17 Apr 2018

True Common Law Democracy

Printable Download here

There is in society, a breathtaking level of confusion over the word Democracy and what it really means. It was not until I read one book, in particular (which I will mention at the end), that this confusion was cleared-up for me. And it is vital that these concepts are clarified because Democracy is, once you understand what it truly is, the most valuable thing we could possess in our society.

This confusion has come about through deliberate deception and is so deep-rooted that even those in society who should know better have fallen for it. Those in the political class and academia also appear to be confused - unless, of course, that is also part of the deception.

As many people are now aware, we are being lied-to on a colossal scale about so many things. As part of the information that is there to be discovered by those that are 'awakening', is the discovery of how states are supposed to function in a lawful and constitutional structure. And the aim of this brief article is to attempt to clarify for the reader how the United Kingdom (and other similar nations with historical connections to England) are supposed to function.

Broadly speaking, there are two groups in society, those that are completely unaware of the corruption, fraud and deception and those that have at least some awareness that things are not right and are on the road to discovering much of the information that has been kept from us.

Unfortunately, the deception over the word 'Democracy' appears to have entrapped both groups, not just the completely unaware, but also many of those in society who are more enlightened in their understanding of the fun and games going on behind the scenes.

For practical purposes, I will simply refer to these as Groups 1 and 2. Group 1 are those who are largely unaware of the deceptions and group 2 are those that are generally better versed in the conspiratorial reality of our society's history and current situation.

The Deceptions at Play

Group 1 (who are not aware of the fraud and corruption in society) believe that what is sold to them as Democracy is the real-deal. They have been programmed to believe that what is peddled as Democracy by the establishment is the only mechanism on offer to hold the government to account. What this group believes (the majority in society) is that Democracy is a system of local or more centralised elections which occur at regular intervals in which the people have the opportunity to vote for a representative. Supposedly, that representative will then (according to their manifesto) work to effect change in society through altering 'laws' to bring society more in alignment with the desires of those that voted for them. This system of voting is fundamentally what most in society (Group 1) believes is the mechanism through which the people influence the functioning of government and the nation's laws.

Group 2, those that are much more aware of the fraud and corruption at the top, are, more importantly, also aware of the serious limitations that Democracy appears to offer. They understand that voting representatives into 'power' at elections is not the way that the freedoms of the people are supposed to be preserved and the constraints placed upon the systems of the state. They are aware that the sovereignty of the people is gained not through voting but through some other constitutional mechanism and they have some vague notion that this is to be found in some other 'political system' outside the thing that has been sold to them as Democracy. A number of this group believe that the true limitations of government can be found in a Republic - that which was chosen by the founding fathers of the United States. This is also a trap because they are clamouring for something other than Democracy.

We have a sort of double deception at play here: both groups are being deceived but the confusions are different. The first group is unaware of the form in which their freedoms are to be preserved: the second group, whilst understanding that they are looking for a mechanism to keep their public servants in check, believes wrongly that this is to be found somewhere other than Democracy because they have been lied-to about what Democracy truly is.

Democracy cannot be compared with a Republic because they define different things about a state. In the same way, a Democracy cannot be compared with a Monarchy. But a Monarchy and a Republic can, indeed, be compared. Both a Republic and a Monarchy describe the 'style' of the head-of-state. The head-of-state in a republic is a president: the head-of-state in a monarchy is a king or queen. Either of these systems can, in addition, be a democracy (or not).

Democracy is something that is defined by a hidden magic ingredient that has absolutely nothing to do with either a Republic or a Monarchy. This magic component that I have, as yet, not described can be added to either of these systems making a Democratic Republic or a Democratic Monarchy (more often referred to as a Constitutionally-limited Monarchy). Without this magic ingredient that defines a true democracy, the system is despotism whether a Republic or a Monarchy. There is nothing inherently more prone to supporting individual freedoms in a Republic than there is in a Monarchy. Both are equally able to be truly democratic or despotic in nature.

So, both of the aforementioned groups have been deceived - but in different ways. Group 1 thinks that what is being touted as Democracy is to be treasured and believe that this will preserve their freedoms. Group 2 knows that there is something else much more powerful as an antidote to despotism and tyranny than voting in elections but have been tricked into looking for it elsewhere.

Official Democracy is Fake - Like everything else?
Real Democracy is all about the people having direct control and supremacy over government and its laws not just through voting but some other mechanism. Turning society into a competition through establishing a party-political election system in which the winning group's greater freedoms are gained merely at the expense of others that lose is not true Democracy. The real term for this is Suffrage.

The Magic Ingredient of True Democracy
Apologies for sounding a little evasive in my efforts to clarify what a true democracy is! This two-level fraud is difficult to explain unless the reader is taken through carefully stage at a time. It's also nice to keep you a little on-edge with anticipation. All good things come to those who wait.

So, I have explained that there is a 'magic' hidden component to all of this that is the defining characteristic of real Democracy and this mechanism that should be built into a democratic society gives the ordinary people of the country the direct power over the laws of the state.

That mechanism is full, un-abridged Trial-by-Jury; not the watered-down version we have today. The full system of Trial-by-Jury that we did have at one time and are still supposed to have now, has much sharper teeth and a far greater scope.

Most people will think of our current system of Trial-by-Jury as only really giving the jury the power to decide on the verdict for the accused - and, largely, they would be correct. This, on the surface, doesn't feel like it would be an especially powerful and appropriate platform from which to apply constraints to the state mechanisms and uphold the freedoms of the individuals of society; important though it is. But when one really understands what Trial-by-Jury is in its fullest form the light bulb clicks on. Yes, Trial-by-Jury even in its current, watered-down version is powerful and important but not half as critical to our individual freedoms and spectacular in the effects it produces as the full-fat version!

Once you fully understand what the jury has the power (and duty) to do in the full Trial-by-Jury system, you'll very quickly realise why it was one of the key aims of the establishment to remove its most potent parts as quickly as possible from the sight of the general public.

This is what a Jury has the power and duty to do in the full, un-abridged Trial-by-Jury system that has now unlawfully been removed from us:

1. Decide on the admissibility of evidence.  Juries would have access to all evidence un-filtered.  Nowadays, evidence is pre-selected for the jury by people in 'the system' (including judges), which, in many cases, has resulted in the distortion of juries' decisions.

2. Decide on the verdict: Guilty or Not-guilty. Importantly, this is done without any reference to the statutory code that is being tested in relation to the supposed crime. A guilty or not-guilty verdict is solely based on the conscience of the individual juror when deciding on whether there was malicious intent on the part of the accused. (Malice aforethought). For a guilty verdict, there has to have been deliberate intent. As D'Oudney makes clear in Democracy Defined: The Manifesto, guilt can only exist in motive and cannot be ascribed by legislation.

3. Decide on the sentence itself.

4. Make all decisions in this list without any interference from the Judge (who is wrongly named the 'Judge'). It is the Jury that makes all decisions not the judge.

"Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must take or accept as the law that which has been given to them, or that they must bring in a certain verdict, or that they can decide only the facts of the case."

Lord Justice Denman: Regina v. C.J. O'Connel, 1884.

5. All decisions in this list are reached on the basis of unanimity. The accused is always considered not-guilty unless a 'guilty' decision is reached by every single one of the Jury. This means that a single juror has immense power. This is very significantly going wrong in the US with such unlawful inventions as 'a hung jury' or a 'majority verdict'. There are no such things under a proper and full Trial-by-Jury system. All jurors must proclaim a guilty verdict if the accused is to be found guilty.

6. And this is the kicker - this is the one that the members of the Judiciary, legislature and parliament really do not want you to know: The Jury also has the power to annul (or invalidate) legislation (government-created law) that is inappropriate or unfair according to their conscience. This is called Annulment-by-Jury. (Sometimes rather ambiguously named 'Jury Nullification'). This would happen by applying the Not-Guilty verdict. The act of doing this starts the process of legislation being extracted from the statute books. For most in the establishment, this is an absolute bombshell. As explained above concerning unanimity, this means that a single member of society (one, single juror) has the power to annul government-created law if, according to their conscience they cannot give the guilty verdict to the accused. That really hurts the egos of those in the political class.

The Common Law: A Higher Jurisdiction

Now we are beginning to see the difference between government-created 'law' (in the UK, called Parliamentary Statute created through Acts) and the decisions of juries. The collective decisions of juries based on principle and conscience of ordinary common folk is how justice is done in a truly democratic society precisely because it is judgement by peers. This underscores the principle of equality before the law: that nobody is above the law. We are judged by our fellow man - not by people in special positions of 'power'. This form of law that is made up of the decisions of juries is called Common Law and was inscribed by the Great Charter of 1215: Magna Carta. Most people in the judiciary would claim that Common Law is the collective decisions of Judges - but this is actually not the case despite what they may tell you.

"Trial by Jury is so-named, for in democratic societies the trial of a citizen is by fellow citizens who comprise the jury. Trial is not 'Trial-by-government' which could never be fair where government is also one of the contesting parties. Judges themselves comprise a branch of government, and, they are in the pay of government. Police, prison service and, above all, prosecutors and judges are employed to enforce governments' laws. Such personnel should never be asked, nor relied on, to decide impartially whether laws are just, for they must fulfil their task or face the fury of the government, their employer."

D'Oudney, Democracy Defined: The Manifesto, pp. 8-9.

Logically, it follows, of course that Common Law is a higher jurisdiction of law than government-created code or regulation - because the people's judgement out-ranks that of our public servants. A Democracy is only a Democracy because it contains a full Common law/Trial-by-Jury system (especially including Annulment-by-Jury) in order to allow the ordinary people of the country who make up juries to judge the law that they themselves agree to abide by. The mechanisms of the state are firmly kept in their box.

"It is uniquely in the nature of Trial by Jury that juries fulfil the purpose of law in a democratic society. This is to maintain justice by protecting the citizen from injustice and crime of all kinds, whether perpetrated by the state or by other citizens; and to uphold the rights, freedom and legitimate interests of all. Trial by Jury defines democracy, for the juror is sovereign in Trial by Jury: the people rule." 

D'Oudney: Democracy Defined: The Manifesto, p. 5.

I'll leave you to decide whether your country is a true democracy or a tyrannical despotism.

"The Trial by Jury ever has been, and, I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law. It is the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy or wish for, that he cannot be affected in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbours and equals."

Book 3, Blackstone's Analysis of the Laws of England, p. 379.

Please obtain a copy of Kenn D'Oudney's book 'Democracy Defined: The Manifesto'. You can get it on Amazon. I can honestly say, that in all the years I have been reading into this subject, it is through this book more than any other that misunderstandings have been clarified and gaps in my knowledge filled.

A Quick Re-cap

  1. We have been tricked over the word Democracy
  2. Some believe democracy is all about voting in elections. That is not Democracy but Suffrage.
  3. Others have noticed the official version of Democracy is not sufficient to limit the state and uphold freedoms of the individual and so clamour for something other than Democracy
  4. A Republic is not the opposite to a Democracy - they cannot even be compared as they are talking about different aspects of a state's construction
  5. A Republic can be compared with a Monarchy - these describe the style of the Head-of-State (President or King/Queen)
  6. Both a Republic and a Monarchy can be Democracies if the head-of-state is limited in its powers and has taken promises to the people and a full un-abridged Trial-by-Jury system is in place
  7. Both a Republic and a Monarchy can be tyrannies (and obviously not democratic if these features are missing)
  8. Ordinary people must require a restoration of these Democratic features in their country if they are to regain their true freedoms and place government and the state back under its proper limitations
  9. They would do this by insisting that a full system of Trial-by-Jury is re-established that especially includes the powers of Annulment-by-Jury: the defining characteristic of a Democracy.
Democracy - It can be trusted After-All, by William Keyte - November 2017

Source: D'Oudney, K.E.A. 2016: Democracy Defined: The Manifesto. (Second Edition) London: SRC Publishing. ISBN 978-1-902848-26-6

This information is being shared far and wide with members of the public.  People are learning all about true democracy.  Britain is a Common Law country, it has been led away from its origins as a Common Law Trial by Jury Constitutionally-limited Monarchy.  The people can restore true democracy with the right leadership through a revolution of intelligence.  All attempts to undermine the British Constitution are acts of treason (R v Thistlewood 1820).  Please help by sharing this far and wide.

Common Law Democracy versus Collectivism

There are many words commonly used today to describe political belief systems. We are told that there are Conservatives, Socialists, Liberals, Libertarians, Progressives, Left-wingers, Right-wingers, Communists, Maoists, Trotskyites, Fascists, Nazis; and if that isn’t confusing enough, now we have Neo-Conservatives, Neo-Nazis, Neo-Liberals and Neo-everything else. When we are asked what our political views are, we are expected to choose from one of these words. If we don’t have a political opinion or if we’re afraid of making a bad choice, then we play it safe and say we are Moderates – adding yet one more word to the list.

Only a very small minority of people can clearly and accurately define the ideology that any of these words represent. They are used, primarily, as labels to conjure up thoughts of either goodness or badness, depending on who uses the words and what emotions they trigger in their minds. For example, socialism might be described as People-friendly left-wing, whereas fascism is described as corporatist right-wing, yet Hitler, a national Socialist is today described as a Fascist!

To become clear on this thing called political ideology, one has to defragment and simplify what is seen. If we are to make sense of the political agendas that dominate our planet today, we must not allow our thinking to be contaminated by the emotional load of the old political vocabulary.

When boiled down, distilled and simplified, there are essentially just two main choices - servitude or freedom - Collectivism or true Common Law Democracy.  We can either choose to be subjugated into a collective by rulers, overtly or covertly, through Collectivism; or we can choose to be sovereign People in a Common Law Democracy, a profoundly different system from what we have today.

Left vs. Right?

We are told that Communists are at the extreme Left of the political spectrum, and the Fascists are at the extreme Right; two adversaries pitted against each other because, supposedly, they are opposites. Upon close examination, however, we find that they are not opposites at all. They both rest upon the same principles of Collectivism. Fascism and Communism are merely variants of Collectivism. Both believe that the State is sovereign, that the State should be all powerful with an obedient populace, and that rights are not of the human but given to the human by the State.  Both are powerful models in which the State has substantial centralized control over the social and economic affairs of the People.

In simple terms, there has been a mirage of two main political parties opposing each other in Britain for decades, the Right versus the Left. Yet, when we get past the party rhetoric and slogans, we find that the leaders of both parties support the main principles of collectivism.  They do represent a Right wing and a Left wing, but, as G. Edward Griffin so aptly points out “They are merely two wings of the same ugly bird.”

Communism, Nazism, Fascism and socialism all gravitate toward bigger and bigger government, because that is the logic of their ideology. Under collectivism, all problems must be solved by the State. The more problems there are, the more powerful the state must become, therefore its in the State’s best interests for there to be divisions and conflicts so that the People run into its arms looking for safety.

Regardless of what name you give it, regardless of how we re-label it to make it seem new or different, Colle­ctivism is Totalitarianism.  This leads to the stunning realization that Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Neo-Conservatism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Corporatism, Technocracy, Globalism, One World Government, and most of the other political nostrums of our century merely are variants of the same thing. Its name is Collectivism.

True freedom for the British People can only germinate from knowledge and understanding. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.”  For freedom we need honest information.  Without genuinely informed choice there can be no democracy.  People today have better access than ever to knowledge and information. The next logical step is the restoration of a trueCommon Law Democracy.  Britain is a Common Law country.  Its People now need to push for the enforcement of the ancient British Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury system of Democracy and progress towards diminution in the role of the State.

(Credit to G.Edward Griffin for his research along these lines for decades)

16 Apr 2018

Is British Mainstream Media Honest and Reliable?

Our mainstream media and press appears to be controlled by 'Big-money'. In the main, only neutral or favorable information is expressed through the corporate-controlled media-machine. What does slip through their control is either unimportant to the overall momentum of the corporate agenda, or its ignored and dismissed in a number of ways.

If you have ever been directly involved in any publicity campaign you will know that the media do not report all the facts, they omit and sometimes bend information to meet an agenda being set for them. Ask members of the recent campaigns for the EU referendum, the Firefighter’s pensions dispute, the Scottish referendum, the young Doctors, the 'Save our NHS' campaign, and many anti-war campaigns, to name just a few. Anyone involved in these processes will attest to the manipulation of the media in favour of the Government’s preferred outcomes.

In 2008, award-winning journalist Nick Davies lifted the lid on how manipulative the mainstream media is. The title of his article in the Independent newspaper says it all: “How the Spooks Took Over the News.” In his articles and his book, he illustrates how “shadowy intelligence agencies are pumping out black propaganda to manipulate public opinion--and the media simply swallow it wholesale.” In the Guardian newspaper, Davies describes how our media have become mass producers of distortion, and he evidences this with clear, unambiguous examples. He convincingly delivers the message that “the mass media generally are no longer a reliable source of information”.

The international mega media corporations, like News International owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, drive opinion and political awareness not just in the direction of profit, but also towards the longer-term goals of their associates. The corporate ownership of news has now all but destroyed the principle of truth-telling by grossly politicising the news agenda and severely reducing the actual time available for journalists to do their jobs.

Specialists at Cardiff University surveyed more than 2,000 UK news stories from four quality dailies (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent) and the Daily Mail. They found two striking things. First, when they tried to trace the origins of their “facts”, they discovered that only 12% of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. With 8% of the stories, they just could not be sure. The remaining 80%, they found, were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material, provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Second, when they looked for evidence that these “facts” had been thoroughly checked, they found this was happening in only 12% of the articles. 

The implication of these two findings is alarming. Where once journalists were active detectives and gatherers of news, now they are blocked by their chief editor or have generally become mere passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material, much of it contrived by agencies to serve some political or commercial interest.

14 Apr 2018

Which war crimes did the West commit last night?

The first law that has been broken by attacking Syria is Article 2 of the Treaty for Renunciation of War. It is the single most important Treaty that the UK and the rest of the World ever signed to prevent unlawful wars. It is called the Kellogg–Briand Pact of 1928.

This is an international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them".

Article II –

The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

The Kellogg-Briand Pact renounces the use of war and calls for the peaceful settlement of disputes. The Pact's central provisions renounce the use of war and promotes peaceful settlement of disputes and the use of collective force to prevent aggression. It was incorporated into the United Nations Charter and other treaties. It formed the basis of the charges against German leaders of war crimes in the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, which led to their convictions and hangings.

The second law that has been broken is the UN Charter of 1945, specifically Article 2, subsections 3 and 4, as below.

Article 2.3 - “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Article 2.4 – “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The UN Charter, in which we promise never to threaten or attack another nation State, is an international law which holds this world together. It has been violated.

Probably the most important international war law that has ever been agreed is the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002). In 1998 this was signed by 132 Nations. Britain ratified this law in September 2001, which means that this international law became part of British national law, introducing jurisdiction for international war crimes into Britain.

Under these laws the People of Britain should be able to prosecute and impeach our reckless, mis-representative and criminal leaders for war crimes and for inciting crimes ancillary to genocide.

War crimes do appear to have been committed. The attacks took place before chemical weapon inspectors could arrive in Douma. Our Government appears to have used unjustifiable acts of aggression against an independent State, with no real authority or tangible evidence.


The UK Conservative Government has justified its actions on the basis of humanitarian intervention and customary international law practices which are rejected by a large majority of states and therefore cannot be customary international law.

Dapo Akande, Professor of Public International Law, Oxford University, gave this opinion:
"In the opinion I reach the following conclusions:
1. Contrary to the position of the government, neither the UN charter nor customary international law permits military action on the basis of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. There is very little support by states for such an exception to the prohibition of the use of force. The UK is one of very few states that advocates for such a legal principle but the vast majority of states have explicitly rejected it.

2. The legal position advanced by the government ignores the structure of the international law rules relating to the use of force, in particular, because a customary international law rule does not prevail over the rule in the United Nations charter prohibiting the use of force. To accept the position advocated by the government would be to undermine the supremacy of the UN charter.

3. Even if there was a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in international law, the strikes against Syria would not appear to meet the tests set out by the government. The action taken by the government was not directed at bringing “immediate and urgent relief” with regard to the specific evil it sought to prevent, and was taken before the inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were able to reach the affected area.

4. If the position taken by the government were to be accepted by states globally, it would allow for individual assessments of when force was necessary to achieve humanitarian ends, with the risk of abuse. It is because of the humanitarian suffering that will ensue from such abusive uses of force, that other states and many scholars have been reluctant to endorse the doctrine of humanitarian action."

13 Apr 2018

A People's party for true democracy in Britain - The Democrats & Veterans

The origin and etymology of the word 'democracy' is from both 'demos', which means 'the people', 'kratos' which means 'power', and 'kratein' which means 'to rule'.  So in simple terms, in a true democracy the People rule.  The People are sovereign.

"We owe to the ancient Greeks much, if not most of our own current political vocabulary. All the way from anarchy and democracy to politics itself. But their politics and ours are very different beasts. To an ancient Greek democrat (of any stripe), all our modern democratic systems would count as “oligarchy”. By that I mean the rule of and by – if not necessarily or expressly for – the few, as opposed to the power or control of the people, or the many." - Paul Cartledge, Senior Research Fellow, Clare College, University of Cambridge.

The presumption of liberty is every human being's natural right, and what we have today in Britain is not a true democracy, and without true democracy there can be no assurance of liberty.

In a dictatorship the People are obviously subject to the laws imposed upon them by their dictator.  Whereas, in a genuine democracy the People are the law, and through the beautiful design and process of a true democratic system the laws and regulations are chosen by the People for the People.

A true democracy has rules but not rulers.  Its a system which is about the People ruling themselves through law. The most accurate, well evidenced and obvious definition of the true meaning of democracy that I've encountered is provided by the Democracy Defined Educational Campaign, led by Kenn D'Oudney et al.

True democracy was born in Greece "from the the Hellenic Athenian Constitution of government.  It's a state of society realised neither by referenda (mass voting for new laws), nor by suffrage (electoral voting for representatives), nor by the representatives’ majorities’ legislatorial voting. Electoral voting, majority rule and ‘consensus politics’ neither create nor define democracy."

"To prevent the tyranny of government and establish liberty and equal justice for all, the Hellenes created a society in which the People have the power in Trial by Jury to judge and overrule unjust laws enacted by the State. The word the Hellenes gave to describe this state of society in which the People have control through the Trial by Jury to judge, make and enforce the laws and overrule the government, the wealthy and powerful, the aristocrats and all those who sought to rule them, was demokratia, which translates into English as Democracy."

Britain is a Common Law country and has a Common Law Constitution to keep the system in check. In the same way that our Military needs to be preserved to protect ourselves from violent threats, these two fundamental elements of law need to be acknowledged, safe-guarded and enforced to help protect our sovereignty from subversion or the gradual rot of tyranny from within.

Trevor R Coult MC of Veterans & Democrats Party
Over generations, millions of our family ancestors have given their lives and loved ones in wars against tyranny of one sort or another, to benefit the future generations' rights of liberty, sovereignty and democratic self-rule in our country.  What they fought for is slipping through our fingers.

Only this week I encountered details of a new Political Party in Britain, called the Democrats & Veterans Party (DVP), which actually addresses these very issues.  

The DVP recognises that Britain is a Common Law country, has an ancient Common Law Constitution but has problems with a parliament which is not complying with constitutional law or representing the People. The party also recognises that "Britain is being undermined by an élitist, globalist class that is committed to undermining the principles of national sovereignty and identity”.  

Anybody who has been following the dangerous rise in power and influence of Globalism and Corporatism will find this new party’s manifesto a breath of fresh air.

4 May 2016

Sudden Building Collapse - A New Risk in Operational Firefighting?

Let’s first define why this is so important. In terms of political history, this is probably the most important building collapse ever to have occurred; not just from an architectural perspective, not only because it raises very significant questions about the safety of high-rise occupiers and their rescuers should a similar building be involved in fire but because of what it represents in terms of what happened geopolitically and militarily as a result of its collapse. For Firefighters, this building's officially reported cause of collapse, if valid, should raise serious concerns about the safety of current offensive Firefighting techniques within these structures.

The following report was written in accordance with responsibilities defined under the 1999 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations.

Summary of the above independent report's findings:

   The building was modern, in good condition, steel-framed with reinforced concrete floors, with high-specification class-A fire protection (2-3 hours’ fire-protection-rated and easily able to tolerate normal fires).

   Extensive damage was caused to the south face from falling debris, but the NIST report states that this was not a contributing factor in causing the building’s collapse. Engineers have demonstrated that if this damage were to be considered a major factor the building would have fallen asymmetrically, toppling in the direction of that damage.

    There is suspicion about what ignited the fires and when they started. NIST reports falling debris as a “likely” cause from the north tower collapsing at 10:28am, however, there were witness reports of “thick smoke” and an explosion from within Building 7 at about 9:30am which contradicts this claim.

   The fires were normal in size, the sort of fires to be expected in any normal office type environment. There was nothing extraordinary about their fuel source or location that might explain a prevention of effective fire-fighting operations.

    The building’s fire alarm was linked to the automatic sprinkler system. The fire alarm had been deactivated due to being set in test mode for 8 hours that day, starting at 6:47am, it failed to reactivate at 2:47pm.

    The sprinklers did not activate. The official report claims that the sprinklers did not activate due to a broken water main. There is strong evidence to support good mains water supplies, which could have been supplemented and boosted by a manually operated sprinkler system pump in the building.

    The sprinkler system could also have been charged by FDNY from external siamese fittings outside the building. This did not happen.

    Firefighting operations were prematurely curtailed in Building 7. Firefighters were withdrawn from the building early in the day based upon the orders of an unknown city official who predicted the unprecedented fire-induced collapse of this building 5 hours in advance.

    The official reasons provided for the Firefighters’ withdrawal included an alleged lack of water and resources. Water was available in ample volume via the city water mains, and from 3 fire boats located nearby on the river Hudson, each capable of providing up to 18,000 gallons of water per minute. Fire-fighting resources in lower Manhattan were at an all-time high. There were more fire-fighting resources, including, in the face of terrible and unprecedented FDNY loss of life, an army of very willing and eager Firefighters wanting to work.

   The official study and technical theory of the collapse of the building are, according to thousands of architects and engineers, unscientific and false. These same engineers and architects are endorsed by scientists who confirm that the NIST explanation is not only false but impossible.

    NIST refuses to release its data for peer-review and has routinely refused to answer difficult questions from experts about inconsistencies and errors in its theory of collapse.

    When the building collapsed there were many witnesses reporting the sounds of loud, fast and repeated explosions. Military grade nano thermite residues were discovered in the dust of the remains of the buildings. This fact has been confirmed via an independent and international rigorous scientific peer review process.

   When the building did collapse it fell at a scientifically verified rate of acceleration indistinguishable from free fall. This is of great significance and importance. For a large building (100 metres side to side) to collapse with a level roof line, the building’s entire structural integrity must have been removed simultaneously and almost instantaneously.

   In NIST’s August 2008 Draft Report the building’s free fall was denied. The lead investigator at NIST had openly dismissed free fall having occurred, correctly stating that this fact would require zero structural integrity in the building.

   Due to the intervention of a high-school physics teacher, in the November 2008 Final Report NIST was forced to admit that free fall occurred, but they understated its significance in the report and totally avoided elaborating upon the aforementioned implications of what it identified.

    There is only one explanation for the nearly instantaneous and simultaneous removal of the building’s entire structural integrity which caused its free falling collapse - controlled demolition.

   The collapse of this building exemplified seven features of a textbook description of a controlled implosion:

1.    The collapse started from the bottom.
2.    The onset of the collapse was sudden.
3.    The collapse was total.
4.    The building came straight down.
5.    Its acceleration approximated that of a free-falling object.
6.    Most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny dust particles.
7.    The building ended up as a relatively small pile of debris.

   Professional controlled demolition experts agree that Building 7 must have been collapsed by controlled demolition, with the added affirmation that this sort of collapse is not possible due to fire alone.

   Based on the fact that a steel-framed building has never before in history collapsed due to fire, the accurate and certain foreknowledge of the collapse 5 hours before it occurred, based only on alleged noises coming from within the building, is extremely questionable, to say the least. The only feasible explanation for this level of certain foreknowledge, which was shared with many emergency workers in the area without explanation, is that this information was founded upon action based foreknowledge. Complete building collapse due to fires is unprecedented, those who accurately predicted the collapse 5 hours in advance must have known actions had been taken to cause the collapse to occur when it did.
  • Researching NIST’s credibility has revealed a very broken scientific reputation. It is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Centre reports, it was, therefore, an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.
Since these events 15 years ago, Firefighters' fundamental operational procedures have not been changed for fighting high-rise fires. In the UK, local government 'Stay put' policies, which advise residents in high-rise buildings and flats to remain in their property when there is a fire, have not been modified. The building design regulations have not changed and equivalent buildings have not been retrofitted with modifications to prevent a recurrence of Building 7's collapse.

However, if NIST's official report of what happened to Building 7 is maintained by our authorities as a valid explanation of events, in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work Act and other related legislation, all of the above factors need to be questioned and critically reassessed as a matter of great importance by fire services, local housing authorities, and building standards regulators.

Generally, as a rule, we tend to rely upon science rather than unfounded belief to understand our world.  Science is defined as the search for truth. When a scientific truth is found, fundamentally this is always based upon a preponderance of positive probabilities.  We hold these findings as true until we find a good reason to believe otherwise.  A true and honest scientist will always accept questioning of his hypothesis and continue to test its validity. From my observations of NIST’s analysis of this collapse, observations shared by many highly qualified professionals in their respective fields, an honest scientific approach has not been pursued.

The deliberate and immediate removal and destruction of nearly all the evidence at the scene of the crime, the failure to even mention the collapse of Building 7 in the 9/11 Commission Report, combined with the catalogue of errors and omissions in the NIST report, all aggregate to destroy any credibility the report might hope to convey.
The claims made by NIST that the sprinkler operation and fire-fighting efforts failed, due to poor water supplies and limited resources, were false and only serve to further diminish their credibility. This building’s fires could have been contained and extinguished well in advance of the alleged structural failures.

The experts' evidence of the building's uninhibited gravitational free fall acceleration, its symmetrical collapse perfectly into its own footprint, witness testimonials of explosions, evidence of explosive residues, and 'certain foreknowledge' of the building’s collapse, all points compellingly towards an alternative hypothesis - a deliberate case of controlled demolition. A hypothesis which, if the scientific principle of Occam’s razor had been applied, should have been the first to have been tested.

This analysis has been completed without being influenced or prejudiced by the details of the politics in the background of this incident. The data and the evidence alone dictated what the study discovered. Unfortunately, it’s an unavoidable fact that this case is connected with politics and, speaking personally, I can say with open sincerity that I trust Newtonian Physics and the laws of nature infinitely more than I trust politics. As previously stated, gravity is not just a good idea, it’s a law. In agreement with thousands of expert architects, engineers, and scientists, the findings of this analysis identify that the risks to Firefighters at this incident were not due to faulty architecture, sub-standard engineering, untested fire-fighting procedures or a miraculous fire-induced building demolition.

The sudden and complete collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building due to normal fires presents as little risk to operational Firefighters today as it did in the days before this event. 

The symmetrical freefall of this building is impossible without the application of very high forces to uniformly remove the structural integrity instantly across all 82 columns, throughout a minimum of eight levels, in order to achieve the documented 2.25 seconds of freefall for eight storeys.

Freefall is not an opinion, its a fundamental and hitherto undisputed law of nature.


In an attempt to expose this evidence and demand an independent re-investigation thousands of Architects and Structural Engineers across America are campaigning to reveal the truth of the above and more. You can find their excellent website at www.ae911truth.org

Additional recommended viewing:-

Excellent presentation detailing the extent of foreknowledge by the BBC, CNN, and some of the FDNY identifying that WTC7 was certain to collapse:-

Technical details of problems with the NIST hypothesis, including details of omissions proven from FOIA requests:

Excellent talk of the physics of the building 'collapses':

11 Apr 2013

Unhealthy Saturated Fat - What is the reality?

I dedicate this post to a friend who looks at me like I'm a two-headed alien when he hears me saying that saturated fats are perfectly healthy. And who can blame him! I completely understand why he, or any normal person, would think this way.  To believe that saturated fats are healthy goes completely against all conventional wisdom. 

Up until about five years ago I also believed saturated fats were very unhealthy and strongly linked to heart disease and other illnesses.  These beliefs were based upon the information I had grown up with, as well as some of my University education in the 90's which scratched the surface of the pathophysiology of heart disease.

Even today in 2013 one of the most common misconceptions regarding nutrition is the fear of cholesterol and saturated fats.  This stems from their long-standing mislead association with ischemic heart disease.  Where does this misconception originate?

The common fear follows this pattern of logic: When you eat foods high in saturated fats, the fat and cholesterol in these foods enter your blood, become all gloopy and stick to the inside of your arteries.  

At a very simplistic level, the assumption is made that because these saturated fats are solid outside the body, they will solidify inside your bloodstream too; and even though the internal average temperature of a human being is significantly higher than room temperature, the arteries much like simple non-biological plumbing waste pipes get caked up with hardened fat, blood flow is restricted, and a wham - heart attack!

The above sounds so over-simplified that you'd immediately think "Who'd be gullible enough to believe that?!".  Most Brits might because its what they've been told by the British Food Standards Agency.  In 2009 the following TV advert was broadcast in the UK by the FSA.  They used that very same metaphorical description to perpetuate the fear of saturated fat. Why? Because they're as confused as everyone else, and it's easier to sell a simple lie, than to fathom or explain a more complicated truth.

None of the prominent scientists who originally promoted the idea that cholesterol might be a factor in the development of heart disease ever believed anything remotely resembling the above nonsense. 

A deeper understanding of the pathophysiology of coronary heart disease reveals that whilst cholesterol is indeed found in the plaque which builds up in the arteries which supply the heart muscles with blood, it's a gross over-simplification to conclude from this that cholesterol itself must therefore be the cause.

In research dating back to the turn of the last century, scientists recognized the complex nature of how atherosclerotic plaque accumulates not on but behind the layer of the artery in contact with the blood, called the endothelium, and that the cholesterol and fat within it is engulfed in white blood cells as part of an inflammatory process.

The truth is that there is no real correlation between cholesterol levels and cardiovascular disease, not by age groups, not by gender, and not by population.  But don't take my word for it, start by watching the following very short video by Dr Malcolm Kendrick:

The nutritional advice that our government, National Health Service, and most mainstream nutritionists has been providing us regarding saturated fats and cholesterol is unfortunately based upon fundamentally flawed principles.  The mainstream dogma is so seriously off target, that excellent, free-thinking, and well-read Doctors are starting to stand up and demonstrate their dissatisfaction.

The cholesterol precept is so entrenched in mainstream medicine that an organisation called The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS), made up of many leading doctors in the field from around the world, is trying to change the views of the medical community in this area.  As a result more and more Doctors are becoming aware of the weaknesses in the research which formed the foundation of what they were taught at med-school.

The misunderstandings regarding saturated fats and cholesterol have many origins, but can primarily be traced back to over-simplified misrepresentations of research drawn from the cholesterol-fed rabbit and the pathology of the genetic disorder - familial hypercholesterolemia.  

Nikolai Anichkov's 1913 cholesterol-fed rabbit model, which is where much of the confusion started, was predominantly viewed as a model of hypercholesterolemia, but it revealed much more than this.  It also identified the crucial role of lipoproteins, their oxidation, and the importance of healthy clearance of unstable lipoprotein lipids from the bloodstream. 

Nikolai Anichkov's 1913 cholesterol-fed rabbit model, simplified pictorially above, was a model not merely of hypercholesterolemia but of hyper-oxidized-lipoproteinemia.

The saturated fat  and cholesterol misconceptions were perpetuated further in the 1950s by the selective research findings of an American biochemist named Dr.Ancel Keys.  Among his most famous research is the "Seven Countries Study" - probably the most notorious example of falsified research in the field of nutrition. 

The American government bought into Keys' hypothesis and the rest of the west followed.  As a result many western government health departments, the media and the medical-pharmaceutical complex have demonized saturated fats and cholesterol for decades.

The adverse effects of Ancel Keys' research upon health, quality of life and medical research are inestimable.  His scientific shenanigans were borne out of a need to be right, at the expense of honesty.  He had a pet hypothesis and was clearly blinded by his own bias and need to validate, not investigate. He cherry picked his data to support his pre-existing idea of the connection between saturated fat, cholesterol and heart disease. 

In a 1957 paper, Dr. Jacob Yerushalmy, founder of the biostatistics graduate program at the University of California at Berkeley, pointed out that while data from the six countries Keys examined seemed to support the diet-heart hypothesis, as mentioned in the above clip,  statistics were actually available for twenty-two countries, but fifteen of these did not support Keys' pet hypothesis so he discarded them! (He also counted the UK as two countries, separating the data from England and Wales) 

When all 22 were analysed, the apparent link between fat consumption and heart disease disappeared. Further flaws in Keys' reports were identified by Dr. Raymond Reiser's research in 1973.

The other prominent criticism of Keys’s study was that he had observed only a correlation between two phenomena, not a clear causative link. This left open the possibility that something else was leading to heart disease, which is only now starting to become more apparent.

If saturophobes want more proof, search through the medical publications for research similar to  this meta-analysis which shows that over a 5-23 year follow-up of 347,747 subjects, there is no association between the intake of saturated fat and heart disease or stroke.  

A concise account of research supporting the health benefits of eating saturated fats and cholesterol is presented in David Evan's book "Cholesterol and Saturated Fat Prevent Heart Disease", which provides evidence from 101 scientific papers.

Much of the controversy and debate about cholesterol focuses on correlations with cholesterol.  What is their magnitude? How consistent are they? Why do they exist in the young but not in the old, and in men more than women?

The cholesterol debate really misses the point.  Since the early 1980s the molecular evidence has made it very obvious that it is oxidised Low-Density-Lipoprotein (oxLDL) that contributes to atherosclerosis, a situation which is highly exasperated by polyunsaturated oils and minimised by saturated fats - as recently identified by this 2013 study.

Branding saturated fat as unhealthy is problematic because we need fat in our diets, and its displacement is resulting in its substitution with more harmful unsaturated fats and oils.  Any well intended advice recommending the avoidance of saturated fat is having the opposite effect and causing long-term harm.

The magnitude of the scientific debacle surrounding saturated fats is summed up nicely by nutritional biochemist Dr. G. Mann - "The Diet-Heart Hypothesis is the greatest deception of our times" (From -Coronary Heart Disease - "Doing the Wrong Things" )

Other saturated fat related articles:-