Russia attacked his enemies, the accepted oppressing US Government:

Ø “Also, please be aware that from my viewpoint, Russia attacked my enemy who was in the U.S. cities."
Ø "The "enemy" that was attacked by Russia in the U.S. was the forces of the government you live under right now."
Ø "Russia's enemy in the United States is not you, the average person. Russia's enemy is the United States government."
Ø “Yes, I think the New World Order idea tried to establish itself. I would consider them the combination of the old U.S. federal system, Europe, Canada and Australia.”
Ø “The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won.”
Ø Question: You stated elsewhere that Australia repulses a Chinese invasion. Does this mean Australian government side with your enemy? “There were deep divisions in Australia also. I would associate it more with a powder keg than a civil war.”
Ø “There's not a great deal I know about Canada except to say they were pretty much in the same type of conflict. They did have the Dew Line you know.”
Ø “I've noticed that when most Americans think about Canada in this time, they think about pine trees, chooks and back-bacon. It may interest you to know that most Canadians in 2036 are some of the most efficient, ruthless and dangerous people I know. God help Quebec.”
Ø “Perhaps I should let you all in on a little secret. No one likes you in the future. This time period is looked at as being full of lazy, self-centered, civically ignorant sheep. Perhaps you should be less concerned about me and more concerned about that.”


Chronology

1998: John Titor was born
Ø “I was born in 1998 so the other "me" is 2 on this worldline. There is a saying where I come from, "Every possible thing that can happen or will happen has already happened somewhere".”
Ø “I was born in 1998 so I do share some childhood memories with all of you. I remember going to Disney World at Christmas and I remember going to the beach in Daytona.”

2006: John Titor’s parents leave the city to avoid conflict with the Federal Police and National Guard
Ø “From the age of 8 to 12, [ 2006 to 2010 ] we lived away from the cities and spent most of our time in a farm community with
other families avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard. By that time, it was pretty clear that we were
not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined.” My father
made a living by putting together 12-volt electrical systems and sailing "commodities" up and down the coast of Florida. I
spent most of my time helping him.”
Ø “When the civil "conflict" started and got worse, people generally decided to either stay in the cities and lose most
of their civil rights under the guise of security or leave the cities for more isolated and rural areas. Our home was
searched once and the neighbor across the street was arrested for some unknown reason. That convinced my father
to leave the city.”

2008: The US Civil Conflict/War conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep
Ø “Can anyone tell me how many companies in the United States still manufacture bicycle tires today? Anyone who still has a bike in 2008 will find out.”
Ø “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.”
Ø Question: You say the civil war lasts from 2004 to 2008 and then the short big war in 2015. What do the years from 2008 to 2015 look like? How long does WWIII last. “I'm not sure I said that exactly. By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep. Western instability during the conflict leads to the attack in 2015. WWIII is very short with a longer period of mop up.”
Ø “As a result of the many conflicts, no, there were no official Olympics after 2004.”

2009: The US Government proceeds with Power Policy during US Civil Conflicts/War
Ø “The President in 2009 was interested only in keeping his/her power base.”

2010: The cities were isolated from the country rural areas and division between them well defined
Ø “From the age of 8 to 12, [ 2006 to 2010 ] we lived away from the cities and spent most of our time in a farm community with
other families avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard. By that time, it was pretty clear that we were
not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined.” My father
made a living by putting together 12-volt electrical systems and sailing "commodities" up and down the coast of Florida. I
spent most of my time helping him.”
Ø Question: What does this look like? Is it a stalemate with the resistance/militia hiding out until the cities are wiped
out allowing them to surface? “The cities were not isolated because of them [the Militia]; they were isolated because of us.”
[the US population outside of the cities]

2011: Outright open fighting is now common. Titor joins Militia shotgun infantry unit till N-Day in 2015
Ø “Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011. I served with the “Fighting Diamondbacks” for about 4 years. (Hearing in my right ear isn’t as good as I would like it).” The civil war ended in 2015 when Russia attacked the U.S. cities (our enemy), China and Europe. As unusual and bad as my childhood might seem, I wouldn't trade it for anything.”
Ø “I believe that hardship and challenge develop character and community. My first experience with war came when I joined a shotgun infantry unit at the age of thirteen. In the 4 years I served as a "rebel", I watched hundreds of people get shot, burn and bleed to death.”
Ø “The organization of the fighting unit I was in fell under the militia. We fought against the organized army.”
Ø Question: I have been reading that around 2011 there is some new world order-type government in place...TT0, can u verify? “On my world line in 2011, the United States is in the middle of a civil war that has dramatic effects on most of the other Western governments.”

2012: The US Civil War consumes everyone in the US. Titor fighting in woods & rivers of Central Florida
Ø Question: Does anything happen in the year 2012? I've heard stories about the world ending.
Ø “In my 2012, I was 14 years old spending most of my time living, running and hiding in the woods and rivers of central Florida. The civil war was in its 7th year and the world war was three years away. Yes, there are unusual events in 2012 but they do not cause the world to end. Unfortunately, I have decided not to discuss events that you or I can do anything about. It is important that they be a surprise. Perhaps you are familiar with the story of the Red Sea and the Egyptians?”
Ø “The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012 and end in 2015 with a very short WWIII.”
Ø “I am aware of the Mayan Colander but in 2012, it was not something I was able to think about. When the time comes, I'm sure people will find the signs they are looking for that leads them to the end of time.”

[edit on 24-5-2005 by Roth Joint]

Originally posted by Roth Joint
You still don't get it? According to Titor America would grow into a "civil war," initiated by the federal forces of the Government. It would not be a war of American civilians against eachother, neither a war about taking and holding ground, but a war about ORDER AND RIGHTS. A war about the precious FREEDOM under the US Constitution.

I don't what he claims it's about!
Bottom line: this war was supposed to start LAST effing YEAR! Period. And don't give me that crap about it's already started. He specifically stated that actually organized fighting would start last year. 2004.
Even if he meant this year, we're 6 months in and still no fighting.


Plus, let's be realistic here. This war is supposed to last 10 years at least. American civilians lasting 10 years against the most powerful force on earth?

Not probable.

Police RAID on F'___' - Happened Today.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This could actually be the first event "Law Enforcement RAID" targeted at FLDS that may be the beginning of the "WACO" type event predicted by John Titor.

EOM

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Roth Joint
You still don't get it? According to Titor America would grow into a "civil war," initiated by the federal forces of the Government. It would not be a war of American civilians against eachother, neither a war about taking and holding ground, but a war about ORDER AND RIGHTS. A war about the precious FREEDOM under the US Constitution.

I don't what he claims it's about!
Bottom line: this war was supposed to start LAST effing YEAR! Period. And don't give me that crap about it's already started. He specifically stated that actually organized fighting would start last year. 2004.
Even if he meant this year, we're 6 months in and still no fighting.

Plus, let's be realistic here. This war is supposed to last 10 years at least. American civilians lasting 10 years against the most powerful force on earth?

Not probable.

Isn't it interesting how much energy people invest in order to try
to "debunk" a story that must be a "hoax" according to them?

If Titor's chronicles would be so insignificant, then why so much
effort, why so many many posts, why would anyone bother at all?

Isn't That Just Weird?

Greetings, Roth Joint

Originally posted by Roth Joint
Isn't it interesting how much energy people invest in order to try
to "debunk" a story that must be a "hoax" according to them?

If Titor's chronicles would be so insignificant, then why so much
effort, why so many many posts, why would anyone bother at all?

Isn't That Just Weird?

I'm not "debunking" anything.

I'm just stating what's fact. And why not? You seem to enjoy it, but most people don't enjoy being lied to and they want people to tell them the truth.
Also, it's very entertaining to read yours and other's excuses and change in interpetations as the months go by and still nothing happens

JT: ...."political situations are dependant on Western stability,
which collapses in 2005.
"Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of
the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency."
"The West will become very unstable which gives China the confidence
to "expand"."

www.newstatesman.com...

Has the EU reached breaking point?
Leader
Monday 30th May 2005

Could the European Union collapse? The question, dismissed a few
years ago as the stirrings of Europhobic fantasists, is now
pertinent. National governments across the continent are struggling
for authority and credibility. Econ-omies are struggling for growth
and dynamism. The confidence and certainties of the post-Second World
War settlement are being eroded. The British disease of animosity
towards European institutions has spread.

The desperate struggle to approve the constitution in countries which
had been the bedrock of the project is not the cause, but the
manifestation, of the crisis. The first sign that something was awry
came in 2001, when Ireland voted No to the Nice Treaty. A country
which until that point had only benefited from membership gave it a
resounding thumbs-down. The minutiae of that particular treaty was
not the issue in that referendum. The Irish simply wanted to make
their anxiety known, and it was an inchoate list comprising anti-
foreigner sentiment, opposition to abortion, support for Sinn Fein
and/or generally giving Bertie Ahern a good kicking.

As Francois Mitterrand remarked: "When a government consults its
people on a particular question through a referendum, the answer it
gets is often aimed at a different question." For the French this
time around - and don't forget how they nearly rejected Maastricht in
1992 - it is a resistance to the chill winds of globalisation and
fears of the end of Gallic exceptionalism. For the Dutch, the strains
over immigration have been evident for some time. The constitutional
treaty is no panacea. It contains very little that is objectionable,
but not much more that is commendable. It is essentially an oversize
(852-page) management manual with a mission statement at the front.

The treaty will, to some degree, streamline the workings of the three
institutions that comprise the EU - the European Commission, the
meetings of the member states that are the council, and the
parliament. It creates an EU foreign minister, a good thing, although
in Javier Solana the organisation already has one in all but name. It
is, as the French resistance rightly points out, more of an Anglo-
Saxon cobble-together than anything the founding fathers would have
agreed to.

Europe's problems extend far beyond the fate of this document. The
spectacular rejection of Gerhard Schroder's SPD in state elections in
Germany attests to discontent with one variant of social democracy.
The impending demise of Messrs Chirac and Berlusconi suggests that
centre-right solutions in France and Italy are similarly not finding
favour. Should that bring a smile to the face of the recently re-
elected Tony Blair? Hardly. Leaving aside the legitimacy or otherwise
of his victory, Blair is an equally denuded figure in EU
chancelleries. Iraq saw to that, more particularly his craven support
for the Bush administration's attempts to divide Europe into "new"
and "old". What was done so wantonly will take years of assiduous
diplomacy to undo.

And yet the task of keeping "Europe" afloat will fall to the very man
who has failed to reconcile that very project to his own people.
Britain has played a desultory role in the EU - late in arriving and
truculent in participating. Blair will assume the EU presidency in
the summer at the least propitious of moments. The last Blairite
presidency, in 1998, was long on stunts (speech on platform as
Eurostar arrives at Waterloo Station, that kind of thing), short on
substance. This time will have to be different.

What matters is not the fate of constitutions or institutions, but
providing a means for Europe to thrive, or at least survive, in the
face of the dual threat of Chinese and Indian economic might and
American military hubris. There is simply no future for us - the UK,
France, Germany or any other EU member - in going it alone.
Integration per se is not the solution. Clever integration, on
economics, diplomacy and defence, is.

Will Europe's leaders be up to the task? The omens are not good.
While the French kick up rough over the admission of Turkey, the
Brits defend their indefensible budget rebate, negotiated 20 years
ago by Margaret Thatcher and her handbag. Trading it in for some
serious progress on the Common Agricultural Policy would be a deft
piece of negotiation. But of course we won't. The shrill cries of
Euroscepticism have, as ever, intervened.

"Red lines", once the preserve of the UK, are now invoked by all
governments as they seek to indulge their voters and "get something
out of Brussels". A mean spirit has taken hold. A club once so
popular that countries clamoured to join is now having to justify its
very existence.

Leaps and bounds ahead

Talking of Europe . . . Britain has once again succumbed to the power
of the Swedish export. The effortless rise of the "Crazy Frog"
ringtone towards number one in the music charts - 5,000 sold an hour,
with the prospect of it becoming the biggest-selling hit of the year -
is testament to our masochistic streak. Is there no depth to which
the public will not sink? At the last count, two members of the New
Statesman staff, senior ones at that, have admitted to possessing the
offending item on their mobile phones. Both plead in mitigation that
they were forced into it by ringtone saboteurs (their children).

Meanwhile, an even greater affliction is about to befall high streets
and offices across the land. Word has it that an even more arresting
jamster ringtone, "Sweetie the Chick", is preparing its assault on
our CD racks. One NS offender has already been identified, and there
are surely more to come.


This article first appeared in the New Statesman. For the latest in
current and cultural affairs subscribe to the New Statesman print
edition.

Titor was obviously wrong and is not even close.
Why do we keep rehashing this guy?

Originally posted by freddieb
Titor was obviously wrong and is not even close.

You can't expect us to believe your accusations without providing evidence. You are not unique in your response and beliefs. If you bother to read any of this thread you will see that nearly hundred people just like you proclaim the same 'John Titor was a fake' statement without even backing your claims. It's extremly ignorant.

People you are all thinking in the wrong directions, You try to make us believe John Titor was not time traveller, then there will be no civil war in USA.
There is fine example of false logic. That is like I make a few statements like
I was from another galaxy, and then say things like Earth willbe hit by an asteroid, these two things are not connected, so if you prove I am not from another galaxy, still it has nothing to do with an asteroid.

And his story is very logical in many ways, and sticking with exact dates still doesn't prove anything, and even if he was from the future, he was not history teacher and could given some wrong years.

Originally posted by Simulacra
You can't expect us to believe your accusations without providing evidence. You are not unique in your response and beliefs. If you bother to read any of this thread you will see that nearly hundred people just like you proclaim the same 'John Titor was a fake' statement without even backing your claims. It's extremly ignorant.

It's kinda hard to provide evidence for and/or prove a negaitve. The task falls on the believers to provide evidence Titor was who he said he was.

What we can do however is point out to you that NONE of his predictions have come true so far.
Also, time travel is impossible.

Prove otherwise.

might have something to do with this

www.niquette.com...