Okay, I get it. I need to rephrase the question. I am modifying the topic subtitle from "Who?" to "No gurus, media insiders or government agencies" and changing "9/11" to say "our present world of TV fakery" ... because I am not talking about The Simpsons
or the folding dollar bill; nor am I talking about William Cooper, Alex Jones or Bill Clinton; nor am I talking about 80's video games; nor am I talking about simulated persons like the Racing Rescuer Rick Rescorla. Basically, not necessarily people who might call themselves insiders
but people who were picking up the pieces along the way and decided - when 9/11 happened - that it was clearly a continuation of a pattern they had been previously aware of
through prior experience in our society and wrote about it. Is that restrictive enough yet? :P
So far, my vote is for:
1. "Martin Tierney
2. Silent watchful types who remain anonymous like godzilla said (though, unfortunately, that would mean we are still left with an unknown.)
3. An acquaintance of mine whom I cannot get in touch with any longer, who - like Simon - partially doubted the video when they first saw it. ("That doesn't seem quite right ... the airplane disappeared entirely into the building? Hmm.")
But that doesn't quite count either, because I was hoping we could come up with people out there who had an awareness of media monopoly influence. Maybe writers. Like those articles that Killtown had listed, that warned people of fake live news? I would nominate these specific discussions as being "media insider-y" because they specifically talk about TV fakery and the precise problem that we are encountering now (besides the live public actors like Nico Haupt and Webfairy, etc.) but they are not like "hints" and more like bold, slap-you-in-the-face warning shots which could be attributed to cleverness rather than 'inside info about the coming event of 9/11' ... and perhaps we might realize that all these people who have even so much as touched the mainstream media don't seem to be presently trustworthy:
ARTICLE 1.When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen
- The UK Independent, Monday, 24 January 2000, Anonymous writer. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 28236.html
The article doesn't have a writing credit but it cites the British ITC. http://www.itc.org.uk/
Unfortunately, that company - the very company which expressed concern over fake television - is no more. From above site which formerly belonged to the ITC:
The ITC has ceased to exist from 18 December 2003 and its duties have been assumed by Ofcom, the Office of Communications. Ofcom is the new communications sector regulator and will have wide-ranging responsibilities when it assumes its powers on 29 December 2003. Ofcom inherits the duties of the five existing regulators it replaces: the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC), the Independent Television Commission (ITC), Oftel, the Radio Authority and the Radiocommunications Agency.
Yikes. So that bit of consumer protection didn't last long after 9/11 or before 7/7. It was absorbed by a larger group called Ofcom, the Office of Communications: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/
ARTICLE 2Lying With Pixels
- Technology Review, July/August 2000, by "Ivan Amato
". http://web.archive.org/web/200007110551 ... /amato.htm
Ivan Amato is a correspondent for National Public Radio and the author of Stuff: The Materials the World Is Made Of a chronicle of cutting-edge research in materials science.
- Technology Review
Mr. Amato left C&EN in November 2009
- Chemical & Engineering News
Amato's First Law of Awe
Awe begins in the eye of the beholder.
Limited as it is, biology's homegrown sensory physiology is sufficient in our case to ignite wonder and curiosity about just where it is we find ourselves thrown, how we got there, and how we can even know anything at all. Therein lies the beginning of science.
Amato's Second Law of Awe
Transcending our own sensory limitations with technological tools of observation, a relentless theme of the history of science, enhances the experience of awe itself because it expands the variety of attributes of the universe that we can know about. Therein lies one of the most underrated values of science.
(For example, we used to see the world in only a rainbow of colors. Our tools have shown us that the rainbow is a mere sliver of electromagnetic wavelengths sandwiched between an infinitude of previously invisible ones.)
- Edge, the World Question Center, http://www.edge.org/q2004/page3.html
BAD NEWS: Ivan Amato writes about the ash volcano problem as if it were real. He writes for Washington Post - notorious propaganda spiel. Is Ivan real?
ARTICLE 3CBS Is Divided Over the Use Of False Images In Broadcasts
- New York Times, Published: January 13, 2000, Pasadena, California, by "Bill Carter
" http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/13/busin ... casts.html
Is Bill Carter real, at least? Or is there a continuing pattern of dead ends? Well, however real he is, he is apparently still acting concerned for the public, since he wrote this article about a month ago: CNN and CBS in Talks to Gather News Together
- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/busin ... ill_carter
warning us somewhat of a gathering news monopoly, no? Perhaps he is trying to warn us. Or perhaps "he" is "trying" to "warn" us.
ARTICLE 4When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
- Washington Post (apparently from a .mil source) Monday, Feb. 1, 1999 by "William M. Arkin
" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/na ... 020199.htm
This mini bio accompanies his article:
William M. Arkin, author of "The U.S. Military Online," is a leading expert on national security and the Internet. He lectures and writes on nuclear weapons, military matters and information warfare. An Army intelligence analyst from 1974-1978, Arkin currently consults for Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, MSNBC and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
This is why I don't trust 'media insiders' as true whistle blowers. They act like cowards, hiding in evil and surrounding themselves with it. Unfortunately all these "rescue writers" in each of the 4 articles I have given from Killtown's archives are deeply connected to the media and secret service and military organizations that are the problem. So can we count them as 'insiders' more than a fellow like a "Martin Tierney" who was supposedly "booted" from the media? What about Dan Rather's adventures in unemployment after his non-compliance? Must we rely strictly on these types of media people to know what was going on ... or had there been some small person who foresaw our Brave New Fake News World before it happened and who now has at least some minor voice we can now give ear time to? Someone who was always and has remained independent of the mainstream media?