My first point is that you are so intent on disagreement that you fail to carefully consider what it is you are disagreeing with.
NONE of the 7WTC collapse videos showed the lower floors, where even the NIST agrees the main action occurred.
The collapse was initiated at the building core, and unlike all the loud well advertised building demolitions you like to tout, the implosion was triggered in a largely sealed, sound suppressing environment.
While I disagree with their conclusions, the NIST engineers accepted a hypothesis that supports the idea that only a single column had to be felled in order to initiate the implosive collapse which was observed.
Without actually testing to actually determine what sound levels could be generated from the core of a similar test enclosure, the NIST ran with the self-serving assumption that the generated levels would be comparable to run-of-the-mill demolitions.
While I know you mock this legitimate research, the finding of nano-thermite throughout the 9/11 WTC dust, provided evidence that structural steel was under attack by more than conventional demolition explosives.
The NIST never evaluated that peer-reviewed research, just as they chose to ignore eye-witness testimony regarding explosions when it contradicted their chosen hypothesis.
Strange that you would say that since the NIST hypothesis describes 7WTC effectively imploding as the result of cascading core column failures.
The difference is, to avoid the more logical, but highly controversial, explanation associated with an "engineered failure", the NIST opted for an "Emperor's New Clothes" argument.
In spite of the naked falsity of their hypothesis, the NIST claimed that simple roaming office cubicle fires lead to the failure of the those massive core columns and the high speed collapse of the 47-storey 7WTC.
And because those who could and should have disagreed, feared to effectively challenge the government and have their patriotism questioned, the NIST got away with it.
You probably have little idea about what is involved in sound recording.
Most major Hollywood action films rely on audio that was not part of the video you see.
Your "ignore a boom" is more correct than you realize.
Yes, in many of those building demolitions, you see and then hear the sharp cracks of mostly perimeter explosives.
High-pitched sounds reverberating from enclosures cleared of sound dampening furnishings, wall coverings, doors, curtains, and windows.
It is a different story when those explosions are engineered to be as muffled as possible and occurring largely out of view, and shielded by enclosures, a labyrinth of office cubicles, heavily sealed perimeter windows, and an outside cacophony of 9/11 street noise.
Those "ignore a boom" microphones failed to realistically record the proper intensity of what we know were the loud low-pitched sounds of "the planes impacting both the WTC Twin Towers, the subsequent fireball explosions, the falling debris, the collapses of the Twin Towers, and finally the collapse of 7WTC at 5:20 pm on 9/11".
The NIST's talk of how many decibels of sound should have been generated, does not equate to the sound levels that would be expected to be recorded.
As shown on 9/11, on more than one occasion, a reporter is seen to stop an interview, turn and react to the explosive sound of a collapsing World Trade Center Tower.
Yet, the microphone in their hand only heard the nearby voices.
I do not need to perform that work.
After working in broadcast TV for over 35 years, I am well aware of the characteristics and nature of sound.
For that reason, I would have expected the NIST to support their lame assertions by doing more than consulting in a table of sound generation levels.
