that both the equatorialness and the involuntaryness happens is false.
sent1: that the alibiing loment does not occur triggers that the voluntary does not occur. sent2: the equatorial and the law happens. sent3: the law occurs. sent4: the hotfoot occurs. sent5: if the alibiing loment occurs then the fact that that not the alibiing disesteem but the hotfoot happens hold does not hold. sent6: that the alibiing disesteem does not occur is not false.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the alibiing loment happens is right.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: that the alibiing disesteem does not occur but the hotfoot happens is not correct.; sent6 & sent4 -> int2: the alibiing disesteem does not occur and the hotfoot occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the alibiing loment does not occur.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the voluntary does not occur.; sent2 -> int6: the equatorialness happens.; int5 & int6 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that both the equatorialness and the involuntaryness happens is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the alibiing loment does not occur triggers that the voluntary does not occur. sent2: the equatorial and the law happens. sent3: the law occurs. sent4: the hotfoot occurs. sent5: if the alibiing loment occurs then the fact that that not the alibiing disesteem but the hotfoot happens hold does not hold. sent6: that the alibiing disesteem does not occur is not false. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the alibiing loment happens is right.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: that the alibiing disesteem does not occur but the hotfoot happens is not correct.; sent6 & sent4 -> int2: the alibiing disesteem does not occur and the hotfoot occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the alibiing loment does not occur.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the voluntary does not occur.; sent2 -> int6: the equatorialness happens.; int5 & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__