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.

AE911Truth is not aware of any evidence that supports the claim that nuclear blasts occurred at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. AE911Truth does not endorse that claim, nor does it endorse any theories resulting from it, nor does it link to websites and publications where such theories are promoted.

Liquid metal was seen pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse on September 11, 2001. Was it a combination of steel and iron, or was it aluminum and/or lead? What was the molten metal reported under the rubble of the Twin Towers at Ground Zero? And why is the identification of the molten metal important?

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.

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.