Sound Evidence for Explosions....

[OnTheOtherHand]

2. within the first 25 seconds, Chandler is making shit up

Their sole rationale for not investigating explosive use was the supposed lack of sufficiently loud sounds.

Actually, the report explains: "Six combinations of explosive location and column/truss sections and two implementation scenarios were considered." It argues that preparations for any of these scenarios "would have been almost impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection," and explains why. It describes simulations of window breakage patterns, and notes that no such patterns were observed. It then describes its simulations of how the sound would propagate after the windows broke.

In addition, as NIST notes in Chapter 4, it "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Fair-minded people might regard that as a pretty fair rationale for not investigating it. Nevertheless, NIST did investigate it.

Later, Chandler says, "NIST was lying about no testimony of explosions." The word "testimony" doesn't even appear in NCSTAR 1A. Actually, as Chandler knows, what NIST says -- and discusses further in NCSTAR 1-9 -- is that soundtracks recorded at the time don't contain any sounds as intense as would accompany a blast.

I suppose Chandler honestly believes that he has marshaled evidence that points to a blast event. If any thousand observers, selected at random, listened to the Ashleigh Banfield clip, I wonder how many would conclude that they had heard evidence of blasts?