It's fine if you enjoy the argument, and it's perfectly fine if you're not well familiar with other eras of pharaonic history, but it's not fine, then, to call yourself an Egyptologist. Nor is it acceptable to pass yourself off as an expert. You're not. Nor am I. Still, I and others can and have caught the errors in your theme.
I realize I might be coming across that way because I'm holding the flame to you and challenging your arguments, but I am not self-righteous. I do not think that I will change any fundamental understanding in Egyptology, nor do I have the temerity to suggest two centuries of concerted scholarship is wrong on so fundamental an issue while I alone am right. This certainly doesn't describe me--but based on this discussion to date, it certainly describes you.
I don't know how else it could be answered. The water would go into the enclosure. I've never denied the existence of torrential rains, because we know from monuments like the Tempest Stela that they occurred. Tombs packed with rain-washed debris also attest to it (e.g., Kent Weeks's work in KV5). But I am not suggesting such rain storms were common. They were not. They are not today. They were and are the exception to the rule. North Africa is not tropical, nor has it ever been in the course of human history.
I don't know how many gallons would accumulate, nor do I much concern myself with the math. Other posters who are better at math than I have already addressed that issue, so I leave it to them. I stick to my own strenghts: the archaeology of the sites and our knowledge of the culture which produced the monuments. This knowledge, achieved through many decades of hard work conducted by countless highly intelligent individuals, alone tells me your rain-catchment theme is incorrect. This is not a personal attack on you, Mr. Giles, but merely a critique of your overall theme. Nothing personal is implied here, but you must get used to people's reactions to your alternative scenario. As off-base and roundly disproved as cladking's ideas are, he deals well with our critiques and remains almost always level headed. Follow his example.
As to the second part of your comment, I don't think you read my post well enough. I wrote that based on your rain-catchment theme, "the water was sluiced through the mortuary temple and down the causeway, to collect in the valley temple--what you call the cistern." I acknowledged that I understand the basic principle of your theme. That doesn't mean I agree with it, however.
You've referred to me and others as arrogant and have used other pejorative, personal remarks. You have addressed Swede in boldly condescending terms, and I don't think you realize the professional experience in these matters that Swede brings to the table. Yes, you're defending your theme, which you absolutely should, but in many instances you also resort to personal attacks, be they subtle or not so subtle. I have seen very few personal attacks on you yourself: it's your rain-catchment theme we're attacking, which we have every right and obligation to do. You need to develop thick skin. Again, follow cladking's example. I don't agree with nearly anything cladking has proposed over the years, and I have debated him in meticulous detail through the years, but I've always appreciated the even keel he maintains in the face of heated scrutiny.
I don't recall where I said anything about the King's Chamber being inundated. I've seen that argument from many fringe posters, but I for one would flatly refute it--in every case.
As for the Bent Pyramid, Sneferu obviously didn't abandon it because it was finished. Do I think he ended up being buried in it? No, I don't. Almost no modern scholar does (with minor exceptions), and I agree with the majority issue on this. I favor the majority view that Sneferu was ultimately buried in the Red Pyramid, even if definitive evidence is lacking.