Metabunk

Clearly if explosives were used, they must be some kind of silent explosives.

There were explosions reported throughout the day and in your own video it sounds as if there may have been a final explosion.  (Probably the magical column #79?)

But still, you've not pointed out a single thing that's inconsistent with collapse by fire.

You haven't pointed out anything that's inconsistent with a collapse by controlled demolition.  To borrow your logic:  "Show me something that could not possibly have been caused by a controlled demolition."

On a side note, people use unfalsifiable forms of logic when they already know that their hypothesis is weak, if not outright falsified by the evidence.  At least when you take this position of epistemic weakness it seems to indicate that there are cracks showing in your epistemic inertia... with the collapse of the Right and the Left in the brain and a new Center in politics soon to follow and so forth.  At least, that's the way I would imagine things.

Why is this? 

It's mainly because it would be like debating the imaginative stories of "chemtrail" people.  Sometimes people want to imagine stories that are bunk and that's, that. But for the entertainment value in it, I'll step into the hypothetical goo typical to "Show me that my scenario is not possible." types of claims.  For instance, here is a summary of a few problems with your imaginary scenarios that go against the overall pattern of evidence (Israelis busted with bombs, etc.):

    As we saw in the previous chapter, the idea that steel term) temperatures significantly above 300°C (570°F) could have been reached on Floors 11, 12, and 13 would be dubious, even if NIST's (unrealistic) fuel loading for those floors were true. As we also saw, NIST itself found only three columns in the Twin Towers that had reached temperatures above 250°C (482°F)."  Even NIST's claim that some steel beams in WTC 7 reached almost 400°C (750°F) is, therefore, probably an exaggeration.

And yet its theory requires beams to have reached much higher temperatures. NIST does seek to downplay this fact by portraying thermal expansion, which can occur before steel reaches 400°C, as more important than thermal weakening and sagging, which require much higher temperatures. "In the WTC 7 collapse," NIST says, "the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat." NIST's theory, nevertheless, does require that steel beams in some locations reached temperatures of 600°C (1,100°F), even 675°C (1,250°F). Such temperatures, according to NIST, were necessary for the beams to lose enough strength to result in floor failures, which play a central part in NIST's theory.

Accordingly, NIST's theory is shown to be unworthy of credence simply because it requires unrealistic steel temperatures. However, although no further evidence would be required to show NIST's theory of WTC 7's collapse to be unscientific and false, I will examine some additional problems to illustrate more fully just how unscientific and implausible it is. (The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7 by David Ray Griffin :212)