During an investigation, many things must be considered. Aside from the physical evidence, and witness testimony, suspect criminal history also must be analyzed. The investigation must include past history and the Modus Operandi, “M.O.” for short.
N.F.P.A. 921 (2001 Edition) 184.108.40.206.6 – Extremism” addresses terrorism specifically. It reads: Extremism-motivated firesetting is committed to further a social, political, or religious cause. Fires have been used as a weapon of social protest since revolutions first began. Extremist firesetters may work in groups or as individuals. Also, due to planning aspects and the selection of their targets, extremist firesetters generally have a great degree of organization, as reflected in their use of more elaborate ignition or incendiary devices. Subcategories of extremist firesetting are identified as follows.
(a) Terrorism. The targets set by terrorists may appear to be at random; however, target locations are generally selected with some degree of political or economic significance. Political targets generally include government offices, newspapers, universities, political party headquarters, and military or law enforcement installations. Political terrorists may also target diverse properties such as animal research facilities or abortion clinics. Economic targets may include business offices, distribution facilities of utility providers, banks, or companies thought to have an adverse impact on the environments. Fires or explosions become a means of creation confusion fear, or anarchy. THE TERRORIST MAY INCLUDE FIRE AS BUT ONE OF A VARITETY OF WEAPONS, ALONG WITH EXPLOSIVES, USED IN FURTHERING HIS OR HER GOAL…
It very clearly states the Terrorist may use explosives along with fire to further their goal.
WHY DOES NIST REFUSE TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES?
To this day NIST refuses to test for the possibility of explosives. “Considering” is NOT testing. Private parties have tested, and found evidence of explosives.
So, how does NIST explain their refusal to test for explosives? Here it is:
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.”
NIST has made it very clear that two of the reasons they refuse to test for explosive residue are because 1) no blast sounds were heard, and 2) that they must be necessary for an explosion.
Ironically, the National Fire Protection Association’s guidebook disagrees with their logic on point 2. It is very clearly stated in Chapter 18 - Explosions, 18.1 - General: “…Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.”
And for their first statement that no blast sounds were recorded or heard by witnesses. We offer the following:
These are just a few of the over 100 witness accounts of explosions.
Now, let’s be clear. Explosion sounds can be explained away. But, only after a thorough investigation. When there is this much witness testimony, evidence, and explosive use by terrorists on this very same complex, there is no excuse for refusing to test for explosive residue.