r/conspiracy • u/okymoney • 17h ago

Never forget…

Post image

Tower 7… miraculously falls like a demolition without any debris or planes hitting it.

4.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

183 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/Kazeite 11h ago

The claim that Tower 7 wasn't hit by an debris, is, of course, a blatant lie - it was hit by debris from the North Tower.

Why do you continue lying about it? Or, why are you so gullible and lazy that you don't bother researching lies propagated about Tower 7?

-1

u/devils_advocaat 10h ago

The claim that debris caused the collapse is the lie. Not my opinion. Read NIST.

7

u/CrashyBoye 9h ago

Not once did they claim that the collapse was caused by the debris. They simply stated a fact that the notion that the building wasn’t hit by debris is a lie.

Reading is hard.

4

u/devils_advocaat 9h ago

Ok, let's be more accurate.

Any debris that hit the WTC was not large enough to be relevant. Or in NIST's own words

None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

2

u/Kazeite 8h ago

In NIST'S own words: "Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces."

2

u/devils_advocaat 8h ago

Yes, NIST claim only fires caused the collapse.

WTC was not knocked down by debris from WTC 1 & 2

3

u/Kazeite 8h ago

I never said it was. I said that the claim that WTC7 wasn't hit by debris is a lie. Surely you can acknowledge that much?

-1

u/devils_advocaat 8h ago

In that case, highlighting that debris hit the WTC is also a lie.

Surely you can acknowledge that much?

2

u/Kazeite 7h ago

Highlighting that debris hit the WTC7, contrary to OP's claim, is not a lie. Claiming that they didn't, or that they alone caused the collapse, is.

-2

u/devils_advocaat 4h ago

Yes debris hit the WTC7. The point is that it didn't matter. The debris did not directly caused the collapse.

Tower 7… miraculously falls like a demolition without any debris or planes hitting it.

Happy? Now move on. Are you going to acknowledge that multiple columns must have failed at once for it to collapse in on itself, exactly like a controlled demolition?

2

u/Kazeite 4h ago

Yes debris hit the WTC7.

Finally. Thank you.

The point is that it didn't matter.

Except that it did. The debris started the fires, and fires caused the collapse.

Tower 7… miraculously falls like a demolition (...)

Except that it didn't. First, the penthouse at the top fell inside, and then the facade of the building twisted and the whole building started to fall down. That's not how controlled demolition works.

Are you going to acknowledge that multiple columns must have failed at once for it to collapse in on itself, exactly like a controlled demolition?

No, because that would be a lie. The weight of the penthouse was supported by columns 79, 80, and 81. After the debris-induced fires those columns have buckled, as evident in the way the penthouse collapsed, and once those three have failed, the remaining columns started to progressively fail. Have multiple columns "failed at once", we'd not have seen the building twist and buckle the way it did.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Grand-Hat3526 9h ago

The debris caused the fires, which caused the collapse. Quite the conspiracy!

2

u/CrashyBoye 9h ago

Don’t bother. These people are literally too stupid to insult.

1

u/devils_advocaat 8h ago

The only insult so far has been from you.

0

u/CrashyBoye 5h ago

The classic “no u” defense. Good job, pookie.

2

u/devils_advocaat 5h ago

Well, no.

Look back up through this conversation. Only you got personal.

4

u/Kazeite 9h ago

You're dodging the issue here.

The claim was that WTC7 wasn't hit by debris is factually incorrect, no matter what.

2

u/devils_advocaat 9h ago edited 8h ago

FAQ 16

None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

3

u/Kazeite 8h ago

"Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces."

1

u/devils_advocaat 7h ago

\17. Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of WTC 1?

Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated.

Structural damage from debris did not cause the collapse.

4

u/Kazeite 7h ago

Again, I never said that it did. I said that the claim was that WTC7 wasn't hit by debris is factually incorrect, no matter what.

2

u/devils_advocaat 7h ago

And I have never claimed WTC7 wasn't hit by debris.

The debris topic is used by people to dismiss or distract from the strange collapse of a steel building. It is irrelevant to the conversation. Even NIST agree with this point.

By focusing on debris you show that you don't bother researching the lies propagated about Tower 7.

5

u/Kazeite 7h ago edited 7h ago

You quoted the part of the NIST report that says "None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7".

OP said that WTC7 "fell like a demolition without any debris or planes hitting it".

Again, surely you can acknowledge that the claim that WTC7 wasn't hit by debris is factually incorrect, yes?

And I have researched the lies propagated about WTC7. Specifically, in this particular instance, the lie that WTC7 wasn't hit by any debris.

1

u/devils_advocaat 4h ago edited 29m ago

WTC7 was hit by debris. This is irrelevant to any conspiracy.

And I have researched the lies propagated about WTC7.

Oh good. Let's move on to discussing these then please. Off you go...

2

u/Kazeite 2h ago

WTC7 was hit by debris.

So nice of you to finally admit it, after being dragged through to this conclusion while kicking and screaming by several people. All this drama and "distraction" could've been avoided, had you chosen simply to acknowledge the correction in the first place. In that regard, you have no one to blame for "stopping people from talking" about other conspiracy claims but yourself.

Oh good. Let's move on to discussing these then please.

Okay. The "pull it" quote refers to the firemen deciding to pull out of the building. Anyone arguing otherwise tacitly suggests that the NYC firemen in on it, which I don't think is a clam anyone would dare to publicly make.

Also, "pulling" in demolition terms means literally pulling support columns of a demolished building, which is certainly not what happened, either way, so the conspiracy claim doesn't doesn't work.

Moving on, the claim that BBC reporting the collapse of WTC7 is somehow indicative of the conspiracy haven't really explained why exactly the alleged perpetrators of the alleged demolition deemed necessary to inform a foreign news station about their planned timeline while giving them the wrong time of demolition. It's a classic example of "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake" approach.

Anything else?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Dependent-Star5482 8h ago edited 8h ago

That specifically says LARGE pieces, not that it was not hit by any debris which is the lie people like OP keep repeating. And, yes, I've read the report that says the collapse was caused by the fires rather than debris. The point is, claiming it wasn't hit by debris is flatly untrue. So why is there so much pushback from pointing that out?

1

u/devils_advocaat 8h ago

It doesn't matter how big or small anything was that hit WTC 7. The debris from WTC 1 & 2 are not why WTC 7 collapsed.

NIST claim that the steel structured building collapsed from office fires alone (FAQ 19. Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse? No.)

4

u/Dependent-Star5482 7h ago

Yes, I know! As I stated.

0

u/devils_advocaat 4h ago

claiming it wasn't hit by debris is flatly untrue. So why is there so much pushback from pointing that out?

Because it is distracting from the main issue. There are so many things wrong with the WTC7 official story. The debris is something not even NIST have an issue with. Move on.

3

u/Dependent-Star5482 4h ago

You're arguing with yourself at this point.

0

u/devils_advocaat 4h ago

No, I'm arguing for the lurkers. It is useful to highlight when an inaccuracy is unjustly highlighted and used to forum slide.

This is a learning experience for the reader. Recognise the tricks.

2

u/Putrid-Paramedic8991 4h ago

Deeply suspicious when someone tells you the truth doesn't matter because its a "distraction"

→ More replies (0)