The following arguments were made by Spidergoat in this post.

1. She argued that it would not be logical to prepare an extremely risky mission to secretly place explosives in addition to jets, since it was certainly possible that any preparations for explosives would be damaged by the crashes and later detected. My response is here.
2. She stated that "Explosives do not eliminate the evidence of their existence." My response to that is here.
3. She argued that WTC7 was not a prominent target and that there would therefore be no advantage to destroying it on purpose. The following link explains that some people would actually have been quite happy of its collapse: Who benefitted from the WTC 7 collapse?