Says he asks ‘common sense’ questions that he shouldn’t have to apologize for

It is always great news when a new expert takes on the official narrative of the September 11, 2001, destruction of the World Trade Center.

The most recent example can be seen in an October 15 article in the International Fire & Safety Journal under the title, “Did World Trade Center Building 7 really collapse due to an office fuel load fire?” You can read the article here and the archived version here.

The article’s author, longtime firefighting expert Raul Angulo, was Andy Steele’s guest on the most recent episode of 9/11 Free FallA 36-year veteran of the Seattle Fire Department, Angulo has held leadership positions with several firefighting organizations as well as publishing more than 350 articles in major firefighting magazines. He is also the author of the book Engine Company Fireground Operations.

Angulo offers this insight into his reasons for writing the 12,000-word article:

“This article is all about establishing transparency, integrity, trust, and truthfulness. I now view the official narrative with skepticism because it doesn’t make sense and doesn’t match with the video observable evidence. It also does not stand up to the scrutiny conducted by the forensic structural engineers at the UAF.”

As he gets into the details of the evidence, he asks this question:

“Did the World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) really, completely, collapse in freefall, symmetrically into its own footprint – in seven seconds – due to an office fuel load fire? I used to believe that – the official narrative, but now, I can no longer accept that explanation. For many of us, this is still a visceral and emotional subject, but it’s been 23 years since September 11, 2001. A lot of the strong sentiments have died down enough to objectively consider more reasonable, scientific, and physical (physics) explanations.”

Angulo notes that no such building has ever collapsed due to fire, and if it had happened in this case there certainly would have been a push to change fire protection standards for high-rise buildings.

“If the magnitude of this event is considered in isolation, without distractions of its historical context – in other words, had it happened in any other building, in any other city, on any other date – it would be the #1 case study in high-rise firefighting. Our strategy, tactics, and standards would have been reviewed and changed to incorporate the possibility of these types of buildings falling upon us – at freefall acceleration in as short a time as seven seconds – as WTC 7 did.”

The IFSJ article looks at the report on WTC 7 by Leroy Hulsey and the University of Alaska Fairbanks, which came to these 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.

“They’re being nice…and professional, but in other words, they were saying NIST’s theoretical positions are untenable, they’re wrong, and in fact, impossible.”

Angulo explains 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.

“In fact, there are about 60 FDNY firefighters who reported hearing the warnings that WTC 7 was going to collapse. But where did this warning originate from?”

He adds:

“So who was this person, or people who ascertained, then convinced the fire chiefs to withdraw their firefighters four to five blocks away for their own safety? Could they have known because it was under human control? “I surmise that the firefighters did not come to the conclusion that WTC 7 was going to collapse based on observable conditions; they accepted the warning without question because they were told so by their superiors.”

Angulo concludes that there is a stark contrast between the UAF conclusions and those of NIST and maintains that it is essential that this contradiction be resolved.

“They can’t both be right,” he explains.

“In order to clear up the implications and confusion, we must formally review and compare both reports as a collective body of firefighters, fire prevention inspectors, and building and fire code officials. We must then choose which conclusion seems more logical, and wrestle with the implications they may lead to.”

***

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 MisdemeanorsHe also hosts the Truth and Shadows podcast on YouTube and Rumble.

 



Check out our engineering panel discussion and interviews from our anniversary 9/11 conference with Jill Stein, Jimmy DoreAlex Stein, Zach Vorhies, and Daniele GanserMadhava SettyMeryl NassSean Stone and Ian Crossland that have already been posted on our YouTube channel!

Of course, you can also watch video of the entire conference here: 


We want to thank all who participated in the event and all of those who help us make it possible. This includes supporters like YOU. Without your support, the essential work of AE911Truth would not be possible. 

Help us make the government of the United States accountable to the people again!

 

 

Read the PDF: A Declaration of Integrity

  

Related News

Bill could kill groups like AE911Truth for alleged support of ‘terrorist groups’

It would attack dissenters by removing tax-exempt status from nonprofits
Read More...

One woman’s story of academic resistance to WTC 7 evidence

Performed in Italian, Le Caverne has the potential to bring awareness of 9/11 truth to a whole new audience in a part of the world that is far from the World Trade Center destruction of September 11, 2001.
Read More...

Italian performer uses art to shine a light on 9/11

According to Gasparini: “The song denounces the social apathy towards the abuse of truth perpetrated by the state and by the empire.”
Read More...

‘Calling Out Bravo-7’: a firefighter’s perspective on Building 7

“ Calling Out Bravo-7 is the best, most detailed and most informative film to date on the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7. A very important piece of work. ” – Tony Rooke, film producer.
Read More...

It’s the first ‘WTC 7’ search result on YouTube… but is it valid?

When you search for “WTC 7” in YouTube, the top video that comes up doesn’t question whether explosives were used to bring the building down on 9/11
Read More...

Zach Vorhies: Artificial intelligence could expose lies in official narratives

Zach Vorhies: Artificial intelligence could expose lies in official narratives
Read More...

Alex Stein tossed from city hall for raising 9/11 truth!

Podcaster was an interviewee at AE911Truth’s The 24th Hour
Read More...

A light in the darkness

This day changed your life
Read More...

Chapter 4 of Roland Angle’s book finally names names

We have now released the next chapter of AE911Truth Chairman, Roland Angle’s work in progress, Engineering the 9/11 Cover-Up: How the WTC Evidence was Kept Secret from the World. Today, we are releasing the fourth chapter!
Read More...

As engineers, we have a legal responsibility to guard the public’s safety.

We are a small non-profit taking on a tremendous issue, and we need your support to help fund these efforts.

If you believe in the power of dedicated people and their ability to change the world, then please make a donation right now!

Thank you so much for your continued support and your willingness to stand with us! 

 

 

From Architects & Engineers for 9/11Truth and filmmaker, Dylan Avery comes this short documentary that is both hauntingly beautiful in its presentation and startlingly grim in its revelations. 


Join civil engineer, Jonathan Cole through an informational odyssey as he revisits the controversy surrounding the impossible destruction of towers 1, 2 and 7 on September 11th 2001, and how his research, along with the research of others, has pulled the rug out from under the conclusions offered by the federal government on why those three buildings ultimately failed. 

Through Cole's testimony, and that of mechanical engineer, Tony Szamboti, a dark picture comes into focus that demonstrates that not only is the official story of what killed so many people on America's darkest day provably false but that the federal government actively and willfully turned a blind eye to the observable facts during its unscientific investigation of the building collapses. 

In a little over twenty minutes, Thirty Seconds of Silence reveals more about the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11 than the media has revealed to the public in the over twenty years since the event took place.