the non-impeachment hearings

I don't really think anybody was arrested at the hearings. Also, I think you are unfairly blaming Conyers. Maybe because you turned off the broadcast and then turned it back on just as they were escorting some people out. The truth is, it was the Republicans who kept insisting that Conyers do something about the audience. He was actually pretty lenient with them. The audience members were breaking some rules. I'm not saying the rules were fair, but they were apparently agreed upon in advance. After some prodding by the Republicans, Conyers asked the people to put their signs and buttons away or leave the room. From what I've heard, the apparent arguments between some of the audience and the security were that they didn't want to take their buttons off and they felt their first amendment rights were being violated by being asked to do so. I just wanted to comment because I didn't think you were being fair about this issue.

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 133 comments) on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 1:36:45 PM
 

Thank you Ronald

Hello Ronald et al

I really appreciate peoples' input, and never mind standing corrected. I think the most important thing I can do is to represent the matters fairly and accurately. If you see something I have printed which is "off" on either count, people can and should correct me. Thank you for this input, ROnald.

That said, I also have to disagree. Here is why:

It is government censorship when they forbid people to wear impeachment buttons, carry signs, etc and represents a crackdown on free speech. Agreed to ahead of time or not, rules or not, those rules and agreements are unconstitutional, not just illegal.

It is *dangerous* to let the government get away with free speech censorship, even if in small and little ways. Because once they start, the boundaries will encroach very fast. Just look at the FBI National Security Letters as only one source of proof for how fast the boundaries can and do encroach.

For another thing, activists wearing impeachment buttons to John Conyers's office were threatened with being removed by physical force. Is this right, or is this dictatorship?

For the rest, I would agree with anyone who objected to the presence of those interrupting and interfering with the progress of a COngressional hearing or meeting. That was absolutely not the case here. They were silent as little lambs, except when being escorted out of the room and---according to KPFA radio----yes, arrested when they objected based on their first amendment rights.

It is no coincidence that the FIRST amendment concerns free speech and the right to "peaceably" assemble.

I hold John Conyers fully responsible. He was the one who enforced such unconstitutional and, in your word, "Unfair" action. ANd I think we all should hold him responsible. Because if we don't, where else will this go?

by Kathryn Smith (105 articles, 2 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 479 comments) on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 2:24:09 PM
 

Thank you

> For another thing, activists wearing impeachment buttons to John Conyers's office were threatened with being removed by physical force. Is this right, or is this dictatorship?

I highly doubt anyone was arrested in Conyers office for wearing buttons. I know that is not what you said, but what you implied. Anyway, I am not debating the issue in Conyers office, I am debating your unfair representation of these unimpeachment hearings, of which you even admitted to not hearing in full. 

> For the rest, I would agree with anyone who objected to the presence of those interrupting and interfering with the progress of a COngressional hearing or meeting. That was absolutely not the case here. They were silent as little lambs, except when being escorted out of the room and---according to KPFA radio----yes, arrested when they objected based on their first amendment rights.

If anyone was arrested for objecting to their first amendment rights, I stand corrected and apologize. But it is not something I was witness to, I haven't heard anything about it, and what makes you think Conyers was behind it anyway?

> I hold John Conyers fully responsible. He was the one who enforced such unconstitutional and, in your word, "Unfair" action. ANd I think we all should hold him responsible. Because if we don't, where else will this go?

To be honest with you, I felt that the interruptions by the audience members undermined the seriousness of the matter. I think if Conyers agreed to those rules, it was probably for that very reason. Any cheering, clapping, etc., only helps to make it look like a farce and a mockery. The only exception that I can see was after the testimony of Bugliosi, when everyone started clapping, that was brilliant. Worth being arrested for in my opinion. Because he absolutely nailed it, and everybody knew he nailed it. I would like to point out here that Conyers did not make one attempt to admonish them for clapping at this point. If you watched it on TV instead of the radio, you would have seen the constant nagging by the Republicans for Conyers to silence the audience and clear the room and he was reluctant to do so at times.

If you want to hold Conyers responsible for something, hold him responsible for bringing Impeachment hearings and keeping his oath. But do not blame him for being the chairman of the judiciary committee and reluctantly doing his job. I'm sure he was only doing it because we asked him to.

As a last note, I would like to say that I'm sorry for bringing the attention away from the more serious matters of your post. I would recommend that everyone read them.

by Ron R. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 133 comments) on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 3:58:04 PM
 

All Members of this Congress

Will go down in History as traitors to the United States and the Constitution.  It will require an Uprising for any meaningful change.  When representatives fail to listen to the people, then they leave no peaceful options.

That is what is happening.

I'm amazed it's gone on this long... I ask myself often, just what will it take to really piss the people off and what will the sleeping giant look like when it truly has had enough.

So far, I guess, the collective "we", hasn't. 

by August Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 509 comments) on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 1:40:55 PM
 

I think...

This is where citizen journalism comes in. And where we have an awesome responsibility---and an opportunity to fill in the gaps where the media is leaving off.

Because people *don't know* how serious matters have become. So they *can't* object, based on zero information about the matters at stake.

Please post to blogs, dial in to radio talk shows, hold house meetings, contact Moveon.org and other activist entities urging that they get word out---and action.

 Matters are so serious that we are one inch away from declaration and enforcement of Martial Law. Even Michael Ratner with the Center for Constitutional Rights said he is not too optimistic and believes we are "very close".

Please help get word out, now, before it is too late. To bust the myths is to render the politicians ineffective, in a peaceful and moral and legal way. Please do so. HELP! Thank you all.

by Kathryn Smith (105 articles, 2 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 479 comments) on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 2:27:23 PM
 

THE DECEIVERS ARE USING DECEPTION RATHER THAN SEEING GOD

We are here for a purpose. If we can we must become even more

enlightened in a time of darkness that has befallen this nation. Not our nation.

All is in the realm of God. We can only see in our Holy Spirit what we must

accept and what we must have torn asunder. We are truly more

enlightened than most in this nation. The only thing to do in order to gather

the strength of courage and to correct the deceptions are to pray together

and He will offer up the way. Be it a smile or a march together to ultimately

stand in silence before all to witness the change that is to come. The ones

who cannot see, they will be not able to have acceptance , but remain lost,

and remain in chaos and hate and unable to see the deceptions.

Pastor Wolfie

by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 5:25:49 PM
 

Impeachment

Is far too kind for the Domestic traitors in Washington.

by August Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 509 comments) on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 7:58:05 PM
 

IMPEACH THEM ALL!!!!

Bush is violating practically everything in the Constitution laying out the rights of citizens, including no cruel and unusual punishment or no torture, and the provisions laying out the powers of the different branches of the government, which allocates the power to declare war solely to Congress.  By using his position as Chair of the Judiciary Committee to block all attempts to impeach Bush, when the only alternative to allowing Bush to put this country under a dictatorship is impeachment, Conyers is violating his oath to uphold the Constitution and is guilty of treason.  And so are all the other Congress members who are allowing Conyers to block impeachment.

In this situation when Conyers has a non impeachment hearing, meant only to be a one day performance, and with no one being allowed to mention Bush and Cheney's names or to even utter the word impeachment, then the mildest alternative citizens have is to violate Conyer's rules and protest.

I will ask again about those memorials we were asked to sign and mail to Congress and which were touted as requiring Congress to act on the citizens petitions through the means of these memorials.  It was introduced and discussed widely on OpEdNews.  Since any elected or appointed official under the United States can be impeached, I am asking that the people who circulated the memorials circulate a new memorial impeaching not only Bush and Cheney but all the Congress members who are allowing Bush/Cheney to go ahead with converting the United States in to a dictatorship.  And the memorials should also include the Supreme Court Justices who voted to appoint Bush/Chaney in 2000!

The crimes of Bush/Cheney discussed in this OpEdNews article are only the tip if the iceberg!  9/11 was actually a false flag attack arranged by Bush/Cheney and the neo cons intended to set off the wave of right wing, super patriotic hysteria that enabled the Bush/Cheney/neo con cabal to supress civil liberties and invade Iraq.  They are thus quilty of the MURDER of nearly 3000 Americans on (/11, over 4,100 U.S. troops who died in Iraq, and over 1,000,000 Iraqis!

Robert Halfhill

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 319 comments) on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 9:46:39 PM
 

Fear ye

Once the new Democratic regime is in place it will be time to deal with Bush and Company. They should be invited to a foreign country for tea and arrested by the International court for war crimes, then let justice take its course.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1338 comments) on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 10:00:23 PM
 

Deck chairs on the Titanic

The Rich Fatties have already liquidated their assets and took their private jets to private fiefdoms in remote parts of the world... with self-contained assets and a merienary army to protect them... waiting for the die-off. 

As "the system" flickers its last shadow-breath,  and we peasants dicker about the angel-dances on pins.  None of this matters. 

What DOES matter is that each of us should be able to make a decent living where we are... and this will eventually happen as transport becomes ghastly expensive, "money" becomes worthless, and energy and food drop the brick-hod of "reality" down on our toiny heeds.    

The REAL question is:  how traumatic the transition?  The Rich Fatties are counting on the die-off to kill as many of us "useless eaters" as possible.  "The system" is a celebrity game-show to keep us distracted so there will be fewer of us to resist feudal rule when the roof caves in.  

Is this SO HARD to understnd?  

by waldopaper (11 articles, 3 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 457 comments) on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 10:03:18 PM
 

EVIDENCE THAT 9/11 WAS A FALSE FLAG, INSIDE JOB

Here is some of the evidence that 9/11 was a false flag attack.  One would be 9/11 debunker claimed in OpEdNews that 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" based their theories on inaccurate internet posts.  So I should add that I have a subscription to SCIENCE NEWS and actually held the printed, physical copy of the issue of the magazine from which I obtained the quotes I cited.  Many of the other sources were obtained by a google search.  But no one has made a credible argument that when you write the name of a printed source in a google search, it is not an electroic copy of the actual written source that you bring up on your screen but, instead, some wild imaginings on the internet.
  
 
  
  TOO MANY SUSPICIOUS ANOMALIES ABOUT 9/11 (SECOND REVISION,6/18/08) 
  By Robert Halfhill

   There are many unanswered questions about the official conspiracy theory that an Islamic terrorist organization, headquartered in Afghanistan, sent 19 men with box cutters to infiltrate the United states to hijack four planes and wreak appalling destruction by crashing them into buildings.
   The first question about the official story is that since the World Trade Center had already been attacked by terrorists once before in 1993, and it remained the one place where a successful terrorist act would make the greatest impression, why was there no
attempt to guard the WTC or prepare defenses?  I remember thinking in 1993 that the terrorists had to only be successful once while we had to be successful every time.
   Second, the U.S. government received at least eleven warnings from foreign intelligence services about Al Qaida's plan for a big attack on the United States before they struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  Again, why were no counter measures prepared?
   Third, the Minneapolis FBI tried to obtain approval from the FISA Court to look at Zacarias Moussaoui's computer after he was arrested for being in the country illegally.  But as Minneapolis FBI agent Coleen Rowley testified to a Senate hearing, the National FBI Office even rewrote the Minneapolis Office's request to FISA so it failed to be approved.
   Fourth, the Phoenix FBI Office had noticed the large number of Middle Eastern men enrolling for flight training.  Someone from the Phoenix Office pointed out to the National Office that a plane could be used as a weapon.
   Fifth, there is the mind boggling incompetence of both the civilian air traffic control systems and the military North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).  The civilian air traffic control system's radar can detect a plane going off course immediately, as soon as it deviates from its flight plan.  Boston Air Traffic Control
detected American Airlines Flight 11 going off course as soon as it deviated from its flight plan at 8:14 A.M. on September 11, 2001.  But it did not notify several other air traffic control centers until 8:25 A.M., eleven minutes later.  And it did not notify
NORAD until 8:40 A.M.  The two F-15 Eagles that were eventually scrambled from Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, which was 153 miles northwest of the World Trade Center and which had a top speed of over 1875 miles per hour, could have reached the WTC in seven minutes with more than enough time to intercept AA 11 if the F-15's had been in the air soon after 8:14 A.M or even 8:25 A.M.  However, 11 hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 A.M.  If NORAD had been informed and had
the F-15's in the air soon after AA 11 was detected going off course at 8:14 A.M., there would have been far more than enough time to intercept it.
   At 8:41:32 A.M., there was a suspicious radio transmission from United Airlines Flight 175 which sounded something like "everyone stay in your seats."  Boston Air Traffic Control informed NORAD that UA 175 had been hijacked at 8:43 and there would have been more than enough time for the two F-15"s, which were air borne by 8:52 A.M. to
intercept UA 175 before it hit the South Tower at 9:02:54 A.M.  That is there would have been more than enough time if the two F-15's had not been flying at only 23.9% of their top speed!
   AA 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37 A.M.  At their top speed, the two F-15's could have intercepted AA 77 twenty-four minutes before it hit the Pentagon.
  At 9:55 A.M., United Airlines Flight 93 went of course near Cleveland and began a 135 degree turn over Ohio and Northern Kentucky.  It crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania
at 10:06:05 A.M.
   If the police officer pursuing fleeing criminals drove her or his squad car at only 23.9 percent of the car's top speed, the most probable conclusion would be that the officer intended to let the criminals escape.  Human stupidity can account for a lot and
even mount to civil or even criminal negligence.  But when there is a series of one incredible, mind boggling stupidity after another, there has to be a malign intent to bring about the opposite of what officials are supposedly trying to achieve, in this case to ensure that the hijackers succeed.  But there's more!
   Six, why did the government officials ship most of the steel from the World Trade Center out of the country, even though it is a felony to remove evidence from a crime scene.  In the October 6, 2005 issue of NEW CIVIL ENGINEER, Dave Parker writes in "WTC Investigators Resist Call For Collapse Visualization" that nearly all the
WTC steel was shipped out to Asia and melted down for recycling.
   Seven, Why did the Bush Administration fight against having public hearings on 9/11 for nearly 18 months although public hearings on Pearl Harbor were held within weeks after the event?  9/11 hearings were not held until the relatives of those killed at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon exerted enough lobbying pressure to force the
hearings to be held, and even then, only one-tenth of the questions they submitted were answered.  And eight, why did the government not even allow the visitors to the site of the World Trade Center to even take photographs of the ruins and why did the government confiscate photos and videos of the attack on the Pentagon?   Could both seven and eight be part of an attempt to hide evidence of government complicity?
   In his editorial, "Selling out the Investigation," in the January, 2002 FIRE ENGINEERING, William Manning wrote that "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) ... is a half baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces
whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."  Manning also criticized the investigation in another editorial, "The Twisted Brush of 9/11 Politics" in the September, 2004 FIRE ENGINEERING.
   Robert Berhinig, P.E. states in "Protecting the Foundation of Fire-Safety," in the July/August, 2002 IAEI (International Association of Electrical Inspectors, the definitive magazine for electrical inspectors) that "the FEMA report states further that until the attack on the WTC, no protected steel framed buildings had been known to collapse as a result of a fire."  Yet on 9/11, after steel framed buildings had been around for over a hundred years, since the late 1800's, three protected steel framed buildings, WTC 1, 2, and 7, had collapsed, supposedly because of fire.
   Three of the experts who testified before the House Committee On Science May 1, 2002 Hearing On the Collapse of the World Trade Center said the there had NEVER BEFORE been a collapse of a protected, steel framed building because of fire.  Dr. W. Gene Corley, American Society of Civil Engineers and Chair of the Building Performance Assesment Team reviewing the WTC disaster said on page 76 of the hearing record that "prior to these events, no protected steel frame structure, the most common form of large commercial construction in the United States, has ever experienced a fire-induced collapse."  Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology said on page 103,  "The Twin Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse where fire played a significant role."  So we have here an admission by a spokesperson for NIST that allegedly accounted for the collapses that fire had never before brought about such a collapse of a protected, steel framed building.  And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Safety Studies at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute said on page 133, "Up until 9/11, we never had a collapse of a protected steel building."  On page 163 he said, "This was the first time we had the collapse of a protected steel structure."  Dr. Bement said on
page 169, "... there have been instances where buildings have had major fires that have burned to completion without the buildings collapsing."  And on page 172, Dr. Barnett said of the partial collapse of WTC 5, "But building 5 was a normal building and it had a fire and it had a major collapse.  This has never happened before."
  The August 25, 2007 issue of SCIENCE NEWS had an article about the
collapse of the World Trade Center on pages 122 - 24 entitled FIRE INSIDE: STRUCTURAL DESIGN WITH FIRE SAFETY IN MIND by Carolyn Berry.  The paragraph in the first column on page 124 is particularly significant in evaluating the NIST computer simulation of the
collapse of WTC 7:"The NIST simulation, like all models of building failures to date, couldn't follow the 9/11 collapses through to the end.  No computer is yet powerful enough to follow the chaotic sequence of events that ensues when components break apart and a building falls, but this is where research is headed."
   In other words, the much vaunted NIST simulation which purported to dispose of the arguments of we conspiracy theorists didn't actually demonstrate how fire caused the buildings to collapse; they just waved their hands when the computing power currently
available had took them as far as it could and said: "This is far enough; the buildings collapsed somewhere about here."  Of course we all know we have accounted for how the buildings probably collapsed once we have gone this far.  It HAS to be the probable explanation because the only alternative explanation isthose NUTTY, WACKO
CONSPIRACY THEORIES!  We know a priori that that CAN'T be true!
  I might as well add the statement of Allen Hay, chief fire safety officer of the New York City Fire Department, about WTC 7.  "We just expected it to burn out -- we didn't expect it to fall down."  "It's the only building I know in New York City to ever collapse (strictly) from fire."
   But I want to return to the repeated Congressional testimony that a protected, steel framed building have NEVER BEFORE collapsed because of fire.  And never afterwards either. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, we have a purported fact about the behavior of protected, steel framed buildings in fire that dare not be true again!
   There are many other suspicious anomalies about 9/11.  Only a few are, nine, all three World Trade Center buildings collapsed at nearly free fall speed,i.e. almost as fast as it would take an object dropped from one of the WTC building's roof to reach the ground. 
The resistance of the massive steel columns and concrete would have slowed the fall considerably if it had been a matter of the floors pancaking and falling on the floors below.  And ten, fire would have unlikely to have been equally intense at every point in the buildings so that every point failed simultaneously and they fell onto the surface area they stood on, i.e. on to their footprint.  Eleventh, although fire had never caused the girders in protected steel framed buildings to become ductile or loose sufficient strength to result in a building collapse, pools of molten steel remained at the bottom
of the wreckage for 100 days. 
   Although molten metal at ground zero was a constant feature of media accounts in the days following 9/11, there have since been widespread denials of the presence of molten metal in  the ruins of the World Trade Center.  Or if the presence of molten metal is
admitted, it is claimed that the metal was molten aluminium from the planes, although the press accounts at the time specifically said it was molten steel and pictures of the WTC ruins show the metal as bright red, characteristic of molten steel, whereas molten aluminium has a silvery color.  Some have even proclaimed that the TV pictures of ground zero were taken in different wave lengths of light to explain away why the molten aluminium looked like molten steel. However since the television pictures we normally see all show objects as being the same color we normally see them, it is difficult to understand why the video photos of the World Trade Center alone were photographed at a different wavelength than the wave length normally used by TV cameras.  This seems particularly difficult since all the other objects we see in photos of ground zero have the same colors we normally see such objects as having.  The extent to which ad hoc hypotheses are resorted to to explain away pictures of molten steel is mind boggling! 
   And when what was widely reported in the press and accepted as true is denied a few months later by seemingly intelligent people as well as by self professed experts, it reminds us of George Orwell's 1984 in which once the official news accounts changed, people would forget the previous news accounts!
   So it is instructive to consider an official report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in which they cite numerous first hand reports of molten steel in the ruins of the World Trade Center while resorting to irrelevancy after irrelevancy
and ad hominem after ad hominem in an attempt to discredit these first hand reports.  The NIST report is in ordinary type while my interpolated comments are in capital letters for ease of distinguishing fron the text of the NIST report.
   Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter
Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
   Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by
New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence.
   RH - WHEN THE FEMA REPORT SAYS STEVE TULLY AND MARK LOIZEAUX WERE INVOLVED "IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EVIDENCE," IT IGNORES THE FACT THAT IT SAID IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SENTENCE THAT TULLY WAS HIRED BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE. (TULLY HIRED LOIZEAUX AS A SUBCONTRACTOR.)  ALTHOUGH NEW YORK HIRING THEM
TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE CASTS SUSPICION ON THE NEW YORK CITY GOVERNMENT, AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ALLOWING NEW YORK TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE, HOW COULD THIS BE USED TO DISCREDIT TULLY AND LOIZEAUX WHEN THE VERY GOVERNMENT OF WHICH FEMA IS A PART ALLOWED A SUBORDINATE GOVERNMENT, THAT OF NEW YORK CITY, TO HIRE THEM TO DISPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE?
   SECONDLY, WE HAVE AN ADMISSION BY FEMA THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS DISPOSED OF.
   THIRD, THE ONLY WAY THEY HAVE OF DISCREDITING TULLY AND LOIZEAUX'S FIRST HAND REPORT IS NOT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THEIR REPORT WAS MISTAKEN BUT TO RESORT TO AN AD HOMINEM.
   EVEN IF THEY HAD DISPOSED OF THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT BEING HIRED BY NEW YORK, THAT IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THEY WERE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH IN THEIR FIRST HAND REPORT.
   INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER PREVIOUS WRONG BEHAVIOR INFLUENCES THE TRUTH OF FACTUAL TESTIMONY, OR WHETHER BIASES THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE, FALSIFIED HIS OR HER FACTUAL TESTIMONY OR INVALIDATED HIS OR HER ARGUMENTS, WHY NOT JUST CUT TO THE CHASE AND
CONCENTRATE ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE FACTUAL TESTIMONY OR THE VALIDITY OF THE ARGUMENTS.
   Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. 1
   R.H. - WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF LOIZEAUX'S COMPANY, CDI, BEING HIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE RUBBLE OF THE MURRAH BUILDING IN OKLAHOMA CITY TO WHETHER HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS TRUTHFUL?
   POINTING OUT LOIZEAUX'S STANDING TRIAL ON CHARGES OF ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IS ANOTHER AD HOMINEM.  THE FEMA REPORT DOESN'T EVEN SAY WHETHER HE WAS CONVICTED, BUT EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN, IT WOULD NOT PROVE HE WAS NOT BEING TRUTHFUL IN HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT
MOLTEN STEEL AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER.
   FEMA'S STOOPING TO THESE SHODDY AD HOMINEM TACTICS, A FALLACY THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE ELEMENTARY LOGIC COURSE I TOOK AS A COLLEGE SOPHOMORE, RAISES ADDITIONAL SUSPICIONS ABOUT FEMA'S REPORT.  WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE IF THEY HAVE TO RESORT TO SUCH DESPICABLE AD HOMINEMS?  
   A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs in the Towers' basements.
   R.H. - YOU DO NOT ASSUME THE THEORY IS WRONG, I.E.. "DUBIOUS," AND THEN ARGUE THAT THE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE THEREFORE FALSE.  YOU FIRST HAVE TO PRODUCE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE THAT THE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE FALSE.  THE TRUTH OF A THEORY IS DETERMINED BY THE TRUTH OF THE FACTUAL STATEMENTS CITED AS EVIDENCE FOR IT; YOU CAN'T USE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE THEORY IS TRUE OR FALSE TO DEDUCE THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE STATEMENTS OF FACT CITED AS PART OF THE EVIDENCE FOR IT.
Corroborating Reports
   There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. *
   A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains."  2  
   A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten
steel 3   
   A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4  
   A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that.
Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
   It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite awhile before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.
   I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat 5  
   A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6   
   A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7   
   An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: As of 21 days after the
attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8   
   A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there
was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. 9   
   The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: ... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. 10   
   A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." 11  
   This construction photograph shows the foundation of South Tower in the foreground, with the foundation of the North Tower in the left background. The foundations were seven stories deep.
   R.H. - HERE WE HAVE 11 INDEPENDENT REPORTS CITED BY FEMA OF MOLTEN STEEL IN THE RUINS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER,  EVEN IF THE AD HOMINEMS FEMA RESORTED TO IN AN ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT TULLY AND LOIZEAUX'S TESTIMONY WERE VALID ARGUMENTS, THIS WOULD DO NOTHING TO
DISCREDIT THESE ELEVEN INDEPENDENT TESTIMONIES ABOUT MOLTEN STEEL AT GROUND ZERO. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Most of the press reports compiled here were gathered by other researchers, including
Matthew Everett, the author of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before; David Ray Griffin; and the author of posts such as this on georgewashington.blogspot.com.
   R.H. - AGAIN IT IS AN AD HOMINEM TO ASSUME THAT SINCE THESE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE CITED BY PEOPLE THAT THE FEMA REPORT CLAIMS TO BE DISCREDIBLE, IT PROVES THE FACTUAL REPORTS ARE NOT CREDIBLE, EVE