Please wait

British troops risk their lives to protect the UK and our way of life

but what about the people who should be watching their backs?

Unfortunately, it seems very few are actually doing their jobs...

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.


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




Message sent via Stephen McPartland MP's website contact form


Reply from Stephen McPartland MP via email


Email reply sent to Stephen McPartland MP


Email recieved from Stephen McPartland MP's Parliamentary Caseworker


Email reply to Stephen McPartland MP's Parliamentary Caseworker


Email reply from Stephen McPartland MP


Email sent to Stephen McPartland MP


Further email sent to Stephen McPartland MP


New enquiry to Stephen McPartland MP via email


Email reply from Stephen McPartland MP's case worker


Email to Stephen McPartland MP's case worker


Reply from Stephen McPartland MP himself


Reply to Stephen McPartland


Follow up email to Stephen McPartland MP


Further follow up email to Stephen McPartland MP


Email reply from Stephen McPartland MP


Final email to Stephen McPartland MP

15/08/2011 - Email reply to Stephen McPartland MP's Parliamentary Caseworker

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

Thank you for your reply.

When Stephen emailed me on the 29th July his reply was...

I have no more knowledge than you of what happened that tragic day, which led to the loss of thousands of innocent lives. I am pleased that our troops have left Iraq and will be leaving Afghanistan soon.

While he's right that we have very little knowledge of what actually happened that day I have quite a bit of knowledge of the scientific evidence disproving the official explanation. The official story put out by the Bush administration aided by NIST and the 911 Commission has so many holes in it that it's ridiculous. Why do you think there are so many people now raising the issues and calling for a new investigation. These are the sort of people who you would never normally class as 'conspiracy theory buffs'? There are Architects, Engineers, Airline Pilots, Scientists, High ranking military officers, Academics, Actors and a whole swathe of other professions putting their credibility on the line. They all want to be on the right side of history when the dominos start falling and if you've been following the news that may not be far off.

By the way, if you personally would like to learn about some of the issues regarding 911 please try the following websites: (there is a particularly good page here at listing 40 of the biggest problems with the official story) (over 1,500 Architects and Engineers calling for a new investigation)

There are loads more sites but these are the main ones at the moment.

If you drop a brick in air it falls at free fall acceleration. If you drop it in water it won't fall as fast because the water gets in the way. According to the NIST explanation for the collapse of WTC Building 7 you could drop the brick on a pile of other bricks and it would hit the floor at the same time as the one in air having crushed all the other bricks to dust on the way. You dont need to be an engineer to have serious doubts on that one!

In October 1999 Egypt flight 990 crashed when the Co-pilot put the plane into a dive at 22,000 feet in a successful suicide attempt. It was a Boeing 767 like the one that hit the South Tower on 911. The black box flight recorder from Egypt 990 showed the aircraft breaking up at 490 knots in much less dense air at altitude. Boeing puts a maximum speed of 385 knots on their 767 aircraft at sea level yet the 767 which hit the South Tower was shown on radar to be travelling at 510 knots at nearly level flight. The readings had to come from radar because none of the four bright orange, virtually indestructible black boxes were recovered despite authorities also being able to identify victims from the DNA in finger nail fragments.

Most people would rather not think about problems with the official 911 story because the implications are so huge but I would like to know if my MP is happy with the official account of the most pivotal event of the last decade or if he has any doubts. If he could just answer that question Id appreciate it rather than the previous fob offs. Not knowing about it cannot be used as an excuse when so much of current policy and government expenditure directly results from it to say nothing of the millions of lives lost.

Thanks for your time and apologies if me not going quietly away is annoying but this is very important,

Mr Mallett B. Eng. (Hons)
Stevenage Company Managing Director, Civil Engineering Graduate, ex Hertfordshire Fire-fighter, ex RAF Regiment, ex member of MENSA and Stevenage resident.

I mention that lot because hopefully it entitles me to more than just another fob off?

« Previous item

^ Return to index ^

Next item »