I didn't say it all landed clean into its own footprint.

Uh yes you did...
...it's supporting structure needed to be pulled ahead of the main block for the building to finally fall cleanly and symmetrically (which it did) -
here.
"fell straight down into its own footprint;" -
here
So you think it fell cleanly and symmetrically straight down into its own footprint. I love it when truthers start denying things they've said.
No, only when you're misrepresenting what NIST says.
This was a 47 storey building - very tall even in the US. The start of global collapse was straight down into its own footprint since it didn't topple faster than it fell, in fact it hardly toppled at all.
You claim at the start it should have fallen over and several times since. I made this point
a few pages back:
If you weaken and destroy a few or 1 critical connections holding up a floor above, but not every single column, the lower floor might now not have enough load bearing strength to hold up that top floor. At that point its going to collapse, isn't it, but you claim that floor wont just fall down onto the floor below but is going to fall off to the side despite zero lateral energy available to do that.
Please feel free to embarrass me with how sound works. I look forward to it.
My pleasure.
You claim you can't hear any explosion sounds. I'm not sure what video you think you are watching but I can hear explosion sounds and they distort the microphone. The mic on the camera is so bad that all sounds seem to distort it including the heavy wind at the start. Then when the demolition starts, which is clearly audible, its so loud that its harder to make out
individual detonations as much as other videos.
EDIT: And it turns out there were plenty of cameras taping that demolition that show how loud it was.
See my post here.
But we dont just have one crappy video taping the collapses we have numerous professional cameras and microphones from various angles and distances. None pick up a hint of any explosive detonations, there's not even a recording as poor as the one you gave.
Here's some collapse videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFSF2VyaoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00SDW4sOpI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA
I tried to quickly find the one with the reporter interviewing a women with WTC7 behind her as it collapses when she says "be carefull of your baby!" but I couldn't, but there's no detonations there either.
Any of these could have picked up the explosions.
And what about WTC1 and 2? We have numerous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBOd1XB943o
Its got silly music on it and the guy who put this together cut away but keep the audio going, but Im sure you remember this clip.
Here's another:
http://youtu.be/smreRx51cus
What do you hear? I hear a steady rising progressive rumble turn into a roar. This is not what any explosive demolition sounds like. The microphone also eventually distorts, however only right near the end of the clip. Richard Gage will claim that massively intense explosives in the core were set off that were so powerful they flung heavy steel outwards over 600 feet. No demolition anywhere is trying to be at all that powerful and note how loud they are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZBXuyIE28
If what Gage claims happened what would you hear on 911? Just how ridiculously loud it would be I do not know, but what we do know is that if they happened where Gage claims we would hear massive explosions and they would be far enough away that the mic would not distort and would have time to pick it up, or, they would be so powerful it would distort
immediately. What we hear however is nothing like that, its a slow progressive rumble turning into a roar as it gets closer and the energy increases. This clearly shows its the sound of the collapse not of any explosives detonating, since we expect a collapsing building to get louder in this way, sounds of explosions would sound totally different.