The American Civil War of 2005 as predicted by John Titor

Originally posted by Legend
Though I can't help to think that John could of been entering some random family's house and SAID he was a time traveler just to get some free food for a good two years.

Exactly

But to be serious, what do you guys think of these letters?

Fake. All part of the hoax.

This thread was started when? Way back in March. We've been discussing Titor just in this thread for almost 5 months. If you include all the other threads we've been debating Titor for years.
You're telling me his mother was so easily conviced in a matter of hours?? She didn't question him at all and just accepted him? She didn't do what any other sane person would do and call the cops??
Give me a break.

Also:

He told us he had made a promise to my husband's father in 1975 that involved preparing us for Y2K. On January 1, 2000, the world did not end as John said it would.

1. We're on completely different timelines. That's why Y2K didn't happen, and that's why a civil war won't happen.
2. John told his mother the world would "end" because of Y2K. Why did he do that? Probably because it happened during his timeline.
But why didn't he mention it?
That's also the only way a civil war would happen in the US. If something devestating like that happened. And since it didn't.....no Y2K, no Civil War.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]

hey Chris,
So your just argumentatve for the sake of it ? You must be fun at a party !

ROTH and Where to Hide.......


are you men enough to accept my challenge ??????????

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
hey Chris,
So your just argumentatve for the sake of it ? You must be fun at a party !

I'm argumentative of people who speak complete nonsense.

-Chris

[edit on 7/20/2005 by Legend]

complete nonsense ? like travelling in time in a corvette to get spare parts

John Titor never said anything about why Russia attacked us... At least I don't recall. I found this quote in the book, which is the second most popular John Titor quote:

John Titor
There is a Civil War in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for ten years. In 2015, 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 capital of the US was moved to Omaha, Nebraska.

Okay, SO. It is pretty safe to assume Los Angeles, Seattle, New York, and Washington DC were all involved in the nuclear attack. What about China and Europe. He is talking as if China and Eurpoe just let them nuke them with no counter attack. US counters, but then the "AFE" is destroyed. This is confusing...

China would have launched the largest nuclear strike against Russiain the history of bombings, PLUS the nukes that Europe would have launched. There is no way Russia would have enough of anything to become the US' largest trading partner. US has already countered. Russia would have totally fallen apart. What do you think?

-Chris

Thanks for pointing that out Legend.
Russia would be a barren wasteland for the next 50-100 years if they decided to nuke the US, Europe, and China.

Plus....what would they have to trade!? Radioactive rocks?

And I can't imagine becoming their ally just 15-20 years after the greatest war in history in which they were responsible for more Americans being killed than any other thing in history. They would still be anger issues....on both sides

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Russia would be a barren wasteland for the next 50-100 years if they decided to nuke the US, Europe, and China.

Plus....what would they have to trade!? Radioactive rocks?

/d42w9

Despite YUKOS, Russia still open for [big] business

20/06/2005 08:30
REUTERS

By Douglas Busvine

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Don’t say it too loudly but, despite the jailing of YUKOS boss Mikhail Khodorkovsky, business for many investors in Russia is great.

Foreign executives may have felt deep unease at the nine-year rap for fraud and tax evasion handed down last month against Russia’s once-richest man. But they have drawn their lessons and are voting with their dollars.

Trade groups, PR advisers and business consultants -- on the front line between investors and Russia’s Byzantine bureaucracy -- say that even after YUKOS the rewards of investing in the world’s largest country can outweigh the considerable risks.

Life may have got tougher in the natural resources sector as the Kremlin extends its control over areas it deems strategic, but for many consumer-facing businesses Russia’s market of 145 million is delivering phenomenal growth.

"The facts compel me to say that the investment climate is excellent," says Andrew Somers, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia.

Read more at: /d42w9

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Roth Joint]

John Titor

"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."

"Taiwan, Japan and Korea were all "forcefully annexed" before N Day."

"I never fought any Chinese but their ability to hit Western cities with missiles made a lot of people unhappy."

news.ft.com...

China hits at US claim of military threat

By Mure Dickie in Beijing

Published: July 20 2005 17:11 | Last updated: July 20 2005 17:11

China has angrily denounced a report by the US Department of Defense that painted its increasingly powerful military as a potential threat to other Asian countries.

The foreign ministry said on Wednesday it had summoned the acting US ambassador to a meeting with Yang Jiechi, vice-minister, to express Beijing's “strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition” to the Pentagon's annual report to Congress on China's military power.

The assessment was a flagrant mischaracterisation of China's peaceful defence policy and reasonable military development, the ministry said in a statement. “This report ignores fact in order to do everything it can to disseminate the ‘China threat theory'. It crudely interferes in China's internal affairs and is a provocation against China's relations with other countries.”

The report and Beijing's response underline the sensitivities over China's growing military clout in a region where US supremacy has been unchallenged for decades.

The report, which had been delayed reportedly because of disagreement within the US administration about its content, said China's ability to “project conventional military power beyond its periphery remains limited”.

It detailed Beijing's efforts to acquire the means to wage war against Taiwan, over which China claims sovereignty, and to deter other countries from intervening in such a conflict.

Armed with an increasingly potent People's Liberation Army, Chinese leaders might be tempted to resort to force more quickly to resolve disputes with its neighbours, the report said. “Over the long term, if trends persist, PLA capabilities could pose a credible threat to other modern militaries in the region,” it said.

The Chinese foreign ministry dismissed such forecasts and the report's assessment that Beijing's defence spending was likely to be between two and three times as high as the $30bn publicly allocated for this year. The ministry said US defence spending was nearly 18 times as high as China's and 77 times as high in per capita terms.

However, China's response is unlikely to ease concern among US analysts and politicians about the potential threat posed by its drive to deploy advanced weapon systems, ranging from attack submarines to intercontinental nuclear missiles.

A senior Chinese military official raised hackles in Washington last week by declaring that China was prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US in a conflict over Taiwan.

Analysts in Taiwan said the island would benefit from the report's focus on China's military expansion. However, Andrew Yang, secretary-general of the Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies in Taipei, said Beijing was likely to push Washington to contain Taiwanese moves towards independence as a condition for any promise not to use its strengthened military capabilities. “Thus we will see rising US pressure on the Taiwanese government very soon,” he said.

Originally posted by Roth Joint

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Russia would be a barren wasteland for the next 50-100 years if they decided to nuke the US, Europe, and China.

Plus....what would they have to trade!? Radioactive rocks?

/d42w9

Read what I just said again.
What part of "if they decided to nuke the US, Europe, and China" is so hard to comprehend?
Russia would be nothing and have nothing after the retaliations.

And what's your article on China for? Titor said get beat by both Australia and Russia.....

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Read what I just said again.
What part of "if they decided to nuke the US, Europe, and China" is so hard to comprehend?
Russia would be nothing and have nothing after the retaliations.

Perhaps... perhaps not. If the US is still able to trade after Russia's nuclear attacks why wouldn't Russia be able to trade after nuclear attacks from the US?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
And what's your article on China for? Titor said get beat by both Australia and Russia.....

Nope. John Titor said:
"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. They have a trading relationship with the U.S. but I would characterize them as reclusive and ticked off."

Q: 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.

Russia and China have always had a very strange relationship. Even the news I see now indicates that continued weapons deals to allies, border clashes and overpopulation will lead to hostilities."

Originally posted by Roth Joint

Perhaps... perhaps not. If the US is still able to trade after Russia's nuclear attacks why wouldn't Russia be able to trade after nuclear attacks from the US?

The major cities were hit in the US by one nation. I'm sure maybe our economy system was shot, but we have a lot more cities than just 5-6 major ones. Russia was hit with nukes from three different nations (US, China, and Europe). I'm sure Russia was in a lot more pain than we were.

Europe is a whole continent. I wonder how many countries in that one continent decided to strike Russia when he said "Europe counterattacked." I'm sure Russia would be in no state at all to start a trade route with any country, especially the US. There would be nothing left to trade that they don't need for their citizens.

-Chris

[edit on 7/21/2005 by Legend]

Originally posted by Legend

Originally posted by Roth Joint

Perhaps... perhaps not. If the US is still able to trade after Russia's nuclear attacks why wouldn't Russia be able to trade after nuclear attacks from the US?

The major cities were hit in the US by one nation. I'm sure maybe our economy system was shot, but we have a lot more cities than just 5-6 major ones. Russia was hit with nukes from three different nations (US, China, and Europe). I'm sure Russia was in a lot more pain than we were.

Europe is a whole continent. I wonder how many countries in that one continent decided to strike Russia when he said "Europe counterattacked." I'm sure Russia would be in no state at all to start a trade route with any country, especially the US. There would be nothing left to trade that they don't need for their citizens.

-Chris

[edit on 7/21/2005 by Legend]

Apparently the abovementioned scenario didn't happen in 2015. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that there are so many more countries next to the US, Russia and China and possibly very capable of using their nuclear weapons as well? Or the abovementioned scenario didn't happen because of a matter of politics perhaps? And I am sure a severely divided United States in the middle of a civil war would have some major political implications as well. Or perhaps the abovementioned scenario didn't happen simply because Russia was very well prepared on a "counterattack" by the US using it's own missile defense systems... who knows...

Furthermore, Titor never said Europe "counterattacked." But he mentioned a "unified European army that masses and moves East from Germany." However in response China launches their missiles on an already weakened and destabilized Europe.


John Titor

"I never fought any Chinese but their ability to hit Western cities with missiles made a lot of people unhappy."

"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."

Q: Who is the major super power in 2036?
"It depends on how you define power. If you mean military, the world has developed into an odd balance. There are plenty of nuclear weapons left but if anyone uses them they, will be instantly erased from the planet by everyone else, regardless of the politics. We are very tired of war."

"Wavering western support for Israel is what gives Israel's neighbors the confidence to attack. The last resort for a defensive Israel and it's 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."


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”

[edit on 21-7-2005 by Roth Joint]

Originally posted by Roth Joint

Or the abovementioned scenario didn't happen because of a matter of politics perhaps? And I am sure a severely divided United States in the middle of a civil war would have some major political implications as well.

It doesn't matter how divided the USA was, the government would have still found a way to dig up nukes and use them against Russia. Then the AFE (Titor's enemy, I suppose) was destroyed, which means, no more civil war. So in John's Timeline, the government in 2036 is worried about cleaning up the mess the nukes left behind: dirty water, diseased red meat, dirty air, etc.

-Chris

Sorry to go a little OT, hopefully it won't go to far.
But more stuff on what Titor would have been refering to (if he was real) and not the 't' word
Scientist worried by riot control ray gun

LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists are questioning the safety of a Star Wars-style riot control ray gun due to be deployed in
Iraq next year.

The Active Denial System weapon, classified as "less lethal" by the
Pentagon, fires a 95-gigahertz microwave beam at rioters to cause heating and intolerable pain in less than five seconds

....

The magazine said a vehicle-mounted version of the weapon named Sheriff was scheduled for service in Iraq in 2006 and that U.S. Marines and police were both working on portable versions.

Roth will probably ignore all this and start talking about how 't's are the root of all evil again.

[edit on 21-7-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by Legend

Originally posted by Roth Joint

Or the abovementioned scenario didn't happen because of a matter of politics perhaps? And I am sure a severely divided United States in the middle of a civil war would have some major political implications as well.

It doesn't matter how divided the USA was, the government would have still found a way to dig up nukes and use them against Russia. Then the AFE (Titor's enemy, I suppose) was destroyed, which means, no more civil war. So in John's Timeline, the government in 2036 is worried about cleaning up the mess the nukes left behind: dirty water, diseased red meat, dirty air, etc.

-Chris

Ofcourse, a lot of new worries but as always, business as usual. Apparently Russia was well prepared.

"They knew we would most likely clean up after them so they wanted everyone outside the cities to be able to communicate."


[edit on 22-7-2005 by Roth Joint]

Roth Joint,

you might find this interesting. Didn't Titor say

(from memory - not that I believe him, because I don't)

" They were willing to bet people would sacrifice freedom for security, they were wrong..."

well, look what I just saw (last phrase is quite interesting) ? :

House Votes to Extend Patriot Act

WASHINGTON - The House voted to extend indefinitely the anti-terrorist USA Patriot Act, while limiting to 10 years two provisions of the law that have become linchpins in the ongoing congressional debate: allowing federal agents to use roving wiretaps and to search library and medical records.

ADVERTISEMENT

By a 257-171 margin, lawmakers who earlier Thursday had watched reports of attempted terrorist bombings in London, agreed to renew key provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire at the end of this year.

Forty-three Democrats joined 214 Republicans in passing the bill, which dropped 14 of 16 expiration dates on provisions initially drafted into the law shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Hours earlier, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved its own general extension of the law, but it called for Congress to re-examine the wiretap and library provisions after another four-year time period. The full Senate likely will vote on the bill this fall, before the competing measures are reconciled in a conference committee.


President Bush cheered the House vote.

"The Patriot Act is a key part of our efforts to combat terrorism and protect the American people, and the Congress needs to send me a bill soon that renews the act without weakening our ability to fight terror," Bush said in a statement released by the White House.

Despite more than nine hours of passionate debate, the House nearly one-upped the Senate in a surprise revolt at the conclusion of its deliberations. Nine Republicans broke ranks and voted with a united Democratic bloc on a last-ditch effort to make all 16 of the Patriot Act's most sensitive provisions subject to an additional four-year "sunset" period.

"It is not a Republican vote; it is not a Democrat vote," said one of the rogue Republicans, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (news, bio, voting record) of California. Instead, he cast it as an attempt to adhere to the limited government envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

House Majority Leader

Tom DeLay of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the House, shook his head in disgust — while House Speaker

Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., came to the floor and cast a rare vote of his own — as a designated 15-minute voting period on the Democratic proposal ended in a 205-205 tie. Late-arriving members continued to vote, eventually defeating it by a margin of 218-209.

"Good oversight is done by congressional leadership, not by sunsets," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who shepherded the bill through the chamber as chairman of the

House Judiciary Committee.

The roving wiretap provision, Section 206, allows investigators to obtain warrants to intercept a suspect's phone conversations or Internet traffic without limiting it to a specific phone or identifying the suspect. The records provision, Section 215, authorizes federal officials to obtain "tangible items" such as business, library and medical records.

Advocates argued that such powers already exist in criminal investigations so they should be expressly continued for terrorism investigations. They also cited safeguards in the bill, such as a requirement that a judge approve the records search.

One amendment, passed 402-26, would require the

FBI director to personally approve any request for library or bookstore records. Another successful amendment calls for a 20-year jail term for an attack against a rail or mass-transit vehicle; a 30-year sentence if the vehicle carries nuclear material; and life imprisonment — with the possibility of the death penalty — if anyone is killed in such an attack.

Critics heralded the bulk of the existing law, but said the sunsets were wisely inserted amid the inflamed passions following the Sept. 11 attacks, and should be retained to assess the long-term impact of the law.

"Periodically revisiting the Patriot Act is a good thing," said Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass. "The Patriot Act was an effort to answer the most difficult question a democracy faces: How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe? "

news.yahoo.com...

[edit on 22-7-2005 by spikenigma]

Originally posted by spikenigma
Roth Joint,

you might find this interesting. Didn't Titor say

(from memory - not that I believe him, because I don't)

" They were willing to bet people would sacrifice freedom for security, they were wrong..."

well, look what I just saw (last phrase is quite interesting) ? :

House Votes to Extend Patriot Act

"Periodically revisiting the Patriot Act is a good thing," said Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass. "The Patriot Act was an effort to answer the most difficult question a democracy faces: How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe? "

news.yahoo.com...

Thanks for sharing this SpikEnigma.

It is interesting to observe Titor's viewpoint regarding the intentions of his enemy -the American Federal Empire- and the true causes behind their rapid implementation of their "NWO-type" of measures.

Who would have thought in 2000 our freedoms would be at stake in 2005 because of a "new" enemy opposed to the Anglo-American imperium? But indeed, that time period has arrived. For any power that was waiting for the right moment to implement it's new limiting rules in a democratic country, this is the perfect time to do so.

John 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."

It is clear Titor is pointing to something greater then just a country tightening up it's security measures for the sake of it's citizens. They (Titor's enemy) apparently calculated the people would be willing to give up their freedoms in change for the new "security" offered by their Government.

That's why Titor said "they were betting." Apparently this "bet" was perceived by them as an easy one to win. And ofcourse, as sociology and marketing proves us time and time again, people's behaviors are quite predictable. However according to Titor, they will proven to be wrong and find themselves on the wrong side of that "bet."

hey roth, any luck contacting the lawyer larry haber, or the host of johntitor.com, olliver williams ?

I'm sure they could shed some light on this for us

.02

I was re-reading the 19 pages of Original Titor Posts yesterday looking for more clues of our future and I came across some of Titors Posts that are often overlooked. Please take the time to read the 19 Pages, its a very interesting read and its Free and on THIS site on the homepage in the buttons at the top. Here are the other Overlooked Titor Posts... Please feel free to comment away.'


26 January 2001 13:32 (about the future) 221
After the war, the United States had split into five separate regions based on the various factors and military objectives they each had. There was a great deal of anger directed toward the Federal government and a revival of states rights was becoming paramount. However, in their attempt to create an economic form of government, the political and military leaders at the time decided to hold one last Constitutional Congress in order to present a psychological cohesion from the old system. During this Congress, the leaders discovered and decided that coming up with a new and better form of government was nearly impossible. The original Constitution itself was not the problem it was the ignorance of the people that lived under it.

01/30/01 14:09 (about the future) 249
Technology is not gone in 2036 nor is it the private domain of “government” leaders. Computer printers just didn’t work very well on 12 volts and many people just got used to doing things the old way. After the war, the main problem was distribution. 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.

Originally posted by Where2Hide2006
I was re-reading the 19 pages of Original Titor Posts yesterday looking for more clues of our future and I came across some of Titors Posts that are often overlooked. Please take the time to read the 19 Pages, its a very interesting read and its Free and on THIS site on the homepage in the buttons at the top. Here are the other Overlooked Titor Posts... Please feel free to comment away.'

There is more free trash at your local landfill. FREE.
Better still, get out on trash day before the garbage truck gets there and gorge yourself till your fat dumb and happy.

Any prophet who is wrong on one count, is a complete fake.