Creative Speculation

... that produces the kind of fuzzy thinking and shoddy "evidence" typical of conspiracists who search only for validation of a predetermined conclusion. I just told you in very simple terms how we can be quite sure that his "squibs" are pneumatic rather than explosive, and as usual you completely ignored it -- as if ignoring the argument will make it disappear in a puff of smoke. Sorry, but no, the "squibs" can't be explained by explosives whether or not you understand why, and you're inability to understand how they could be explained by air being pushed out of the building at the weakest points is equally irrelevant. There is no "gas law" violated if the compressed air simply escaped first through already-broken windows or vents below the collapse front.

> Your challenge to achieve the pulverization of the concrete by explosives is a red herring.

Bullshit; you are the one who attempted to use that as an indicator of a controlled demolition rather than a gravity-driven collapse, so pointing out that the alleged perps would have needed to plant massive amounts of magical silent explosives all over occupied office floors is quite relevant to explaining why that's a perfectly idiotic theory.

> The mystery is that the energy requirement for the pulverization does not appreciably slow down the collapses,

Bullshit; we've been around that barn a dozen times. It's not at all a mystery to those who have accurately analyzed how much energy was available and how much the structure could absorb. It's only a mystery to fantasists who base their agenda-driven arguments on imaginary physics.

> nor has that energy requirement been quantified.

Bullshit; yes, it has, many times. I've mentioned to you a couple of times that the major flaw in "truther" Gordon Ross' infamous "momentum transfer" analysis was double-counting that energy. Frank Greening did a much more accurate quantification and showed how it can easily be explained by the amount of energy unleashed, and also made several salient observations about how implausible it is that explosives are the reason. You need to read that paper.

> Some of us prefer to eschew sophomoric solipsism and demand thorough, honest, and complete official investigations. Democracy permits no less a standard.

Bullshit; you just attempted to dismiss sound reasoning by completely ignoring it and offering "sophomoric solipsism" instead of cogent rebuttal, and this was certainly not the first time you've employed that tactic. You insult the intelligence of the entire board with your hypocrisy.