Breakthrough in the fire protection industry for Protecting All Protectors Alliance
We have worked very hard at Protecting All Protectors Alliance (PAPA) to help Captain Angulo present at the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) with our three-year-in-a-row evidence booth at the helm.

And, not only did it pay off at last year’s classroom teaching on the Expo Floor Theater with our 30-minute expose on WTC 7, but we made dozens of powerful connections with NFPA and associated leaders among fire professionals.


For instance, at this year’s conference, we were asked by the editors of a prestigious journal, International Fire & Safety, to write an article on the destruction of WTC 7, and PAPA’s Captain Angulo rose to the occasion big time. The resulting 6,000-word mega-article is sure to turn heads and garner the attention of leaders in the fire protection industry:

Be sure to see the rest of the article in which Captain Angulo challenges the official narrative from NIST regarding the collapse of Building 7! Angulo is the author of the most recent textbook on fighting fires – including in high-rise buildings!
Every fire protection engineer of substance in the industry will feel compelled to comment on this very controversial article — separating the wheat from the chaff. Here’s the ending:
“There never has been a true forensic criminal investigation of 9/11, and there probably will never be one. At minimum, if we really want to honor and remember the 343, and the thousands of other precious lives that were lost on that day, we need to petition and request that the NFPA perform an objective formal review of the UAF Report on the collapse of WTC 7 and compare their computer modeling against the computer modeling in the NIST Report in order to make a determination of true cause.”
“We cannot simply rely upon the official narrative issued through NIST. The dismissive attitude toward the highly questionable inconsistencies in the NIST Report also suggests the influence of the executive branch that oversees NIST. 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.”
“NIST has declared “The collapse of World Trade Center 7 is the first known instance of a total global collapse of a tall building primarily due to fire. The collapse could not have been prevented without first controlling the fires before most of the combustible building contents were consumed.”
“The Great Oz has spoken!… Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
–The Wizard of Oz
“The links to all the reports, videos, and photographs mentioned above, as well as the NFPA petition, and the link to the fascinating must-see documentary, Calling Out Bravo-7, which exposes so much more information and evidence on the collapse of WTC 7, can be found at the website: www.ProtectingAll.org“
So, this is definitely the hour to maintain your support of Protecting All Protectors Alliance as we ramp up our efforts for our next evidence booth, highlighting Captain Angulo and his article, this coming summer!
Richard, I am going to propose that from a scientific point of view, if the three figures above cannot be reconciled, then ether one or more of them must be incorrect. The six percent iron microspheres, the ninety thousands tons of concrete turned to dust, or the four tons of iron microspheres.
If that is accepted, then applying a scientific methodology, it would be appropriate to treat all of those figures as doubtful, and this not best practice to use any of them to support a hypothesis, unless of course you determine which of them are correct and which are incorrect.
Please give me your thought on this.
With thanks, Simon
Richard, I am going to propose that if you take a scientific approach to this, if you cannot reconcile the differences between the figures above, then either the one or more of the numbers proposed must be incorrect; The six percent, The 90,000 tons of dust, The four tons of iron microspheres.
If that is accepted, then following scientific methodology, it would be appropriate to treat them all as doubtful, and thus not be best practice to use any of these figures to support a hypothesis, unless of course you can decide which of them you consider to be correct and which you consider to be incorrect.
Please give me your thoughts on this.
You may not have seen this post subsequent to your previous comment:
“(The 6% figure was provided by the US Geological Survey in their “Particle Atlas of the World Trade Center Dust“ in 2006, or else by the RJ Lee group in their study of the dust. This figure was derived by them from a sample taken inside the Deutsche Bank building where a far larger concentration of previously iron microspheres would be located. There surely would be a far lower percentage of spheres in dust samples further away from the World Trade Center, so these calculations become quite complicated. There doesn’t seem to be disagreement about the “90,000 tons of concrete“, in each of the towers, figure.)”
So, perhaps the average of previously molten iron microspheres was 1% of the WTC Dust samples (which are about 30% concrete according to tests by the USGS and/or RJ Lee group – I can’t remember). We don’t know the average percentage of spheres in the dust). But if that were true then we might expect 4.5 tons of spheres – given that there was a total of 180,000 tons of concrete from both towers – say 150,000 tons was powderized (because the foundations and parking structure largely remained in tact), and concrete was only 30% of the dust, so multiply 150,000 tons x 3 = 450,000 tons of dust in the 3″ thick blanket spread river to river in a 3 square mile area). So, 1% of 450,000 tons would be about 4.5 tons of spheres.
(The 6% figure was provided by the US Geological Survey in their “Particle Atlas of the World Trade Center Dust“ in 2006, or else by the RJ Lee group in their study of the dust. This figure was derived by them from a sample taken inside the Deutsche Bank building where a far larger concentration of previously iron microspheres would be located. There surely would be a far lower percentage of spheres in dust samples further away from the World Trade Center, so these calculations become quite complicated. There doesn’t seem to be disagreement about the “90,000 tons of concrete“, in each of the towers, figure.)
In the article by Captain Angulo he refers to ‘the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF) report by Professor J. Leroy Hulsey PhD, PE, SE,’.
I know AE9/11Truth commissioned this report, but it is unclear if they commissioned the report from Dr Hulsey or from the University of Fairbanks, Alaska and they asked Dr Hulsey to complete the work.
Does anyone know of the report was issued in the name of the University
I personally signed the contract with the university. The contracting process was administered by the university, not by Professor Hulsey.
https://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf
thank you for the prompt clarification.
Richard, while I have you in correspondence;
I would be interested to know the details of the calculation that 4 tons of iron microspheres were in the World Trade centre dust as per this video interview Patrick Bet-David did with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWi0x9xigQM&lc=UgyZ8z6z4imkcZJpAch4AaABAg.A59OX6lGjLfA59WwmGnCVd
That was an extrapolation done by Neil’s Harrit, the primary author of the paper.
I have not seen the calculations.
Richard, if, 6% percent of the dust in the samples was made up of iron microspheres, and that amounts to just 4 tons, then that would suggest that there was only 68 tons of dust.
I have seen several of your videos, such as the ones below where you indicate that 90,000 tons of concrete were turned to talcum powder like dust, and go on to say that the concrete was just 30% of the dust..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obri8HFGBl8
In this video 1 hour 6 minutes in you also talk of the 90,000 tons of concrete
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_wqAPk7tOU
6% of 90,000 tons is 5400 tons, which is substantially different than 4 tons.
Did you ever form an opinion on how the 4 tons figure could be reconciled with the much larger figure, is there some error in the assumptions I have made in the calculation