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
H018 WTC 7 was 'pulled' — a controlled demolition was ordered that afternoon
53%
Equal to 50% — the sources do not tip either way
The score is 53% — more than 50%. Supporting sources currently outweigh contradicting sources after quality and confidence are applied.
How 53% was calculated
Start at 50%. Move by half of the net source score after uncertainty. Net source score is 0.29 (from −1 contradict to +1 support). Uncertainty is 80%. So 50% + 50% × 0.29 × 20% remaining certainty = 53%.
Supporting sources
8
Weighted strength 1.78
Contradicting sources
4
Weighted strength 0.99
No stance yet
33
Pulls the score toward 50% · 10.61
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 × 0.29 × (1 − 0.80) = 0.529
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: H018 — WTC 7 was 'pulled' — a controlled demolition was ordered that afternoon. Yes/no labels are taken from sources already linked to that question. Also close: H010, H012, H021.
Step 2 · Find matching sources
40 source(s) matched the wording. 5 further source(s) already linked to the stored question were included even if they did not contain the search words. 3 matching claim(s) contributed inherited stances.
Step 3 · Assign support or contradiction without inventing
5 labelled from stored question links, 7 from claims, 0 labelled automatically (capped, marked, not saved as human review), 33 left with no stance.
Step 4 · Weight each source
Each source contributes strength = (quality / 5) × confidence × how strongly it agrees or disagrees. Support strength 1.78, contradict strength 0.99, no-stance strength 10.61. 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 × 0.29 × (1 − 0.80) = 0.529.
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
- 5 source(s) score zero on at least one quality check (shown on each card). Those zeros are kept visible and are not averaged away.
- 6 source(s) are unverified, inactive, or recorded as not retrieved. A missing file is a gap, not a finding against the question.
- 33 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 (H010) also matches this wording. The percentage below is for H018 only — open the other question to compare. Do not average the two numbers.
Closest stored question
H018 · WTC 7 was 'pulled' — a controlled demolition was ordered that afternoonengineering · match 42.4
Related questions
Same wording can map to more than one stored question. Each has its own percentage — do not average them.
Matching claims
- disputedCLM-017
Larry Silverstein ordered WTC 7 pulled in the demolition-slang sense.
- disputedCLM-014
Unreacted thermitic material was present in WTC dust.
- disputedCLM-033
First-responder explosion-language about the Twin Towers is evidence of demolition charges.
Sources that support this
8NIST 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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H018 (seeded): Free-fall stage as the physical counterpart of a pull.
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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H018 (seeded): On-camera 'pull it' plus 'we watched the building collapse.'
Chandler, Walter, Szamboti — Instantaneous free fall of WTC 7 and NIST's attempt to hide it (Jun 2023)
Journal of 9/11 Studies · 2023-06-01
Using multi-point tracking, Chandler/Walter/Szamboti report that after ~1.4 s of near-immobility of most of the north and west rooflines, those rooflines entered free fall together within ~0.2 s at ~8.0–8.2 s after east-penthouse collapse, ~9.8 m/s² for ~2.5 s.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H018 (seeded): Instantaneous whole-roofline free fall is used as the physical counterpart of a pull.
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-014.
FEMA Appendix C: sulfidized / eutectic-attacked steel samples
FEMA 403 — World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002) · 2002-05-01
FEMA published photomicrographs of WTC steel with unusual sulfidation/eutectic thinning and said the sulfur source was unidentified.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-014.
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.
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-033.
Sources that contradict this
4NIST: 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-033.
NIST / 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.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-014.
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.'
hypothesis link · zeros: contemporaneity · human_seed link to H018 (seeded): Later firefighter-withdrawal reading.
Quality zeros remain visible: contemporaneity.
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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H018 (seeded): NIST fire sequence, no demolition order.
Sources with no stance yet
33Wikipedia, 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.
David Ray Griffin — Anomalies in the 9/11 Commission Report (Toronto Report ch.2)
The 9/11 Toronto Report (2012), International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001 · 2012-09-11
Griffin's 2012 chapter lists Commission process constraints (Zelikow, funding, access) and twelve claimed omissions, with footnotes to named books, newspapers, and the Report itself.
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.
Piers Robinson — Researching 9/11 and Beyond: Current Knowledge and Future Directions (Aug 2024)
Journal of 9/11 Studies · 2024-08-01
Robinson's 2024 survey cites Harrit 2009, Hulsey 2020, MacQueen eyewitness counts, NIST NCSTAR, the Commission, Ashton v KSA, and a 2023 Klarenberg claim of a CIA-Saudi recruiting operation involving two hijackers. He states official investigations are flawed and demolition of WTC 1/2/7 is most likely.
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.
911DA email, 12 September 2001: planned desk, 50th floor, 1 WTC
September 11 Digital Archive (RRCHNM / ASHP) · 2001-09-12
A 12 September 2001 email claims a dealing-room desk on the 50th floor of 1 WTC was being stood up over Labor Day 2001, and that some co-workers may have been in the building.
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.
Topics
Day-of events, engineering questions, process failures, and foreknowledge leads.