911 Mysteries Creator - Sofia Shafquat sued for doctoring copyright video! , page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times
Topic started on 4-6-2009 @ 02:23 PM by CameronFox
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.


reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 03:07 PM by CameronFox
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]



reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 05:37 PM by _BoneZ_
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).


reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 06:01 PM by Arsenis
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]


reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 06:42 PM by CameronFox
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)


reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 07:06 PM by Curious_Agnostic
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]


reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 08:38 PM by Curious_Agnostic
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]


reply posted on 4-6-2009 @ 10:55 PM by _BoneZ_
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.


reply posted on 5-6-2009 @ 01:08 PM by _BoneZ_
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.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 12 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 6 days ago with 12 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags