Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Jul 20, 2017 14:42:18 GMT -5
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.
LOL....That's completely as-backwards. The video claims the 757 was photoshopped out of the second video. That works AGAINST your argument, not for it. |
|
THE BIGGEST DOUCHE OF THE FULL SEASON TOURNAMENT - 2021
Godlike Member
|
Post by daleko on Jul 20, 2017 14:46:06 GMT -5
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? There were some initial problems reading the last frame of the FDR data, but the properly decoded FDR data traces the plane’s path all the way from take-off at Dulles Airport to impact at the Pentagon.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? Only a very small number (six or less) of witnesses described a small plane, and most of these viewed the plane at a great distance, making size judgments difficult and unreliable. Of the large plane witnesses, many described it as a silver American Airlines plane, a Boeing 737 or 757. One knowledgeable witness, Tim Timmerman, an airlines’ pilot, recognized it unequivocally as a Boeing 757.
That some witnesses who claimed to see a 757 have been exposed as fraudulent? Who? But even then some perhaps wanted their 15 minutes of fame.That witnesses inside the building saw no evidence of plane wreckage or dead passengers? I'm sure their were many inside the Pentagon who saw little. It's a big building. 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.) Duh, they didn't shoot where the debris was the first time.NOW, let's get back to my question-- the subject of the thread.
So far, you guys are 3-0. When using factual eye witness testimonywww.9-11tv.org/the-pentagon-plane-puzzle/85-pentagon-area-surveillance-cameras
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by AlaCowboy on Jul 20, 2017 15:07:10 GMT -5
[/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. [/quote] It depends on which hologram the CIA is projecting that particular night. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 21:34:40 GMT -5
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.
|
|
