Home » Individual MP's views » Stephen McPartland MP - Stevenage, Hertfordshire

The Views of Stephen McPartland MP
MP for Stevenage, Hertfordshire

His views on the official explanation for the events of 9/11

Refused to say - Despite repeated enquiries Stephen McPartland MP refused to give any opinion on the validity of the official explanation for the events of 9/11. He may believe the official story or he may have his doubts, either way he simply refused to say.

Summary

Stephen McPartland MP was asked by Stevenage constituent, Mr Mallett, to state his opinion on the validity of the official explanation for the events of 9/11. Despite the question being repeatedly asked over a period of 12 months Steven McPartland used a number of methods to avoid providing any sort of relevant answer. Even when informed of clear evidence which proves the official explanation to be scientifically impossible Steven McPartland preferred to remain squarely on the fence and even refused Mr Mallett's requests for an appointment to discuss the matter further, and maybe get a straight answer, at one of his surgeries.

Steven McPartland finished by falling back on an excuse that "I simply do not agree that as a British Member of Parliament representing Stevenage that I can interfere in the internal judicial processes of the USA."

Steven McPartland was never asked to interfere in any way with the United States judicial system. British troops are not controlled, financed or staffed by the United States but they were sent to Afghanistan by the British Government as a direct result of a British analysis of the attack on the United States on 9/11. Overwhelming evidence now shows that analysis to be badly flawed and that is what Steven McPartland was asked for his views on.

Judging from the brief communications Stephen McPartland did send he seems to have no interest in the safety of British troops serving in Afghanistan including those members of his own constituency currently serving in Afghanistan and whom he represents in the UK Parliament.

When the truth about 9/11 does emerge Stephen McPartland MP will have no possibility of the old "I didn't know about it" excuse.

Information relevant to an ability to understand the evidence

Stephen McPartland MP is a member of the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee. Hopefully this would indicate that Stephen McPartland has at least some understanding of the basic laws of physics as taught to school children. It has been clearly explained to Stephen McPartland that the official explanation for 9/11 breaks several of those same laws of physics but with he has made no response.

Other information of note

Prior to being elected an MP, Stephen McPartland was the Director of Membership for British American Business (the US Chamber of Commerce), based in London.
Source - Stephen McPartland's own website biography

Contact log

Only Stephen McPartland and Mr Mallett's names have been included below. Since it is not known if Stephen McPartland's assistants share his views their names have been obscured to be fair to them.

Index of correspondence

29/07/2011 - Email reply sent to Stephen McPartland MP

Hi Stephen

Yes I agree with you on the war. Some wars will always be necessary but they must be for the right reasons.

As to 911. I have quite a lot of knowledge on that score as I've been researching it for years. I've never been into conspiracy theories as they usually just ask questions of a particular event but without ever providing any evidence to support an alternative version of events.

911 is different as it is the other way round. The US Governments conspiracy theory that 19 guys with box cutters led by someone in a cave managed to score a 75% success rate on the worlds only remaining super power and attack the most heavily defended building on the planet without the benefit of surprise is so laughable that it would look dodgy if it was a script for the A Team.

In the case of 911 there is also plenty of scientific evidence that directly contradicts the official story and very little to support it. Have a look at www.ae911truth.org for a thorough investigation but for the moment let me concentrate on just one aspect...

Three buildings came down on 911. Most people know about Towers 1 and 2 but there was also another building collapsed that day. WTC Building 7 was a 47 storey sky scraper which collapsed symmetrically into its own foot print at free fall acceleration from fire damage alone. It was not hit by a plane and was designed to be five times stronger than it needed to be. It was so strong in fact that it contained the Mayors emergency control room designed for exactly this kind of incident. Even though at the start the building was fine he decided not to use it.

When Bush finally allowed an investigation into the collapse of Building 7 it was carried out by the National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST). It had a fraction of the funding given to the investigation into Clinton's oval office blow job and had hardly any evidence to examine as that had been disposed of at break neck speed. NIST decided to produce a computer model to investigate the method of collapse as it couldn't get any of its experimental evidence to back up its theory. When the investigation was nearly complete NIST held a press conference to answer questions. During this conference their head investigator was questioned on the method of measuring the rate of fall for the building. NIST had simply stated that the building took 5.6 seconds to collapse at constant velocity. This was called into question because it is the rate of acceleration and not the velocity of the fall which is important to help determine what is happening during the collapse. The NIST guy also stated, in answer to another question, that it is impossible for the building to fall at free fall acceleration (9.8m/s^2) in a collapse from fire damage. He even correctly stated the scientific reasons why free fall was impossible for a gravitational collapse. These derive from Newtons laws of motion and thermal dynamics.

To put the NIST calcs in some perspective - a secondary school physics student with paper, pencil and access to the numerous videos of the building collapsing could calculate that the building came down in free fall for at least 2.6 seconds.

In the final report from NIST it states that the building did indeed come down at free fall acceleration for 2.6 seconds but this it also states that this is in keeping with their theory! There is no mention of the press conference remarks and since then NIST have refused to answer any questions on that or any of the numerous other problems with their evidence, methods and conclusions.

I'm not sure what your background is but if this is a bit confusing let me put it another way.

For any object to fall at free fall acceleration all its potential energy must be available to convert to kinetic energy. If you drop a brick from shoulder height with nothing under it then it will fall at free fall acceleration until it hits the ground. Drop it in a swimming pool and it won't fall as fast because some of the bricks potential energy has to be used to do the work of moving the water out of the way as it falls. According to NIST's final report theory the brick could fall through a tower of other bricks and it would still hit the ground at the same time as the one dropped with nothing but air under it.

For building 7 to have fallen in the manner set out in NIST’s final report the fires in the building had to instantly vaporise 47 steel columns and thousands of tons of structural concrete as the building fell. You don’t need a Fire-fighter to tell you how ridiculous that is. There's an excellent analysis of this at www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA done by a high school physics teacher.

There are buildings which fall at free fall or near free fall acceleration into their own foot print but they all have one thing in common. Explosives are used to remove the building support structure before they start to fall. The only possible way for building 7 to fall at free fall acceleration is if explosives were used to bring it down. They had to be placed there before the fateful day and that required special access to the building. It also indicates prior knowledge and the whole 19 guys conspiracy theory starts to fall apart.

This is just one of literally hundreds of issues with the official story and all of them lead to the same conclusion. 911 was a false flag operation designed to help start a war which made a lot of people very powerful and very rich. In fact there isn’t a single aspect of the days events which doesn't have problems in the official explanations. Victims of the towers were identified from DNA found in finger nails in the rubble but not one of the 4 flight recorders were found. The pentagon had 83 security cameras which would have got a picture of the plane that hit it yet not one picture can be released due to national security concerns. On United Airlines flight 93 (eventually 'crashed' in a field) people made mobile phone calls to their relatives from a height which is impossible for cell phones to work at.

The events on 911 have shaped the foreign policy of the US and UK for the last decade. Thousands of troops have been killed or injured not to mention millions of civilians. Billions have been spent on destruction and billions more have been fraudulently acquired by reconstruction companies. An example of this is a contract to move 3,000 gallons of petrol from Kuwait 300 miles into Iraq. Ask a tanker firm how much this would cost and you get a quote of around £10K. Add another £500K for some pretty serious protection and you still get nowhere near the $28 Million the Bush government paid a US firm to do the job.

Edmund Burke said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

If you believe the official story despite all the problems with it then I can accept that as everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, if you're not interested in finding out about all the issues around the main event that Blair used to take us to war or would rather not think about it then you’re in the wrong job.

I know MPs are very busy and I don't subscribe to the view that MPs can't be trusted. I actually think that anyone wanting to be an MP wants to do their best to help others and the vast majority of MPs do a very hard job.

The 10th anniversary of 911 is coming up in a few weeks. If you'd like further information on these issues then please let me know and I'd be happy to discuss it sometime.

I'm a volunteer with Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and we're working to get a new proper investigation into 911. Thanks for your time and especially if you’ve read all of this,

Mr Mallett.