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
H017 Directed energy, not impact/fire/conventional explosives, destroyed the twin towers
49%
Equal to 50% — the sources do not tip either way
The score is 49% — less than 50%. Contradicting sources currently outweigh supporting sources after quality and confidence are applied.
How 49% was calculated
Start at 50%. Move by half of the net source score after uncertainty. Net source score is -0.11 (from −1 contradict to +1 support). Uncertainty is 72%. So 50% + 50% × -0.11 × 28% remaining certainty = 49%.
Supporting sources
9
Weighted strength 1.69
Contradicting sources
8
Weighted strength 2.12
No stance yet
31
Pulls the score toward 50% · 9.70
Uncertainty
72%
Share of the file that is unlabelled or missing
Working
start at 50% + half of (net source score × remaining certainty)
0.5 + 0.5 × -0.11 × (1 − 0.72) = 0.485
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
Step 1 · Match the question
Closest stored question: H017 — Directed energy, not impact/fire/conventional explosives, destroyed the twin towers. Yes/no labels are taken from sources already linked to that question. Also close: H004, H006, H018.
Step 2 · Find matching sources
40 source(s) matched the wording. 3 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.
Step 3 · Assign support or contradiction without inventing
3 labelled from stored question links, 14 from claims, 0 labelled automatically (capped, marked, not saved as human review), 31 left with no stance.
Step 4 · Weight each source
Each source contributes strength = (quality / 5) × confidence × how strongly it agrees or disagrees. Support strength 1.69, contradict strength 2.12, no-stance strength 9.7. A zero on chain of custody still lowers the mean and stays visible.
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 × -0.11 × (1 − 0.72) = 0.485.
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
- 6 source(s) score zero on at least one quality check (shown on each card). Those zeros are kept visible and are not averaged away.
- 8 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 (H004) also matches this wording. The percentage below is for H017 only — open the other question to compare. Do not average the two numbers.
Closest stored question
H017 · Directed energy, not impact/fire/conventional explosives, destroyed the twin towersengineering · match 50.2
Related questions
Same wording can map to more than one stored question. Each has its own percentage — do not average them.
Matching claims
- unsupportedCLM-023
The twin towers were destroyed by directed energy, not by impact, fire, or conventional explosives.
- disputedCLM-033
First-responder explosion-language about the Twin Towers is evidence of demolition charges.
- disputedCLM-013
Aircraft impact and the ensuing fires initiated the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 without additional energetic devices.
- disputedCLM-016
Explosives or other additional energetic mechanisms contributed to WTC 7's failure.
- disputedCLM-036
The Pentagon attack involved inside-the-building explosives before AA77's official impact.
- disputedCLM-017
Larry Silverstein ordered WTC 7 pulled in the demolition-slang sense.
Sources that support this
9Judy Wood: directed-energy destruction of the towers
Judy Wood — Where Did the Towers Go? (directed-energy claims) · 2010-01-01
An independent researcher published a directed-energy account of the tower destructions.
hypothesis link · zeros: contemporaneity, corroboration, chain_of_custody · human_seed link to H017 (seeded): Wood's published directed-energy account — only cited support, low quality.
Quality zeros remain visible: contemporaneity, corroboration, chain_of_custody.
NIST: no corroborating evidence for explosives or thermite
NIST WTC investigation FAQs (towers and WTC 7) · 2019-11-20
NIST published a negative finding on explosives and thermite as collapse causes.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-013.
NIST FAQ: WTC 7 north face had a 2.25-second free-fall stage
NIST WTC investigation FAQs (towers and WTC 7) · 2019-11-20
NIST measured a 2.25-second free-fall stage of WTC 7's north face and described negligible support from the structure below.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-016.
Barbara Honegger — Evidence of explosives at the Pentagon (Toronto Report ch.13)
The 9/11 Toronto Report (2012), International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001 · 2012-09-11
Honegger compiles Pentagon witnesses who used bomb/cordite language, cites stopped clocks around 9:31–9:32, and treats the FBI code name PENTTBOM as evidence of a bombing investigation.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-036.
Hulsey et al. (UAF): fire did not cause the observed collapse of WTC 7
Hulsey, Quan, Xiao — University of Alaska Fairbanks WTC 7 study (2019–2020) · 2020-03-01
A University of Alaska Fairbanks team published a model concluding fire did not cause WTC 7's observed collapse.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-016.
Larry Silverstein, PBS 2002: 'maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it'
PBS — America Rebuilds: A Day with Larry Silverstein (2002) · 2002-09-10
The leaseholder said on camera that he suggested they 'pull it' regarding WTC 7 and that a decision to pull preceded the collapse they watched.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-017.
MacQueen — 118 Witnesses: Firefighters' testimony to explosions (Journal of 9/11 Studies, Aug 2006)
Journal of 9/11 Studies · 2006-08-01
In 2006 MacQueen published a compilation of 118 firefighter explosion-language statements drawn from FDNY oral histories.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-033.
Sources that contradict this
8NIST NCSTAR 1: impact plus fire initiated collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2
NIST NCSTAR 1 — Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (2005) · 2005-09-01
NIST published a fire-and-impact initiation sequence for WTC 1 and WTC 2 in 2005.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H017 (seeded): NIST fire-and-impact sequence is a different mechanism family.
Harrit et al. 2009: active thermitic red/gray chips in WTC dust
Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan et al., The Open Chemical Physics Journal 2:7–31 (2009) · 2009-04-03
A 2009 peer-reviewed paper reports energetic red/gray chips in WTC dust that the authors identify as unreacted thermitic material.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-013.
Silverstein Properties later: 'pull it' meant withdraw firefighters
PBS — America Rebuilds: A Day with Larry Silverstein (2002) · 2005-01-01
Silverstein's office published a firefighter-withdrawal reading of 'pull it.'
claim stance · zeros: contemporaneity · Inherited from matching claim CLM-017.
Quality zeros remain visible: contemporaneity.
John D. Wyndham — Problems with theories alternative to large-plane impact at the Pentagon (Nov 2011)
Journal of 9/11 Studies · 2011-11-01
The Journal of 9/11 Studies published a 2011 paper arguing that theories alternative to a large-plane Pentagon impact have problems.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-036.
Commission: AA11 struck WTC1 at 08:46:40
9/11 Commission Report · 2004-07-22
A large aircraft identified as AA11 struck WTC 1 at 08:46:40 on 11 September 2001.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H017 (seeded): Aircraft impact is observed; directed-energy-only is in tension with a 767 entering WTC1.
FDNY oral histories: multiple firefighters report explosions
New York Fire Department oral histories (released 2005 after lawsuit) · 2005-08-12
Multiple trained first responders independently described explosion-like events at the WTC site on 11 September 2001.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-013.
NIST NCSTAR 1A: WTC 7 collapse initiated by fire-induced buckling of Column 79
NIST NCSTAR 1A — Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (2008) · 2008-11-20
NIST attributes WTC 7's collapse to fire-induced failure beginning at Column 79, with global collapse at 17:20.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-016.
NTSB flight-path study: AA77 from Dulles to the Pentagon
NTSB flight-path studies, Air Traffic Control tapes, and CVR/FDR summaries (AA11, UA175, AA77, UA93) · 2002-02-19
NTSB reconstructed a continuous radar/path track of AA77 from takeoff to the Pentagon.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-036.
Sources with no stance yet
31NIST / critics: red/gray chips consistent with primer paint, not thermite
NIST WTC investigation FAQs (towers and WTC 7) · 2019-11-20
NIST and subsequent paint-chemistry arguments attribute the red chips to known coatings rather than explosives.
unclassified · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
Wikipedia, 9/11 conspiracy theories — article as finding aid (retrieved 3 Sep 2026)
Wikipedia — 9/11 conspiracy theories (encyclopedia article) · 2026-09-03
On 3 September 2026 the Wikipedia article listed the main 9/11 conspiracy-theory families and pointed at Commission, NIST, State Department, Eagar, and Popular Mechanics as external sources.
unclassified · zeros: contemporaneity · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
Quality zeros remain visible: contemporaneity.
Wikipedia sub-articles: WTC demolition theories, advance knowledge, 9/11 truth movement
Wikipedia — 9/11 conspiracy theories (encyclopedia article) · 2026-09-03
Wikipedia's demolition, advance-knowledge, and truth-movement pages repeat named sources already on this board; they did not add a new primary measurement.
unclassified · zeros: contemporaneity · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
Quality zeros remain visible: contemporaneity.
Gage, Roberts, Dreger — Advanced pyrotechnic/explosive material in WTC dust (Toronto Report ch.12)
The 9/11 Toronto Report (2012), International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001 · 2012-09-11
Toronto ch.12 restates the 2009 Harrit red/gray-chip paper as forensic evidence against the official destruction account.
unclassified · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
Eagar & Musso 2001: WTC fires did not melt steel; floor-truss connections were the weak point
Thomas W. Eagar & Christopher Musso — Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (JOM, Dec 2001) · 2001-12-01
In December 2001 MIT materials engineers published that WTC fires were not hot enough to melt steel and that weakened floor-truss connections were the likely weak point.
unclassified · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
Popular Mechanics 2005/2006: magazine investigation rejecting demolition, Pentagon-missile, and UA93 shoot-down claims
Popular Mechanics — 9/11: Debunking the Myths (March 2005) and Debunking 9/11 Myths (Hearst, 2006) · 2005-03-01
In 2005–2006 Popular Mechanics published a magazine investigation and a book arguing that the main demolition, missile, and shoot-down claims do not stand up to wreckage and engineering testimony.
unclassified · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
911DA email, 11 September 2001: WTC 'just being gone'
September 11 Digital Archive (RRCHNM / ASHP) · 2001-09-11
A 11 September 2001 email treats the World Trade Center as already gone while the writer listens to coverage.
unclassified · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
Barry Jennings and Michael Hess: explosions and being trapped in WTC 7
BBC World — Jane Standley live report of WTC 7 collapse (11 September 2001) · 2001-09-11
Jennings and Hess were trapped in WTC 7 and described explosion-like events and delayed rescue.
unclassified · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
Topics
Day-of events, engineering questions, process failures, and foreknowledge leads.