No, he isn't suggesting that at all. Some truthers are suggesting it, for example Richard Gage. Newton mere gives Femr2 the recommendation to run his boom-attenuation math for all common truther scenarios, as the aim is to prove once and for all that any truther delusion of explosives is false.
Good question ergo! Why indeed?
Here is the good (and easy) answer: Us fellow bee-dunkers agree and insist that there were no such loud "booms" when the towers fell. I here highlighted a phrase newton used in the post you quoted, which you ignored. As you probably read before, because I, Dave Rogers and other frequently pointed out in threads that you participated in, including (iirc) this current one: There were no booms consistent in timing, brisance and loudness with demolition charges.
To hammer this in:
There were plenty of booms while the towers were burning.
However, all of these booms were
- not loud enough
- not brisant enough (this property refers to the suddenness with which maximum amplitude is reached) or
- not heard at the required time, which is immediately before the visible onset of collapse
to be consistent with a high explosive cutter charge. This is proof that no explosion was a cutter charge.
Unreliable, as is every single witness who did or did not describe booms.
The seismic record may be unreliable, but is not worthless. It merely needs to be taken with care. If the seismic record was the only evidence we have, we might be undecided (but would lean towards no explosives), however it nicely corroborates all the other evidence we have: Video, phone calls, witness statements, and lack of cut and/or copper-lined structural steel that would be consistent with CD.
