If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    The argument that a large number of people would not have been required to transport chemicals to the towers is not supported by the facts.

    The Harrit study, conducted on chemical red/grey nanothermite, has provided compelling evidence that the chips found are indeed nano-sized engineered material.The debunkers argue that the towers could not have collapsed due to controlled demolitions, as they would have required the presence of an entire crew of welders, torches, and workers.

    Ignoring what the explanation is here, that people utilized a highly engineered nanothermite substance to bring about the collapse of Tower 1 and 2.

    If the nanothermite is that small and molded into form, then why the need to knock down walls and spend weeks and weeks doing it? The nanothermite is carefully placed within the targeted area, and dont see what much more they be doing after that.

    Explosives like RDX and TNT do not explain why the South Tower was leaking red/hot material minutes before its collapse. Additionally, neither do mini nukes or lasers adequately explain this observation. Nanothermite, on the other hand, is a substance that has been shown to cause melting, and FEMA has indeed noticed this at the site of the World Trade Center.

    Nanothermite provides a rational explanation for the observed melting and the presence of iron microspheres that melt at 1500°C or higher at Ground Zero. While the NIST fires did not reach such high temperatures, debunkers have conducted silly experiments using flint, steel wool, Bic lighters, and torches in an attempt to refute the theory. These experiments fail to address the key characteristics of nano-thermite, which are known for their extreme temperature sensitivity and reactivity

    Therefore, nanothermite remains a credible and scientifically valid theory to explain the phenomena observed at Ground Zero.Despite the occurrence of low-probability events, it is highly unlikely that these occurrences would generate so much iron that it would qualify as a signature event. The generation of iron microspheres occurs naturally in small amounts, and their distribution is typically confined to specific geological or environmental contexts. R J Lee group study based on the amount of Iron found, there is a problem.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Waffle. And dodging as usual.

    It makes no sense for him to confess on camera.

    His statements are not compatible with the rest of your theory.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    But the RJ Lee study proved there was no thermite and RJ Lee himself doesn't agree with your theory.

    Your theory that this magical explosive was planted by 8 people over a weekend is ridiculous.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    The dust samples analyzed by Lee were obtained from the Liberty Building in New York, while the samples taken by Harrit came from dust found at ground zero. This discrepancy highlights the distinction between the two studies, with Lee focusing on the dust in a specific building away from the towers, while Harrit examined the dust found at ground zero.

    Debunkers will ignore again any Iron found in this high volume must have formed in a fire that above 1500c. NIST clearly ignores that claiming fire was only 1000 °C. This statement suggests that the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) has intentionally disregarded or failed to acknowledge the fact that the fire that allegedly formed the Iron in question was only 1000 degrees Celsius ( again debunker ignore it)

    Why Lee's Study is Important

    Lee's study, which identified a signature byproduct of nanothermite, is of crucial importance. If an individual is attempting to claim the presence of nanothermite, it is crucial to establish the presence of elementary iron in the dust. Steel, being an alloy , clearly indicates that iron must have been formed through a distinct process.

    Harrit, according to what I can tell, retrieved bags of WTC dust from four different individuals. However, individuals on the International Skeptics Board attempted to discredit this discovery. However, well-known debunkers were able to verify the dust samples were legitimate, although they did not agree with the conclusions of the study.

    Harrit only has four samples that for whatever reason did not ignite during the collapse. 

    In this case, with only four samples, there may be limited evidence available to analyze (four bags of dust and only four samples). However, these four samples still provide valuable insights into the collapse.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    According to you, 9/11 was an insurance inside job by Larry Silverstein, orchestrated by the US president and his generals, plotted by the Saudi's, plotted by Mossad, involvement from the FBI, from the CIA, from "secret Nazis", you've even mentioned Biden.

    Where are we at now?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    More waffle.

    The RJ Lee study still proves that there was no thermite. RJ Lee doesnt believe your silly theories.

    Waffling doesn't change these facts.

    Nor does lying about the study.

    You claimed that it shows a by product of a thermite reaction. This is a lie on your part.

    The study states that the iron was produced by melting, not reduction. Therefore it is not a by product of a thermite reaction.

    It makes no mention of any iron being produced by reduction, nor any of the other byproducts of a thermite reaction.

    I don't know who you think you are fooling with this obvious tactic.

    I also notice that you are abandoning your arguments about Silverstein again. You are throwing out more distractions and diversions.

    It's very odd thay you're so afraid of discussing that issue.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    The leaked money transfer records provide compelling evidence of the involvement of intelligence agencies in the planning and execution of the plane hijackings. These records indicate that funds were funnelled from various accounts to the hijackers, indicating that there was financial support for their actions.The issue at hand is your disregard for the superiors delegating their intermediaries to engage with the lower-tier individuals ( 9/11 hijackers) who seized control of the aircraft on 9/11.

     Focus is primarily placed on two main perpetrators: Osama bin Laden and 19 Middle Eastern men and you call it a day there not getting to the truth or you deliberately doing it.. However, it is important to recognize that while these individuals played a crucial role, it is essential to understand the larger picture and delve into the background and circumstances that led them to carry out this operation.

    Clearly want to keep your head in the sand but grand facts are that Prince Bandar and his wife, who are closely linked to the neocons, are alleged to have placed money into an account belonging to Bouyami, which was then given to the 9/11 hijackers.

    Despite the overwhelming evidence linking Bandar to the attacks, his efforts to cover up his involvement have been extensive. Conspiracy theorists and individuals who question the official narrative often point to the absence of direct testimony from Bandar. However, it is important to note that investigations conducted after the attacks have uncovered numerous financial transactions and connections that point to his direct involvement.

    The provision of cash from an account held by an individual (A) to an account held by another individual (B), and further onto individuals involved in the 9/11 attacks, raises questions regarding the involvement of neocons in the attacks

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    No, the story seems to have changed now.

    According to Cheerful, Larry was just lying about the phone call and it never happened. But he was lying cause he was trying to obliquely tell people it was an inside job for some reason. Or that he had "suspicions".

    For some reason he wasn't willing to simply state or present his evidence. But was still willing to go on national TV and drop a hint that we are being told is just as obvious as a direct admission.

    This is why conspiracy theorists do their upmost to avoid detailing explanations. The more they try to explain or tie it into a larger narrative, the more obvious how ridiculous and contradictory everything is.

    At the same time, they aren't permitted to simply agree that the conspiracy narrative around some aspects like Silverstien's "Confession" is just false.

    If they admit that some conspiracy theory ideas are wrong and obviously ridiculous, then it invites the uncomfortable thought that might apply to their own beliefs.

    And in some cases, like with Cheerful he doesn't want to close off the possibility of looping around and arguing that Silverstien was involved again if the position suits him. Or if he finds some other youtube video and forgets his previous claims.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    It's a hamster wheel. Recycling old debates, then distorting them.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Not even debates. Debate implies having points and outlining arguments. Cheerful and other theorists consistently refuse to do this.

    We are literally still hearing them bleat out "pull it" over and over and over again for 20 years.

    Not once has anyone ever attempted to actually explain how this fits into the conspiracy narrative. They don't attempt to explain why he'd say something like this. They don't explain why he did it on TV. They don't explain how it fits with the rest of the comments that seem to state that the FDNY was in control of the "demolition." They don't explain why this confession wasn't once brought up in any of the legal cases about Larry's insurance.

    Just "He said pull it and that means demolition." Then tantrums and insults and non stop dishonest tactics when people try to get discussion of the point going.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    You accept the melting of iron, but fail to provide an adequate explanation with NIST evidence that neither steel nor any other type of Iron melted during the fire at the World Trade Center.


    At 1000 degrees Celsius, the fire is hot enough to melt iron, but the higher the temperature of the fire, the faster the iron will melt.

    In reference to the R J Lee group finding and NIST's claim about the fire, it is important to note that there is a discrepancy between the findings

    Read question 11: Going to Question Somebody's Logic: Least Know the Basic Facts on What the Claims Here Are. NIST does not claim to have witnessed or documented the melting of iron, nor does it acknowledge the possibility of iron melting at the temperatures specified.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    Clearly, you are completely fabricating information out of thin air. In my earlier post, I explicitly stated that I do not believe the call was real. Yet, instead of addressing this, you are now claiming that others all confused, made comments about the FDNY being in control of the demolition. This is completely false and misleading.

    Instead of engaging in a productive conversation, it seems like you are intentionally trying to create confusion and conflict. 

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Sorry Cheerful, you are referring to "You" and I can only assume that you're referring to me. But for some reason you're not quoting the post you're replying to. It's a little confusing.

    I'm not accepting anything. I'm simply pointing out the lie you are telling about the study.

    You claim that the iron is a byproduct of a thermite reaction.

    If it was a byproduct of a thermite reaction, it would have been formed by the chemical reaction of thermite. It would have been formed by oxidation.

    The study states that it was formed by melting. Melting is not the same as oxidation. Therefore the iron is not a byproduct of a thermite reaction.

    Also, the other point I made is that the other byproducts of the reaction are not present. The study shows this as a fact.

    Complete waffle here.

    I'm not fabricating anything. I acknowledge that you've yet again changed your theory and state that the story is a lie. But you are also arguing that this still somehow shows he was involved in the conspiracy. This would be clear if you actually quoted the post you are objecting to.

    My statement about the FDNY being in control of the demolition is what follows if people actually look at what Larry Silverstien says in the statement that people are obsessed with. However, conspiracy theorists either aren't familiar with the full statement beyond the single "pull it" phrase or they ignore that part of the statement.

    The only confusion is with conspiracy theorists trying to make a narrative out of these contradictory claims. I don't need to create any confusion.

    Nor am I trying to "create conflict". Very bizarre thing to claim. I'm simply pointing out that conspiracy theorists are unwilling to tackle other conspiracy theories they believe are false, or accept that conspiracy theorists can just be wrong about things. It's a very strange rule you fellows have that I don't quite understand.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    R J Lee Group Claims the Iron Melted, but You Ignored Again that Nanothermite Releases Heat to Melt Iron.

    Nanothermite exhibits both a melting process and solidifying iron microspheres after the burn.

    I never claimed the R J Lee group discussed nanothermite. You are simply projecting your own thoughts again. What I said was the fire explanation put forward by the R J Lee group contradicts NIST's findings.

    You just want to bypass this and ignore all the faults here.

    You can't just imagine a magical office fire melting Iron here in your mind. There has to be scientific reasoning and documentation to back it up.Without scientific reasoning and documentation to support the notion of a magical fire melting Iron, it is challenging to accept this theory as anything more than a fictional concept. When comparing the NIST temperature measurements of fires to the findings made by the R J Lee group, it was evident that they do not align. This discrepancy serves as a significant finding.

    The video in question is a segment where Silverstein makes some claims about a fire commander calling him and giving him orders to pull the fire department out, which, upon further analysis, makes little to no sense. The decision to make such a call is not solely within Silverstein's authority, as it primarily lies with the fire leaders. Why would a fire commander be going around New York looking for Silverstein number? Should it be opposite he be phoning them for information? documentary on WTC attacks falls short in providing evidence of a background story, the identity of the fire commander involved anyhow.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Yes. And you lied and said this iron was the byproduct of a thermite reaction. It's not. Claiming it was a "signature byproduct" is a lie.

    The rest of your point is waffle and more lies.

    You can't claim Nanothermite exhibits anything as you've not shown it actually does anything.

    And yes, I agree that it's ridiculous to believe that the FDNY was involved or in control of the plot. The issue I'm pointing out is that conspiracy theorists ignore that part of the statement because it implies the ridiculous belief. If they are to take Larry's word as gospel, then they also have to believe that the FDNY made the decision to pull it. If they are to then argue that he mean something else or misspoke, or was lying, then the rest of the claim they are making falls apart.

    But again, you are falling into your simplistic black or white view of the world.

    The documentary the statement is from doesn't look into the background of the statement, because to the documentary, the statement wasn't important. The documentary wasn't trying to uncover a secret plot. It wasn't trying to detail the events of the day. The statement is only important to conspiracy theorists who believe it gives them a good soundbite. But of course, it's not important enough for them to look into or read beyond the two words they keep bleating.

    The bizarre thing is that you are still trying to use the statement to tie Larry to your ridiculous theory even though you know the conspiracy claims are dumb.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    "hosing down the building".

    lol. Do you think they might have been, you know, inside the building? Where the fires were?

    More cowardly waffle. Still cant answer a crucial and basic question.

    The truther movement is dead. Give it up. Case closed. Youre embarassing yourself.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    Clearly, you seem to be the only person in the world who disputes the finding that thermite produces a molten iron byproduct. Most people have access to the internet, which allows them to easily verify whether or not a post is accurate. 

    Once again, the discussion revolves around conspiracy theorists and their ideas. , I believe that certain conspiracy theorists tend to be more honest in their approach compared to debunkers. Unlike debunkers who often dismiss and ridicule conspiracy theories without thoroughly examining their own viewpoints, conspiracy theorists are willing to address the topic with an opinion.

    To illustrate this point, I would like to present a recent exchange I had with a debunker. When I asked a straightforward question on the feasibility of a 1,000 degrees Celsius fire melting iron, the debunker simply ran away from the subject, shifting the focus onto how bad conspiracy theorists are. Instead of addressing my question directly, the debunker chose to evade the topic altogether. This behavior not only demonstrates a lack of intellectual integrity but also reinforces the idea that debunkers are simply unwilling to confront their own viewpoints.

    Busy today, so thats all for now.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal

    A 1,000 degree Celsius fire doesnt melt iron. It weakens it.

    Now, how did they rig the buidings with thermite?

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    The latest is that two groups planned 9/11, but that they weren't aware of each other..

    One of those groups apparently went in "on weekends" and casually rigged two of the tallest skyscrapers in the world to silently explode in total secrecy, whilst the other guys hadn't even bought the plane tickets yet..

    It's one of the few times I've ever come across a 9/11 conspiracy believer who's actually attempted to explain their conspiracy (which is incredible in itself) and it's the most hilarious gobbledegook

    "Sir the plan is in place to fly planes into buildings and kill thousands of our countrymen"

    US president -"Excellent, but I want those buildings to also explode, silently, can the Jews, secret Nazi's and Saudi's handle that?"

    "Uh what?"

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,326 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose

    He's just reached periodic 'peak meds' and has woken up with the same old discredited garbage. Meds will wear off and he'll disappear for awhile, kind of like clockwork. Next up will likely be some more Holocaust denial, been a bit since he dipped into that garbage.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    Cheerful, again you are referring to "You" but you are not quoting the post you are replying to. This is confusing. It would be clearer if you actually quoted the post.

    But I think we've reached the core of your misunderstanding, and again it's a failure on your part to understand a technical term.

    You do not know what the term byproduct means in a chemistry sense.

    You are now also making up some ridiculous story to prove some bizarre point, but only seeing a whole lot of projection.

    I have not seen any conspiracy theorists who are actually willing to discuss their theories or approach them honestly.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    And this is also leaving aside the whole part of the conspiracy to have a fake plane crash into the pentagon. Or fly over it and crash a different plane into it. Or something. I forget where Cheerful landed on that whole mess.

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob

    The whole movement is a complete joke these days, even among other conspiracy grifts. The theory is now relegated to the likes of JFK and the moon landings where its old boring conspiracy crap that doesn't get attention or generate as many views. Especially sense the whole movement hasn't been able to produce anything new since Loose Change came out. Cheerful is still cycling through those same basic arguments.

    Most grifters like Alex Jones and his lot have moved on to other theories and Flat Earthers have taken up a lot of the rando youtube crank vacancies.

    The only ones still pushing 9/11 stuff are the scam artists at AE9/11 who are less than a joke these days. No one aside from their scam victims pay any attention to them since the study they made a giant deal out of came to nothing.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    Skeptical difficult individuals, known as debunkers, often dismiss claims made by conspiracy theorists by alleging that they are misquoting or misinterpreting information. However, in this case, the NIST itself has made the assertion that there was no firefighting effort at Seven World Trade Center. #

    NIST posting in the upload.

    Instead of tackling the Silverstein claim head-on, many debunkers choose to shift the blame to conspiracy theorists. With no fire effort at seven at all, the Silverstein claim simply isn't true. However, debunkers pretend their narratives hold up because they don't investigate at all. Debunkers are unlikely to question Silverstein's comments because they would then have to view the world as conspiracy theorists do, where people lie about 9/11.

    Exactly those facts have completely gone over your heads and are not understood. 1100 degrees Celsius, fire cannot melt iron or Steel. According to the NIST report, there is no evidence of steel melting at the World Trade Center during the fires. According to NIST, the hot fires that engulfed the Twin Towers reached temperatures around 1,100 degrees Celsius.


    The RJ Lee Group identified specific signature particles of iron that they believed were indicative of steel melting and iron. The problems with the official narrative are evident and far-reaching.

    R. J. Lee Group

    The high temperatures and extreme conditions caused before the collapse were sufficient to melt and deform these materials, leading to the formation and release of iron particles. The observation of iron particles forming during the WTC event provides strong evidence that extra heat sources were involved. Debunkers have failed to acknowledge the missing extra heat in the NIST version of events. This is significant because understanding the origin of this extra heat is crucial for comprehending how it could have melted the Iron and Steel. By neglecting to address this point, debunkers hinder progress in uncovering the truth behind the events of 9/11.

    The conspiracy version of the collapse offers an alternative explanation that delves deeper into the circumstances surrounding the incident. It takes into account various pieces of evidence that the official narrative fails to address. By examining the evidence, the conspiracy version provides a more coherent and comprehensive understanding of the events. If 9/11 had one problem with the official version—not an issue even a few issues—when you start finding dozens of inconsistencies in the building reports, the narratives, and other things, then it becomes evident that something is wrong.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    The official narrative that the hijackers were unknown to intelligence services is contradicted by the evidence presented in various official investigations. The involvement of Saudi intelligence and the CIA in the 9/11 attacks is undeniable. You even have FBI whistleblowers going to court in Saudi lawsuit case over 9/11 that the CIA was protecting two of them.

    Since 2000, an active network of agents has been working tirelessly to track and combat terrorists. Despite what they may publicly claim, this network has effectively gathered intelligence, pieced together clues, and built a picture of what the terror plan might look like before 9/11

    It is undeniable that the individuals in question had entered the United States with intentions to carry out acts of terror. Their actions, demeanor, and prior knowledge all point to their involvement in nefarious activities. Clearly, they did not come to America to go fishing.The bulllshit surrounding the incident in question asserts that all the official people involved were innocent and that there was nothing nefarious at hand. 

    Those who have been observing the CIA's operations since the JFK era have observed a peculiar cult-like atmosphere within the organization. CIA has been involved in the production and distribution of illegal drugs, primarily as a means to finance its operations. One possibility is that moles or undercover agents within terrorist organizations or criminal networks could have provided information about the planned attack on 9/11 and the targets. Debunkers who argue that the attacks were an "unsudden" event are misleading the public. 

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    You claim things are a "narrative" so that you can substitute in your own narrative.

    It's been established that hijackers flew planes into the buildings, no "inside job" has so far been discovered. You have invented your own narrative but it has no credible evidence, makes no sense and changes regularly.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    I see a individual engaging in another threads that support genocide against brown people while simultaneously calling others racists. This double standard highlights the hypocrisy and ignorance of certain individuals. White people killing white people is what happened during the holocaust, yet you have an issue with brown people in the Middle East. Apparently, you are unable to see the possibility that 9/11 may not have been solely a Muslim operation.

    I do not have any personal issues with the Jewish Holocaust, as it is a well-documented case that spanned across Europe. While there may be some minor errors, I do not view the overall issue as significant enough to warrant a creation of a thread on this platform.

    You seem to imply that the Jewish suffering during the holocaust was greater than others.  Millions, far greater numbers of Soviet people also died at the hands of the Nazi regime. Russian people don't rant and rave about it.  The dropping of atomic bombs on civilians, the wholesale killing of thousands during aerial bombings, and other war crimes serve as a stark reminder of the price of war and the devastating consequences it can have on civilian populations.

    If you want to view the Jewish suffering as greater than others, your problem is not mine. Western leaders mistakenly believed that establishing a Jewish colony in Palestine would succeed.

    In reality, the Jewish people can't catch a break should have been given a plot of large land in America or Canada somewhere free from all the fighting.

    Basically, I view conspiracy as the actions of a small group in order to achieve their own ends .Blaming entire races, from man right to every child, makes no sense to me. is unfortunate that Israel agents are connected with tragedy at ground zero. However, it is important to separate the actions of individuals from the broader population. Either way if it turns out it was not neocons, or Israel, so be it. If a Muslim country was responsible for the demolitions, the debate surrounding that should be thoroughly examined.

    It is essential to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice, not only as a deterrent but also as a preventive measure. The next false flag could be nuclear, or biological.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    NIST fire alone could not have melted the iron and steel mentioned in the R J Lee Report.

    Recognizing the Problem in Post 398 and Unfilter your mind may get you there some day? Last post of the day.

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe

    Multiple investigations concluded all 3 buildings fell due to fire

    Internet people think hologram planes did it, controlled demolitions did it, energy weapons and so on - they all rely on the same basket of denial. None of them use supporting evidence.

    It's the same with other attacks: 7/7, Sandy Hook, Boston bombings, Manchester attacks, etc. Conspiracy believers use denial/incredulity to cast doubt on the facts in order to insert vague innuendo about a conspiracy - none of which get properly detailed nor have direct supporting evidence.

    "Smarter" conspiracy believers just do the denial part. They are "smart" enough to know that once they start attempting to detail a conspiracy, it exposes how weak it is. Credit to you, you've actually attempted to give your alternative theory. Unfortunately (sorry) as we can see complete gooblydegook - but at least this thread stands testament to how bad 9/11 trutherism is in general.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S

    How is post 398 weak explain. You seem to be missing the point that the iron in question was produced when the towers were still standing. It was not caused by sparks, steel hitting steel after the collapse, or in wreckage later.

    Clearly, if there is heat that can melt steel and Iron, then anyone with a brain can clearly see that the official narrative does not make sense. The melting point of steel is around 1,371 degrees Celsius (2,550 degrees Fahrenheit), while that of Iron is even higher, at 1,538 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). 

    The presence of molten iron during the 9/11 attacks serves as a distinct forensic fingerprint, confirming the involvement of high-energy sources and intense heat. We have actual evidence that Iron melted here unless your accusation is R J Lee is mistaken.

    Again it happened while the towers stood not after or during the collapse That very significant claim that pretty much rules out every debunker theory how this happened.

     R J Lee Group's efforts were solely focused on conducting an assessment for its clients, not any form of collaboration with NIST. The RJ Lee Group was working on behalf of its client to evaluate the damage incurred, and its scope of work did not include any affiliation with NIST.