Would you not agree that a few breaking windows would be enough for the air to 'escape' unhindered and that therefore air cannot be an explanation for this spraying around of pulverized concrete.
I'm going to focus on this sentence because it exemplifies every drawback to your approach to investigation.
First of all, it highlights your laziness. You haven't made any attempt to work out how much air is required to escape from the building, or how much area was available for it to escape through. It's not even a particularly difficult calculation to do. Both towers were 208 feet square, and WTC1 was 1,368 feet high; this is easy to find on Wikipedia. Average storey height was therefore just over 12 feet; let's call it 12 exactly to allow for the solid parts of the structure. That means that every storey contained half a million cubic feet of air, all of which had to escape as that storey was crushed. If we assume that every window on the floor, and every perimeter column, was removed, then the area available for the air to move through was 2500 square feet. By the time the collapse had got going, each floor was collapsing in about a tenth of a second. For half a million cubic feet of air to pass through an area of 2500 square feet in a tenth of a second, it must be moving at 2000 feet per second, or about 1360 miles per hour. What this tells us is that much more area than this must have been required for the air to escape, because this speed of ejection would cause widespread destruction of the walls and windows on its own. "A few breaking windows" won't do; if every window on an entire level was broken, then the air would still be forced out at the sort of speed that gas expands in an explosion. It's a simple calculation, but you just couldn't be bothered to do it. Why not?
This brings us on to your second failing: selection bias. Like any other conspiracy theorist, you're determined to apply an insanely high burden of proof to anything that supports what you like to think of as "the official story", which is actually the real events that happened; if any small aspect of the sequence of events can be misinterpreted in a way that makes it appear that there is some trifling inconsistency, then you claim that the entire series of events must be rejected. And yet, when it comes to the supposed evidence that supports your conspiracy theory, you're happy to make extraordinary leaps of faith, in which you assume that the results of the most simplistic and superficial analysis are rigorous and unarguable, and where you place greater faith in your own uninformed and unthinking guesses than in detailed analysis. Here's a case in point: you want the escape of air to be insignificant, so instead of working out whether it's significant, you start from the assumption that it must be insignificant. Typical conspiracy theorist circular reasoning.
And the beginning of the sentence, "Would you not agree that...", highlights the third drawback to your approach: arrogance. You've come into this forum, it seems, with the belief that the regulars here have never questioned a word of the story fed to them by the government, simply ridiculing anyone who shows dissent, and the expectation that once you show us all the things we've always chosen never to see then we will all drop down on our knees and acknowledge your superior judgement and intelligence. What you fail to understand is that the regulars here have in fact studied both sides of the debate (in so far as there is a coherent conspiracist side to it) with the same level of skepticism, and determined that, although some aspects of the US Government's statements or of official bodies' analysis may fall short of perfection, overall the case for 9/11 having been an al-Qaeda attack is proven far beyond a reasonable burden of proof, that the claims of the conspiracists are self-contradictory and usually rooted in deliberate dishonesty, and that
the specific claims you are making - because we have, of course, seen everything you claim many times before - are utterly without merit or foundation. And yet, you seem to think that you can make a wild guess about a critical point of evidence, and that everybody will agree with you. Not here. You're not only wrong, but spectacularly wrong, with your estimate that "a few breaking windows" would easily allow all the air to escape, and round here you will be called out on your spectacularly inaccurate guesswork.
You've claimed that you're limited in your investigations because all you have is a computer with an Internet connection. That's not your hindrance; everything you've claimed can be trivially refuted with no more than that, plus the ability to think logically and to re-examine your own conclusions self-critically. Those last two areas are where your problem lies.
Dave
