new jdx bs on google video

[~enigma~]

-8672066571196607580

[Oliver]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en


All i see is a black screen. Looks like they finally
found their evidence. :D

[defaultdotxbe]

i dont know how to make your google embedded vid work, but heres a link

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en

[Oliver]

Instead...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en

...you have to imbed it this way: (Using only the file ID)

-8672066571196607580

[~enigma~]

Instead...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en

...you have to imbed it this way: (Using only the file ID)

-8672066571196607580
Oops...maybe I am a disinfo agent :)

[Oliver]

Oops...maybe I am a disinfo agent :)

No no - the black screen makes perfect sense to me
if the title is "JDX Pictures presents: The Final Proof". :D

[LashL]

12 minutes in, and so far it's all poor quality, fuzzy video, same old woo, with no redeeming social value whatsoever.

I will watch the whole thing, of course, but I have very low expectations of it getting any better.

[WilliamSeger]

Only $14.95 for the "high quality" DVD. But wait! Order now, and you'll also get "phone calls with a Flight Data Recorder expert regarding Flight Data Recorder accuracy and new calls with the FBI trying to get answers."

No surprises in the video, and no surprises in what JDX didn't have the integrity to leave out.

[Oliver]

They immediately start with the NTSB animation. Makes sense
to me to educate people who have no idea what it is... :boggled:

That´s it: Griffin just bored me to death. There must be a
reason that he´s an author. :boggled:

[Oliver]

I can´t watch it any longer. Please tell me if there is something
new to the issue if you watched the whole crap... :boggled:

[~enigma~]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en#49m00s


Who wants to call Angus Young or their AC\DC's lawyers?

[LashL]

I can´t watch it any longer. Please tell me if there is something
new to the issue if you watched the whole crap... :boggled:

I'm at 50 minutes in - had to take a couple of breaks because it is monotonous and repetitive as well as very amateurish and pathetic - and no, there's nothing new so far. Just the same old crap.

[~enigma~]

Can someone please remind me what this woowoo is trying to prove. Seems to me that he just wants to see if AC\DC sues him as fast as Metallica sued the Napserites :)

[LashL]

Finished watching it.

To say that I am completely and utterly underwhelmed would be an overstatement.

[Oliver]

Finished watching it.

To say that I am completely and utterly underwhelmed would be an overstatement.

I have to invent another type of Badge for your courage.
Something like: "I risked my Brain for watching the Twoof™ badge".

Well, we do offer 'possibility' based on the facts later in the film.. you'll see.. http://www.unlockthenet.com/index.php?q=uggc%3A%2F%2F209.85.48.10%2Fugzy%2Frzb gvpbaf%2Fjvax.tvs

Also, i'd like to add that the 'possibility' we offer is not what we think EXACTLY what happened (in terms of type aircraft and/or ordinance used).. but based on the facts we have to go on, it certainly fits and it gives an idea of the plausibility of the possibility.


(sorry for being vague.. i dont want to give too much away for those who havent seen it.. http://www.unlockthenet.com/index.php?q=uggc%3A%2F%2F209.85.48.10%2F8872%2F98% 2Frzb%2Fjuvfgyr.tvs )

[maccy]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en#49m00s


Who wants to call Angus Young or their AC\DC's lawyers?

From the thread about the YouTube trailer for this:

I hope for JDX's sake, he got clearance for the music. Think I'll give some friends, at Sony a call.



He is selling it right?

Calls made. Be outa pocket next day or so, will get to bottom of this, by then.

The well runs deeper. My friends at Sony said, talk to Warner-Chappell ( as in owns licen rights)! Done! Recent girlfriend works, for the Catalogue! Game on! I see big lawsuits, on the horizon, I see trouble on the way! Anyone know that he "really" has it on the DVD? First question to be answered. They'll buy one copy to see, I am sure. He has not bought the rights , of that I am assured! This should be interesting!

Contacted by legal, at Warner-Chappell today, forwarded the AC/DC abuse.
They sound pissed. Will let you know when I hear more.

DT

I'm about to PM Dog Town with the details.

[The Doc]

ONCE! Just once! COULD YOU GET A DECENT NARRATOR!

Small Mixing Desk: $100
Condenser Microphone For Vocals: $200
People actually listening to you: Priceless.

I'm sick of hearing "the truth" from Alex Jones putting on his Hard-A** voice, Sofia whining, Dylan Avery experiencing puberty and now this guy who's using a $10 radio shack mic.

Sorry for the personal attacks... but [rule 8]!

I'll watch this in a little bit. Then I'll offer a real criticism lol.

[Redtail]

Didn't Someone cover the Flight 77 data here recently? I remember seeing a thread about it a couple of days ago.:confused:

[Oliver]

Didn't Someone cover the Flight 77 data here recently? I remember seeing a thread about it a couple of days ago.:confused:

I guess it was this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047&page=8

But as far i see he didn´t revealed anything so far.

[Redtail]

I guess it was this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047&page=8

But as far i see he didn´t revealed anything so far.

That's it. I thought Anit-Sophist did a good job explaining what the FDR data ment and odds are a JDX saw the explaination with a sock puppet.

[~enigma~]

From the thread about the YouTube trailer for this:









I'm about to PM Dog Town with the details.
Please do. I will back him all the way on this.

[maccy]

Please do. I will back him all the way on this.

I PM'd him just after I posted that. I'm sure he'll keep us updated.

[~enigma~]

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.

[Yurebiz]

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.

[maccy]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en#49m00s


Who wants to call Angus Young or their AC\DC's lawyers?

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.

[beachnut]

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.

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?

[beachnut]

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.

You are suprized someone dismisses a crank call? You must be too young.

[maccy]

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.

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://forums.randi.org/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]

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.

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]

Exactly. What kind of idiot would plant an FDR in the Pentagon that held data that proved it was planted?
and then be so dumb as to release that data to the public

[twinstead]

and then be so dumb as to release that data to the public

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.

[Yurebiz]

Hahaha yeah, I guess the whole argument contains more holes than the alleged conspiracy around the FDR.

[Brainster]

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 (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/12/just-in-case-you-wondered-what-would.html)! Priceless!

[Brainster]

Interesting that despite citing Dylan Avery for waking him up, John Doe does not include Loose Change in his recommended films list.

[Horatius]

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.

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.

[Yurebiz]

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. :D

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]

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.

[~enigma~]

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.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.

[babazaroni]

ETA2 - The DC statute...


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

[~enigma~]

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
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 :)

[maccy]

The caller is calling from Canada:

Omigosh, the guy calling Jim Ritter is that kooky Canadian (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/12/just-in-case-you-wondered-what-would.html)! Priceless!

[~enigma~]

The caller is calling from Canada:I wouldn't be to quick to admit if I were from Canada anymore :)

ETA - Blame Canada.
With all thier beedy little eyes have packed thier heads so full of lies, blame Canada, blame Canada,
we need to form a full assault its canadas fault

[rwguinn]

The caller is calling from Canada:

Obviously, none of these idiots have ever heard of ITAR, or information export regulations and laws...
and yes, verbal communication of information to an FN is export...

[beachnut]

How do you tell the NTSB someone is about to sell DVDs with an employee talking without permission.

JDX must really hate something to make these videos without facts.

[maccy]

How do you tell the NTSB someone is about to sell DVDs with an employee talking without permission.

JDX must really hate something to make these videos without facts.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Info/sources.htm

They may also have something to say about the use of the animation...

[LashL]

Another thing that struck me as odd is this. JDX and Pilots for Twoof claim to have all kinds of bona fide, licensed, legitimate pilots among their members, and they claim to have expertise on the subject matter that they wished to speak to Mr. Ritter about. So, why on earth would they engage the services of an obvious non-pilot with no knowledge or expertise on the subject matter to phone Mr. Ritter and surreptitiously record the call?

If the Pilots for Twoof were aboveboard and honest, would they not have one of their alleged professionals with their alleged expertise call Mr. Ritter and attempt to have an honest and straightforward discussion?

For instance, something like this:

Twoofer: Good morning, my name is Glen Stanish. I'm a pilot with _______ Airline and a member of an organization called Pilots for Truth. I have analyzed the ___________ and ___________ along with X other professional pilots from airlines _________, __________, ____________, and _________, and we have some questions about the animation the NTSB produced with respect to Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Specifically, sir, we have questions about (a)_______________, (b)_______________, (c)______________, (d)_______________, etc...

Also, as a courtesy, I would like you to know that I am recording this telephone call.



...and then proceed from there.

Having a "PR" rep from Canada who identifies himself by only his first name, with no knowledge of the subject matter that he wishes to discuss, call Mr. Ritter and then being able to do nothing more than direct Mr. Ritter to a website to look up the questions, is hardly professional behaviour.

Also, it strikes me as more than passing strange that these alleged professionals at Pilots for Twoof would not put their request in writing, on their easily computer generated letterhead, sign their names to it, and send it to the NTSB and the FBI.

[WilliamSeger]

Interesting that despite citing Dylan Avery for waking him up, John Doe does not include Loose Change in his recommended films list.

I believe that would be because Avery "woke him up" to the profit potential of conspiracy huckstering, so that would be like recommending a competitor.

[Calcas]

More than likely.

Robbie already posted that he had some serious financial problems and that he had to sell his flat screen TV to pay his bills.

[babazaroni]

Another thing that struck me as odd is this. JDX and Pilots for Twoof claim to have all kinds of bona fide, licensed, legitimate pilots among their members, and they claim to have expertise on the subject matter that they wished to speak to Mr. Ritter about. So, why on earth would they engage the services of an obvious non-pilot with no knowledge or expertise on the subject matter to phone Mr. Ritter and surreptitiously record the call?


Is it possible this Canadien guy called on his own, and posted the call? Then JDX asked to use the recording.

[maccy]

Is it possible this Canadien guy called on his own, and posted the call? Then JDX asked to use the recording.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en#50m10s

"Hi my name's Jeff, I'm a PR rep from Pilots for 9/11 Truth"