Help me understand the hadiths regarding The Romans and the Prophecy made by Prophet Muhammad Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him

Asslam Alaikum. I am having doubts. So basically I saw a post on the internet. The internet said that the Prophet PBUH made a false prophecy with this Hadith: Sahih Muslim 2900 > Nafi' b. Utba reported: >We were with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) in an expedition that there came a people to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) from the direction of the west. They were dressed in woollen clothes and they stood near a hillock and they met him as Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was sitting. I said to myself: Better go to them and stand between him and them that they may not attack him. Then I thought that perhaps there had been going on secret negotiation amongst them. I however, went to them and stood between them and him and I remember four of the words (on that occasion) which I repeat (on the fingers of my hand) that he (Allah's Messenger) said: You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack Persia and He would make you to conquer it. Then you would attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack the Dajjal and Allah will enable you to conquer him. Nafi' said: Jabir, we thought that the Dajjal would appear after Rome (Syrian territory) would be conquered. So here now it says that the companions thought that Dajjal would come after the conquest of Roman Syria? But that didn't happen. Now I know it could be said this refers to the ends times but that post already knew people would say this and so he states the hadith which says that there will be No caeser after Heraclius in the Syrian territory and there will be no Khosrou in the Iraqi Territory. Then he presents another Hadith that the Last hour will not come until the Romans become the majority of people and he presents commentary of this Hadith saying that the Romans must be continuous. And he says this refers to the Byzantines during the time of Prophet Muhammad PBUH and as we know they don't exist anymore. He says and I quote: "Why this matters is because the Hadiths regarding the fall of Constantinople then cannot be understood to mean an event where the Roman Empire comes back. It also addresses the explanation I mentioned with the first Hadith, that the Dajjal is to come back at a later date that the Hadith doesn’t say he has to come back right after. If additional conditions for the Dajjal to return is the continuation of the Romans then that is problematic alongside these Hadith regarding Constantinople." Then he says that assuming that the hadith which states there will be no Caesar after this one refers to the Syrian territories and that the above Hadith refers to the dajjal coming in the future, not after the conquest of Syria, this directly contradicts another Hadith in Sahih muslim which states dajjal will come after roman Syria is conquered (Hadith is Sahih Muslim 2899a) and plus also the other Hadith that Romans will never rule Syria again. He says "For brevity there are Hadith regarding Constantinople that put the previous Hadith into perspective and create issues listed here: -https://sunnah.com/muslim:2920a -https://sunnah.com/muslim:2897 -https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4294 " He says that historical conquest of Constantinople refutes this prophecy? Any refutations?