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
Hulsey, Quan, Xiao — University of Alaska Fairbanks WTC 7 study (2019–2020)
56%
More than 50% — weakly supported by the sources
The score is 56% — more than 50%. Supporting sources currently outweigh contradicting sources after quality and confidence are applied.
How 56% was calculated
Start at 50%. Move by half of the net source score after uncertainty. Net source score is 0.44 (from −1 contradict to +1 support). Uncertainty is 75%. So 50% + 50% × 0.44 × 25% remaining certainty = 56%.
Supporting sources
13
Weighted strength 2.12
Contradicting sources
3
Weighted strength 0.81
No stance yet
29
Pulls the score toward 50% · 8.84
Uncertainty
75%
Share of the file that is unlabelled or missing
Working
start at 50% + half of (net source score × remaining certainty)
0.5 + 0.5 × 0.44 × (1 − 0.75) = 0.555
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: H006 — Explosives contributed to WTC7 failure. Yes/no labels are taken from sources already linked to that question. Also close: H005, H003, H004.
Step 2 · Find matching sources
40 source(s) matched the wording. 17 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
17 labelled from stored question links, 2 from claims, 0 labelled automatically (capped, marked, not saved as human review), 26 left with no stance.
Step 4 · Weight each source
Each source contributes strength = (quality / 5) × confidence × how strongly it agrees or disagrees. Support strength 2.12, contradict strength 0.81, no-stance strength 8.84. 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 × 0.44 × (1 − 0.75) = 0.555.
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.
- 7 source(s) are unverified, inactive, or recorded as not retrieved. A missing file is a gap, not a finding against the question.
- 29 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 (H005) also matches this wording. The percentage below is for H006 only — open the other question to compare. Do not average the two numbers.
Closest stored question
H006 · Explosives contributed to WTC7 failureengineering · match 7.1
Related questions
Same wording can map to more than one stored question. Each has its own percentage — do not average them.
Matching claims
- disputedCLM-030
WTC 7's entire measurable north and west rooflines instantaneously transitioned to free fall, a behaviour NIST's Stage 1 description conceals.
- disputedCLM-013
Aircraft impact and the ensuing fires initiated the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 without additional energetic devices.
- disputedCLM-015
WTC 7 collapsed from ordinary office fires following debris impact, without explosives.
Sources that support this
13Hulsey 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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H006 (seeded): UAF model: only near-simultaneous column failure matches observation.
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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H006 (seeded): Robinson 2024 survey treats demolition of 1/2/7 as most likely. Secondary.
NIST 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.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-013.
David Chandler — WTC 7: A refutation of NIST's analysis (Toronto Report ch.9)
The 9/11 Toronto Report (2012), International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001 · 2012-09-11
Chandler's 2012 hearing paper treats NIST's own Stage 2 free-fall interval as established and argues the 5.4 s overall figure is an artefact of start-time choice.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H006 (seeded): 2012 Chandler free-fall argument, precursor to 2023.
FEMA 2002: WTC 7 fire-induced progressive collapse; further study needed
FEMA 403 — World Trade Center Building Performance Study (2002) · 2002-05-01
An early official engineering team attributed WTC 7 to fire while flagging that the mechanism was not fully understood.
claim stance · Inherited from matching claim CLM-015.
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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H006 (seeded): 2.25 s free fall with 'negligible support from the structure below.'
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 H006 (seeded): Multi-point free-fall onset is the authors' kinematic support for simultaneous support removal.
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.
hypothesis link · human_seed link to H006 (seeded): Thermitic chips, if correctly identified, are a candidate energetic.
Sources that contradict this
3NIST 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 H006 (seeded): NIST fire-only probable sequence.
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 H006 (seeded): NIST no-explosives finding.
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 H006 (seeded): Paint rebuttal of the chips.
Sources with no stance yet
29Larry 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 H006 (seeded): 'Pull it' is about an order, not a chemical identification.
IC911 Data Archive — links inactive at ingest
International Center for 9/11 Justice · 2026-09-02
As of 2 September 2026 the IC911 data-archive page states that archive links are inactive and that a large archive of videos, photographs, and documents is being built.
hypothesis link · zeros: contemporaneity, corroboration, chain_of_custody · human_seed link to H006 (seeded): Inactive archive. Zero weight.
Quality zeros remain visible: contemporaneity, corroboration, chain_of_custody.
IC911 presentations catalogue (2023–2026)
International Center for 9/11 Justice · 2026-09-02
IC911 lists seven presentations 2023–2026 on flight simulation, seismic claims, hijacking, air defence, the North Tower spire, and WTC 7 free fall.
hypothesis link · zeros: contemporaneity · human_seed link to H006 (seeded): Presentations catalogue. Weight lives in the cited papers, not the slide list.
Quality zeros remain visible: contemporaneity.
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.
NIST: tower collapse times ~11 s (WTC1) and ~9 s (WTC2); minimal resistance below
NIST WTC investigation FAQs (towers and WTC 7) · 2011-09-14
NIST published collapse elapsed times near free-fall order and described minimal resistance below the initiation zone.
unclassified · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
Bažant pancake model vs NIST initiation sequence
Bažant et al. — pancake / progressive-collapse papers on the WTC towers · 2002-01-01
Published official-adjacent models disagree on pancake vs bowing-column initiation of the tower collapses.
unclassified · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
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.
unclassified · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
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.
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.