is not affiliated with The Reflecting Pool film

Dear 911blogger visitors, is not affiliated with The Reflecting Pool film, despite the "9/11 TRUTH NOW" graphic that appears in their blogad.

The ad in its current form will not be repeated after its current run.

Sorry for any misunderstandings.

The "9/11 Truth Now" slogan

The "9/11 Truth Now" slogan is not the property of There is another version of the poster that the filmmakers are free to use:

I and others previously posted our disagreement with Victronix's review of the film, which does NOT promote the theories she claims. Rather, it suggests that no matter which anomaly snags one's initial interest, one must carefully sort through and vet the massive amount of information available to skeptics of the official story. The film makes it clear that there are wacky theories being promulgated, including showing the reporter's meeting with and disgusted dismissal of a WTC no-planer. Most importantly, it shows a family member's painful determination to seek the truth, and the comparisons between Soviet-era journalism and our own media environment.

This small art film is a drama, and makes no more claim to being a documentary than "JFK" or "WKJO." I appreciate Jared's response to the criticism -- -- and his care in updating the links.

i agree. any objective

i agree. any objective person with no agenda would have to admit this film helps in so many ways. its a positive FILM, as you say, not a documentary and shouldnt be reviewed as such.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA


>>which does NOT promote the theories she claims

I guess all the people who watched the film in Oakland and came to the mic to ask what the deal was with the planes that hit the WTC were delusional.

There's no accounting for

There's no accounting for stupidity. It was perfectly clear to everyone who watched the Washington premier.

The filmmakers are using my artwork to advertise their movie.

It's fine if people want to use it for non-commercial purposes but using it in an ad isn't cool.

I haven't seen the movie and have no opinion on it.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Think you're missing the source of the problem

The problem is that the logo was being used--without permission--to promote a commercial event.

I'll let others explain the details.


I don't see that I missed it

I don't see that I missed it at all, Jenny. I simply clarified that the phrase itself is not proprietary, but that the promoters can substitute a different graphic as there seems to be a problem -- any problem -- using YT's. If I had seen a promo with that poster/artwork, I would have had no idea that it belonged to a particular group with reason to exercise control over it. Most 9/11 resource materials have been freely disseminated and reproduced historically, and this one looks so similar to others.

To be honest, I'm not up for another tempest in a teapot over something so easily rectified, so no one should feel compelled to air it all out on my account. The rest is topical, given blogging and comments on the film over past days.


YT already explained it(artwork/logo--not the phrase) ...

Posted his comment while I was typing mine--lol!

Got any more questions, direct them at him.


Don't tell me we're bickering yet once again.

Here's the deal: We need to use EVERYTHING in our power to spread 9/11 truth. This business about who created what slogan or trademark is pointless. If you legally own it, as in you filed with the USPTO, then great. But if you don't (as in you didn't file with the USPTO), then try to realize that these slogans, insignias, and whatnot, were NOT created for the purpose of making a little or a lot of money but to spread the word of the 9/11 truth movement. Who cares how it is being used if it helps to put 9/11 truth on the map?

Look, even if the movie is not purely in line with 9/11 truth -- actually, I don't know if it is -- it doesn't matter. In our case, being somehow linked with good or bad publicity is the same, in that it's GOOD. Every time some politician speaks negatively about us or a Faux News hack tries to tank 9/11 truth, it's GOOD. The more people that hear that 9/11 was an inside job, the more they'll be thinking about it. As for those who aren't listening now, believe me, someday they soon will be. I'd stake my life on it (seriously).

Man, I love you guys but you're sometimes worse than a bunch of kids on the playground . . . ;)

At least there isn't anyone calling each other names . . . yet.

Q: How do I copyright a name, title, slogan or logo?

A: Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.


Sorry. I shouldn't have said this issue is "pointless". My mistake.

But everything else I said in my last post stands.

Copyright protection goes

Copyright protection goes into effect the moment a work of art is created, Cosmos's logo is just such a thing. He does not need to register it with the USPTO as a 'trademark', he has the right to exercise restrictions on its use. It seems clear that he is limiting its use for NON-commercial purposes. To state he doesn't have a right to speak up is wrong and unjustified.

What is copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.

What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."

How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?
Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”
Truth Revolution: The Eleventh of Every Month

Show "Well, since you put it that way . . ." by Mekt_Ranzz

Reprehensor posted a simple clarification

(thanks, Reprehensor!)

There's really no need to make a big deal about it, unless you insist.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Show "I'm not making a big deal --" by Mekt_Ranzz

There's nothing wrong with self-supporting activism,

as a matter of fact it will tend to survive long enough to actually make a difference.

According to my friends in Vancouver, their group has made a profit on every event they've put on, and judging by their conference this past June, they do a very good job.

Might I also add that YT has every right to control how an image closely associated with is used, whether for commercial purposes or not, as it indirectly implies endorsement.

It's common courtesy to simply ask before using, yes? We need to emphasize civility at all times*, both within the movement and with the general public.

(*while allowing for a certain level of tactical civil disobedience, of course)

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Okay, THAT'S IT!

If you vote me down again, it's, uh, like saying 9/11 was NOT an inside job!

Any takers? (We gotta inject some humor into this guys . . . C'mon. Peace?)

Only his original visual work is copyrighted

The text in the work is not.

You would have to trademark it to stop others from using it.

And it is such a generic phrasing that you may not be able to trademark it. Especially if it was not his original creation. And/or if it has come into common usage, which I think that phrase has at this point.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

What kind of an idiot would vote against the truth and facts?

You people seriously need to get your act together.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

You can edit blogads you

You can edit blogads you know, change pictures/details etc.

I realize some us have our disagreements.

But I do sincerely hope we ALL can agree on this.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

We squabbling over

We squabbling over "intellectual property"? Capitalist delusions? Enjoy it now while it lasts, my western comrades.


Do you understand what "non-commercial" means?

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Off topic BUT important in the Struggle for Truth & Freedom

Conyers files contempt report; says White House has one last chance

Jason Rhyne
Published: Monday November 5, 2007

White House says 'futile' contempt filing 'won't go anywhere'

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) filed a report today holding that two White House officials are in contempt of Congress for their continued refusal to honor subpoenas in connection with the controversial firing of US attorneys last year -- but he's offering one last chance to make a deal.

In a Monday letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Conyers wrote that he would be officially filing submitting the contempt report, a move which would allow the full House to later vote on the measure, but would stop the contempt process there if the White House would agree to a final compromise offer.

“I have written to you on eight previous occasions attempting to reach agreement on this matter,” Conyers says in the letter. “As we submit the Committee’s contempt report to the full House, I am writing one more time to seek to resolve this issue on a cooperative basis.”

The 862-page contempt resolution was filed with the House clerk Monday afternoon.

But White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told reporters that an effort to bring a contempt citation to a vote was "futile."

"I'm just amazed that the Democrats actually think they've accomplished so much on behalf of the American people that they can now waste time again on another diversion," she said. "I don't know if they'll actually have a vote on the House floor or not. If they do, I guess we'll just take it from there. But it's been very clear that this is a futile attempt on their part, because they know that it won't go anywhere."

In July, Conyers had written Fielding to inform him that White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers could be held in contempt for refusing to comply with subpoenas seeking documents and testimony as part of a House Judiciary probe into the firing of nine US attorneys. President Bush had earlier blocked those requests, citing executive privilege.

In order to prevent further action on the contempt measure, Conyers is requesting that the White House provide communications documents pertaining to the firings, including internal White House materials, and asking that White House staffers be allowed to conduct private interviews -- albeit not under oath -- with the House Judiciary Committee.

“I hope you will consider this offer in earnest and based upon the good faith with which it is delivered,” Conyers writes, going on to give Fielding a Nov. 9 deadline.

Republicans in the House have already sprung into action, according to Politico's John Bresnahan.

"GOP leaders have begun to prepare their own counter-attack if a criminal contempt resolution vote takes place on the floor, and they plan to target conservative and moderate Democrats," he writes. "Republicans see several moves that signal a vote is likely to happen soon, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has not made a final decision one way or the other at this time."

According to the Washington Post, Democrats have been working to secure the votes necessary to make sure that a contempt vote, if brought to the House floor, would be successful. "House Democratic leaders have spent the past 10 days trying round up enough votes to secure a majority on the House floor for a contempt citation, aware that some Democrats from moderate to conservative districts may be wary of such a high-profile vote against President Bush," says the paper.

If Fielding rejects Conyers' offer, reports the Post, a contempt vote could come as early as next week.

A full copy of the resolution is available here in pdf.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

The Ds

Meanwhile, the Dems expose themselves for what they really are when the R's turned around surprisingly today to say "yes" to impeachment, for the sole purpose of mocking and exposing the Ds, knowing the powerless, spineless and terrified Ds wouldn't dare allow an impeachment debate to happen -

It was the "Democrats" who blocked the debate.

They are the ultimately protectors of the empire.

Peter Camejo discusses the role of the Democrats in his Avocado Declaration -

Every major gain in our history, even pre-Civil War struggles --such as the battles for the Bill of Rights, to end slavery, and to establish free public education-- as well as those after the Civil War have been the product of direct action by movements independent of the two major parties and in opposition to them.

Since the Civil War, without exception, the Democratic Party has opposed all mass struggles for democracy and social justice. These include the struggle for ballot reform, for the right of African Americans to vote and against American apartheid ("Jim Crow"), for the right to form unions, for the right of women to vote, against the war in Vietnam, the struggle to make lynching illegal, the fight against the death penalty, the struggle for universal health care, the fight for gay and lesbian rights, and endless others. Many of these struggles were initiated by or helped by the existence of small third parties.

When social justice, peace or civil rights movements become massive in scale, and threaten to become uncontrollable and begin to win over large numbers of people, the Democratic Party begins to shift and presents itself as a supposed ally. Its goal is always to co-opt the movement, demobilize its forces and block its development into an alternative, independent political force.

The Republican Party has historically acted as the open advocate for a platform which benefits the rule of wealth and corporate domination. They argue ideologically for policies benefiting the corporate rulers. The Republicans seek to convince the middle classes and labor to support the rule of the wealthy with the argument that "What's good for General Motors is good for the country," that what benefits corporations is also going to benefit regular people.

The Democratic Party is different. They act as a "broker" negotiating and selling influence among broad layers of the people to support the objectives of corporate rule. The Democratic Party's core group of elected officials is rooted in careerists seeking self-promotion by offering to the corporate rulers their ability to control and deliver mass support. And to the people they offer some concessions, modifications on the platform of the Republican Party. One important value of the Democratic Party to the corporate world is that it makes the Republican Party possible through the maintenance of the stability that is essential for "business as usual." It does this by preventing a genuine mass opposition from developing. Together the two parties offer one of the best frameworks possible with which to rule a people that otherwise would begin to move society towards the rule of the people (i.e. democracy).

Thought crime bill

And the 'thought crime bill' sponsored by California's Jane Harman (whom we saw confronted re 9/11 by Lynn Pentz on video posted to this website)--officially known as the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, or HR 1955--was passed with the overwhelming support of the House in late October. Only six members--3 Dems (Kucinich being one of them) and 3 Repugs--voted against it.

Conyers was listed as 'not voting' on that bill (abstention? not present? wish I could say).

Show "Referring to it as "thought crime" is fallacious melodrama" by doughnut


I am glad you made your posting Victronix.

This is precisely the point I wanted to make and was hoping someone will raise the issue and point out THE OBVIOUS.

The left-right paradigm is a FARCE now. We are being played to look like FOOLS in this dog and pony show.

With Miss Nancy "Impeachment is OFF the TABLE" Pelosi and one side and the Bush Cabal on the other, ALL of us have our work cut out.

This is NOT the time to SLOW DOWN or BE COMPLACENT.

The current 110th Congress is FAILING in its duty.


The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

God Cop - Bad Cop -- Truth

Yes imgstacke.

We are being played and I am sure you feel the same way I do.


O How I Pray that People Will Take BACK the Congress.


You are being led to certain destruction unless there is a MAJOR COURSE CORRECTION.

More updates:

Debate on Cheney Impeachment Averted

Vice President Dick Cheney speaks at the World Affairs Council luncheon Friday Nov. 2, 2007 in Dallas. The World Affairs Council is non-profit, nonpartisan organization established to educate citizens on issues of international affairs and foreign policy. (AP Photo/Tim Sharp)


The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.

Republicans, changing course midway through a vote, tried to force Democrats into a debate on the resolution sponsored by longshot presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

The anti-war Ohio Democrat, in his resolution, accused Cheney of purposely leading the country into war against Iraq and manipulating intelligence about Iraq's ties with al-Qaida.

The GOP tactics reversed what had been expected to be an overwhelming vote to table, or kill, the resolution.

Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes , to kill the resolution , to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

At one point there were 290 votes to table. After the turnaround, the final vote was 251-162 against tabling, with 165 Republicans voting against it.

"We're going to help them out, to explain themselves," said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. "We're going to give them their day in court."

Democrats countered by offering a motion to refer the proposal to the House Judiciary Committee for further study, effectively preventing a debate on the House floor. That motion passed by a largely party-line vote of 218-194.

The White House, in a statement, said Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as childrens' health insurance "and yet they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. ... This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."

Kucinich has long pushed for a vote to impeach Cheney, but has failed to win the backing of the Democratic leadership. After Kucinich introduced the resolution, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., immediately moved to table it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table" and Congress is focused on responsibly getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, covering 10 million uninsured children and meeting national priorities long neglected by the Bush administration, said her spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

The resolution said that Cheney, "in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president," had "purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests."

The 11-page resolution also charged that Cheney purposely deceived the nation about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida and has "openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States."

House approval of an article of impeachment sends the issue to the Senate, which has the constitutional authority to try and, with a two-thirds vote, remove a person from office.

The bill is H. Res 799.

On the Net:


The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it