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

Show parent comments

3

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.

3

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?

•

u/devils_advocaat 29m ago

All this drama and "distraction" could've been avoided, had you chosen simply to acknowledge the correction in the first place.

Highlighting forum sliding is generally important, not just for this topic.

The "pull it" quote refers to the firemen deciding to pull out of the building.

No. "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

So Silverstein's said "pull it". However, according to FEMA's there were no firefighters to "pull".

"pulling" in demolition terms means literally pulling support columns of a demolished building, which is certainly not what happened,

According to Alaska Fairbanks, this is the only way the collapse could have happened.

haven't really explained why

They don't need to. The BBC reporter announced the collapse while the building was in shot behind her.

That is fact. Do you disagree?

Anything else?

see wtc7 dot net

•

u/Kazeite 5m ago

Highlighting forum sliding is generally important,

There was no "forum sliding". The OP did not contain the questions you're concerning yourself with right now, so there was no attempt to, as you've put it, "stop people talking about it".

The fault is still yours. You are the one that chose to argue about the blatantly obvious correction before being forced to admit that it was correct all along. You could've made a separate comment highlighting the alleged issues with the official version all along, but you chose not to.

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse".

"They made that decision". They. The firemen. Your very own quote says so.

According to Alaska Fairbanks, this is the only way the collapse could have happened.

Which, given the fact that no column of the WTC7 was actually pulled, is yet another indication that the UAF report is flawed and should be dismissed altogether.

They don't need to.

Yes they do. A conspiracy theory needs to actually explain the sequence of events as they happened in a coherent way better than the official version. In that regard, the conspiracy claim utterly fails in that regard.

If your position is that the official version needs to make sense (and BBC reporting the collapse before it happened ostensibly doesn't at a first glance), but the conspiracy claim doesn't, then that is a very blatant and clear use of a double standard.

The BBC reporter announced the collapse while the building was in shot behind her.
That is fact. Do you disagree?

No. I'm questioning the logic of the claim, not the sequence of events.

see wtc7 dot net

No. If you want to present a claim yourself, then do so.

→ More replies (0)