1) First, there were no sound of explosions immediately preceding the collapse of the building. Not before the penthouse collapsed into the WTC 7. Not preceding the collapse of the facade later. There's no such thing as explosives that make no sound when they detonate. This point made doubly true when you're claiming that these explosions were suffecient to bring down a skyscraper.
Imaginary 'silent explosives' are exactly the kind of needlessly complicated and laughably implausible holes in the truther narrative that render it an awful explanation in comparison to the official story.
2) Next, the floors you say the explosions occured were ON FIRE. And had been for quite a while. There's no system of explosives that handle being on fire. At best, explosives would have either detonated when the fire reached them or been reduced to bubbling pools of goo. Det cord would have gone up, any wires attached to the charges would have melted, any timers or receives would have been reduced to plastic slag.
Yet your explosives went off in a neat, precise sequence? Nope. Your story is not only implausible, its virtually impossible. Explosive demolition doesn't happen in a burning building because the fire would destroy any explosive apparatus.
3) Next, there were no beams cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. How then could explosive sequences brought the building down without cutting the girders? There should have been thousands and thousands of such cuts per your reasoning. Yet there were zero.
Another theory killing hole you simply can't explain. Another pointless, absurd layer of needless complexity that renders your theory a laughably implausible alternative to the official story of structural failure due to fire.
4) Next, the Port authority bomb squad had gone through the entire WTC plaza only the week before and found no bombs. That's bomb detection experts and their bomb sniffing dogs. Meaning that your bombs would have had to have been invisible to both experts looking explicitly for them......and undetectable by bomb sniffing dogs.
'Ridiculously unlikely' doesn't begin to cover it. And once again, another layer of needless elaboration and complication is added to an already absurdly poor conspiracy. And yet it still gets worse.
5) These buildings weren't museums. They were regularly inspected, occupied, cleaned and maintained. The odds that such a building wide, elaborate system of explosives would have been set within the building and nobody noticed is essentially zero. Especially considering that the Port Authority Bombsquad was *looking* for just such explosives.
Yet your theory requires this. And astonishingly, it still gets worse.
6) Detailed analysis of the dust samples at the WTC site show no residue of explosives. This in an analysis so precise that they were able to detect medication from the WTC pharmacy.....but not the thousands and thousand of explosives your theory relies upon?
Again, that's ridiculously implausible. Your theory is simply an awful, awful explanation.
7) And finally, you've still ignored the FDNY...who watched the building bulge, buckle and burn for hours before the collapse, and correctly predicted its collapse hours before it occured. And you ignore them for no particular reason. That's expert eye-witness testimony collected over hours from direct and unobstructed observation of WTC 7. And they cite massive fire and structural damage. Explicitly contradicting you. And you ignore them entirely.
8) And of course, you also ignore the NIST.....again for no particular reason. They cite reasons quite similar to the FDNY: the massive fires. So you have to expert sources with unequalled access to the scene both giving you a plausible, verifiable cause: massive fires.
And you ignore them both in favor of bombs which you can't establish even exist. And of course, are magically silent, invisible, apparently installed by ninja janitors, undetectable to bomb sniffing dogs, leave no trace behind, and are conveniently fire proof.
