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

"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 believe I used the phrase "intellectually retarded" and you have rather bizarrely now changed that to the clinical definition of mentally disabled. Intellectual retardation is in fact the state of being in which one accepts an alternative interpretation of the laws of physics as can be demonstrated by empirical reality, and as is written in every major physics textbook since the early fifteenth century. "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 " IQ averages are constantly being reset as people get smarter, so posting yours means nothing given that in one thousand years we will all be considered retarded. In this particular situation, it is what you believe which makes you retarded, since it is obviously false, yet you believe it anyway. I said nothing about your retardation being genetic (clinical). It is indoctrinated into you through the abuse of ideology. " I also regularly get straight A's and B's" Lmao. You can't be serious now. Having a memory doesn't mean you aren't retarded and neither does saying the right things to the people who are indoctrinating you. "I am capable of debating you right now" Everybody is capable of expressing an opinion, but the world cares not for anybody's opinion. It is objective, and not subject to a political debate. You should take this on board and understand that it applies to the laws of physics. It is OK that you do not understand the laws of physics. What is not OK is that you believe that you do when you obviously do not. "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" You seem to be having trouble grasping this mate, so permit me to spell it out: YOU ARE USING A FALSE CLINICAL DEFINITION OF MENTAL RETARDATION, WHEREAS I CLEARLY USED THE TERM "INTELLECTUAL RETARD" FIGURATIVELY TO EXPRESS THE STUPIDITY IT TAKES TO BELIEVE SUCH NONSENSE. PLEASE LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIGURATIVE AND LITERAL SPEECH. "This means that 19% is waaaayyy above the actual number of mentally disabled people," No, it means you stumbled across the words "intellectually retarded" and changed them to "mentally disabled" to manufacture an obvious straw man. I define intellectual retardation as those with an intellectual disability which prevents them from separating emotional/religious/political ideology from the reality of the world we live in (i.e you). "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 9/11 Commission contradicts both itself and the verifiable 9/11 timeline in several important places. Most notably, the testimony of Norman Mineta incriminates Cheney directly by inferring he ordered fighter jets stand off flight 77. Offering the false rhetoric of a commission set up and overseen by the very administration under question is yet further proof of your mental retardation. You are doing a great job proving me correct, so I am eager that you continue. "The commission also relied heavily on the FBI's PENTTBOM investigation." Funny, because the FBI investigation concluded with the official statement: "We have not yet uncovered a single piece of paper "" either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere "" that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot.." I don't really need to point out the stupidity of relying on evidence from a commission set up by the perpetrators to exonerate the perpetrators. Again, your failure to acknowledge the obvious outcome of this is further evidence that you are intellectually bacward. Here is some pertinent information about the chairmen of that commission:- "What about the 9/11 Commission? Its report gave the impression that it was in possession of solid evidence of bin Laden"s guilt. But the Commission"s co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, undermined this impression in their follow-up book, which they subtitled: "The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission." From: http://www.globalresearch.ca... "In addition to identifying intelligence failures occurring before the attacks" These were not failures. They were deliberate. The National Review political magazine obtained 15 of the 19 alleged hijacker's VISA applications after 9/11 and discovered that all 15 should have been rejected by the US government. Ex-Pakistani foreign minister Nials Naik told the BBC he was informed by US officials in July 2001 that Afghanistan would be invaded by October that year (http://news.bbc.co.uk...). The evidence simply goes on and on and on, and mental cases like you just keep ignoring it and ignoring it. It is more important to you to win this argument than it is to confront the mountain of evidence that members of your own government orchestrated the murder of 3,000 people, and that in itself is just plain retarded. "Independent mechanics and engineers have reached a general consensus on 9/11" Yes, for the other side!! There are thousands of engineers that have signed the 9/11 petition who claim the only consensus is that the Bush admin lied. I am yet to see any evidence which disputes this from any other qualified engineers. There are also dozens of physicists who claim the official story is impossible, like Griscom, Jones and Chandler. In fact, on the A/E Truth website there's an article about how they called thirty different universities to find just one physicist willing to go on record and defend the official story against Profesor Griscom. They failed. Your links are hilarious by the way. This is from your own source:- "NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."" Except, hang on, the NIST FAQ says:- "NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse" So which is it? Were there pancakes or were there no pancakes? Lmao. Your own sources contradict themselves, but you wouldn't know that would you? Because you haven't even read or assessed their content. You've simply searched for something which will validate your insane beliefs, again proving that you are an intellectual retard who forges his opinions first, and then looks for the evidence to back them up afterwards. "1...2...3...4...5...6..., yada yada yada" This, again, is just retarded. It's an attempt to blind laymen with technical terminology in an effort to misdirect them away from the fact that what they are saying defies the most basic laws of physics. The north tower was 110 floors high and was impacted between floors 93 and 99. Heat from fire rises, so you can talk about "lateral deflections" and "sagging floors" all you like. What you can't do however, is explain why you think the top 17 floors of a 110 floor building crushed it to the ground from a resting position, because that requires ignoring the laws which govern the behaviour of opposing forces. It also requires ignoring the FEMA report which stipulated there was molten steel everywhere and that the core columns looked like "Swiss cheese". Anything you show from those official channels is stupid because their given job was NOT to investigate. They were commissioned to validate a pre-concocted story. When millions of people watch three buildings get blown up on live TV, and NIST do not even test for explosives residue then clearly that is not a investigation: it's a media tactic to fool stupid people like you.