Please do. I will back him all the way on this.
new jdx bs on google video
- Thread starter ~enigma~
- Start date
I PM'd him just after I posted that. I'm sure he'll keep us updated.
Kind of funny that on the Myspace woowoo group they want to take this video to court. Little do they know it will be their downfall.
I just saw that video... Well I think it all comes to whether the Black box data was tempered with or had it's data changed when it was first analyzed by the NTSB, and if the simulation was done correctly. If they really screwed up on that altitude thing, then someone at NTSB really screwed up the simulation/data retrieving from the black box. This doesn't mean it's proof beyond a shadow of doubt that it's an inside job even if it's all true in the video...
What I found really weird is the way the NTSB dismissed the guy on the phone.. that really fed the CT fire quite a bit. Did he say FBI? Hahaha. Well, the lack of explanation from their side doesn't exactly mean anything either.
What I found really weird is the way the NTSB dismissed the guy on the phone.. that really fed the CT fire quite a bit. Did he say FBI? Hahaha. Well, the lack of explanation from their side doesn't exactly mean anything either.
More music copyright violations.
With the help of the credits at the end, I've tracked down a couple of other unauthorized uses of music
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en#55:58 - Kid Rock
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en#59:45
- John Williams
There's a load more music at these points:
02:07
08:20
14:20
17:55
32:18
35:24
39:10
The end credits claim this is royalty-free music. However, it sounds to me like production music, which still needs licensing. For example, here's the FAQ of one (UK) production music company:
http://www.audiolicense.net/faq/default.asp#5
I'm not sure how the production music would be traced. Probably Pilots for Truth would be required to produce evidence that the tracks are royalty free (a creative commons license, for example) and state where they sourced them from. Might be worth tipping of the RIAA about this.
I'm PMing Dog Town, again, to make him aware of this new information.
With the help of the credits at the end, I've tracked down a couple of other unauthorized uses of music
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en#55:58 - Kid Rock
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en#59:45
- John Williams
There's a load more music at these points:
02:07
08:20
14:20
17:55
32:18
35:24
39:10
The end credits claim this is royalty-free music. However, it sounds to me like production music, which still needs licensing. For example, here's the FAQ of one (UK) production music company:
http://www.audiolicense.net/faq/default.asp#5
I'm not sure how the production music would be traced. Probably Pilots for Truth would be required to produce evidence that the tracks are royalty free (a creative commons license, for example) and state where they sourced them from. Might be worth tipping of the RIAA about this.
I'm PMing Dog Town, again, to make him aware of this new information.
The FDR is missing data due to a sudden impact; the data had not made it to the memory chip yet. Did JDX tell anyone about this? JDX is out for the money; he is a failed pilot and saw LC and he thinks he can do better.
CT fraud or CT stupidity? Which is JDX?
You are suprized someone dismisses a crank call? You must be too young.
The discrepancy between the NTSB animation and the official report animation regarding the planes flightpath (ie which side of the citgo station it passed etc) is easily explaned - the NTSB animation didn't correct for the difference between magnetic north and true north.
The altitude thing is a little more difficult but is dealt with well in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66047
I still say it makes no sense use an FDR that was found in the wreckage in the pentagon to prove that the plane missed the pentagon.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Exactly. What kind of idiot would plant an FDR in the Pentagon that held data that proved it was planted? You'd think they could make that FDR say whatever they wanted.
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
and then be so dumb as to release that data to the public
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Yea, and these folks were the same ones who had just pulled off the most elaborate and complex hoax in the history of mankind.
Okey dokey.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,968
I love the bit that the difference between the Excel File and the NTSB video is "blatant evidence of a coverup". Typical job of finding the only people who saw the commuter jet (although how that fits with the missile that they speculate really hit the Pentagon is not explained).
Omigosh, the guy calling Jim Ritter is that kooky Canadian! Priceless!
Omigosh, the guy calling Jim Ritter is that kooky Canadian! Priceless!
Last edited:
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
I've heard some of these sorts of phone calls. What these doofi fail to realize is, most government employees aren't allowed to discuss details of their work with any old person who phones them up.
Despite all the cranks who say "I pay your salary! You have to talk to me!", there are rules about who you can pass information to, and violating those rules can get you into serious trouble.
The fact that none of these guys gets that just proves that none of them have ever had a real job.
Hmm.. Yeah, you're right.
But they did say the reason why they couldn't, was due to FBI's investigations, which means, to us naturally, COVER UP.
And well, Jim Ritter did sign it, so I guess he thought Jim would have permission to immediately explain it, when it's not so, as you just said...
babazaroni
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 787
I thought Jim Ritter was very courteous to the caller. He could have hung up quickly after telling the caller he had to go through the PR department. But he hung in there for quite a while, despite his boss wanting his attention. The caller sounded whiney and tried to take advantange of Ritter's patience.
This is a typical JDX tactic. Record ambush calls and claim government cover-up.
Ritter did not know he was being recorded, and he was still very polite.
This is a typical JDX tactic. Record ambush calls and claim government cover-up.
Ritter did not know he was being recorded, and he was still very polite.
Last edited:
I doubt that it really is Jim Ritter because I have seen no release form or photograph (turning the tables back on the woowoos) that it really was him. Who here wants to call Jim Ritter tomorrow and find out his real voice and inform him of this audio if it is him?
ETA - We demand evidence
ETA2 - The DC statute...
D.C. Code Ann. § 23-542: It is legal to record or disclose the contents of a wire or oral communication where the person recording is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the recording is done with criminal or injurious intent. A recording made without proper consent can be punished criminally by a fine of no more than $10,000 or imprisonment for no more than five years. However, disclosure of the contents of an illegally recorded communication cannot be punished criminally if the contents of the communication have "become common knowledge or public information."
Anyone who illegally records or discloses the contents of a communication is subject to civil liability for the greater of actual damages, damages in the amount of $100 per day for each day of violation, or $1,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. D.C. Code Ann. § 23-554.
Last edited:
babazaroni
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 787
So intent does matter, even if one party does not have to consent.
I wonder what the calling state was? I believe 12 states require both parties consent. In the case of calls between conflicting states, it can be argued either way. I don't think the caller would want to have to contest though.
Here are the states:
California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington
Last edited:
Intent is what makes the difference between murder 1 and murder 2. I really would love to see these woowoos dragged into court for this. They really think the government orchestrated 9/11 but is going to allow a bunch of ignorant high school dropouts to catch them? I thought cinema had the best stories