It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

911 Mysteries Creator - Sofia Shafquat sued for doctoring copyright video!

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Looks like Ms. Shafquat got caught and is getting sued for it. Richard Siegel, the man who videotaped the collapses of the WTC has filed suit against Sofia and her company Avatar, LLC.



www.rfcexpress.com...


Richard Siegel v. Avatar, LLC et al


Lawsuit Details

RFC Case Number: C-R09-827A
Court Case Number: 3:09-cv-00827-BEN-WMC
File Date: Monday, April 20, 2009
Plaintiff: Richard Siegel
Plaintiff Counsel: David M. Beckwith of McDermott Will & Emery
Defendant: Avatar, LLC
Sofia Shafquat
Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement
Court: California Southern District Court
Judge: Judge Roger T. Benitez
Referred To: Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr.


From Siegels Complaint:



If anyone is interested please go here if you would like to see the comparison of the doctored footage.




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
cutting corners when trying to "investigate something" is very unethical

im glad shes getting sued

if she faked stuff round here, she'd get banned as well



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


It's also against the law!


911 Mysteries is one of the "Holy Grails" of 911 Truth. There are truthers in here that still use the video from that "documentary" to "prove" there were explosions.




[edit on 4-6-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   




Are you saying there weren't explotions? LOL

tampered videos are everywhere, not only from people with their own agenda but the goverment itself.

actually the goverment kept most of the videos.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   




Please stay on topic. The video that Sofia used was doctored. There is no denying it. This is one of the reasons why she is getting sued.

If you would like to provide a video or audio link where explosions similar to that in a controlled demolition are heard prior to or during the collapses, please feel free to post them.

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   




I think I am on topic since we are talking about doctored videos, although specifically Sofia's. I dont deny that I stated that some people seem to have their own agenda. are you talking about the same sirens and explotions or any video that sugest there were explotions.

If you are asking about the same video, no, that one is doctored as you can clearly see that its a helicopter camera being used. what she is doing is suggesting, the only way she could prove it is with the actual video that has that audio.



[edit on 4-6-2009 by Arsenis]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   




We are talking about a law suit Arsenis. Sofia was caught using copyright protected material that she doctored to fit her twisted agenda. This is what I would this thread to be about.

Continued mud slinging of the big bad government does not add anything to the thread. As I posted above, if you have a video that had REAL explosions that you can hear, please post them.

In addition, the video in question was not from a helicopter.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   




"to fit her twisted agenda"

"Continued mud slinging"

/ponder



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
If we are talking about a lawsuit, why would you mention that truthers used videos like that to prove explotions or are you saying people use the expecific video?

me posting other videos is off topic because we are talking about a lawsuit on that specific video.

helicopter, from a building or a TV station, the audio is obviosly not coming from the same feed.
so I agree that people like that should be sued, I said if she wants to prove she should release the actual footage with that audio, and see if it was at that same exact time it might have some relevance but yet still missleading even if for a good purpose but like i said before some people have their own agenda, what is hers i dont know.




There are truthers in here that still use the video from that "documentary" to "prove" there were explosions.


you said that people use that specific video to prove there were explotion, so I was kinda questioning if you are stating since that video is doctored are you saying that is proof that there werent explotions.

EDIT: sorry IE keeps on shutting down.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Arsenis]

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Arsenis]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arsenis
I was kinda questioning if you are stating since that video is doctored are you saying that is proof that there werent explotions.


I can't answer for someone else, but in my opinion, yes, that video along with many others prove that there were no explosions used to demolish the towers. It's just too quiet. Watch demolition videos on youtube and then compare those to the many videos of the towers collapsing. Imagine how many explosions should have been heard in the towers collapses if that's what brought them down. Those buildings were huge.

The videos of the collapses also show that the tops of the buildings fall first, which in my opinion, is enough to debunk the whole bomb and/or thermite theories.

Why the truth movement lives on is beyond me. I just watched the "Screw Loose Change" documentary the other day, and it amazes me that people keep flocking back to these known frauds and morons. I'm reminded of the saying "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Thanks to CameronFox for bringing this to the forum's attention.
This Sofia Shafquat lady is another example of why the truther leaders can't be trusted.


[edit on 6/4/2009 by Curious_Agnostic]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
This is from Sofia back in 2007:


Mr. Siegel’s claim of infringement is false. First, well before the release of “911 Mysteries,” Avatar obtained express permission from both Blue Star Media Group (co-owner of the copyright in the “Eyewitness” work) through its managing partner Jim Brewster, and from Mr. Siegel’s partner David Shaw, to incorporate limited segments of “Eyewitness” in “911 Mysteries.” Mr. Siegel’s two partners were fully cooperative with Avatar in licensing this material. Second, even if Avatar had not obtained express permission from the creators of “9/11 Eyewitness” to use their material in “911 Mysteries,” the 38 seconds of incorporated footage that Mr. Siegel has taken issue with is fully protected by the copyright Doctrine of Fair Use.

While Avatar was working with Mr. Siegel’s partners, Mr. Siegel completely delegated the handling of this matter to them, even though Avatar had included Mr. Siegel in its initial contact letter. Additionally, Mr. Siegel is indiscriminately filing takedown demands against other works on the subject of 9/11, as demonstrated by the recent removal from YouTube (also initiated by Mr. Siegel) of “September 11th Revisited” by Dustin Mugford – a video that does not even use any material from “9/11 Eyewitness.”
Source


Sofia did have express permission to use the footage. That's why this case will be thrown out of court. The only issue Mr. Siegel has with Sofia is her changing the audio to make a point (which I do not agree with).



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious_Agnostic
 


So that means you are completely dismissing the video of the fire fighters stating theY heard explotions going off on every floor.

and no, I am not gonna post that video since everyone has seen it.



[edit on 4-6-2009 by Arsenis]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


_Bonez_ - That is per "Clukity Clunk" Sophia.... This is why you have courts of law...to find out who is lying.

She sent him an e-mail asking to use it. She did not receive a response. The documentary was released while the plaintiff was out of the country. Trust me, the proof of her doctoring the video will sway the Jury that will hear this case. (which is what the plaintiff requested)



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Arsenis
 


He used the word "like", and of course there will be some noise when the buildings fall, but you can't hear anything in the videos that compares to explosives used in demolitions of large buildings.

That's exactly why Sofia Shafquat added the explosions in, because they simply weren't there.

edit - I'm not saying that there weren't any explosions at all on 9/11. There were vehicles and other things exploding. I'm just saying that there were none that sounded like set up explosives when the buildings fell.

[edit on 6/4/2009 by Curious_Agnostic]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
but you can't hear anything in the videos that compares to explosives used in demolitions of large buildings.

Firstly, these weren't your typical demolitions. Second, no two demolitions are the same. Third, yes you absolutely can hear explosions used in demolitions of large buildings if you take the extensive time to research demolitions. There are demolitions out there that sound exactly like the demolitions in Mr. Siegel's video. I know, I have one. If you research it, you will find it.



Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
There were vehicles and other things exploding

That is just plain BS. Vehicles don't spontaneously combust for no reason. Further, you haven't read a single account of firefighters or other survivors getting blown around stairwells "like pinballs" from the explosions that were being detonated. Or people getting killed or severely injured in the basement levels from the multiple explosions. You have no clue either because you deny the evidence or you're unresearched.

Please show proof of vehicles exploding everywhere.


[edit on 4-6-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Firstly, these weren't your typical demolitions. Second, no two demolitions are the same.

I agree. We haven't seen buildings demolished by planes before.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Third, yes you absolutely can hear explosions used in demolitions of large buildings if you take the extensive time to research demolitions.

Can you link to a video where we can hear these in the towers?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There are demolitions out there that sound exactly like the demolitions in Mr. Siegel's video. I know, I have one. If you research it, you will find it.

Do you have a link to your video?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Vehicles don't spontaneously combust for no reason.

I agree with that too. They would probably have to get wrecked by something first, like a falling building.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Further, you haven't read a single account of firefighters or other survivors getting blown around stairwells "like pinballs" from the explosions that were being detonated. Or people getting killed or severely injured in the basement levels from the multiple explosions.

I already said that there were other explosions. Burning buildings will cause them. Also, if those explosions were the ones that brought the buildings down, how did the living witnesses get out in time?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Please show proof of vehicles exploding everywhere.

That's what the police were saying:
www.youtube.com...


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You have no clue either because you deny the evidence or you're unresearched.

I'll admit that I can be behind on the theories sometimes. I haven't heard the excuse for why the tops of the buildings started falling first. How was that explained by explosives?

Sorry if I'm getting a little off topic.


[edit on 6/4/2009 by Curious_Agnostic]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That's why this case will be thrown out of court.


It is not getting thrown out. She was served a summons. She had 20 days to respond. (as of now there has not been a response) If that time elapses, judgment by default will be taken against her.

Bonez, let me know if you would like a copy of the summons. (U2U)



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
I agree. We haven't seen buildings demolished by planes before.

Exactly because it can't happen. Even the CEO of Controlled Demolition, Inc. said it requires a miracle.



Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
Can you link to a video where we can hear these in the towers?

"9/11 Eyewitness". The very video we're talking about in this thread. Note, you will need a subwoofer to hear and feel the full effects of the explosions:

Pt.1 video.google.com...
Pt.2 video.google.com...
Pt.3 video.google.com...



Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
Do you have a link to your video?

I do not. I downloaded the video for presentation in a movie I'm working on. As I said in my last post, a little research on your part will do you some good.




Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
I already said that there were other explosions. Burning buildings will cause them.

Maybe in the fire zones, but not 80 floors down. And not multiple times to devestate the lobby and basement levels killing and severely injuring people either.



Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
how did the living witnesses get out in time?

Ask William Rodriguez, he was the last living witness to get out as the building was coming down.



Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
I haven't heard the excuse for why the tops of the buildings started falling first.

Just because the tops fell first doesn't mean it's unprecedented in demolitions. Check out this comparison of the south tower to a demolition by Controlled Demolition, Inc.:



Timing and delays are the key in controlled demolitions. Here it is from one of the blasters at CDI:


"With the use of delays, we can control pretty much where the debris lands; we can control vibration; we can control noise levels. Timing and delays are the keys to just about everything in our business."



And now a word from the CEO of CDI, Mark Loizeaux:


“To bring [a building] down as we want, so . . . no other structure is harmed, the demolition must be completely planned, using the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges. If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.
Source: Baltimore blasters article, Newscientist.com


CDI also aided in the cleanup of the WTC.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And now a word from the CEO of CDI, Mark Loizeaux:


“To bring [a building] down as we want, so . . . no other structure is harmed, the demolition must be completely planned, using the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges. If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.
Source: Baltimore blasters article, Newscientist.com


CDI also aided in the cleanup of the WTC.

I have not posted on this forum in some time, but I have seen you make this claim a lot. This quote however is not from Mark Loizeaux as far as I am aware, and is in fact from David Ray Griffin. My newscientist subscription expired so I cannot check the original article, but every reference to it that I can find does not quote this directly.

Do you have an excerpt from your quoted source with it quoted explicitly because this book does not seem to support you: /kw62ck



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


You may be correct. After reading the context in Dr. Griffin's book, it does seem that it's Dr. Griffin that is talking and not Mark. I got the quote from elsewhere and although I went to NewScientist.com and verified the article exists, I haven't actually read the article because of the subcription. I'll just have to purchase a short-term subscription to read the article once and for all.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join