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
Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan et al., The Open Chemical Physics Journal 2:7–31 (2009)
61%
More than 50% — weakly supported by the sources
The score is 61% — more than 50%. Supporting sources currently outweigh contradicting sources after quality and confidence are applied.
How 61% was calculated
Start at 50%. Move by half of the net source score after uncertainty. Net source score is 0.49 (from −1 contradict to +1 support). Uncertainty is 57%. So 50% + 50% × 0.49 × 43% remaining certainty = 61%.
Supporting sources
25
Weighted strength 4.77
Contradicting sources
7
Weighted strength 1.62
No stance yet
30
Pulls the score toward 50% · 8.44
Uncertainty
57%
Share of the file that is unlabelled or missing
Working
start at 50% + half of (net source score × remaining certainty)
0.5 + 0.5 × 0.49 × (1 − 0.57) = 0.605
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: H004 — Additional energetic mechanisms contributed to WTC1 collapse. Yes/no labels are taken from sources already linked to that question. Also close: H006, H012, H016.
Step 2 · Find matching sources
40 source(s) matched the wording. 26 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
26 labelled from stored question links, 13 from claims, 0 labelled automatically (capped, marked, not saved as human review), 23 left with no stance.
Step 4 · Weight each source
Each source contributes strength = (quality / 5) × confidence × how strongly it agrees or disagrees. Support strength 4.77, contradict strength 1.62, no-stance strength 8.44. 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 × 0.49 × (1 − 0.57) = 0.605.
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.
- 4 source(s) are unverified, inactive, or recorded as not retrieved. A missing file is a gap, not a finding against the question.
- 30 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 (H006) also matches this wording. The percentage below is for H004 only — open the other question to compare. Do not average the two numbers.
Closest stored question
H004 · Additional energetic mechanisms contributed to WTC1 collapseengineering · match 9.5
Related questions
Same wording can map to more than one stored question. Each has its own percentage — do not average them.
Matching claims
- disputedCLM-002
The 1 February 2000 restaurant meeting was a chance encounter.
- disputedCLM-013
Aircraft impact and the ensuing fires initiated the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 without additional energetic devices.
- unverifiedCLM-022
The five Urban Moving Systems detainees had advance knowledge of the attacks as an Israeli intelligence team.
- disputedCLM-031
The 9/11 Commission was not a truth-seeking body; the Report is a 'Zelikow Report' defined by systematic omissions.
- well_supportedCLM-038
Street-level witnesses in lower Manhattan saw/heard a second aircraft hit the South Tower.
- 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
25Harrit 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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): If thermitic identification holds, additional energetics are in the dust.
Molten metal in the WTC rubble: FDNY/photographs vs NIST aluminium explanation
Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan et al., The Open Chemical Physics Journal 2:7–31 (2009) · 2009-04-03
Witnesses and photographs show molten metal in the WTC debris pile well after 11 September.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Molten metal in rubble is a physical anomaly relative to ordinary office-fire expectations.
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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Hearing restatement of Harrit 2009. Derivative — not independent.
Kevin R. Ryan — Extreme temperatures at the WTC (Toronto Report ch.10)
The 9/11 Toronto Report (2012), International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001 · 2012-09-11
Ryan compiles NIST temperature figures, molten-metal witness language, RJ Lee iron-sphere percentages, USGS molybdenum spheres, and FEMA Appendix C sulfidation, and treats them as requiring a heat source above office-fire steel-melting.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Ryan extreme-temperature compilation (FEMA C, RJ Lee, USGS Mo). Not a unique thermite fingerprint.
MacQueen & Szamboti — The Missing Jolt (Apr 2009)
Journal of 9/11 Studies · 2009-04-01
MacQueen and Szamboti (2009) argue that a predicted deceleration jolt at collapse initiation is absent in the tower videos.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): If the jolt prediction is right, fire-and-impact progression is incomplete.
Ted Walter — Earthshaking Revelations: seismic evidence of pre-impact explosions (10 Sep 2025)
International Center for 9/11 Justice · 2025-09-10
Walter presented a 2025 talk arguing for seismic evidence of explosions before aircraft impact.
hypothesis link · zeros: contemporaneity · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Seismic pre-impact-explosions talk; body not read.
Quality zeros remain visible: contemporaneity.
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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): 2006 118-witness compilation; derivative of oral histories.
Kevin R. Ryan — Why the NIST World Trade Center Reports are False (Toronto Report ch.3)
The 9/11 Toronto Report (2012), International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001 · 2012-09-11
Ryan cites NIST test and model figures (steel temperatures, sag, expansion, fire duration) and states they do not support the published collapse sequences; he notes NIST did not release its global models for independent runs.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Ryan treats explosives as the alternative NIST refused to test.
Sources that contradict this
72024 reporting: Bayoumi misstated the timing of the Los Angeles trip
ProPublica / New York Times reporting on declassified FBI files (2023–2024) · 2024-08-09
Investigative journalists, citing civil-case evidence, report that Bayoumi's trip timing was false and the meeting appears planned.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-002.
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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): PM rejects additional energetics for the towers.
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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): NIST: no corroborating evidence of explosives/thermite.
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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Paint-primer reading of red/gray chips.
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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Eagar does not require planted explosives for the towers.
U.S. State Department, 28 August 2006: public-diplomacy page on 'top' 9/11 conspiracy theories
U.S. Department of State — The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories (28 August 2006) · 2006-08-28
On 28 August 2006 the U.S. State Department published an official webpage rejecting the main 9/11 conspiracy-theory claims then in circulation.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): State Department rejects demolition as a communications line, not a new test.
Bin Don vs Bayoumi on whether they visited King Fahd Mosque on 1 February
9/11 Commission Report · 2004-07-22
Bayoumi and Bin Don gave inconsistent accounts of a mosque visit on the day of the restaurant meeting.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-002.
Sources with no stance yet
30Wikipedia 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.
hypothesis link · zeros: contemporaneity · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Sub-articles index Jones/Gage/Harrit already stored; no new primary.
Quality zeros remain visible: contemporaneity.
Columbia 9/11 Oral History Project — holdings statement
Columbia Center for Oral History Research — September 11 Oral History Project · 2026-09-03
Columbia's 9/11 oral-history project reports five programmes, over 900 hours with over 600 people, 351 of them open, plus a 2011 book. Transcripts were not ingested.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Columbia oral-history catalogue. Explosion-language not retrieved. Zero new weight on energetics.
Journal of 9/11 Studies — full article catalog (2006–2025)
Journal of 9/11 Studies · 2026-09-02
IC911 hosts a journal catalog of 70+ items. Several flight papers (Wyndham 2011, Legge & Stutt 2011, Salter 2006) argue against no-plane / no-Boeing theories.
hypothesis link · zeros: contemporaneity · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Journal catalog is mixed: demolition papers and anti-no-plane papers.
Quality zeros remain visible: contemporaneity.
David Chandler — Descent and tilting of the North Tower antenna (Mar 2025)
Journal of 9/11 Studies · 2025-03-01
Chandler published a March 2025 video-measurement paper on North Tower antenna descent and tilt.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Same.
Rapid recycling of WTC steel before a full forensic metallurgical programme
FEMA 403 — World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002) · 2002-05-01
Most WTC structural steel was recycled before a full federal engineering investigation existed.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Steel recycling destroyed the best physical evidence either way.
911DA email: 6 blocks from Ground Zero, second-plane sound
September 11 Digital Archive (RRCHNM / ASHP) · 2001-09-12
A public-archive email describes street-level ash, paper, a 08:53 Wall Street exit, and the sound of a second aircraft hitting the South Tower from 5–6 blocks away, plus a Pentagon-evacuation report from Washington.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Street 'explosions' during the event are rumblings/impacts as heard from Wall Street, not charge ID.
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.
hypothesis link · zeros: contemporaneity · human_seed link to H004 (seeded): Catalogues demolition claims; does not itself detect energetics.
Quality zeros remain visible: contemporaneity.
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.
Topics
Day-of events, engineering questions, process failures, and foreknowledge leads.