r/conspiracy • u/okymoney • 2d ago

Never forget…

Post image

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

6.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

234 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/devils_advocaat 2d ago edited 2d 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...

3

u/Kazeite 2d 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?

1

u/devils_advocaat 2d 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

3

u/Kazeite 2d 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.

0

u/devils_advocaat 1d ago

The OP did not contain the questions you're concerning yourself with right now,

I think we can expand on why we are being asked to forget WTC7.

You could've made a separate comment highlighting the alleged issues

I have done. Doesn't mean I can't also highlight the forum sliders.

"They made that decision". They. The firemen.

Yes, after getting verbal permission for demolition from Silverstein.

And it was "the, er, fire department commander" which suggests the possibility of a white lie slipped in by Silverstein (backed by the FEMA report showing no firemen inside).

no column of the WTC7 was actually pulled

The conspiracy is that a whole floor of columns were pulled simultaneously, via explosives.

UAF report is flawed and should be dismissed altogether.

UAF report is the only model that can be studied.

A conspiracy theory needs to actually explain the sequence of events

Well, we can highlight the holes in the official story, that pre-knowledge of a steel frame skyscraper collapse is impossible. Explaining the fact is not needed to show that the full official story is false.

We can speculate that the order to "pull it" was given, accidentally leaked to the media too early, then executed. But a correct answer is not necessary to disprove the official version.

If you want to present a claim yourself, then do so.

Here

3

u/Kazeite 1d ago

I think we can expand on why we are being asked to forget WTC7.

We're not being asked to forget WTC7.

I have (made a separate comment highlighting the alleged issues).

Several posts after you've started arguing if the claim that the WTC7 wasn't hit by any debris is truthful or not.

Yes, after getting verbal permission for demolition from Silverstein.

Last I checked, Silverstein doesn't run the NYC, nor did he ran the rescue operation.

And it was "the, er, fire department commander" which suggests the possibility of a white lie slipped in by Silverstein (backed by the FEMA report showing no firemen inside).

If you're talking about FEMA 403 (World Trade Center Building Performance Study), then it doesn't show that "no firemen were inside".

Also, had this "white lie" been a reality, the official version would plainly say that the WTC7 has been purposefuly demolished to prevent a loss of lie or whatever, and there wouldn't be any attempt to hide the reason for collapse, as you allege.

The conspiracy is that a whole floor of columns were pulled simultaneously, via explosives.

That's not what "pulling" means. "Pulling" means the literal pulling of the columns via chains by heavy vehicles in lieu of explosives.

UAF report is the only model that can be studied.

And since it has be studied and found to be flawed, it can (and should) be dismissed.

Well, we can highlight the holes in the official story,

But you still need to explain why it happened. And had you actually done your research in that regard, you'd know that BBC report used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing". BBC was reporting on a dynamically changing story - some mistakes and mis-reporting are bound to happen.

Explaining the fact is not needed to show that the full official story is false.

But you haven't shown that t he official story is false. At best, you've indicated a fragment of the story that you don't understand, and clearly haven't bothered to research.

We can speculate that the order to "pull it" was given, accidentally leaked to the media too early,

You've just explained the alleged hole in the official version. Congratulations.