The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

Originally posted by Roth Joint
John Titor: “It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself in 2005.”

www.latimes.com...

June 23, 2005

Bush Urges Starting Up New Nuclear Plants

"Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy," said Bush,
the first president to set foot in a nuclear plant since Jimmy Carter's
1979 emergency trip to Three Mile Island after the partial reactor meltdown
that helped bring the first round of plant-building in the U.S. to a close.

"It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," Bush said.

"It's time for Congress to stop the debate, stop the inaction and pass an
energy bill," Bush said.

Ok,I'm lost here. Are you saying that this will lead us to civil war? Believe it or not, there are a lot of people that are for nuclear power.

Originally posted by NoJustice
So clearly there is 2004 all over that article, the confusion is in that he said 2005 ONCE and corrected himself on it. He is fake and he messed with a lot of your heads.

"NoJustice" you might have missed something (5 times 2005):

John Titor:

"There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years."

"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."

"It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself in 2005."

....."political situations are dependant on Western stability, which collapses in 2005."

"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."

((8. John says the civil war which starts in 2004 or 2005 (depending on the post) leads to the world war which starts in 2015. ( So we have a TEN YEAR civil war???))

It’s 2004. I apologize for a missed key (very observant – we all need good critics). Perhaps our definition of war is different. I would define it as a conflict where organized groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict. The first U.S. civil war lasted 4 years and the English civil war lasted 6. How long is too long?

Well anyway, back to the subject matter. I don't hate John and I don't dislike him either. I am nuetral about him.
There is a world of difference between him and the Waverider though. John has an articulate manner of writing and has an amazing command of our present language (35 years old by him) I also went back and reread ALL his posts and I only found one spelling error and no grammatical errors, so he pretty much shames me on that count. His written content seems to be well subdued and consistent. (except for the 2004 vs. 2005 thing) John seems to be of above average IQ and conducts himself in a dignified manner.
____________________________________________

www.anomalies.net...

these are the original transcripts, doesn't seem like anyone can figure out which one, but wouldn't he know if it's 2004 or 2005. I sure see alot more 2004 than 2005, but whatever, if you true believers need to wait six more months to be proven wrong then go ahead. Wait around for a Civil War that isn't going to happen. It is almost July you really think a Civil War will happen by December 31

Maybe you should start one so you can be proven right.



[edit on 24-6-2005 by NoJustice]

if titor was from 2036, how come he couldn't remember the name of a two term president ?

why does he use the term "leader or president" ?


and where are the monthly waco events ?

would you kill me over the patriot act ? I wanna know ! Would you point a gun at me and make my two kids fatherless over the patriot act ? nuclear power plants ? walmart buying private property for their next location ?

not protest, not sign a petition, not start a blog, KILL me........

Originally posted by Roth Joint

"There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years."

"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."

He clears this up later and says it's really 2004. As we pointed out a little earlier.

"It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself in 2005."

Nevertheless, the Civil War still starts in 2004.

....."political situations are dependant on Western stability, which collapses in 2005."

Nevertheless, the Civil War still starts in 2004.

"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."

Nevertheless, the Civil War still starts in 2004.

None of those three quotes dispute that

Plus, wouldn't his contridictions in dates prove even further than he's a fraud?


You still haven't explained this Roth:
John says the civil war which starts in 2004 or 2005 (depending on the post) leads to the world war which starts in 2015. ( So we have a TEN YEAR civil war???

JT:
It's 2004. I apologize for a missed key (very observant - we all need good critics).

Before you post anything else, explain that if he really meant 2005.




[edit on 24-6-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]

OK, first John, Not that I agree with him, did from my memory say there were different earths(many world theory) and that the further away from his oen time line the more different each worlds events would be. Come on this is accepted theory where even Hawkings has discussed this. Whether John was just copying the theory could be true, but to say he isn't because our timeline doesn't match "his" - holds no water as it shouldn't be identical.

Secondly, as to will start this - as a poster pointed out the civilianz when they come to try and take someone's land.

As for where are these Wako type incidents - well, wait for them to take the wrong person's land and watch how many federal agents get slaughtered. We did all see the calls for the million man gun march didn't we in that thread?

So in conclusion, because out timeline isn't identical to his is not disproof, it is further proof of what he said. The events that he said would start in 2004, so they don't start until late 2005 or 2006 or maybe 2007 - the many worlds theory allows and expects this outcome. The wako type events would start the first time they tried to sieze provate property and the home owner fights back. Also, didn't John also say that you shouldn't put faith into some institution but we will find out later...

Haven't we in the west always put our faith in the judicial system. Haven't we all abided to it, to a degree more or less? Wasn't it the courts that came to this conclusion?

How many cionsedences does there have to be before warning flags go off?

Ofcourse, not saying he is true, merely that maybe there is self fulfilling prophecy going on, or maybe he was just one of those peole that had a knack of understanding the ebb and flow of society and these seeds were sown long ago, he merely stated what he saw as probable? Does that in anyway make what is happening any less real, any less forbooding or any less dangerous?

IMO no.

Great post PasserBy!

Here, I hope this solves many of the problems some of your have been having accepting the whole TITOR story.


These issues have been brought up have been gone over and over ... and i don't see any conclusive proof that he is a fraud. shadow of a doubt, maybe yeah, i'll give you that. But conclusive proof ... No way!

! First thing you need to consider is... Titor was from the year 2036 ... he is talking about a Civil War that started 32 years before his current time. When he says the war started 2004/2005 that's looking pretty accurate. In 2004 there was the election and in 2005 we are seeing the results of Bush's policies. And a lot of people disagree with the government, moreso than i have ever seen. This "unrest" is "unrest" ... its not riots like you think he is trying to say. The Civil War in my mind started already and it is only escilating until 2008 when everyone will see that the world that thought they were living in was gone. So that means that their will still be doubters in 2007 while the war is going on. But eventually you will all come around. I don't think this will be a WAR like the last civil war, this isn't about land ... its about Freedom & Property. The opposite of a Police State. It will not be a war fought like past wars. It will be a standoff and eventually turn into an economic war by isolaing the cities from the rest of the country.

! Secondly, The Civil War leads to the World War. This DOES NOT mean that one day there is a civil war and the next day it breaks out into a world war. This could be like ... WWI lead to WWII, however they weren't continuous. The Shape this nation is in after being Split into different camps, will give our enemies an opportunity to defeat our military. Wouldn't our Rivals do that...if they had a once in a lifetime chance?

! Finally, Mad Cow ... scares the bejesus out of me.

1. They don't know the Incubation Period. But they do know that it only shows up in Older Cows. We kill the cattle before it "could" show symptoms.
2. There are so many products that use cow parts, you would be suprised.
3. The U.S government's testing is flawed, where in the last Mad Cow incident the Government said everything was ok ... then a private lab tested the same animal ... and it came out positive for Mad Cow.

I don't know what else i can say to you, to help you.

Be Prepared for the Worst, Hope for the Best!~

Thats the best advice I can give anyone. Good Luck!

Of course, that's right. There's no disproving him, because if it doesn't happen like he said "he came back in time and changed the whole course of history"
because he warned 900 internet geeks of the civil war, he must of delayed the war slightly (if it happens soon) or forever (if it doesn't happen)

So pretty much no matter what happens let's just all credit John Titor.

Originally posted by NoJustice
Of course, that's right. There's no disproving him, because if it doesn't happen like he said "he came back in time and changed the whole course of history"
because he warned 900 internet geeks of the civil war, he must of delayed the war slightly (if it happens soon) or forever (if it doesn't happen)

So pretty much no matter what happens let's just all credit John Titor.

Are you willingly ignoring what I posted, or is it that you are more interested in trying to disprove that someone might know more than you?

Originally posted by Passer By
OK, first John, Not that I agree with him, did from my memory say there were different earths(many world theory) and that the further away from his oen time line the more different each worlds events would be. Come on this is accepted theory where even Hawkings has discussed this. Whether John was just copying the theory could be true, but to say he isn't because our timeline doesn't match "his" - holds no water as it shouldn't be identical.

Secondly, as to will start this - as a poster pointed out the civilianz when they come to try and take someone's land.

As for where are these Wako type incidents - well, wait for them to take the wrong person's land and watch how many federal agents get slaughtered. We did all see the calls for the million man gun march didn't we in that thread?

So in conclusion, because out timeline isn't identical to his is not disproof, it is further proof of what he said. The events that he said would start in 2004, so they don't start until late 2005 or 2006 or maybe 2007 - the many worlds theory allows and expects this outcome. The wako type events would start the first time they tried to sieze provate property and the home owner fights back. Also, didn't John also say that you shouldn't put faith into some institution but we will find out later...

Haven't we in the west always put our faith in the judicial system. Haven't we all abided to it, to a degree more or less? Wasn't it the courts that came to this conclusion?

How many cionsedences does there have to be before warning flags go off?

Ofcourse, not saying he is true, merely that maybe there is self fulfilling prophecy going on, or maybe he was just one of those peole that had a knack of understanding the ebb and flow of society and these seeds were sown long ago, he merely stated what he saw as probable? Does that in anyway make what is happening any less real, any less forbooding or any less dangerous?

IMO no.

So you're trying to say anything here is proof that John Titor is a time traveler? I would say it's more like your reaching at straws to give a weak excuse to pretend he hasn't already been disproven. It's really pathetic to use the whole "different time line" excuse, it's just a way for you to throw out any proof that he doesn't exist in your head.

The dude got on the internet for a few months, pretended to be a time traveler, and some of you gullable teenagers believe it. (ok some of you may be older, but that's just laughable if you are, you should be ashamed.)

It just goes to show how easy and gullable many people are, it's the reason Governments get away with corruption. People will believe anything anyone tells them. You should not give up your trust so easily, as the world is filled with deceivers. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't found this forum by now and isn't laughing his a** off at you believers. I know I would be.


[edit on 24-6-2005 by NoJustice]

The many worlds theory isn't something I made up, nor whoever John is/was. I am not trying to prove anything, you are a free human and can decide for yourself. As it stands whoever he was/is he made some bold predicitions that when he said them seemed outlandish - they are appearing more and more true.

I am not saying he is a time traveler, in fact if you bothered to read instead of assume, you'd see that I give credence to the theory that he was just some guy that happened to have seen the way this world was going and made a bold predicition, as it turns out the predicitions are becoming more and more likely.

There is an onld saying, "Honour the message, not the messenger". It seems to me, all due respect intended, that you have decided that Titor is a fake and because of that whatever he said is also fake. I am disagreeing with that whatever John Titor was/is, it isn't he we should be looking at, it is the direction in the country and these reports speak volumes.

Are you aware of the many worlds theory? If so can you explain to me and the others here why what has happened, or not happened as the case may be, doesn't fit with that hypothesis?

Thanks,.

PasserBy are you a believer in the bible? Maybe you're not I'm saying you have to be, but if you you do realize it warned against so called prophets, psychics, or anyone that says that they can see the future. God is the only one that is aware of what will happen according to the bible. Again, it's ok if you don't believe this, but if you do you should really consider reevaluating your stance on this issue.

And if you're admitting he's not a time traveler then you're admitting he's fake. He says he's a time traveler, he's either telling the truth or lying. Which one is it?

What is the point in using admittedly unproven theories in this argument? I see none, so I won't bother.



[edit on 24-6-2005 by NoJustice]

Originally posted by NoJustice

And if you're admitting he's not a time traveler then you're admitting he's fake. He says he's a time traveler, he's either telling the truth or lying. Which one is it?

[edit on 24-6-2005 by NoJustice]

Once again, respect the messege, not the messanger. What difference does it matter where you find truth? If you happen to find truth in the Bible, then that is great. It is truth and should be accepted as such, if you find truth in fables, then once again that is great. What is important is seeing the truth, and not disregarding it, because it doesn't come in the package you wish it would.

As for my belif in the Bible, I do, but I see it as a series of morality tales and ethics woven around a great story. I do find a lot of truth within the Bible as I do the Quran, as I have the Torah, and indeed even Toasit and Buddhist thoughts. I honour the truth, where ever I may find it. But that isn't really even important on this issue.

I am saying that I don't know if he was a time traveler or some ruage bum that happened to pick up a copy of Quantum Gravity, or the Nature of Reality where they discuss the many worlds theory. I simply don't care which one he is/was, I merely care about what he said, and how reality has been played out, which from these eyes look erily similar to what he said.

Forget about John Titor, forget about the actual person or auther, - consider only the messege. How does that messege, as it relates to what you see happening before your eyes, effect what the possible outcomes are of this?

I follow the teaching of Jesus, as I follow the teaching of the Buddha, as I learn from the teachings of other masters. Heck I even have learned a heck from Twain, Einstien, Hawkings, Kaku and heck even My grandparents.



[edit on 24-6-2005 by Passer By]

This is the last thing I'll say about it, because I'm bored and it's getting no where.

You say forget the messenger but not the message, why do you think everything around you is happening exactly like this guy said? Is it not that you're looking for things that might loosly tie in to what and said and fitting the puzzle together?

If you're following his words so exact and waiting for things he said to happen, what about what he did not say. He was here in early 2001, couldn't he have said something about 9/11? I know, I know, you'll say "he doesn't want to effect history and people who died blah blah blah" Well what's the different between that and the so called "Civil War in 2005"

I'm done, enjoy thinking about this guy all the time, it's already making me mad that I've given this much attention to this guy when it was all just done for fun and he's probably someone that posts on ATS and just gets never ending laughs out of this. I've given it all the attention I feel like giving it, have fun though.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by NoJustice]

I've summed it up in another thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You still haven't explained this Roth:
John says the civil war which starts in 2004 or 2005 (depending on the post) leads to the world war which starts in 2015. ( So we have a TEN YEAR civil war???

JT:
It's 2004. I apologize for a missed key (very observant - we all need good critics).

Before you post anything else, explain that if he really meant 2005.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]

We have already discussed this ThatsJustWeird.

From Titor's viewpoint the roots of the civil war could be observed in 2004. The actual civil war would start in 2005.

To have a better understanding of what John Titor actually meant to say we could listen to what the experts have to say about this matter:

www.thebcobserver.com...(c1si3e55m0yqp155pjcufajj)/Article.aspx?ArticleID=495&IssueID=14
"This election season [2004] has witnessed a political polarization and
division between Americans that has not faced this country for
generations. Such animosity between political rivals has been seen
only a few times since the founding of our successful experiment. We
have had regional conflicts (the Civil War) and generational
conflicts (The World War II and Vietnam generations). In 2004, a new
clash has divided this country more than it has been torn for over a
century. Cultural and ideological differences which transcend region
or ancestry have torn this country asunder and have defined the
extreme polarization of this election. The divisions at Boston
College embody these cultural conflicts."

www.commondreams.org...
"Not since the civil war has the country been so divided," argues John White, professor of politics at the Catholic University of America. Whether Bush wins or loses, these rifts will endure. America is not just a nation at war with the world; it is a nation at war with itself."

www.dfw.com...
"But it's highly unlikely that either George W. Bush or John Kerry
will be able to bridge the partisan divide and usher in a new era of
civility."
"The bitter ideological conflicts that predate this election year
will persist in 2005."
"Rather, the president in 2005 will be forced to deal with a toxic
political climate, decades in the making, that is now virtually
institutionalized."

Furthermore Titor said: "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."

With the "this" Titor meant the "degrading US foreign policy and consistency" clearly witnessed by the many worldwide anti-Iraq war protesters.

What is "civil unrest?" Protests, mass rallies against the Government, people fleeing over the border to Canada, soldiers going nuts with guns rather than being posted back overseas, people flocking to movies that paint their Government in a bad light? What will it take for people to officially declare a "state of unrest?"

The media aren't going to do it, that's for sure.
John Titor: “Do you really think the news industry doesn't have an agenda?”

And with the media firmly reigned in, it will be at least 2008 before anyone realises how bad the situation really is.
John Titor: “I don’t remember a great deal about media coverage during the civil conflicts. By 2008, I would say the civil conflict is pretty much at everyone's doorstep.” “The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over.” “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.”

From “John Titor’s” point of view it becomes apparent that the roots of the “US Civil War” could be observed in 2004 as “civil unrest” develops near the next Presidential “election” (2004) in his point of view “as a result of degrading US foreign policy.” The "great divide" in America and the worldwide massive anti Iraq war protests would initiate a “new era” and be a clear sign of "civil unrest” openly opposing the Iraq invasion. And Titor makes a clear distinction between his “civil unrest” and his “civil conflict.”

Furthermore he clearly states that it all really starts in 2005. Titor gives another hint when he showed us that we clearly could see the signs of a developing “civil war” already in 2000/2001. JT: “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?” And another hint when he said: “It is a mistake to give anyone your unwavering belief...but you will find that out yourself in 2005.”

Originally posted by NoJustice
This is the last thing I'll say about it, because I'm bored and it's getting no where.

You say forget the messenger but not the message, why do you think everything around you is happening exactly like this guy said? Is it not that you're looking for things that might loosly tie in to what and said and fitting the puzzle together?

If you're following his words so exact and waiting for things he said to happen, what about what he did not say. He was here in early 2001, couldn't he have said something about 9/11? I know, I know, you'll say "he doesn't want to effect history and people who died blah blah blah" Well what's the different between that and the so called "Civil War in 2005"

I'm done, enjoy thinking about this guy all the time, it's already making me mad that I've given this much attention to this guy when it was all just done for fun and he's probably someone that posts on ATS and just gets never ending laughs out of this. I've given it all the attention I feel like giving it, have fun though.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by NoJustice]

- That is a good point about maybe peole are looking for things that fit his scenerio and that well may be true.

That said though, it isn't that the news is being made to look like something that John Titor said. The news is the news, you can take it or leave it, and whatever you happen to see in it is probably unique to you. However, is not the government taking private lands, the poplation claiming they will physically defend the land - exactly what was one of the causes he said about the civil war? IS that not playing out in front of you right now?

John Titor is only an issue in your mind, I could care less what he was. If he was here I would love to meet someone who was able to wrap the possible future in such an interesting story, but John is not the important thing here....

Just to close, let me put it this way to you. In the Bible it warns of the end times and signs were given. If those signs were shown in the news, if those signs started to being fulfilled would people merely who didn't beleive in the bible be justified in ignoring them?

He did alude to something about 911. He said something like...what if I told you that somebuilding would be missing from NY's skyline and what if I told you the Space Shuttle Columbia would have trouble landing.

I'll try to find it. But I do remember it because I thought it was fascinating.

Originally posted by MauiStacey
He did alude to something about 911. He said something like...what if I told you that somebuilding would be missing from NY's skyline and what if I told you the Space Shuttle Columbia would have trouble landing.

I'll try to find it. But I do remember it because I thought it was fascinating.

JT: "I suppose I could predict the failure of Apollo 13 spacecraft but since time travel is ridiculous, I would be blamed for sabotage. I might even decide to tell you about an earthquake in Peru but then people that would have died by chance will now live and vice versa. All I can think of is to make something up. So here goes: The space shuttle mission may or may not have a problem connecting the new lab to the space station. How was that?"

"Suppose I told you the space shuttle would have a problem landing at Kennedy tomorrow because something goes wrong with the runway. If someone with the authority to do so hears that and makes the decision to land at Edwards (than) bingo, your future has changed from my past."

"None of the things I have said will be a surprise. They were set in motion ten, twenty, even thirty years ago. Are you really surprised to find out that Iraq has nukes now or is that just BS to whip everyone up into accepting the next war?"

Q: Can you tell me when the police stop busting people for weed?
"It happens about the same time they stop coming to your house when you dial 911."

Nothing fascinating in that, i could have made up a better story. Plus there was absolutely no reference to 9/11. When you quote you should post links of where you got these quotes so we can read them for ourselves.