Are You Intellectually Retarded If You Believe The Bush Administration's Version Of The 9/11 Attacks

http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...******************************Important Part!!*****************All I have to do to win is show 1 person that is not mentally retarded and believes in the Bush version of the 9/11 attacks. I can completely refute my opponent's argument in two different ways without having to go in depth at all. After this I will go more into detail, but it's more for the use of my opponent than anyone else.1. I am not mentally retarded, and I believe in the Bush version of the 9/11 attacks. My IQ is 139, mental retardation is defined as below 79 [1]. I also regularly get straight A's and B's, and perhaps most telling of all, I am capable of debating you right now. This alone completely defeats the resolution.2. It is completely impossible. The 2010 US census reports that about 18.7 percent of the US population had a disability [2] (that includes all physical and mental disabilities including deafness, blindness, alzheimer's, dimensia, etc. Also includes severe and nonsevere disabilities. This means that 19% is waaaayyy above the actual number of mentally disabled people, but even going with this number I still have a clear victory.) A variety of polls have assessed public opinion on 9/11. All of them have shown that at least 30% of the US population believe the Bush Administration's version of events [3]. So to summarize, about 18% of the population is disabled, at least 30% believe in the Bush interpretation events. This means it is literally impossible for everybody who believes in the Bush administration's version of events to be mentally retarded. The resolution is defeated.*********************************That's All Folks!!************************The rest is for my opponent, who will hopefully be enlightened. Feel free to read if anyone else is interested. The events of 9/11 have been thoroughly investigated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the technology magazine Popular Mechanics, and the 9/11 commision consisting of 5 democrats and 5 republicans. [4][7] "The commission interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some closely guarded Classified National Security Documents. The commission also relied heavily on the FBI's PENTTBOM investigation. Before it was released by the commission, the final public report was screened for any potentially classified information and edited as necessary. After releasing the report, commission chair Thomas Kean declared that both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were "not well served" the FBI and CIA." In addition to identifying intelligence failures occurring before the attacks, the report provided evidence of the following: Airport security footage of the hijackers as they passed through airport security Excerpts from the United Airlines Flight 93 cockpit voice recording, which recorded the sounds of the hijackers in the cockpit and the passengers' attempts to regain control Eyewitness testimony of passengers as they described their own final moments to family members and authorities on airphones and cellphones from the cabins of doomed airliners" [4] Independent mechanics and engineers have reached a general consensus on 9/11- "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives, the failure scenario was as follows: [continues with a four part scenario of progressive structural failure]" [5]"Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the commu- nities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition. The objective of this paper, based on the report by BaG1;zant et al. (2007), is to ex- amine whether those allegations might be scientifically justifiable, and to show that the concept of gravity-driven collapse does not conflict with any observations." [6] The claim about achieving a symmetrical collapse only by striking an object below it's center of gravity is actually false. I will refer you to the collapse of the Ronan Point Apartments in the UK in 1968 resulting from a kitchen gas explosion on the 18th floor. The building was 25 stories. The Progressive Collapse"Although the structural damage inflicted by aircraft was severe, it was only local. Without stripping of a significant portion of the steel insulation during impact, the subsequent fire would likely not have led to overall collapse. As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives, the failure scenario was as follows: 1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed tube and about 13% of the total of 287 columns were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, attaining or nearing the load capacity for some of them. 2. Because a significant amount of steel insulation was stripped, many structural steel members heated up to 600"C, as con- firmed by annealing studies of steel debris the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300"C, and about 85% at 600"C; and exhibits significant viscoplasticity, or creep, above 450"C, especially in the columns overstressed due to load redistribution; the press reports right after September 11, 2001 indicating temperature in excess of 800"C, turned out to be groundless, but Ba"ant and Zhou"s analysis did not depend on that. 3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The catenary action of the sagging trusses pulled many perimeter columns inward by about 1 m,. The bowing of these columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multistory out-of-plane buckling of framed tube wall. The lateral deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact, the differential thermal expansion, and overstress due to load redis- tribution also diminished buckling strength.4. The combination of seven effects" 1 Overstress of some columns due to initial load redistribution; 2 overheating due to loss of steel insulation; 3 drastic lowering of yield limit and creep threshold by heat; 4 lateral deflections of many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor trusses; 5 weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffness of sagging floors; 6 multistory bowing of some columns for which the critical load is an order of magnitude" [5] Link [6] explains most of the science behind the collapse of the WTC's but I will only provide a summary since I am short on characters."Although NIST did not analyze the overall process of dynamic progressive collapse below the fire zone, it verified a sequence of effects that triggered the collapse: (1) scraping of much of steel insulation by flying objects during aircraft impact (without which the towers would not have collapsed, as concluded by NIST); (2) cutting of many columns, and damage with large deflections of others during aircraft impact; (3) subsequent load redistributions among columns; (4) sagging of heated floor trusses and their catenary action, evidenced by multistory inward bowing of perimeter columns; and (5) viscoplastic buckling of heated, damaged and overloaded columns." [6]A team at Purdue University was able to actually create a computer simulation of how events took place, demonstrating sufficient knowledge about the science behind the collapse. It is the third video.http://www.youtube.com... To conclude, it does not require mental retardation to believe the Bush Administration's version of events. The vast majority of mechanics and structural engineers believe it and they are far more intelligent than you or I.[1] http://www.123test.com...[2] http://www.census.gov...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://web.archive.org...[6] http://www.civil.northwestern.edu...[7] http://www.popularmechanics.com...