The explosion-like sounds reported around WTC 7 were produced by demolition charges.

A published, falsifiable acoustic prediction — 130 to 140 decibels at half a mile (SEP-E012) — that no recording or witness account meets.

The investigating agency calculated that a column-severing blast would register 130-140 decibels at a half-mile, equivalent to a jet engine. No acoustic record or witness testimony captures a sound matching this specific, falsifiable threshold.

The official investigation calculated that a blast capable of severing critical Column 79 would have produced sound levels of 130 to 140 decibels at half a mile, similar to a jet engine. No such blast signature is present on any audio or video recordings, nor described in witness accounts. The strongest opposing consideration is that this acoustic threshold relies on the agency's own unobstructed-path modeling, which may overestimate sound propagation in a dense urban environment full of obstructions.

NIST calculates that the smallest charge capable of severing Column 79 would produce 130–140 dB at half a mile and reports that no such sound appears on any audio track or in any witness account, a falsifiable prediction that agrees with the rich video/audio record. While the acoustic modeling assumes some unobstructed paths and is self‑authored by NIST, proponents have not produced any calibrated recording with a blast signature at or near the predicted level, so attributing the reported booms to demolition charges is strongly at odds with the available evidence.

NIST’s acoustic analysis estimates that even the smallest charge capable of severing Column 79 would yield 130–140 dB at half a mile along unobstructed paths, and it found no such blast signature on any audio track or in any witness description; no contrary acoustic analysis or recording is offered in the file. The strongest opposing consideration is that the sound‑propagation modeling is itself a NIST calculation with idealized assumptions about obstructions, but absent any positive blast evidence, the claim that demolition charges produced the reported booms is not supported.

NCSTAR 1A calculates that the smallest charge capable of failing Column 79 would register 130 to 140 dB at half a mile if unobstructed — comparable to standing next to a jet engine — and reports that no such sound appears on any audio track or in any witness account of that level. That is a falsifiable published prediction the recorded evidence does not meet; NIST denies blast-level noise, not the existence of booms. The strongest opposing consideration is that the threshold is the investigation's own modeling rather than an independent measurement, and it assumes an unobstructed path in a dense urban environment full of obstructions.

NIST calculated that the smallest charge capable of failing Column 79 would register 130 to 140 decibels at half a mile if unobstructed, and reported that no such sound appears on any audio track or in any witness account of that level. That is a falsifiable published prediction the recorded evidence does not meet; reported booms are not blast-level noise. The strongest opposing consideration is that the threshold is the investigation's own modeling, not an independent measurement, and it assumes an unobstructed path in a dense urban setting full of obstructions.

The investigation calculated that the smallest column-severing charge would register 130–140 dB at half a mile if unobstructed, and reported no such sound on any recording or in any witness account. That is a falsifiable published prediction the recorded evidence does not meet. The strongest opposing consideration is that the acoustic threshold is the investigation's own modeling, not an independent measurement, and assumes an unobstructed path in a dense urban environment.

The investigation published a falsifiable prediction — the smallest charge capable of severing Column 79 would register 130–140 dB at half a mile if unobstructed — and reported no such sound on any recording or in any witness account; that prediction remains unmet. The strongest opposing consideration is real: the acoustic threshold is the agency's own modeling, assumes unobstructed paths in a heavily obstructed environment, and reported booms undeniably occurred. But the gap between reported booms and jet-engine-level blast is enormous, attenuation arguments strain at that margin, and the demolition family has produced no affirmative acoustic artifact in twenty-five years.

The investigation published a falsifiable prediction — 130 to 140 dB at half a mile from the smallest charge capable of failing Column 79 — and reported that no such sound appears on any audio track or in any witness account, and no party in this ledger has produced a recording meeting it. The claim also has no affirmative support of its own: no device, no residue on identified steel (none survives), no blast-wave description in any account. Confidence is moderate rather than high because the acoustic threshold is the investigation's own unreplicated modelling, and it assumes an unobstructed path in an environment full of obstructions — a limitation the report itself acknowledges by naming specific sightlines.

NIST published a falsifiable threshold — 130–140 dB at half a mile for the smallest charge capable of failing Column 79 — and reported that no such level appears on any audio track or in any witness account (SEP-E012). The reported booms are therefore not evidence of charges, and the prediction the demolition reading requires is unmet. The strongest opposing consideration is genuine: the threshold is the investigation's own modeling rather than an independent measurement, and it assumes an unobstructed path in an environment full of obstructions, so the calculation is exactly the kind of agency work product this case otherwise treats as unaudited. That caps confidence at moderate.

A published, falsifiable acoustic prediction — 130 to 140 decibels at half a mile — that no recording or account meets.