Some Ps and Qs for Walter, Harry, and Daleko

[Deleted]

         Here's a logical proof for Walter, Harry, and Daleko about the 9/11 Pentagon videos.

         Pay attention this time, guys!!  You blew it the first time around.

         Feel free to dispute the veracity of the premises, but the logical deduction is beyond reproach.


I.   (P) If the released video had shown a 757, (Q) then the government would not have needed to alter (photo-shop) it.

If P, then Q.   P implies Q.

II.   BUT, (-Q) the government DID alter (photo-shop) the video-- as shown in a careful analysis.

Therefore, -Q implies -P.

Ergo, the released video did NOT show a 757.

[daleko]

Jul 19, 2017 13:28:40 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

         Here's a logical proof for Walter, Harry, and Daleko about the 9/11 Pentagon videos.

         Pay attention this time, guys!!  You blew it the first time around.

         Feel free to dispute the veracity of the premises, but the logical deduction is beyond reproach.


I.   (P) If the released video had shown a 757, (Q) then the government would not have needed to alter (photo-shop) it.

If P, then Q.   P implies Q.

II.   BUT, (-Q) the government DID alter (photo-shop) the video-- as shown in a careful analysis.

Therefore, -Q implies -P.

Ergo, the released video did NOT show a 757.

Stop, you're digging a hole to plant a tree, that you hope grows will obfuscate physical proof of what happened. We've all been down these Willie holes before. You dance and reach for any conclusion better than most but it doesn't change the fact that a Boeing 757 flew into the Pentagon. www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/ Best guess is over 500 people saw that plane at some point near the Pentagon in its flight to destruction. Including every country w spooks operating in the USA. The Pentagon is under 24/7 surveillance.

[Deleted]

Daleko,

      Frankly, you're too stupid to understand prepositional logic.

      To repeat.  If you want to dispute the premises, go for it.

      Otherwise, you've got nothing-- as usual.

[Walter]

Jul 19, 2017 22:32:10 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Daleko,

      Frankly, you're too stupid to understand propositional logic.

      To repeat.  If you want to dispute the premises, go for it.

      Otherwise, you've got nothing-- as usual.

If you insist on using that video, explain the narrator's claim of a "tail section".
Go.

[Deleted]

Jul 19, 2017 22:56:59 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 19, 2017 22:32:10 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Daleko,

      Frankly, you're too stupid to understand propositional logic.

      To repeat.  If you want to dispute the premises, go for it.

      Otherwise, you've got nothing-- as usual.

If you insist on using that video, explain the narrator's claim of a "tail section".
Go.

Walter,

  1)  Do cruise missiles and small planes have tails?

  2)  How high is  757, from the ground to top of the tail?

   3)  Could a 757 punch a small hole in the first floor of the Pentagon without the engines carving  a huge divot out of t he lawn?

    4) If light poles knocked the wings off of a 757 before it hit the Pentagon, where are the wings?

     5) If the alleged 757 was "vaporized" upon impact-- including a titanium engine-- how were they able to identify the remains of all the alleged passengers?

     6)  How did a lone Muslim passport survive the vaporization of the plane?

[Walter]

Jul 19, 2017 23:29:34 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 19, 2017 22:56:59 GMT -5 Walter said:

If you insist on using that video, explain the narrator's claim of a "tail section".
Go.

Walter,

  1)  Do cruise missiles and small planes have tails?

  2)  How high is  757, from the ground to top of the tail?

   3)  Could a 757 punch a small hole in the first floor of the Pentagon without the engines carving  a huge divot out of t he lawn?

    4) If light poles knocked the wings off of a 757 before it hit the Pentagon, where are the wings?

     5) If the alleged 757 was "vaporized" upon impact-- including a titanium engine-- how were they able to identify the remains of all the alleged passengers?

     6)  How did a lone Muslim passport survive the vaporization of the plane?

Is the narrator, and thus the video, wrong about a tail section?

[Deleted]

Jul 19, 2017 13:28:40 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

         Here's a logical proof for Walter, Harry, and Daleko about the 9/11 Pentagon videos.

         Pay attention this time, guys!!  You blew it the first time around.

         Feel free to dispute the veracity of the premises, but the logical deduction is beyond reproach.


I.   (P) If the released video had shown a 757, (Q) then the government would not have needed to alter (photo-shop) it.

If P, then Q.   P implies Q.

II.   BUT, (-Q) the government DID alter (photo-shop) the video-- as shown in a careful analysis.

Therefore, -Q implies -P.

Ergo, the released video did NOT show a 757.

Walter,

      Any comments about my logical proof that the plane was not a 757-- you know, the subject of this thread?

      (I already answered your deflective question about the small plane (or cruise missile) tail section seen on the film.)

[AlaCowboy]

Jul 20, 2017 8:27:23 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 19, 2017 23:29:34 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Walter,

  1)  Do cruise missiles and small planes have tails?

  2)  How high is  757, from the ground to top of the tail?

   3)  Could a 757 punch a small hole in the first floor of the Pentagon without the engines carving  a huge divot out of t he lawn?

    4) If light poles knocked the wings off of a 757 before it hit the Pentagon, where are the wings?

     5) If the alleged 757 was "vaporized" upon impact-- including a titanium engine-- how were they able to identify the remains of all the alleged passengers?

     6)  How did a lone Muslim passport survive the vaporization of the plane?

Is the narrator, and thus the video, wrong about a tail section?

Cruise missiles have fins, not tail sections like an airplane. And a cruise missile would not have penetrated three of the rings of the Pentagon offices before exploding.


The planes wing clipped the light poles and knocked the poles down. The wing did not shear off.

[daleko]

Jul 19, 2017 22:32:10 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Daleko,
      Frankly, you're too stupid to understand propositional logic.
      To repeat.  If you want to dispute the premises, go for it.
      Otherwise, you've got nothing-- as usual.

I've got 500 eye witnesses. You've got willie hole questions. I've been down this path w you. It's SOP for your kind. PL studies ways of joining and/or modifying entire propositions, statements or sentences to form more complicated propositions, a statement or assertion that expresses a your opinion. With the understanding that your opinion never includes reality. You never start w the eye witness reality because it doesn't foster your need for a conspiracy. IE complicate an event by creating, inventing or more usually modifying events and links; when in any reality, not to include your alternate reality, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what you think or conclude through your made up opinions, I've got 500 eye witnesses, many of whom were and may still be trained intel operatives, trained military pilots, trained military and every day civilians. 

Now I get you want to engage in this because it's something to do and in your mind this fosters your need for debate rather than social dialog but like your other misguided positions, you can get past what really happened to create your alternate reality.

[Walter]

Jul 20, 2017 10:29:47 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 19, 2017 13:28:40 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

         Here's a logical proof for Walter, Harry, and Daleko about the 9/11 Pentagon videos.

         Pay attention this time, guys!!  You blew it the first time around.

         Feel free to dispute the veracity of the premises, but the logical deduction is beyond reproach.


I.   (P) If the released video had shown a 757, (Q) then the government would not have needed to alter (photo-shop) it.

If P, then Q.   P implies Q.

II.   BUT, (-Q) the government DID alter (photo-shop) the video-- as shown in a careful analysis.

Therefore, -Q implies -P.

Ergo, the released video did NOT show a 757.

Walter,

      Any comments about my logical proof that the plane was not a 757-- you know, the subject of this thread?

      (I already answered your deflective question about the small plane (or cruise missile) tail section seen on the film.)

I must have missed it, then. Please tell me again. What was the tail section noted by the narrator? WHAT WAS IT? Neither small planes nor cruise missiles have tail sections of that size. 757s OTOH, do. Explain.

[daleko]

Jul 19, 2017 23:29:34 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 19, 2017 22:56:59 GMT -5 Walter said:

Walter,

  1)  Do cruise missiles and small planes have tails? Both may have vertical stabs, elevators, horizontal stabs and rudders but not all of them. Some are positioned off center, others use different methods of flight controls, some in different places.

  2)  How high is  757, from the ground to top of the tail? Why does it matter? EYEWitnesses saw a fireball as the 757 hit the building.

   3)  Could a 757 punch a small hole in the first floor of the Pentagon without the engines carving  a huge divot out of t he lawn? See the link

    4) If light poles knocked the wings off of a 757 before it hit the Pentagon, where are the wings? They didn't

     5) If the alleged 757 was "vaporized" upon impact-- including a titanium engine-- how were they able to identify the remains of all the alleged passengers? It wasn't totally. Body parts were found along w IDs 
     6)  How did a lone Muslim passport survive the vaporization of the plane? Untrue but immaterial. Why would they bother? What does it add to the story? There was no need to “plant passports”.  There is video surveillance of him going through security at the airport.
Why plant something that might arouse suspicion when you already have a smoking gun?

All answered in the already presented link. www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/ These Qs are examples of how you work. Change reality to fit your alternative reality. 

[oujour76]

Jul 20, 2017 10:29:47 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Walter,

      Any comments about my logical proof that the plane was not a 757-- you know, the subject of this thread?

[/font]
[/quote]


AA 77 took off from Dulles, a plane looking just like it was later seen by 200 eyewitnesses flying into the Pentagon. Bits and pieces of the plane were found on the Pentagon lawn, and additional pieces were found inside the Pentagon. None of the passengers or crew from AA 77 have been seen or heard from since that day. No amount of your mumbo jumbo can explain away those facts.

[Deleted]

Jul 20, 2017 12:37:15 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Jul 20, 2017 10:29:47 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Walter,

      Any comments about my logical proof that the plane was not a 757-- you know, the subject of this thread?

[/font]
[/quote]


AA 77 took off from Dulles, a plane looking just like it was later seen by 200 eyewitnesses flying into the Pentagon. Bits and pieces of the plane were found on the Pentagon lawn, and additional pieces were found inside the Pentagon. None of the passengers or crew from AA 77 have been seen or heard from since that day. No amount of your mumbo jumbo can explain away those facts. [/quote]



Uh, Harry, what do the FAA records say about a Flight 77 departing from Dulles on 9/11?

Are you aware that some witnesses have described seeing a much smaller missile-like object (or small plane) hitting the Pentagon-- as the extant videos clearly show?

That some witnesses who claimed to see a 757 have been exposed as fraudulent?

That witnesses inside the building saw no evidence of plane wreckage or dead passengers?

That the hole in the Pentagon walls, and the debris free lawn in the first films of the Pentagon, show no evidence of a 757 crash?  (e.g., see the clip of Judy Woodruff and Jamie McIntyre from CNN.)

NOW, let's get back to my question-- the subject of the thread.

So far, you guys are 0-3.

[Walter]

Jul 20, 2017 12:37:15 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Jul 20, 2017 10:29:47 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Walter,

      Any comments about my logical proof that the plane was not a 757-- you know, the subject of this thread?

[/font]
[/quote]


AA 77 took off from Dulles, a plane looking just like it was later seen by 200 eyewitnesses flying into the Pentagon. Bits and pieces of the plane were found on the Pentagon lawn, and additional pieces were found inside the Pentagon. None of the passengers or crew from AA 77 have been seen or heard from since that day. No amount of your mumbo jumbo can explain away those facts. [/quote]


I wish there was someone on this board who was intelligent enough to use propositional logic to conclusively prove exactly what sort of cheese the Moon is made of.
Some days it looks like blue or maybe a nice Stilton, other times it looks like Feta.
I'm stumped.

[Deleted]

Jul 19, 2017 13:28:40 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

         Here's a logical proof for Walter, Harry, and Daleko about the 9/11 Pentagon videos.

         Pay attention this time, guys!!  You blew it the first time around.

         Feel free to dispute the veracity of the premises, but the logical deduction is beyond reproach.


I.   (P) If the released video had shown a 757, (Q) then the government would not have needed to alter (photo-shop) it.

If P, then Q.   P implies Q.

II.   BUT, (-Q) the government DID alter (photo-shop) the video-- as shown in a careful analysis.

Therefore, -Q implies -P.

Ergo, the released video did NOT show a 757.