Or really we should be calling them ostriches for burying their heads in the sand. Or maybe lemmings for following idiots off a cliff. It's fairly obvious demolitions were used. I'm no expert but I did take numerous high level structural engineering classes at the 2nd rated school in the country as part if my engineering curriculum and in my opinion only a layperson who has survival based conclusions before examining facts could think otherwise.

You don't need to "turn up the sound" on real CD videos, unless you want to hear the "low rumbling sound" of the buildings destroying themselves in the collapses that follow the loud explosions:

I have no idea what Chandler thinks a collapsing building should sound like if it's not a "low rumbling sound," but I do know what explosives used in real CDs sound like on videos. You do, too, but you're in denial.

Chandler sneers at Sunder's statement, "This size blast would have produced an incredibly loud sound that was not recorded on videos of the collapse, nor reported by witnesses." But Sunder is exactly right, and since magical silent explosives do not exist, there is no rational reason to think WTC7 was brought down by explosives. The only video Chandler can produce that sounds anything like a loud explosion is the one of the fireman on the phone, and that was shot around 10:30am, nearly 7 hours before WTC7 collapsed. Hard to say what that was -- Chandler's "logic" that all explosions are caused by explosives is on par with his other "scientific" arguments -- but it didn't bring down WTC7, unless it was a magical delayed-action explosive.

thermate isn't so loud now is it?

and remember William that the perps didn't want the demolition noise to be heard else it wouldn't appear to be caused just by the planes.

... you go and prove me wrong by finally accepting that there are no magical silent explosives? We can discuss thermite (again) if you wish, but I just want to make sure we don't need to go around this particular barn again: You now believe that the buildings were brought down by thermite, not magical silent explosives? Or are you just playing Gage's game of trying to have it both ways, switching claims when the evidence is against you?

there was thermate used along with some other explosive compounds. An investigation is needed to determine what was used with the thermate if that's even still possible by now which I doubt but you have no standing to deny it. Explosions were heard and molten steel was witnessed. We'll "go around this barn again" as many times as I say. As long as you are denying the obvious. Molten steel, witnesses to explosions, etc all support controlled demolition.

... it must have both? And since you can't find any credible evidence of either, nor can you really explain how this controlled demolition worked, that's why we need a new investigation?

Yup, that's classic Richard Gage, and it's one clue why only illogical and gullible people take him seriously.

We're not likely to make any progress revisiting the "all loud noises are explosions and all explosions are caused by explosives" fuzzy thinking, but tell me more about how "molten steel" is a standard feature of controlled demolitions.

I never said it was!
obviously this is beyond your understanding if you keep confusing things like it being a standard demolition. It was anything but standard but a demolition it was!

Since it resembled no controlled demolition before or since, then it must have been a controlled demolition?

no surprise there eh.
many news anchors disagree with you about what it looked like.

Was it silent explosives, delayed-action explosives, or instant-cutting thermite? It seems to me you're saying that since none of those things exist, maybe it was all three?