John Titor - No need to worry?

Must be that time of the month....

Again, I've asked to please show me what I've (unintentially) ignored and I'll address it.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
blah blah blah........you make Statements of Time Travel being impossible or statements of it being ridiculous to develop time travel in a Post Nuclear world.

Ok. What's your point?
(and no I didn't say time travel is impossible, but still what's your point? If you know so much more than me then explain what about that statement is false)

Really, what is irritating is that you make statements at ALL... and then you demand others prove themselves, all the while you make statements as if somehow you posessed all the facts and were superior in knowledge to anyone who argues with you.

Are you joking?
All I'm saying is that scientists having the time, energy, resources, money, knowledge, etc. to discover and develop time travel (which may not even exsist period) while everyone else around them is dying by the billions and whole cities and countries are being destroyed is highly unlikely.
It's higly illogical. That's not how the world works. That's not how humans function.
I've asked you to show me why I should believe otherwise.

Since I don't have all the facts and superior knowledge and you supposedly do, teach me. Tell me why I should think otherwise.

Oh, and you also declare that humankind behaves in a singular fashion. I guess maybe you are of the opinion that figuring out people is about as trivial as factoring how many quarts in a gallon.

You trivialize people and their motives, and make statements about human behavior when human behavior is NOT cut and dry.

Crystalsword, I suggest you to stop talking with TJW and SHP, because it's impossible. They don't want to talk, they want to be true.

this topic used to be interesting to me. it is no longer. I haven't seen a fresh idea in 6 months.

I'll just say in summation JT's story was a great work of fiction, well done, and points out some legitmate concerns of what the future may hold in a worst case scenario.

later

Great, now that Syrinx High Priest is Gone (Yeah, Like I BELIEVE that) we can continue talking about how worrisome our current world is, and how it is SIMILAR to events which Titor described.

Did anyone hear of Bush trying to sell U.S. Ports to a foreign company? Is this going to be the usual run of things now, selling off U.S. soil until people get so angry about it they rise up against their sea of troubles and by opposing, end them?

Perhaps it could be viewed as a WACO style event in that the Government seems to beleive it functions under different rules than civilians... able to kill people in a compound an go "OOPS" and not suffer for it, able to sell off sections of American Soil to Foreign nations which may have links with terrorists, etc.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Did anyone hear of Bush trying to sell U.S. Ports to a foreign company? Is this going to be the usual run of things now, selling off U.S. soil until people get so angry about it they rise up against their sea of troubles and by opposing, end them?

Bush trying to sell U.S. Ports to a foreign company. Bush didn't have to do that, the ports operations were already being managed by a foreign company. DP World purchased that British company, which would mean an independant British company was trying to sell U.S. ports to a foreign company. Troubling: DP World is owned and operated by the nation-state of Dubai. Encouraging: DP World will have nothing to do with security, only with managing day to day non-security related operations.

Yes, JJ.... but should it happen? Should foreign countries own American soil? That is the question... not whether it was done before, whether it's alright.

It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Seriously, though, it depends on what the definition of a foreign country is. If, by foreign country, you mean an actual government buying up American land, I would say no. However, in that case, the land would still be under US jurisdiction; it doesn't become part of that country. If you mean foreign companies, though, I would say they certainly could. We have a capitalist society, and no stipulation in the constitution or other law that a foreign company cannot purchase land to run a business here. Again, when they do so, they are under US jurisdiction. A Canadian pharmaceutical company can't open a plant here in the US without being subject to the FDA's strict rules. Just because they're based in Canada doesn't mean their company or elements of there company based in the US are run by Canadian law.

As to the foreign takeover of American property, this scare is not new. I spoke about it on another thread when I talked about the terror so many felt as the Japanese were buying up American land. Michael Chriton even wrote a book about the horrors of the Japanese economical takeover of America called Rising Sun. America allowed Japanese companies to purchase American business, but Japan wouldn't allow American companies to do the same. The Japanese saw us as idiots for selling our country away to foreign investors, and many Americans felt the same way. Now, here we are about 20 years later. The Japanese economy has stagnated, while the American economy has continued to grow.

There are some things, however, that should not be sold to foreign companies, or really any company, in my opinion. National security matters, things the TSA, Coast Guard and law enforcement are in charge of maintaining must continue to be run by the government, especially with the global economy. Companies don't have national loyalty anymore, but a government should. Of all players, the government would be most likely to protect itself at all costs, whereas a company may see profit in not doing so.

P.S. Don't worry, I will be responding to your question from the other thread

Actually, Cyrstal where ever there are embassies in this country...that's technically foreign land. So countries have been buying US soil for years

Anyway, the ports deal really has nothing to do with selling American soil to foreign lands. The deal means the ports will be run by a different company. The previous company was based in Britian this one is based in the UAE (it actually bought the British company). They won't "own" a thing though and security will still be handled by the Coast Guard and US Customs.


As far as comparing this with Waco, well....the similiarites are nonexsistent so I don't think anyone will view this as a Waco event.

Jungle Jake and ThatsJustWeird: Well, I thank you both for the most detailed and convincing rebuttal. It clarified some things and provided some information which I was lacking.

One thing for TJW though, while Titor did state what he felt was a WACO style event, my opinion is any event which shows the Government to have completely different rules for itself than for the populace is classified as a WACO style event.

Yes, Titor said "Armed Conflicts" and such. However, like it has already been stated, Titor is off in what he described... yet he neve predicted anything. This thread isn't for proving or disproving Titor, it's for discussing the things he said and how they might be relevant as a warning.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
One thing for TJW though, while Titor did state what he felt was a WACO style event, my opinion is any event which shows the Government to have completely different rules for itself than for the populace is classified as a WACO style event.

Care to clean up that definition a bit?
The government does have different rules....in fact...they make the rules. The military have different rules as well.

No, I think my definition is suitable... it indicates corruption of the governmental system when Government does not have to live by the laws they pass.

The Government, most importantly, should never... ever operate above the law, but rather within it, as if the opposite occurrs then our government needs to be overthrown.

I will post it here, JT no need to worry? No need to worry, but not at all...

I think I found why the timeline John described was not similar to us in terms of years and why he didn't said anything about 9/11.

He said something similar to this: Watch out, things can really change quick in the next months.

I think that in his timeline, 9/11 didn't happen and he was talking about another thing, an economic crash.

A lot of economics said that if the 9/11 wouldn't have happenned, there would have been a economic crash like the one of 1929 by the end of 2001 or at the beginning of 2002. So I think that would have gone to civil war and all the things that JT said.

So if he was a true time traveller, I think this is what happenned on his timeline. So all the timeframe JT said, is false.

But with the Euro-based iranian petro-bourse (if it exist) will cause the US economy to collapse and maybe lead us to the world JT described.

Any thought? All JT predicted could very well happen, it will just not be in the timeframe he was talking about.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I think that in his timeline, 9/11 didn't happen and he was talking about another thing, an economic crash.

A lot of economics said that if the 9/11 wouldn't have happenned, there would have been a economic crash like the one of 1929 by the end of 2001 or at the beginning of 2002. So I think that would have gone to civil war and all the things that JT said.

An economic crash is extremely significant.
If it happened during Titor's time I'm positive he would have mentioned it.

Also, no one was saying we would have a crash like the great depression. 9/11 was one of the reasons why our economy did slip. The bubble started deflating in 2000. After 9/11, that's when it really started to go down rapidly because it (9/11) affected so much. If 9/11 didn't happen, then the economy would have stayed at the pace it was before 9/11.

But with the Euro-based iranian petro-bourse (if it exist) will cause the US economy to collapse and maybe lead us to the world JT described.

1. It takes more than just a poor economy for us to start killing each other. Did a civil war break out after the great depression? No.

2. It's March 3. Iran still hasn't said they'll be switch to only euros. It would not make much economic sense for them to switch to euros only anyway (especially if they have the possibility of being sanctioned).

Any thought? All JT predicted could very well happen, it will just not be in the timeframe he was talking about.

Not likely.
Conditions are no where near where they would need to be in order for a civil war to break out in the U.S.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
An economic crash is extremely significant.
If it happened during Titor's time I'm positive he would have mentioned it.

Also, no one was saying we would have a crash like the great depression. 9/11 was one of the reasons why our economy did slip. The bubble started deflating in 2000. After 9/11, that's when it really started to go down rapidly because it (9/11) affected so much. If 9/11 didn't happen, then the economy would have stayed at the pace it was before 9/11.

No he wouldn't have mentionned it because it would have give gain to someone. And this was one of his rules.

Before 9/11, the economy was retreating and experts were expection a financial crash. A lot of virtual money was in the economy, a lot of what was being said in the stock was fake. (Like in the 28/29) During 9/11, the economy stopped for 48 hours, and all the economies in the world bought american dollars to support it, to avoid the crash, so the $ only fell 7% when the economy restarted the 14.

So all the virtual money was replace by real money from foreign investitors, to avoid an economic crash.

By the next week, the economy was purged from 8 000 billions of $, so 30 000$ per american!

So the 9/11 saved the world economy! If it's a real act of terrorism by real terrorists and not planned by we-don't-know-who (secrets services, MOSSAD, CIA, FBI, NSA, Bush..) terrorists saved america! We should thanks them.

(I would have to say all this in french, so you could fully understand me)

1. It takes more than just a poor economy for us to start killing each other. Did a civil war break out after the great depression? No.

2. It's March 3. Iran still hasn't said they'll be switch to only euros. It would not make much economic sense for them to switch to euros only anyway (especially if they have the possibility of being sanctioned).

1. Bad economy brings no job. A lot of americans are against illegal immigration because they say that they are taking american's jobs. This would have very led to violences between americans and mexicans and armed groups could have been created. American killings mexicans... terrorism from american against mexicans, terrorism from mexicans against americans.

The government don't know what to do, put the martial law all over the country. And well, all those armed groups could well consider this as a dictatorship taking place and fight against the government.

And the way of thinking of today with all the wars and violence in TV, the way people react to a situation is not at all the same way as in the 30's.

2. You're right on this, Iran didn't talk about their oil being trade in euro. And myself, I begin to believe that this euro-based thing is a hoax.
But UN can't impose sanctions, they don't have any proof. (Anyway we'll see monday)

Not likely. Conditions are no where near where they would need to be in order for a civil war to break out in the U.S.

You're right. But sometimes, the situations evolves very fast.

For the iran euro-based bourse:

www.iranmania.com...

Oil bourse closer to reality

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - ©2004 IranMania.com

LONDON, Dec 28 (IranMania) - Iran will move a step closer to establishing its much-publicized oil exchange next week, when the Oil Ministry and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance are set to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU), which will set the ground for the high-profile initiative.

Hossein Talebi, the National Iranian Oil Company's director for information technology affairs, told Fars news agency that the project would enter the executive phase immediately after the MoU is signed.

The official further said that petrochemicals, crude oil and oil and gas products will be traded at the petroleum exchange.

"The oil exchange would strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region," he said, adding that most deals will be conducted through the Internet.
Talebi said the bourse could also help develop petrochemical industry.

Iran announced in September its petroleum exchange will become operational by March 2006.

Experts from International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) have reportedly confirmed the feasibility of the project.

Mohammad Javad Assemipour, who is in charge of implementing the oil exchange project, told ILNA that the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance, some brokerage firms and the Tehran Stock Exchange will set up a consortium to contribute, in collaboration with foreign companies, to the establishment of Iran's oil exchange. He said the petroleum exchange could help create further transparency in the Oil Ministry's performance and help attract more foreign investments in national energy industries.

The proposal was first put forward in the beginning of the Third Development Plan (2000-2005) and became a national project only last year. Relevant technical studies are still underway.


In the polonese press, I saw articles that were saying that if the Iran doesn't cooperate till the end of march/beginning of april, USA will impose the oil for food program. Does this seems familliar?

[edit on 4-3-2006 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
In the polonese press, I saw articles that were saying that if the Iran doesn't cooperate till the end of march/beginning of april, USA will impose the oil for food program. Does this seems familliar?

Since we get no oil from Iran in the first place this seems highly unlikely as it would be pointless...
The US can't do that anyway. Only the UN can impose something like that.

So in Iraq it was the UN that was trading oil for food?

But the US owns the UN so this should not be a big problem...

Originally posted by Vitchilo
So in Iraq it was the UN that was trading oil for food?

But the US owns the UN so this should not be a big problem...

The Oil-for-Food Programme (Oil-for-Food Program in American English), established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security Council Resolution 986) and terminated in late 2003, was intended to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to rebuild its military.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now the US can introduce a program like that to the UN for Iran, but it's the UN that would put it in place. It wouldn't benefit the US, so I really don't see them introducing anything like that (that and the fact that sanctions aren't even in place so neither Iran nor it's people are suffering making a program like that even more pointless....)

Anyway, we'll see what happens in a couple of hours... and see if there is a war between march 20 and the beginning of april.