New piece contends that WTC 7 may have changed firefighting procedures
The positive news keeps coming for the 9/11 Truth Movement.
While most 9/11 activists are anxiously watching the hopeful progress towards getting a new investigation, there are other good things happening.
Among them is a new version of an article by retired Seattle fire captain Raul Angulo that appeared on the website of the UK’s International Fire & Safety Journal in October 2024. It went under the title “Did World Trade Center Building 7 really collapse due to an office fuel load fire?”
The updated piece will appear in two parts in the IFSJ’s print editions in March and April. Both will be distributed to firefighters at the Fire Department Instructors Conference International (FDIC), which will be held April 7-12 in Indianapolis, Indiana. Copies will be available to all conference participants at the IFSJ booth.
Angulo, who is playing a central role in the campaign by former congressman Curt Weldon to get the Trump administration to reinvestigate 9/11, is collaborating on the revised piece with Paul Kayley, the UK director of the documentary Calling Out Bravo-7 (Angulo and Kayley are now listed as co-authors).
The article looks at the report on WTC 7 by Leroy Hulsey and the University of Alaska Fairbanks, which reached two primary conclusions: that all the core columns in the building had to have failed at virtually the same instant and that fire could not have produced this result. In an interview, Angulo added that numerous firefighters described hearing explosions in Building 7, and many also recount hearing warnings that the building was going to come down hours before it did.
Angulo explains that Kayley has contributed something important to the updated piece – that the false conclusions about Building 7 contained in the official report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) should have resulted in a change to high-rise firefighting procedures, but that has never happened because NISTs theory of collapse is too left of field, and much easier to ignore than it is to challenge professionally.
He says that normally, rather than evacuate entire buildings when a fire is contained to a limited number of floors, the proper procedure – known as “defend in place” – would have firefighters move people to a different part of the building. But NIST’s conclusion about the role played by fire in bringing Building 7 down has led to an incorrect belief among some firefighters that buildings experiencing limited fires should be entirely evacuated.
They may conclude this because NIST gave them the mistaken idea that a burning high-rise is in danger of collapsing. This could also affect whether they are willing to go into a burning high-rise at all.
“Guys don’t sign up for the fire department to die,” Angulo says.
Also, trying to get everyone out of a building can make it much more difficult for firefighters to get to the fire.
“You can't guarantee that people will follow directions after September 11,” he explains.
“Usually there is a firefighting stairwell and an evacuation stairwell established, but that can't be easily controlled or guaranteed, so you often have firefighters trying to climb up the stairwell while occupants are climbing down, a very crowded and difficult task. We've all seen those pictures from September 11 of firefighters fighting their way up the stairways of the towers with equipment, while occupants are trying to evacuate.“
It is also worth noting that the North American version of the IFSJ (known as the Fire & Safety Journal Americas) actually had a writer follow-up on the recent press release from AE911Truth concerning Curt Weldon’s call for the Trump administration to convene a presidential task force to investigate 9/11.
***
Craig McKee is a writer for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and the creator of the blogs Truth and Shadows and Thought Crimes and Misdemeanors. He also hosts the Truth and Shadows podcast on YouTube and Rumble.
