Ketcham's point was NIST ignored evidence. NIST did not ignore evidence, as shown. 9/11 truth is trying to use Simile, sounded like an explosion, which is not evidence for explosives.[off topic commentary removed, wrong thread]
NIST sets an arbitrary threshold for the amplitude of an explosion. They have no way to calibrate eye witness testimony against this threshold. It appears to be a contrived argument to rule out explosives. That is the point Ketchum and others are making.
I did not find Ketcham saying NIST made up stuff to rule out explosives, he said they ignored evidence which has not been proved.
NIST using science and engineering, becomes contrived, and arbitrary. Why would 19 terrorists plant explosives in the WTC complex and risk exposing their end-run once in the life time trick of using USA hijacking customs (like paying DB Cooper, or negotiation) to take four planes and crash them? 19 terrorist are responsible for all the damage and murder on 9/11, why would they plant explosives? That failed the first time in 93.
I think anyone can be an authority on issues if they present evidence to support their argument, and prove their point. Ketcham has nothing to support NIST ignored evidence.
WTC 7 reports discuss possible blast events, NIST NCSTAR 1-9 - Vols. 1 & 2 (Final, Nov. 2008), "8.9.2 Hypothetical Blast Events". NIST did not find evidence to support the speculation it was CD. They used science, not speculation.
WTC 7 final report discusses possible blast events... NIST did not ignore evidence, they could not find evidence, an simile is not evidence; sounded like an explosion is not proof of explosives.
Is this evidence Ketcham did not read NIST, thousands and thousands of pages. No.