WW3 Prediction from Bill Ryan

I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but there was this guy with a cowboy hat that described the sequence of events in how WW3 will happen.

One of the blocks has already been fulfilled which is a global pandemic.

So you offer us ''some guy in a cowboy hat'' making predictions about the future...

Ok, it's an hour long. Do you think you could break it down for us a bit?

Sure he mentions a virus in China and I guess that's the bit you suggest has already happened. But what else is there?

Maybe you can give us a summery or better yet, give us some ''time'' keys as to when the good stuff shows up.

a reply to: wearefree4


Did you actually watch the entire video? if you did!

a reply to: wearefree4
I got banned from his website, project avalon, for disputing 9/11. He said there was no plane that hit the Pentagon, evidential pictures and witness statements meant nothing to him. He had one girl said there was no jet fuel and she exited the hole. An army staff sergeant took her baby helping her and stated she exited through a door that had been blown open. Did I mention he is now disabled due to jet fuel in his lungs?

Bill says the Pentagon was hit by missiles fired from a Russian submarine submerged off our coast.

I have seen this posted before…while some of his predictions seemed accurate the others were not. I did not rewatch the video, but I believe he said the ME would be nuked by now, for instance.

I could make 10 predictions and it is likely at least a couple will have relevance.

the podcast was made in 2011 and was 50% about 2005 and 50% about some potential future

the israel attacks on iran was/is still not likely as Ukraine is the focus point now....'

the planned direction fromm 2004-2011 has been scrapped by events in the interim...that city-of-London think tank needs to reconvene and develop newer and achievable goals

originally posted by: Oouthere
a reply to: wearefree4
I got banned from his website, project avalon, for disputing 9/11. He said there was no plane that hit the Pentagon, evidential pictures and witness statements meant nothing to him. He had one girl said there was no jet fuel and she exited the hole. An army staff sergeant took her baby helping her and stated she exited through a door that had been blown open. Did I mention he is now disabled due to jet fuel in his lungs?

Bill says the Pentagon was hit by missiles fired from a Russian submarine submerged off our coast.

Pretty conclusive it was a missile. But go ahead and pretend it was a passenger plane. There is no way in hell it was a passenger plane and we can move on now. Nothing will happen unless the white hats are real.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: wearefree4


Did you actually watch the entire video? if you did!

Yeap I did lol

originally posted by: Oouthere
a reply to: wearefree4
I got banned from his website, project avalon, for disputing 9/11. He said there was no plane that hit the Pentagon, evidential pictures and witness statements meant nothing to him. He had one girl said there was no jet fuel and she exited the hole. An army staff sergeant took her baby helping her and stated she exited through a door that had been blown open. Did I mention he is now disabled due to jet fuel in his lungs?

Bill says the Pentagon was hit by missiles fired from a Russian submarine submerged off our coast.

He said there was no plane? Wow that's crazy. I'll have to look more into that. Thanks.

I'm interested to hear your predictions

a reply to: wearefree4

He said there was no plane? Wow that's crazy.

Why is it crazy? Seriously, what makes you think it's crazy?

I saw a multi-series of videos that described in detail how all the footage of the 'plane(s) hitting the tower(s)' was suspicious and full of odd anomalies to say the least, and showed how it could all be faked, and why those anomalies exist, etc. It was very convincing.

However, it's kind of impossible to know what happened, as the event was so 'big', but at the same time, so much -could- have been faked, and it could have been a controlled demolition. The whole thing about 'vic-sims' instead of 'victims' does make sense and seems plausible, and the whole event is shrouded with REALLY strange anomalies that are either impossible to explain with the official story, or contradict it strongly, or are left to be just 'really, REALLY weird, unexplainable mysteries', which is fishy in itself.

I don't remember the name of that particular 'documentary' style of videos, it was some musician, and I think they might have used the term 'Psy-Op' or 'theater' in the title.

Just don't believe 100% everything you see on television, and nothing will seem too crazy - leave room for alternative explanations at least, if you want to know the truth. There ARE arguments against this particular explanation, but that's beyond the scope of my post.

The thing is, if you consider one of the main mysteries of the whole thing, it does seem a bit odd, doesn't it? I mean, consider the materials a skyscraper consists of - the density, the weight, and all that - then consider the materials that a MUCH lighter and less dense airplane (a hollow tube, basically) is made out of. If you made a bat out of the skyscraper's materials, and used it to hit the plane (as a ball), do you really think the plane would just 'sink into the bat'?

That is MY main issue with the official story and what we're shown - the plane doesn't even slow down as it supposedly 'crashes' - it doesn't even really crash, it just melts into the building, it looks like hot knife going into butter with no resistance whatsoever. Even if the skyscraper had been constructed of the same material as the plane, there should be SOME resistance. Now, the stronger the material of the skyscraper, the more resistance, and the more the PLANE should've been crushed to pieces before anything of the building would even start to break (except windows, of course).

The plane sinks into the plane as if you're dropping a billiard ball into a birthday cake. It just doesn't make ANY sense.

In any case, I am sure that particular event could be talked - and probably has been - about for thousands of pages without reaching any kind of consensus and conclusion, but yeah, considering everything we know about media, fakery, agendas, rich people and their insider knowledge, I wouldn't consider it crazy at all.

a reply to: Justoneman

Pretty conclusive it was a missile.

This statement lacks information to be complete.

What are you saying? The PROOF is 'pretty conclusive'? Are you quoting someone, what evidence are you talking about, if any?

You also need a verb of some kind, like '[Something/Someone] WAS pretty conclusive THAT it was a missile', just to give you an example of an actual, english sentence structure.

It's impossible to know what you are saying when you make up your own rules instead of using the english rules, and thus, communicating actual thought, statement or information that means something.

Are you saying it is your opinion and you are pretty sure it was a missile?

I probably agree with the 'missile theory' in any case, but you could at least present it instead of just typing almost random words and leaving it to the reader; it would be interesting to know what you think.

a reply to: Justoneman

A missile? Then it had to be two missiles as light poles were knocked down in multiple locations on both sides of the road, and the full cargo must have been aircraft parts as the front landing strut weighed about 10 tons and that does not include the 757 turbine found nor the rims. And let's not forget you also have to disregard hundreds of eye witness accounts stating they saw planes.