Frequently Asked Questions

We encourage those who seek the truth about the events of September 11, 2001, to ask the elementary question: "Who had the means, the opportunity, and the motive?" Or, in two simple Latin words, "Qui bono?" That is, "Who benefited?" from this crime of the century.

The architects, engineers, and scientists who make up AE911Truth provide forensic evidence, video documentation, and eyewitness testimony that offer clues to the identity of the perpetrators. But it is the job of serious journalists, trained criminal investigators, and officials in the legislative and judicial branches of government to uncover the "who" and "why" of 9/11. In particular, attorneys and judges have both the subpoena power and the legal authority to offer immunity that will bring forth witnesses and suspects, leading to the conviction of those responsible for planning and carrying out the attacks of 9/11.

Yes. It is beyond doubt that the seismic data recorded by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) in Palisades, New York, corroborate the eyewitness, video, and forensic evidence of explosions both before and during the collapse of all three WTC towers — and explosions even before the plane impacts into the Twin Towers. Our conclusion, which is based on our review of the studies conducted by the researchers and seismic experts listed below, match the LDEO's seismic data. But because the LDEO did not rely on its own data when it issued its report, our conclusions do not match the LDEO's conclusions. Thus, our conclusions also contradict the conclusions of the FEMA and NIST reports, which relied upon the LDEO report's conclusions and not upon the original seismic data.

For a brief, 15-minute overview of this subject, you can watch this relevant section of our continuing education course. We also recommend the article, "Point TT-7: Why Did the Twin Towers Collapse? The Seismic Evidence,” by the 9/11 Consensus Panel.

Thermite is a mixture of a metal and the oxide of another metal that produces temperatures well in excess of 4000° F when ignited, certainly high enough to allow cuts through the structural steel of the Twin Towers. Nanothermite is a nano-engineered variant of thermite that can be formulated to be explosive, intensifying its destructive power. Residues of thermite and nanothermite were discovered in the WTC dust, which indicates they were used to destroy the WTC skyscrapers.

No. The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even remotely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction. A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations. Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what might have happened if various assumptions are true. NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work.

Larry Silverstein’s “pull it” statement is so cryptic and vague that it is impossible to know for sure what he was referring to. However, according to Fox News journalist Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, Silverstein tried to get approval to demolish WTC 7 on the afternoon of 9/11. Even though Silverstein’s statements have no bearing on the scientific evidence that proves WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, he should still be questioned in a future WTC investigation.

Most architects and engineers have never been presented with the scientific evidence of controlled demolition. In addition, most of those who take the time to examine this evidence acknowledge that the official story can’t be true. As of January 2018, there are almost 3,000 architects and engineers who openly support the findings of AE911Truth versus only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports. Even so, in the end, the evidence stands on its own, regardless of how many professionals are aware of it.

Many of those who cannot accept the scientific evidence that refutes the official story of the collapse of the three WTC towers argue, "If 9/11 was an inside operation, surely at least one whistleblower would have come forward by now. You couldn't keep something like that secret." While at first blush this argument might seem to be logical, closer examination shows that it makes no sense. Since scientific evidence has clearly shown that the official explanation for the destruction of the WTC towers cannot be true, the theory that the official story must be true because there have been "no 9/11 whistleblowers" is entirely specious.