Our local fire department has a piece of the WTC steel as a monument so, claims it was destroyed are not correct.
According to the FEMA report referenced in the page I shared earlier, most of the steel debris was not examined. If you have a link to a report detailing how much of the debris was analyzed, please share it.
The report is linked in end note no. 9. The rest of the article is documented, as seen in the rest of the end notes.
No, darn. I didn't snap a picture of the perpetrators posing for me (they were probably too busy getting rid of the evidence anyway).
There's one rub. If it's on a 'truther' site, it can't possibly be true, right? So long as it has some 'official' blessing though, or references something that aligns with an 'official' stance, it's 100% solid and unshakable fact. Glad we cleared that up!
Sorry, it's End Note No. 5. The article: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html The reference in End Note No. 5: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm#description146pieces The report from the FEMA site is found in: http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3544 That is, Appendix D.
I thought you originally claimed they weren't looking for evidence of demolition. Were they, or weren't they? Did they not look, or did they look? Which is it?
If you read their report (linked for you so you don't have to strain yourself) you'll see exactly what they did. Research, 'truthseeker'.
My postion has always been they weren't LOOKING for explosives residue,BUT that doesn't mean they wouldn't have noticed it.
So somebody is working at cleaning up ground zero spots a piece of steel with some strange looking shmutz on it and sounds the alarm that there is explosive residue to investigate. is that how its supposed to work?
Okay so, they weren't 'looking for it', and they didn't notice any either. That about sum up your thoughts?