abovetopsecretcom-exposed

While many of us are aware of the lengths the 'Liars' will go to in suppressing the Truth, it is always quite amazing to see this process in action. In the following article by Laura you will see that they are enlisting the services of a high-powered law firm to seek to suppress the truth by claiming 'copyright' privileges for their original article which was critiqued by Joe Quinn in his article.

Some of you may have noticed that signs of the times was down for awhile today. This was due to the actions of the website abovetopsecret.com. As I have speculated, they were given the task to run cointelpro on Joe Quinn's article:

Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 - and Neither Did a Boeing 757

which was an analysis of the "catherder" article on abovetopsecret which essentially was support for the Bush Neocons conspiracy theory about the events of September 11.

As anyone who is familiar with copyright law knows, this is perfectly legal under standard copyright law.

However, abovetopsecret.com, like Bush and the Neocons, make up their own laws. As I have chronicled on this blog, their urgent demands that we remove this article because it was a violation of their "creative commons" copyright was absurd and simply evidence of their position as an active cointelpro/psy-ops propagator on the internet. It isn't copyrights they are concerned about, it is google bombing and running psy-ops. And now, they have proven it.

Here is the letter we received from our server people after being notified by about a hundred people via email that the signs of the times site was down:

From: "James" ****



To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

Subject: FW: Notice of Copyright Infringement

Date sent: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:55:32 -0500

Date forwarded: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:38:12 -0600

Hi, we received the following complaint from your site. Please investigate this and let us know.

James

From: Jaeschke, Jr., Wayne [mailto:WJaeschke@****.com]

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:35 PM

To: dmca@velcom.com

Cc: mark@abovetopsecret.com; skepticoverlord@abovetopsecret.com

Subject: Notice of Copyright Infringement

Sirs:

Our firm represents AboveTopSecret.com LLP ("ATS"). ATS is the owner of numerous copyrighted articles being displayed in an infringing

manner on a website hosted by your company. That website is http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/> http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/.

The infringing articles appear at:

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm>

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Abo … rticle.htm ("the 757

article")

And

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs20050909.htm>

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs … 050909.htm ("the FEMA article")

The original articles appear on the Abovetopsecret.com website at:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread167902/pg1>

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread167902/pg1

And

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1>

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

The republication of each of these articles is governed by the Creative

Commons 2.5 Deed ("the CC Deed").

The 757 article may be republished in accordance with the terms and conditions specified here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414>

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc. … pid=816414

The FEMA article may be republished in accordance with the terms and conditions specified here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=167902&pid=1685907>

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc. … id=1685907

Pursuant to the CC Deed, these articles, each of which is owned by ATS and is the subject of a registration in the United States Copyright Office 1) may not be published on sites/pages with commercial advertisements; 2) may not be used to make "derivative works"; and 3) must provide proper attribution to the author and a link to the original article.

In each instance of content owned by ATS appearing on the "signs-of-the-times.org" website, all three of these conditions of the terms of use is violated. The owners/operators of ATS have attempted to contact the operator of signs-of-the-times.org and have this situation corrected by either removing the articles or republishing them in a manner that complies with the CC Deed. The operators of the Signs-of-the-times.org websites, Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Arkadiusz Jadczyk, have failed to comply.

We must therefore request that Velcom.com, as hosts for the Signs-of-the-times.org website, remove these pages from publication.

Moreover, this letter constitutes notice to the operators of Velcom.com that ATS believes that have a right to enforce their copyright under Canadian and U.S. law and reserves the right to take further action in the U.S., Canada, or both without further notice.

As well, this letter is also to serve notice on Velcom.com that the owners of ATS have rescinded all rights to the operators of signs-of-the-times.org under the CC Deed, in view of their continued non-compliance with the terms and conditions of use of original, copyright content appears on the abovetopsecret.com website.

Please contact me at ******* if you have any questions with regard to this matter. Otherwise, we look forward to the prompt and amicable resolution of this matter.

Regards,

Wayne Jaeschke

Wayne C. Jaeschke, Jr.

Morrison & Foerster LLP

********************

McLean, VA 22102

phone: ****

fax: ****

wjaeschke@****.com

================================================

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

For information about this legend, go to

http://www.mofo.com/Circular230.html

=

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.

Now folks, come on, how many websites that were just started by an ordinary guy who took on a couple of "ordinary" partners, and is just a hobby and sharing on the internet, are able to afford a copyright attorney in McLean Virginia???

This action also is highly suggestive of the idea that the Pentagon Issue is a LOT more sensitive than anyone has thus far suspected! Do take note of THAT!

I hope that everyone who reads this will spread this information far and wide because these people are EVIL Bush supporters, Cyber Nazi Brown Shirts.

See the blog posts:

Is Is the Above Top Secret Forum COINTELPRO?

COINTELPRO Updates: Above Top Secret Forum -- this post is most pertinent to the current Simon Grey issue.

Abovetopsecret.com COINTELPRO Update

AboveTopSecret.com COINTELPRO Update 2

More Inside Scoops on Abovetopsecret.com!

The Spider and The Fly: SkepticOverlord and COINTELPRO

Abovetopsecret: Ethics and Google Bombs

See also forum threads on abovetopsecret.com and project SERPO:

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/for … 3015#p3015

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/for … php?id=523

Our research team is out there digging up info. This is back already:

Did a search on their lawyer, Wayne Jaeschke. Here is the official
bio from his law firm's site (www.mofo.com!):

Mr. Jaeschke is a patent attorney in Morrison & Foerster LLP's
Intellectual Property group. Wayne has been admitted to practice
before the USPTO since 1994 and has substantial experience preparing
and prosecuting patent applications in many fields, including:
computer software, surface and polymer, electromechanical and optical
devices, and pharmaceuticals. Wayne has also successfully handled
internet domain name litigation and dispute resolution; copyright
infringement litigation, inter partes reexamination, novelty,
infringement and validity opinions for all technical disciplines;
patent licensing, collaborative research agreements with major U.S.
universities, and related intellectual property matters.

Prior to joining Morrison & Foerster, Mr. Jaeschke worked for Allied-
Signal's water treatment polymer group where he assisted clients in
the areas of papermaking, mining, oil refining, and municipal water
treatment. After Allied Signal, Mr. Jaeschke worked for Betz'
Laboratories paper chemicals group where he was a process specialist
in the field of wet-end paper chemistry, recycled fiber usage and
overall papermaking performance enhancement through the use of
specialty chemical technology.

Mr. Jaeschke holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical
Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the
degree of Juris Doctor, cum laude, from the American University's
Washington College of Law and is registered to practice before the
United States Patent and Trademark Office.

His law firm, Morrison & Foerster (hence the mofo) has this about the
firm. Sounds like a high-powered and expensive one:

Morrison & Foerster maintains one of the largest intellectual
property practices in the world, with more than 300 lawyers providing
a full range of services, including counseling, prosecution,
litigation, ­­­dispute resolution and licensing transactions in patent,
trademark, and copyright matters.

The firm's practice has been consistently ranked by independent
observers as one of the top intellectual property practices in the
country. In 2003, the firm was short-listed for the USA Intellectual
Property Law Firm of the Year Award by Chambers & Partners in London.
In Managing IP's latest rankings of the top law firms in this field,
Morrison & Foerster was one of only a small number of full-service
firms (as opposed to IP boutiques) included in the Top 25 based on
volume of U.S. contentious and non-contentious matters.

Morrison & Foerster's IP practice serves clients in a wide range of
industries, including biotechnology, medical devices and healthcare;
electronics, software, telecommunications, Internet and
semiconductors; chemistry, chemical engineering and materials
science; and media and entertainment. The firm's attorneys, including
partners Tom Ciotti, Kate Murashige and Gladys Monroy, have played a
significant role in the creation and protection of many of the
landmark patent portfolios in the information technology and life
science industries.

And this, regarding the complaint:

"... derivative works"; and 3) must provide proper attribution to the author and a link to the original article."

Frozen fish is not technically a derivative work. A derivative use of the original would be if you made a movie using the article as a script, or if you translated the original article into another language. Although this is somewhat of a gray area:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/

"In short, a derivative work is a whole work based on one or more other whole works"

Criticism is protected under copyright law:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/fanfic/notice.cgi?NoticeID=7

"The most significant factor in this analysis is the fourth, effect on the market. If a copier's use supplants demand for the original work, then it will be very difficult for him or her to claim fair use. On the other hand, if the use does not compete with the original, for example because it is a parody, criticism, or news report, it is more likely to be permitted as "fair use.""

So, it appears that ATS is claiming that Frozen Fish will supplant demand for the original article.

To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and,

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. 107(1-4)

Number one in the above list is why ATS has been harping on the links to book sales.

Joe Quinn, author of the critique of the abovetopsecret.com article has sent the following:

The "derivative work" claim is BS, pure and simple. I did not "alter,
transform, or build upon" the ATS piece, so it is not a derivative
work. Commercial use would be if they were some charge for people to
access the work - there is none. The use of the ATS piece was criticism,
therefore it was not competing with the original work.

Notice that in the lawyer's email, he does not make reference to any law,
Why? Because there is no legal infringement. Of course, all of this is
academic since the server folks are not in the business of defending
their clients, they will bow down to the mighty dollar, or the threat of
having to spend some, every time. So psychopathic manipulative tactics win
the day, as usual. I think a lawyer joke is in order.

The devil visited a lawyer's office and made him an offer. "I can
arrange some things for you, " the devil said. "I'll increase your
income five-fold. Your partners will love you; your clients will
respect you; you'll have four months of vacation each year and live
to be a hundred. All I require in return is that your wife's soul,
your children's souls, and their children's souls rot in hell for
eternity."

The lawyer thought for a moment. "What's the catch?" he asked.

The best we can do is use this episode to further expose the abovetopsecret.com crowd
for what they are: the Internet equivalent of the national Enquirer: disinfo, psy-ops and just plain trash.

More Debunking of 911 'Official Story'

It has been a while since my last post here.

Little has really changed in the interval. The Bush Reich continues to get away with the creation of their mayhem and destruction around the world and the Media remain mum about pretty much everything which goes on or has gone on regarding same.

It does seem that there is a least a whiff of 'change' in the air here and there. Perhaps now that the emotional-reactions many have harbored since the events of September 11, 2002 have subsided enough for some rational thinking about these events to begin taking place for some people there will be more openness to a critical analysis of what may actually have taken place.

The following article is from an engineer whe is very experienced in the areas he writes about in the following article which I found at Signs of the Times

A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon
by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:

I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.

If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.

This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete wallsa total of nine feet of reinforced concretebefore exiting through this hole.

It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.

I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials.

I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release.

You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.


Sincerely,
Michael Mayer