Insensitive to shock doesn’t equate to impervious to intense heat and gross physical trauma. To survive the kind of conditions found in the WTC buildings under consideration the “explosives” would have to be functionally inert.
I don’t think you understand what the term “insensitive” means in this context.
Insensitive munitions are munitions that are chemically stable enough to withstand mechanical shocks, fire, and impact by shrapnel, but that can still explode as intended
We have the visual evidence from the collapse itself, which shows a far more prolonged and complex failure of the WTC 7 building that the snap-shot 2.5 second “freefall” that is taken out of context
There is no sole focus on the period of freefall acceleration and the fact that the penthouse fell first is not ignored. Neither of those facts actually support the fire hypothesis.
The visual evidence in fact confirms rapid onset and simultaneous failure of columns on opposite sides of the structure, and the fire hypothesis does not explain this at all.
along with the audio record that doesn’t capture the detonation of the munitions required to create the effect being claimed.
Even if this was true, what kind of argument are you attempting to advance here? That it’s acceptable to rule out examining physical evidence a priori because some video footage didn’t happen to record audio?