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
Wikipedia — 9/11 conspiracy theories (encyclopedia article)
50%
Equal to 50% — the sources do not tip either way
The score is 50%. Supporting and contradicting sources cancel, or there is not enough directional evidence to tip the number.
How 50% was calculated
Start at 50%. Move by half of the net source score after uncertainty. Net source score is 0.00 (from −1 contradict to +1 support). Uncertainty is 100%. So 50% + 50% × 0.00 × 0% remaining certainty = 50%.
Supporting sources
0
Weighted strength 0.00
Contradicting sources
0
Weighted strength 0.00
No stance yet
40
Pulls the score toward 50% · 11.44
Uncertainty
100%
Share of the file that is unlabelled or missing
Working
start at 50% + half of (net source score × remaining certainty)
0.5 + 0.5 × 0.00 × (1 − 1.00) = 0.500
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
No stored question matched closely enough. Search is by keywords in the records only. Unlabelled records are not given a fake yes or no.
Step 2 · Find matching sources
40 source(s) matched the wording. 0 further source(s) already linked to the stored question were included even if they did not contain the search words. 0 matching claim(s) contributed inherited stances.
Step 3 · Assign support or contradiction without inventing
0 labelled from stored question links, 0 from claims, 0 labelled automatically (capped, marked, not saved as human review), 40 left with no stance.
Step 4 · Weight each source
Each source contributes strength = (quality / 5) × confidence × how strongly it agrees or disagrees. Support strength 0, contradict strength 0, no-stance strength 11.44. 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 × 0.00 × (1 − 1.00) = 0.500.
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
- This question does not match a stored key question closely enough to inherit yes/no labels. Matching records stay unlabelled so the score does not invent a stance.
- 13 source(s) score zero on at least one quality check (shown on each card). Those zeros are kept visible and are not averaged away.
- 3 source(s) are unverified, inactive, or recorded as not retrieved. A missing file is a gap, not a finding against the question.
- 40 relevant source(s) have no stance yet. They increase uncertainty and pull the percentage toward 50%; they are not counted as support or contradiction.
Sources that support this
0None in this calculation.
Sources that contradict this
0None in this calculation.
Sources with no stance yet
40Wikipedia, 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.
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.
unclassified · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
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.
unclassified · zeros: contemporaneity · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
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.
unclassified · Retrieved as relevant; no inherited polarity. Unclassified mass raises uncertainty rather than inventing support or contradiction.
Eric Salter — Critical review of WTC 'no plane' theories (Sep 2006)
Journal of 9/11 Studies · 2006-09-01
The journal published a 2006 critical review of no-plane theories for the WTC.
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.
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.
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.