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

25/07/2012 - Email to Stephen McPartland MP's case worker

Hi ***********

I contacted Stephen about my issue in August last year but he avoided giving me a straight answer to a simple question and then asked me to acknowledge he'd always been 'honest'!

The question is this: does Stephen believe the official story for the events of 9/11 or not? Yes or no?

The evidence disproving the official story is staggering. You can even stick to using only 'official' evidence published by the 9/11 commission, NIST and other US government agencies to scientifically prove it to be false in dozens of ways. I've listed three examples below for you but there are plenty more. It comes down to a simple choice – Do you believe the original Bush administration conspiracy theory created hours after the event or do you believe the laws of physics because they are mutually exclusive.

As a result of 9/11 the UK was taken into the first of two illegal wars, both of which have been over oil, money and power. Over 400 UK service personnel have been killed in Afghanistan over a lie and that lie continues to dictate UK government policy now.

I would like Stephen to answer the question above. If he believes the official story I would like him to explain why he believes the laws of physics are no longer valid. If he has questions and issues with the official story then I’d like him to explain why he doesn’t act on them but rather let other people die to pay for his inaction.

If he chooses to tell you to fob me off again then please book me a slot in his next surgery on September 14th so I can ask him in person.

Thanks for your time,

Mr Mallett

Example 1:
The third sky scraper to fall on 9/11 (WTC7) collapsed from fire alone, straight down into its own foot print in free fall for at least 2.25 seconds. When Shyam Sunder of the US National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) was asked about the possibility of free fall in a technical press conference in August 2008 he stated that free fall was impossible due to the resistance from the building structure. The video of the press conference has since been removed from the NIST website but can still be found on YouTube. Unfortunately for NIST it is easy to measure the collapse acceleration for WTC7 so NIST was forced to admit to free fall in its final report issued a few months later in November 2008. NIST were CORRECT on both points. WTC7 DID fall in free fall for at least 2.25 seconds and it was IMPOSSIBLE for that to occur had the building suffered a gravitational collapse from fire alone. A building collapsing in free fall can ONLY occur during a controlled demolition using explosives. Therefore, scientifically WTC7 had to be a controlled demolition which would have taken weeks to set up in a highly secure building and so could not have been carried out by al-Qaeda alone.

Example 2:
United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower at a speed of approximately 510 knots according to data from the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). A commercial Boeing 757 has a maximum speed in level flight at sea level of 385 knots. It cannot exceed that speed because the engines simply cannot supply the power to overcome the increased air resistance at higher speeds. So how is it possible for the stated plane to achieve a speed 40% above its maximum on 9/11? The planes which hit the twin towers were never forensically identified and all four flight recorders were 'destroyed in the fire balls'. This is the same type of fireball they were designed to survive and the same fireball which a paper passport survived to be found on the street below.

Example 3:
The information from the flight data recorder on board American Airlines Flight 77 (the Boeing 767 which hit the Pentagon) was released by the NTSB. The data clearly shows that the flight deck cabin door was NEVER opened during the flight. So either the hijackers took control of the plane while it was in the process of boarding or it was never hijacked or the data was faked. The same data shows that the aircraft was flying at an altitude such that it was flying 300 feet ABOVE the Pentagon just before impact.