I recently ran across an April 30, 2025, article published in Fire & Safety Journal Americas (FSJA), titled, "Built to Last or Built to Fail? The contested causes of WTC 7’s collapse and implications for structural firefighting strategies," by Captain Raul Angulo, Professor J. Leroy Hulsey Ph.D. and Firefighter Paul Kayley and published by Iain Hoey. This is a follow-up article to FSJA's March 2025 article, "Built to Last or Built to Fail?" I am writing a rebuttal to the April article, but I'm looking for more information on FSJA. I always find it disturbing when someone presents themselves as an industry authority while promoting AE911Truth talking points.
FSJA Article, "Built to Last or Built to Fail?"
- Thread starter Opcode
- Start date
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
What makes you think they're promoting AE911 talking points, and not examing valid structural and firefighting concerns after a major collapse?
Because the published article is pretty much just copy-and-pasted from what AE911Truth associates have been writing for more than a decade, which has always been nonsensical hand-waving. The published article provides no useful information for firefighters and serves only to cast doubt on the NIST report and the government's official position.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, I understand that's what you think. My question is, what makes you think it?
You are asking me how holding up two objects side-by-side that look alike makes me think that they are copies from the same source. It's the same claims, the same wording and Professor J. Leroy Hulsey Ph.D is a well-known AE911Truth shill. Also, they don't present any valid structural and firefighting concerns.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Again, yes. I understand your claims. When will you present your evidence?
My purpose here is not to argue the points in the article. My purpose here is to prepare my rebuttal that I am sending to FSJA. Normally, I would enjoy presenting my arguments here, but I'm trying to focus on my article to FSJA. The editor invited me to submit a rebuttal. Perhaps, in the process of preparing that rebuttal, I would post some points here, but I would think that this group already would be familiar with everything that anyone could say on the topic.
Just wondering, have you checked if these people are signatories of the AE911T petition?
I don't know if that list is public. So, no. However, I do know that AE911T hired Professor Hulsey to write a research paper on WTC 7. Even though this is a project contracted with Hulsey, all parties ensure they mention University of Alaska at Fairbanks' name when talking of this private study.
Edit: I just checked. No, the names of authors are not on the list AE911Truth offers on its website.
Last edited:
I seem to recall there used to be a Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, with very few members.
Yes, and a "Pilots for Truth" and others. AE911Truth is the largest and most famous of them. They exchange ideas. And after Richard Gage left AE911Truth, he started another group. So, yes, there are scads of these clubs.
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
One of the first hits when I searched his name was a metabunk thread about his study for the group.
OP has the same handle as a certain bee avatared poster over here and all
I'm not sure if you are referring to me, but I can confirm that I have posted to Metabunk at some time in the past. I don't remember when the last time I posted anything there, but it has been a few years. I got tired of Landru deleting my posts, even when I was asking a question. Anyway, my profile name on Metabunk is the same as my original name on this forum, but I had to change my name on this forum because the IS system said it could not find a user by my name and it wouldn't let me register the name because it already exists on the system.
I was wondering if the firefighting people in your OP were in the Firefighters for 9/11 Truth.
Yes, they are listed on F9/11T's website as members of their "Core Firefighter Team."
Professor Leroy Hulsey, Richard Gage and David Chandler also are listed on the website, as members of their "Technical Advisory Team." Those three, of course, are from AE911Truth, with Professor Hulsey being hired by AE911Truth to produce research supporting AE911Truth's propaganda.
Last edited:
Does Fire & Safety Journal Americas (FSJA) often have Truthy content, do you know?
I don't know, as I only accidentally ran across this publication while looking for an image of fire erupting out of WTC 7 to show someone on a different forum who claimed that such photos don't exist. I was so dismayed that somebody is publishing a journal that presents itself as an official trade publication of the firefighting profession that I wrote a very disapproving message to the publisher. It really bugs me that professionals and people with credentials give the Truther movement any aura of legitimacy. To your question, though, the reason I came here in the first place is to see if anybody here knows anything about them. I came here because I had the same question you asked me.
I asked Google Gemini, "Is FSJA a reputable source of fire science news or a pretender?" to which it replied (edited for conciseness):
"The Fire & Safety Journal Americas (FSJA) appears to function more as a trade publication or platform for a specific advocacy group than a traditional, highly reputable source of peer-reviewed fire science news.
"Highly Reputable Journals (e.g., Fire Safety Journal published by Elsevier): These journals are fully peer-reviewed, have clear editorial boards composed of internationally recognized scholars, and are indexed in major academic databases like Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). This indexing is a hallmark of scientific legitimacy.
"Fire & Safety Journal Americas (FSJA): This journal, whose website suggests it covers "Fire Safety News" and industry topics, does not appear to be indexed in the major academic databases that validate rigorous scientific peer review. Its use as a platform for 9/11 controlled demolition claims—a position rejected by the consensus of the engineering and fire science community—is a strong indicator that its content lacks the objective, universally accepted scientific rigor expected of a primary research journal."
I also asked Gemini about FSJA's parent company, Centurian Media Limited:
"they are a B2B (Business-to-Business) media company that connects industry professionals through various platforms."
Prompt: "How reputable are they?"
Response: "The reputation of Centurian Media Limited (CML) and its publications must be evaluated based on the type of media they produce, as they operate in two distinct spheres: B2B Trade Media and Academic Research.
"In the business-to-business (B2B) sphere, CML and its main publications (e.g., International Fire & Safety Journal, Security Journal Americas) appear to be reputable and active trade media outlets.
"2. In the Scientific/Academic Research Context (Not Reputable)
"In the context of scientific fire safety research, CML's publications are not considered reputable primary sources.
"Lack of Peer Review: Their publications are trade journals, not academic journals. They do not undergo the rigorous, recognized peer-review process required for a publication to be a credible source of scientific or engineering research.
"Absence from Major Indexing: They are not indexed in major academic and scientific databases like Scopus, the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), or others that validate scientific rigor (unlike the genuine Fire Safety Journal published by Elsevier).
"Controversial Content (FSJA): As noted previously, the specific publication you asked about, Fire & Safety Journal Americas (FSJA), has been criticized for platforming controlled demolition claims about 9/11. In the academic and engineering community, promoting a hypothesis that contradicts the extensive, consensus-driven investigations (like those by NIST) is a strong indicator that the publication is prioritizing advocacy or dissent over established scientific method."
Interesting!
I wonder if they publish your letter!
I wonder if they publish your letter!
ozeco41
Philosopher
One factor is blatantly obvious in this and several other recent threads.
None of the battle hardened old warriors of the trade "Explaining 9/11 WTC Collapses" seem to be posting.
Neither me nor @Oystein to name just two.
So we are seeing old topics recycled and starting from zero base.
The topic ""Built to Last or Built to Fail?...etc" interests me - I'll see if I can access a copy.
It would be interesting to assess if Hulsey has recovered some of his professional credibility.
I'm seeing a resurgence in the same, old arguments, which has me concerned. My personal conspiracy theory is that, in addition to the legacy villains pushing this material, an new surge of interest in attacking Israel is pushing this material forward, perhaps due to current political events in Gaza. I'd also like to note in passing that the photos and articles that I used to use for citations are getting more difficult to find, at least for me. I'm wondering if someone is getting them removed from the Internet.
The two FSJA articles are the same old stuff we've seen for years. I don't remember if I'm allowed to link here or not. Oh, well, here it goes...
"Built to last or built to fail: Could office fuel loads cause the complete collapse of WTC 7?" March 19, 2025
Built to last or built to fail: Could office fuel loads cause the complete collapse of WTC 7?
WTC 7, the third high-rise to collapse on 9/11, was located about 100 yards (91.4m) north of WTC 1, was a 47-story steel building, stood 610 ft. (186 m),
fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com
"Built to Last or Built to Fail? The contested causes of WTC 7’s collapse and implications for structural firefighting strategies" April 30, 2025
Built to Last or Built to Fail? The contested causes of WTC 7’s collapse and implications for structural firefighting strategies
To this day, its data has been withheld from peer review and public scrutiny, in the interests of “public safety.” The computer modelling was used to
fireandsafetyjournalamericas.com