Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

[Lonewolf]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Originally posted by keylempa@Aug 12 2004, 01:21 AM
lonewolf, is there any chance you can link us to these documents? I, for one, would be very interested.

​

The easiest way to look at the entire story of 9-11 is at three sites. www.9-11research.com , www.serendipity.li, and www.whatreallyhappened.com
These three sites go through the flaws in the story, some that I agree with, some that I don't. IN any case, the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) said that the fires inside the WTC were the cause of the collapse, and the possibility of that being true is nearly 0.

 

[Lonewolf]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Originally posted by keylempa@Aug 12 2004, 01:21 AM
lonewolf, is there any chance you can link us to these documents? I, for one, would be very interested.

​

The easiest way to look at the entire story of 9-11 is at three sites. www.9-11research.com , www.serendipity.li, and www.whatreallyhappened.com
These three sites go through the flaws in the story, some that I agree with, some that I don't. IN any case, the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) said that the fires inside the WTC were the cause of the collapse, and the possibility of that being true is nearly 0.

 

[Judge Bean]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Originally posted by pauli@Aug 10 2004, 05:32 AM
I thought I would open a thread to talk about philosophical discrepancies in the JT story from pre and post 9/11. I wanted to see if there are other people out there who question the story material - not in the sense of debunking it per se, but in the sense of talking about whether they think, or feel, the material may be a bit dated since 9/11.

Ok, I suppose I will have to give an example of what I mean...

John Titor talks about a Civil War brought on by gov't intrusion into the lives of people through a series of Waco type events. Pre 9/11 such a concept was not unthinkable, since we only had examples of Waco, Ruby Ridge & the Elian Gonzales stand-off. Post 9/11, there is the whole issue of terrorism - which to me is a bit of a different animal. While you can say that these Waco events could be stretched out into terrorist types of things, it seems a bit of a stretch.

You can also say the Democratic/Republican Left/Right issue is the basis of the gov't turning against its citizens, but that does not seem to be what Titor was alluding to. I believe Phoenix has already posted that reference in one of the other threads. Titor was asked about that and he turned it down. He clearly said it was the gov't against the people, not the Dems against the Repubs.

I guess what I am working toward here is, \"Who besides me thinks the JT material fits more into the world of Sept. 10th 2001 than the current world in which we now live?\"

Also, if you have questions about other aspects of the story, from a philosophical basis, feel free to chime in. I have opened this thread to discuss such matters, whether they support the story or not.

​

I have requoted the entire opening post because it should serve to keep us on topic.

I agree completely with what Pauli says. We need to be more critical in our thinking, to avoid panic.

911 is not the type of admonitory event Titor apparently meant when he mentioned Waco. However, if you consider what the government reaction has been to 911, and everything that has occurred since, it is possible to consider it quite chillingly close to what Titor told us would occur.

He said quite clearly that in 2004 we would see a series of events (i.e., more than two) that would resemble Waco. This would be the earliest sign of what was to come, because it would show our government cracking down on citizens. While nothing has yet occurred to remind us of Waco, the stage is now clearly set (and remains set in the predictions of the Kerry-Edwards team, if they should take over) for such a crackdown. All of the legal apparatus is now in place for a mass-scale roundup of dissidents, so it is certainly in place for occasional and seemingly-random violations of rights such as at Waco.

911 is the main thing that went into this setup, and in fact is the single most impressive thing lacking in the credibility of the Titor prophecies. In other words, without something like 911, his claims of government oppression do not seem very plausible, if you are looking forward from 2000-01 trying to see the future.

I hope that this settles us down. It is important to collect and catalog our rights now, so that we know what we are insisting upon when they come to the door and demand them from us. You would do the same if a billcollector came by, and you thought maybe he was asking too much; or if your grandmother died and you were going through her estate. The weather is changing; things are going to happen. You need more than extra bike tires, believe me.

 

[Judge Bean]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Originally posted by pauli@Aug 10 2004, 05:32 AM
I thought I would open a thread to talk about philosophical discrepancies in the JT story from pre and post 9/11. I wanted to see if there are other people out there who question the story material - not in the sense of debunking it per se, but in the sense of talking about whether they think, or feel, the material may be a bit dated since 9/11.

Ok, I suppose I will have to give an example of what I mean...

John Titor talks about a Civil War brought on by gov't intrusion into the lives of people through a series of Waco type events. Pre 9/11 such a concept was not unthinkable, since we only had examples of Waco, Ruby Ridge & the Elian Gonzales stand-off. Post 9/11, there is the whole issue of terrorism - which to me is a bit of a different animal. While you can say that these Waco events could be stretched out into terrorist types of things, it seems a bit of a stretch.

You can also say the Democratic/Republican Left/Right issue is the basis of the gov't turning against its citizens, but that does not seem to be what Titor was alluding to. I believe Phoenix has already posted that reference in one of the other threads. Titor was asked about that and he turned it down. He clearly said it was the gov't against the people, not the Dems against the Repubs.

I guess what I am working toward here is, \"Who besides me thinks the JT material fits more into the world of Sept. 10th 2001 than the current world in which we now live?\"

Also, if you have questions about other aspects of the story, from a philosophical basis, feel free to chime in. I have opened this thread to discuss such matters, whether they support the story or not.

​

I have requoted the entire opening post because it should serve to keep us on topic.

I agree completely with what Pauli says. We need to be more critical in our thinking, to avoid panic.

911 is not the type of admonitory event Titor apparently meant when he mentioned Waco. However, if you consider what the government reaction has been to 911, and everything that has occurred since, it is possible to consider it quite chillingly close to what Titor told us would occur.

He said quite clearly that in 2004 we would see a series of events (i.e., more than two) that would resemble Waco. This would be the earliest sign of what was to come, because it would show our government cracking down on citizens. While nothing has yet occurred to remind us of Waco, the stage is now clearly set (and remains set in the predictions of the Kerry-Edwards team, if they should take over) for such a crackdown. All of the legal apparatus is now in place for a mass-scale roundup of dissidents, so it is certainly in place for occasional and seemingly-random violations of rights such as at Waco.

911 is the main thing that went into this setup, and in fact is the single most impressive thing lacking in the credibility of the Titor prophecies. In other words, without something like 911, his claims of government oppression do not seem very plausible, if you are looking forward from 2000-01 trying to see the future.

I hope that this settles us down. It is important to collect and catalog our rights now, so that we know what we are insisting upon when they come to the door and demand them from us. You would do the same if a billcollector came by, and you thought maybe he was asking too much; or if your grandmother died and you were going through her estate. The weather is changing; things are going to happen. You need more than extra bike tires, believe me.

 

[Lonewolf]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Originally posted by Paul J. Lyon@Aug 12 2004, 01:41 PM
He said quite clearly that in 2004 we would see a series of events (i.e., more than two) that would resemble Waco. This would be the earliest sign of what was to come, because it would show our government cracking down on citizens. While nothing has yet occurred to remind us of Waco, the stage is now clearly set (and remains set in the predictions of the Kerry-Edwards team, if they should take over) for such a crackdown. All of the legal apparatus is now in place for a mass-scale roundup of dissidents, so it is certainly in place for occasional and seemingly-random violations of rights such as at Waco.

​

What if, *and I know this sounds crazy*, but what if John simply meant that Waco was one event where the government attacked the people of the U.S. and that other events like that would happen. I believe that the government was involved in the Sept. 11th attacks, with the greatest questions arising from the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[Lonewolf]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Originally posted by Paul J. Lyon@Aug 12 2004, 01:41 PM
He said quite clearly that in 2004 we would see a series of events (i.e., more than two) that would resemble Waco. This would be the earliest sign of what was to come, because it would show our government cracking down on citizens. While nothing has yet occurred to remind us of Waco, the stage is now clearly set (and remains set in the predictions of the Kerry-Edwards team, if they should take over) for such a crackdown. All of the legal apparatus is now in place for a mass-scale roundup of dissidents, so it is certainly in place for occasional and seemingly-random violations of rights such as at Waco.

​

What if, *and I know this sounds crazy*, but what if John simply meant that Waco was one event where the government attacked the people of the U.S. and that other events like that would happen. I believe that the government was involved in the Sept. 11th attacks, with the greatest questions arising from the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[Judge Bean]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Originally posted by Lonewolf+Aug 13 2004, 12:14 PM--><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Paul J. Lyon@Aug 12 2004, 01:41 PM
He said quite clearly that in 2004 we would see a series of events (i.e., more than two) that would resemble Waco.? This would be the earliest sign of what was to come, because it would show our government cracking down on citizens.? While nothing has yet occurred to remind us of Waco, the stage is now clearly set (and remains set in the predictions of the Kerry-Edwards team, if they should take over) for such a crackdown.? All of the legal apparatus is now in place for a mass-scale roundup of dissidents, so it is certainly in place for occasional and seemingly-random violations of rights such as at Waco.

​

What if, *and I know this sounds crazy*, but what if John simply meant that Waco was one event where the government attacked the people of the U.S. and that other events like that would happen. I believe that the government was involved in the Sept. 11th attacks, with the greatest questions arising from the collapse of WTC 7.

[snapback]6770[/snapback]​

[/b][/quote]

There is something to this, of course, but I believe that Titor was referring to a specific kind of event, to happen in a series beginning this year. It would be recognizable as the same kind of event as at Waco: an attack by the government on citizens, to be sure, but an attack occurring against individuals or small groups with questionable justification. This would be "raids," or skirmishes.

The government's involvement in 911 seems at the current level of proof to have been mostly negligence. There is a big question left hanging, that no one on this board at least seems able to answer: Can anyone with some expertise in the field of aviation describe the apparatus attached to the bottom of the hijacked plane?

 

[Judge Bean]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

Originally posted by Lonewolf+Aug 13 2004, 12:14 PM--><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Paul J. Lyon@Aug 12 2004, 01:41 PM
He said quite clearly that in 2004 we would see a series of events (i.e., more than two) that would resemble Waco.? This would be the earliest sign of what was to come, because it would show our government cracking down on citizens.? While nothing has yet occurred to remind us of Waco, the stage is now clearly set (and remains set in the predictions of the Kerry-Edwards team, if they should take over) for such a crackdown.? All of the legal apparatus is now in place for a mass-scale roundup of dissidents, so it is certainly in place for occasional and seemingly-random violations of rights such as at Waco.

​

What if, *and I know this sounds crazy*, but what if John simply meant that Waco was one event where the government attacked the people of the U.S. and that other events like that would happen. I believe that the government was involved in the Sept. 11th attacks, with the greatest questions arising from the collapse of WTC 7.

[snapback]6770[/snapback]​

[/b][/quote]

There is something to this, of course, but I believe that Titor was referring to a specific kind of event, to happen in a series beginning this year. It would be recognizable as the same kind of event as at Waco: an attack by the government on citizens, to be sure, but an attack occurring against individuals or small groups with questionable justification. This would be "raids," or skirmishes.

The government's involvement in 911 seems at the current level of proof to have been mostly negligence. There is a big question left hanging, that no one on this board at least seems able to answer: Can anyone with some expertise in the field of aviation describe the apparatus attached to the bottom of the hijacked plane?

 

[CaryP]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

What if, *and I know this sounds crazy*, but what if John simply meant that Waco was one event where the government attacked the people of the U.S. and that other events like that would happen. I believe that the government was involved in the Sept. 11th attacks, with the greatest questions arising from the collapse of WTC 7.

Lonewolf,

Sounds like you and I have seen some of the same material. Big question about WTC 7 isn't there?

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the entire WTC complex, is interviewed on a post 9/11 events video tape produced by PBS called "Rebuilding America". In this program Mr. Silverstein talks about the destruction of WTC 7. He says that the decision was made to "pull the building" on the afternoon of 9/11 because of damage to the building. The term "pull the building" is used by demolition experts to describe the controlled demolition of buildings.

You've seen them on TV. An old building is scheduled for destruction. It takes months for the preparation and execution of such events.

1)The structure and plans of the building have to be obtained and studied by the demolition crew.
2)Permits have to obtained and demolition times have to be coordinated with law enforcement and fire officials.
3)Explosives have to be acquired.
4)Demolition charges and wiring must be placed strategically throughout the to-be-destroyed building.
5)All the wiring has to be run through a control board that will ensure that demolition charges are detonated in the proper sequence to bring the building down in a controlled manner to minimize the area of rubble post-demolition.

I'm no demolitions expert but, IT TAKES MONTHS TO DO THIS. WTC 7 was "pulled" in a matter of hours. It was no small building, about 50 stories if memory serves. I've stayed at the WTC Marriot in May 2001. The WTC complex was huge and covered acres of land, about 17 if memory serves. WTC 7 wasn't even that close to the two main towers. It was NOT physically damaged by their collapse. Do you think a demolition crew would have tried to put explosives in a building that had a few fires burning in it? How could the large amount of explosives needed for the task be brought into the building in the few hours between the time the decision was supposedly made to pull the building and its destruction? Not to mention wire all of the charges together, and run them through an electronic control panel, etc., etc. There is no way the plans could have been studied in time. I guess what I'm saying is that the controlled demolition of WTC 7 within a period of a few hours was a VIRTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY unless all of the prep work had been done in advance. Plans studied, explosives obtained, explosives set in place with wiring, electronic control panel obtained and programmed, etc. AHEAD OF TIME. To prepare for the demolition ahead of time implies that the 9/11 event was known about ahead of time, and implicates a complicit federal govt. in its execution. There is no way to pull such an event off without the cooperation or at least the acquiesence of a complicit federal govt.

Remember a "Pearl Harbor" event was needed according to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) so that the American global military expedition could be launched to bring about "Pax Americana" - one of their main projects. Who are founding members of PNAC? Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, White House advisors Perle and Feith, and the list goes on. PNAC was started in the late 1990's. You think they might have been planning for or looking for someone to give them their "Pearl Harbor" event since inception? Osama bin Laden is a bought and paid for CIA asset. al Qaeda is a bought and paid for CIA asset. Saddam Hussein is a bought and paid for CIA asset. Who controls the CIA? Think about it. It's not the White House.

WTC 7 wasn't damaged by the destruction of the the north and south towers. There were maybe a few fires going in WTC 7. Fires from what? No one seems to be able to come up with the answers for that. WTC 7 was the home of FEMA, the CIA, the FBI, and the Secret Service to name a few of the federal agencies housed there. Rudy Guilianni went there first on the morning of 9/11. He was told to leave WTC 7 because "there are bombs in the building" that morning. Sorry folks. I know it sounds "conspiracy theory." I know it's incredible to believe that the fed. govt. would be complicit in something like the 9/11 event. But the evidence just doesn't stack up in favor of the official govt. explanation.

What's really remarkable is that WTC's 4, 5, and 6 were all partially damaged by the collapse of the north and south towers. They could have been more easily destroyed in a controlled demolition and on a shorter time schedule. Permits would have been easily granted. Buildings were empty, and the area was already under the control of police and fire officials during the rescue and clean up operation. Guess when WTC 4, 5 and 6 were "pulled"? Mid-December of 2001. It took two months to "pull" partially destroyed and evacuated buildings, which is faster than normal for the process. But the few hours it took to "pull" WTC 7 in the middle of all the ruckus of the day - just ain't possible.

Here's another one to ponder. The north and south towers collapsed in a text book "controlled demolition" fashion. Watch the video of their collapse. There are sites all over the web that have them. The US Geological Survey picked up shock waves equivalent to a series of controlled explosives about 10 to 15 seconds BEFORE each of the towers began their controlled collapse. Sounds conspiracy theory? You ain't heard much yet.

Cary

 

[CaryP]

Philosophical descrepancies in JT story

What if, *and I know this sounds crazy*, but what if John simply meant that Waco was one event where the government attacked the people of the U.S. and that other events like that would happen. I believe that the government was involved in the Sept. 11th attacks, with the greatest questions arising from the collapse of WTC 7.

Lonewolf,

Sounds like you and I have seen some of the same material. Big question about WTC 7 isn't there?

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the entire WTC complex, is interviewed on a post 9/11 events video tape produced by PBS called "Rebuilding America". In this program Mr. Silverstein talks about the destruction of WTC 7. He says that the decision was made to "pull the building" on the afternoon of 9/11 because of damage to the building. The term "pull the building" is used by demolition experts to describe the controlled demolition of buildings.

You've seen them on TV. An old building is scheduled for destruction. It takes months for the preparation and execution of such events.

1)The structure and plans of the building have to be obtained and studied by the demolition crew.
2)Permits have to obtained and demolition times have to be coordinated with law enforcement and fire officials.
3)Explosives have to be acquired.
4)Demolition charges and wiring must be placed strategically throughout the to-be-destroyed building.
5)All the wiring has to be run through a control board that will ensure that demolition charges are detonated in the proper sequence to bring the building down in a controlled manner to minimize the area of rubble post-demolition.

I'm no demolitions expert but, IT TAKES MONTHS TO DO THIS. WTC 7 was "pulled" in a matter of hours. It was no small building, about 50 stories if memory serves. I've stayed at the WTC Marriot in May 2001. The WTC complex was huge and covered acres of land, about 17 if memory serves. WTC 7 wasn't even that close to the two main towers. It was NOT physically damaged by their collapse. Do you think a demolition crew would have tried to put explosives in a building that had a few fires burning in it? How could the large amount of explosives needed for the task be brought into the building in the few hours between the time the decision was supposedly made to pull the building and its destruction? Not to mention wire all of the charges together, and run them through an electronic control panel, etc., etc. There is no way the plans could have been studied in time. I guess what I'm saying is that the controlled demolition of WTC 7 within a period of a few hours was a VIRTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY unless all of the prep work had been done in advance. Plans studied, explosives obtained, explosives set in place with wiring, electronic control panel obtained and programmed, etc. AHEAD OF TIME. To prepare for the demolition ahead of time implies that the 9/11 event was known about ahead of time, and implicates a complicit federal govt. in its execution. There is no way to pull such an event off without the cooperation or at least the acquiesence of a complicit federal govt.

Remember a "Pearl Harbor" event was needed according to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) so that the American global military expedition could be launched to bring about "Pax Americana" - one of their main projects. Who are founding members of PNAC? Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, White House advisors Perle and Feith, and the list goes on. PNAC was started in the late 1990's. You think they might have been planning for or looking for someone to give them their "Pearl Harbor" event since inception? Osama bin Laden is a bought and paid for CIA asset. al Qaeda is a bought and paid for CIA asset. Saddam Hussein is a bought and paid for CIA asset. Who controls the CIA? Think about it. It's not the White House.

WTC 7 wasn't damaged by the destruction of the the north and south towers. There were maybe a few fires going in WTC 7. Fires from what? No one seems to be able to come up with the answers for that. WTC 7 was the home of FEMA, the CIA, the FBI, and the Secret Service to name a few of the federal agencies housed there. Rudy Guilianni went there first on the morning of 9/11. He was told to leave WTC 7 because "there are bombs in the building" that morning. Sorry folks. I know it sounds "conspiracy theory." I know it's incredible to believe that the fed. govt. would be complicit in something like the 9/11 event. But the evidence just doesn't stack up in favor of the official govt. explanation.

What's really remarkable is that WTC's 4, 5, and 6 were all partially damaged by the collapse of the north and south towers. They could have been more easily destroyed in a controlled demolition and on a shorter time schedule. Permits would have been easily granted. Buildings were empty, and the area was already under the control of police and fire officials during the rescue and clean up operation. Guess when WTC 4, 5 and 6 were "pulled"? Mid-December of 2001. It took two months to "pull" partially destroyed and evacuated buildings, which is faster than normal for the process. But the few hours it took to "pull" WTC 7 in the middle of all the ruckus of the day - just ain't possible.

Here's another one to ponder. The north and south towers collapsed in a text book "controlled demolition" fashion. Watch the video of their collapse. There are sites all over the web that have them. The US Geological Survey picked up shock waves equivalent to a series of controlled explosives about 10 to 15 seconds BEFORE each of the towers began their controlled collapse. Sounds conspiracy theory? You ain't heard much yet.

Cary