EFI/911

EFI·Evidence Fusion Initiative

Fact or Fiction

Fact or Fiction

Ask any question, including odd ones. You get a percentage, a clear call of more or less than 50%, the working, and the sources that produced it. If nothing matches, the score stays at 50% — nothing is invented.

Likelihood

H012 Unusual pre-attack put-option activity reflected advance knowledge of the attacks

More than 50%

55%

More than 50% — weakly supported by the sources

0% — fully contradicted50%100% — fully supported

The score is 55% — more than 50%. Supporting sources currently outweigh contradicting sources after quality and confidence are applied.

How 55% was calculated

Start at 50%. Move by half of the net source score after uncertainty. Net source score is 0.52 (from −1 contradict to +1 support). Uncertainty is 80%. So 50% + 50% × 0.52 × 20% remaining certainty = 55%.

Supporting sources

8

Weighted strength 1.89

Contradicting sources

2

Weighted strength 0.59

No stance yet

31

Pulls the score toward 50% · 10.07

Uncertainty

80%

Share of the file that is unlabelled or missing

Working

start at 50% + half of (net source score × remaining certainty)

0.5 + 0.5 × 0.52 × (1 − 0.80) = 0.552

This percentage is calculated from the sources listed below — it is a score, not a court finding. Official origin does not add extra weight. Independent origin does not subtract weight. Two papers from the same group are one cluster, not two independent confirmations.

Reasoning

  1. Step 1 · Match the question

    Closest stored question: H012 — Unusual pre-attack put-option activity reflected advance knowledge of the attacks. Yes/no labels are taken from sources already linked to that question. Also close: H016, H020, H007.

  2. Step 2 · Find matching sources

    40 source(s) matched the wording. 4 further source(s) already linked to the stored question were included even if they did not contain the search words. 6 matching claim(s) contributed inherited stances.

  3. Step 3 · Assign support or contradiction without inventing

    4 labelled from stored question links, 8 from claims, 0 labelled automatically (capped, marked, not saved as human review), 29 left with no stance.

  4. Step 4 · Weight each source

    Each source contributes strength = (quality / 5) × confidence × how strongly it agrees or disagrees. Support strength 1.89, contradict strength 0.59, no-stance strength 10.07. A zero on chain of custody still lowers the mean and stays visible.

  5. Step 5 · Turn that into a percentage

    Start at 50%. Move up if support outweighs contradiction, down if the reverse. Unlabelled sources shrink the movement, so a thin file stays near 50%. Working: 0.5 + 0.5 × 0.52 × (1 − 0.80) = 0.552.

  6. Step 6 · What this number is not

    This percentage is calculated from the sources listed below — it is a score, not a court finding. Official origin does not add extra weight. Independent origin does not subtract weight. Two papers from the same group are one cluster, not two independent confirmations.

What is still missing

  • 4 source(s) score zero on at least one quality check (shown on each card). Those zeros are kept visible and are not averaged away.
  • 4 source(s) are unverified, inactive, or recorded as not retrieved. A missing file is a gap, not a finding against the question.
  • 31 relevant source(s) have no stance yet. They increase uncertainty and pull the percentage toward 50%; they are not counted as support or contradiction.
  • A second stored question (H016) also matches this wording. The percentage below is for H012 only — open the other question to compare. Do not average the two numbers.

Closest stored question

H012 · Unusual pre-attack put-option activity reflected advance knowledge of the attacks

foreknowledge · match 50.8

Related questions

Same wording can map to more than one stored question. Each has its own percentage — do not average them.

Matching claims

  • indeterminateCLM-021

    Unusual pre-attack put-option activity reflected trading by people with advance knowledge of the plot.

  • unverifiedCLM-022

    The five Urban Moving Systems detainees had advance knowledge of the attacks as an Israeli intelligence team.

  • indeterminateCLM-008

    Bayoumi had advance knowledge that the 9/11 attacks would occur.

  • disputedCLM-020

    Able Danger identified Mohamed Atta's cell before 11 September and was blocked from notifying the FBI.

  • disputedCLM-035

    A small CIA Alec Station group intentionally withheld Mihdhar/Hazmi information from the FBI, and the purpose became to allow the attacks.

  • well_supportedCLM-039

    CIA senior products in summer 2001 described Bin Ladin attacks as imminent, including a strike in the US, without time/place/target.

Sources that support this

8

Sources that contradict this

2

Sources with no stance yet

31
EVD-146documentneutral

Stratesec / Marvin Bush board role at a firm with WTC security work

Composite tertiary web commentary (circular-sourcing demonstration) · 2005-01-01

A firm with some WTC security work had a Bush family board member years before 9/11.

Quality 1.25 / 5components retained
Prov2
Auth3
Ind2
Contemp0
Corr0
Spec2
Comp1
Chain0

hypothesis link · zeros: contemporaneity, corroboration, chain_of_custody · human_seed link to H012 (seeded): Stratesec/Bush-board adjacency is not securities trading.

Quality zeros remain visible: contemporaneity, corroboration, chain_of_custody.

Topics

Day-of events, engineering questions, process failures, and foreknowledge leads.

Developed by British researcher Moneypenny

@nic_moneypenny · Subscribe on X from $2 a month for other investigations, and to support this work.

Built with Grok by xAI. EFI / 911 is an independent research project. Neither Moneypenny nor xAI, X, or Grok accepts any liability for errors, omissions, or inaccuracies. Scores are not court or government findings. Privacy and terms.