The patch is nice and all, but I have my own debates raging with other "truth seekers" about 9/11, if I add those guys into the mix my head might explode. Not worth it, even for the patch!
I would like to address one thing you did mention over there Dubfan..."I don't think he's in libel trouble with the Naudet Bros. I think he's in copyright trouble with them."
Not just copyright trouble. If you read the first part of the letter they sent him, in paragraph 2..."...as well as violates the Federal Lanham Trademark Act by suggesting that the Naudet brothers or Mr. Hanlon have endorsed or sponsored the controversial views expressed in your film". Also see page 3 of that letter to read more about that part of their claim. It's not libel, but it's not JUST about the copyright either. The inclusion of their footage, they can argue, suggests that they endorse this film or it's conclusions (after all, why else would they agree to let them use the footage if they didn't agree with them on some level? Or so the viewer will think, not knowing that they in fact did not grant them permission).
The specific subsection of the Lanham act they are refering to is 43(a) 15 USC 1125, subsection A. Here it is, for your reading pleasure!
False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden
(a)
Civil action.
(1)
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--
(A)
is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B)
in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
(2)
As used in this subsection, the term "any person" includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this Act in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(3)
In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this Act for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.
