Vicious Tories 264

We do not have a parliamentary system which can hold a government with an absolute majority to account, even when that government only gained 37% of the vote. This is a salutary video for all of us, but particularly my fellow SNP members who think that being on House of Commons committees will make a big difference. Watch it from 16.32.30 where Paul Flynn starts to explore the links between Liam Fox, Adam Werritty and Matthew Gould. As he threatens to uncover hidden truths, he is shouted down by Tory MP Robert Halfon and forbidden from speaking by Tory committee chair Bernard Jenkin.

The Tories will be even worse in this parliament.

Halfon has today been promoted to Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party and given a seat in the Cabinet. He is a really nasty piece of work whose political career has been sponsored and financed by a very sinister figure named Poju Zabludowicz, who works closely with Mossad. It is appalling that Zabludowicz should be able to place his puppet into the centre of government, and shows yet again that money can buy power at Westminster, every time.

It is amusing that Cameron has been forced to put David Mundell into the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Scotland. Also interesting that in the present state of opinion Cameron was not able to put in a colonial governor from the Lords or an English constituency. But whatever else may be said in Mundell’s favour, nobody has ever described him as highly intelligent, I suspect not even his mum. So it will be interesting to see how he manages his extraordinarily sensitive brief.

Labour equally had no choice but Ian Murray – which means as a shadow cabinet member he will have to stop pretending he is opposed to Trident. As anti-Trident rhetoric was the thing that saved Murray (plus disgraceful media attacks on his SNP opponent), by forcing him to become pro-Trident Scottish Labour will make a strong bid to have no MPs at all.

264 thoughts on “Vicious Tories

1 7 8 9
  • Republicofscotland

    Named hijackers of 9/11 flights,many still alive and well.

    Flight 175: Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Ahmed, Mohald Alshehri, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi
    Flight 11: Waleed M Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Satam Al Suqami
    Flight 77: Khalid Al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour
    Flight 93: Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Ziad Jarrahi and Saeed Alghamdi

  • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

    “An example of “poisoning the well”?”


    Here we go again.

    As several on here have noticed, you can ever pin down a determined conspiracy theorist, he’ll always wriggle out of any hold.

  • Republicofscotland

    A 47-story building, not hit by an airplane, collapses just like the other two towers, in less than ten seconds, and those investigating didn’t feel the need to address WTC 7 in their report? One might think they would, especially since there were so many important government agencies in that building, yet not one mention in the 9/11 Report. How weird is that?

  • Republicofscotland

    Dick Cheney Tracked Pentagon Attack Plane 50 Miles Out!

    Probably as alarming as the collapse of WTC 7 are the actions of Dick Cheney after the second tower was hit. Cheney was rushed to the Presidential Emergency Operating Center (PEOC) by Secret Servicemen immediately following the attack on the second tower. What is particularly odd is what Cheney did once he got there.

    During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, ‘The plane is 50 miles out.’ ‘The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to ‘The plane is 10 miles out’ the young man said to the Vice President, ‘Do the orders still stand.’

    Testimony of U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta before the 9/11 Commission. (5/23/03)

    Conspiracy I think not.

  • Kempe

    See? He’s done it again.

    It would’ve taken Flight 77 about 6 minutes to cover 50 miles; that bloke must’ve been pretty quick on his feet.

  • Republicofscotland

    One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss.


    The World Trade Centre buildings were built with steel,as was WTC7.

  • Daniel




    Was the Meridan Plaza severely damaged by falling debris smashing into it as a result of a collapsing building that was triggered by high velocity planes laden with jet fuel smashing into it?

  • Daniel



    After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what’s known as a “progressive collapse”–that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

    The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building’s many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7’s southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: “Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires.”

    The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings: “These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings.” If the sprinkler system in WTC 7 had been working, it is likely that “the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.” The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural “connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads.” According to Sunder: “For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse.”

  • Silvio

    What’s especially telling about the official NIST explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is that the NIST investigators used a (bogus looking) computer simulation to make their case, but then won’t release the data they feed into the simulation so that it is impossible for independent scientists and engineers to put the “official” Popular Mechanics/NIST explanation through a scientific, peer review process. NIST says it can’t release the data because it “might jeopardize public safety.” LOL.

    (You can go to Youtube and search on “NIST WTC7 collapse simulation” and you’ll see several videos comparing the NIST provided computer simulation of the collapse side by side with the actual videos of the building collapsing on the afternoon of 9/11.)

    Here is what the NIST Director Paul Gallager had to say about why NIST couldn’t release the data behind their WTC7 collapse computer simulation:




  • Silvio


    by Adam Taylor


    We must ask ourselves why PM would choose to cite these people as examples of those who question the collapse of the Towers. Why didn’t they cite anyone with experience in the fields of engineering and building construction? According to PM, it’s because the 9/11 Truth movement doesn’t have any technical credentials. In their 2011 book, they state that:

    Though Reynolds and a handful of other skeptics cite academic credentials to lend credence to their views, not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields. (pg. 28-29)

    This statement is by far one of the most remarkable passages in PM’s book. One need only look at what most consider the lead organization in the 9/11truth community, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, to see that there are currently over 1600 (now over 2300 /Silvio) professional architects and engineers with backgrounds in engineering, architecture and building construction who question the destruction of the three WTC high-rise buildings. How can PM possibly have omitted over a thousand experts who agree that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were brought down with explosives? In PM’s entire 216 page book, there is not a single mention made of AE911Truth or its founder, architect Richard Gage, AIA.

  • Kempe

    “Most remarkable passage” or the only one AE911 could pick a hole in? The fact remains that in 8-9 years AE911 have only managed to persuade less than 0.003% of the registered architects in the US to sign up and even fewer engineers. Until recently they’ve studiously avoided discussing the Pentagon attack and have caused further splits in the “Truth” movement by doing so.

    What little credibility they have has been damaged further by their close association with the anti-semitic Nation of Islam but then as long as Gage gets his $60,000 salary from this “non-profit” organisation I don’t suppose he cares too much.

  • Republicofscotland

    The official explanations of WTC 7’s collapse are problematic for several reasons:

    Fire has never caused any steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner, let alone with the vertical precision of Building 7’s destruction. 1 Other steel-framed skyscrapers have experienced far more serious fires than Building 7.

    WTC 7 fell straight down, which necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment.

    Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about.

    No random events, such as the debris damage and fires envisioned by the official reports, or explosions from fuel tanks proposed by some, could be expected to result in such a tidy and complete collapse.

    WTC 7 fell precipitously, at a rate closely approaching the speed of gravitational free-fall. That necessitated the sudden removal of structure near ground level that would have impeded its descent.

    The collapse of WTC 7 exhibited all of the features of a standard controlled demolition. To suppose that a cause other than controlled demolition could produce an event with all of the features uniquely characteristic of controlled demolition defies logic.

  • Kempe


    No, it just requires an understanding of the mechanics of progressive collapse and how quickly the failure of one component can overload the structure around it.

    I’d invite you to “do your own research” on the subject but that would be a complete waste of time wouldn’t it?

  • Republicofscotland

    The official story of the fates of the doomed flights asks us to believe a long series of improbable events including:

    The alleged takeover of all four flights without a any of the pilots managing to communicate to ground controllers that a hijacking had occurred, except the pilots of Flight 93.

    Peculiar characteristics of some of the phone calls allegedly made from the jets.
    The hijackers’ selection of routes exposing them to certain interception had air defences been operating normally.

    The amazing piloting skills by hijackers with dubious competence at piloting even light aircraft.

    The lack of any physical evidence, such as airport security video footage, showing that any of the hijackers boarded any of the commandeered flights.

    The alleged failure of investigators to recover data from the black boxes of Flight 77, or even to recover the black boxes from Flight 11 or Flight 175.

    The suppression of flight evidence, such as interviews with air traffic controllers.

    Too many anomalies.

  • Silvio

    Remember NIST and Popular Mechanics think you are gullible enough to buy NIST’s bogus reason why the data for the NIST computer modeling of the WTC 7 collapse cannot be released to other scientists or the public at large – because, NIAT claims, the information would compromise public safety. Also means of course that no independent scientists and engineers can conduct a peer review study of the NIST conclusions to see if their own computers models get the same results, or to see if they can agree the input data and assumptions are really valid. (See my post above at 2:52am)

    Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

    Below is a series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself – including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross – should be investigated.



    Technical Statement: After initially denying it, NIST was ultimately forced into a public acknowledgement in their final report on WTC 7 that the building fell at full free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds, during which time it traversed the vertical distance of eight stories, or just over 100 feet. However, there is no attempt in the report to confront the implications that there could not have been any structural resistance during this eight-story fall at gravitational acceleration. Since every other skyscraper in history that has fallen in the manner in which WTC 7 did was an explosive controlled demolition, and since there is abundant eyewitness testimony of explosions and molten iron as well as chemical evidence of incendiaries found in the debris pile, one would expect NIST to at least consider the possibility of explosive or incendiary use and test for them, according to the National Fire Protection Association investigation standard NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, which is strictly followed by the FDNY. Incredibly, NIST continues to refuse to test the remaining debris for explosives or incendiaries.


    Technical Statement: The exterior of the NIST WTC 7 computer model shows large deformations, as would be expected in a natural collapse, but which are not observed in the video of the actual event. There is no attempt in the report to explain this discrepancy.

    Continued at:

  • Kempe

    11. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?

    More at:-

  • Daniel


    I found an interesting set of videos which show the 911 buildings falling. They are shot from different angles and they clearly show Building 7 does not fall straight down and that Building 1 falls from the top first:

    Counterpunch, the radical leftwing magazine, commissioned its own expert, an aerospace and mechanical engineer, Manuel Garcia, to test the official findings. Garcia shows that NIST must have been right. He also demonstrates how Building 7 collapsed.

    (See ‘We See Conspiracies That Don’t Exist: The Physics of 9/11′, 28th November 2006).

    Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions:

    (See Benjamin Chertoff et al, March 2005, ‘Debunking The 9/11 Myths’, Popular Mechanics).

    If Building 7 had come down at free fall speed the tower would have hit the ground at the same time as the debris. It didn’t. This is basic physics which truther websites do not explain.

    Here are some more links that debunk the truther nonsense:;

    Despite the obvious facts above, realists are somehow expected to believe that either:

    1) “Explosives” were planted when the buildings were erected. That would require the longest conspiracy planning in history.


    2) They were planted later. In which case, who planted them? How did they do that in a building occupied by 50,000 people on a daily basis? Perhaps they did it on weekends when the building only had about 5,000 visitors /day?


    3) Maybe the attacks never happened at all and the films of the attack and subsequent collapse were all made in a Hollywood studio – you know, like the moon landings, and all the citizens of New York City are actually in on the conspiracy and now just pretend the buildings are gone?.


    4) Maybe the buildings themselves were never really there but were merely holographic projections by some advanced alien technology kept out at Area 51?

    Or maybe . . . well, you get the gist.

    Apparently, to qualify as an opponent of the Bush regime, it’s not sufficient to acknowledge that his administration exploited the attacks on the WTC for their own political ends, but rather, one must also believe that it is capable of magic. It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile while persuading over a hundred witnesses that they saw a plane.



    In other words, one must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front. Otherwise you are a traitor and a spy.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    17/05/2015 6:28pm

    Thank you for posting some good sense on this matter.

    I am no engineer or physicist, so the arguments about free fall versus controlled demolition, etc etc, are beyond my powers to sort out into truth or myth. But one thing in particular (out of many!) about the sabotage theory has always worried me. How is anyone supposed to have placed enough explosive to demolish a building, explosives on every floor of three multi-floored buildings, without anybody noticing? Or without anybody coming forward afterwards to talk about how such shenanigans might have gone on? It doesn’t make any sense.

    You might want to consider placing attributions in the body of your posting, such as when you quote extensively from Monbiot. It would sort out your own voice from that of others.

    Kind regards,


  • wee e

    Well, a very late comment, but I can’t get that parliament TV video to work at all, not matter whether I try to access it from your link or from a search within parliamenttv itself.
    All I could find was this in the minutes:

    “Ministerial Conduct: The Committee considered this
    Motion made, and Question put, That the Committee inquire into the decision to ignore the provisions of the Ministerial Code in the investigation conducted into the Fox/Werritty affair.
    The Committee divided.
    Ayes, 2 Paul Flynn, Kelvin Hopkins
    Noes, 4 Alun Cairns,Charlie Elphicke,Robert Halfon,Priti Patel
    Question accordingly negatived.
    Resolved, That the Committee inquire into the arrangements for the Independent Adviser to the Prime Minister on Ministerial Interests to investigate alleged breaches of the Ministerial

1 7 8 9

Comments are closed.