Is the sole reason controlled demolition is dismissed is because there were 'no' explosions?
No david. There are dozens of big reasons why there was no CD - and hundreds at least if we include little reasons. Maybe a dozen or so truth movement claims in opposition.
If you want a "sole reason" it is because NO ONE has ever put forward an hypothesis in favour of CD that was persuasive.
The argument process used for these matters is often referred to as the "Scientific Method" - that is not pedantically correct - the challenge is in the field if engineering forensics and uses the relevant sub-set of features of the "Scientific Method"
The main one is that knowledge in these areas progresses by the development and improvement of "hypotheses". The process is never final - there is always options to improve by improving an existing hypothesis or offering a complete new one which is better than the existing.
So the situation with all the three WTC collapses is that there are hypotheses for each of them to explain the relevant collapse. None of them require CD and there was no evidence for CD which needed to be included.
If CD is to become accepted as part of the explanation, it needs a better hypothesis than the one that exists. Either by modifying the existing hypothesis OR by presenting a complete new hypothesis which persuasively overturns both the evidence and the reasoning for the accepted hypothesis.
No one has ever presented such an hypothesis. Not one from the truth movement in 12 years. So it is unlikely that one will appear BUT the engineering forensic subset of the principles of Scientific Method would accommodate such an hypothesis if it appears.
The most common defects with truther claims are:
A) They never present a complete explanation - the usual structure of a truther claim is:
1) "here is some anomaly I don't understand (insert one - thermXte, free fall, witness reports of banging noises";
2) I think (whichever you picked) is used in CD;
3) That proves there was CD;
4) You prove that there wasn't
Simply stated the errors are:
1) Personal incredulity is not reasoning;
2) False logic - "can be used" does not prove "was used";
3) Several missing steps of logic and unsupported conclusion;
4) "Reversed burden of proof" - it is the claimant's responsibility to prove the claim NOT "ours" to disprove PLUS there are logical problems with "prove a negative"
B) Even if they can establish the truth of the claim of the anomaly - there was thermXte, there were banging noises etc --
they still have to prove CD. Most truther claims based on a single anomalous factor IMPLY that if the factor is proved then all the rest needed to prove CD is proved. Nonsense.
And few truther claims even try to add in additional factors -- hence "No Truther has ever published a credible claim for CD"
It is understood that maybe there have been no CDs that actually fell at free fall, at least for the entire collapse. That does not mean it cannot be done. The goal in a CD is to demolish the structure, not generate free fall. I contend that if the goal was to have a structure fall at free fall speed, a good demolitionist could make it happen. I mean if a fire can make it happen, why not a demolitionist?
Maybe. you are confusing "free fall" of part of a building with free fall for the whole. The former expected. The latter very doubtful.
) 
