Saturday, July 8, 2017

Grenfell Disaster: FBU Activists Blame Exec for Stay Put Policy

To Reinvestigate 911 contacts list

July 7, 2017.

The official story of the 9/11 attacks is under increasing scrutiny in the Fire Brigades Union. Tony Rooke, maker of the internet blockbuster Incontrovertible, and Matt Campbell, who lost his brother in the attacks are calling on anyone who has contacts with any firefighters to ACT NOW and forward this dossier...
1. News report. Firefighters: our union blocked a debate that could have saved lives at Grenfell Tower

2. Open letter to the FBU from Matt Campbell 9/11 family member.

3. Statement and open letter to the FBU from Tony Rook, maker of the filmIncontrovertible.
4. Link here to presentation on the 9/11 building collapses by firefighters

5. Link here to Sunday Post Article


1. Firefighters: our union blocked a debate that could have saved lives at Grenfell Tower
The Grenfell Tower fire has exposed systemic failures. Whistleblowers were ignored as multiple tower blocks were covered in flammable cladding, all with the approval of regulators. Crucially, official policy was for residents to stay put in a fire and wait for the rescues that never happened. 

Until Grenfell, The Fire Brigades Union supported the long standing "stay put" policy. Since Grenfell the FBU exec has had a change of heart but this is a year too late for FBU activists who were pushing for a review a year ago after learning about the spectacular collapse of a tall building in New York, an event they say that has never been fully investigated. 

Firefighters complain that the FBU exec suppressed debate in flagrant breach of the rulebook and out of little more than political correctness. With the exception of theSunday Post in Scotland who have been sent internal FBU papers, the ensuing row has so far been under the media radar.

Why political correctness? The dissident case is based on the 9/11 attacks of September 2001 when planes were flown into the World Trade Centre in New York. Not only the famous Twin Towers but also a third massive skyscraper known as WTC7 - which was not hit by a plane - fell rapidly and neatly into their own footprints. Many people died in the Twin Towers after they followed official advice to stay put while no-one died in WTC7 which had been promptly evacuated. It housed the CIA's New York office and, ironically, Mayor Guiliani's office of emergency management. 

The official 9/11 Commission Report barely mentioned the bizarre and unprecedented building collapses. Technical investigations were conducted by NIST, an agency directly answerable to the Bush White House (who would later use 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq). Computer models were withheld and findings were not peer reviewed. NIST's final conclusions only saw the light of day in 2008: The Twin Towers had  been damaged by aircraft impacts but WTC7, NIST determined, had collapsed spontaneously as a result of fires alone.

Over a year ago, after watching the internet 9/11 blockbuster Incontrovertible, firefighters were shocked. If NIST was right and WTC7 really did fall spontaneously and even, for several seconds, at freefall speed into its own footprint as a result of fire alone, then where did that leave "stay put"? 

It got worse. The shocked firefighters learned that the Twin Towers were expressly built to withstand collision with fuel laden aircraft, eyewitnesses and TV anchors had described the collapses as "explosions" and "like a controlled demolition". NIST offered no explanation for the rapid nature of the collapses. 

After meeting 9/11 family member Matt Campbell who featured in the film they took their case for a review to the FBU exec. But they hit a brick wall. They say key members of the exec rejected their call for a review and blocked any further debate in breach of the union's own rule book. They suspect that the fear of coming under attack in the media was the motive for the refusal. A timely review of "stay put" might have saved many lives in London and even cast light on the mysterious events in New York. But despite NIST's omissions media outlets in the West have so far deemed further questioning of the official 9/11 story to be off limits. Even Matt Campbell, an articulate UK citizen who lost his brother in the 9/11 attacks, has been rebuffed by the media and his local MP. 

With over two thousand dead in New York and many times more in Iraq, the media silence and omissions in the NIST reports have led to widespread allegations of a cover-up that would dwarf even the Hillsbrough scandal. 9/11 led to the Congressional authorisation to use military force that has been taken by three Presidents as the legal basis for fifteen years of war.

How long will it be, ask activists, before politicians and media allow a genuine investigation into the official story of the 9/11 attacks?


2. Open letter from Matt Campbell 9/11 family member to the FBU Exec
Firstly, may I say how impressed I was with the courage and determination shown by your members in fighting the fires at The Grenfell Tower tragedy.

I do feel compelled to ask, however, given your agreement with the NIST conclusion that far lesser fires can bring down a Class-A fire-protected structure (WTC 7), WHY were your brave men and women permitted take such incredible risks to battle the far greater conflagration in a much older building (Grenfell Tower) and for far longer periods...?

Thank God, WTC 7 had been evacuated when it collapsed. Such a collapse this week would have left zero time for your members to escape.

Given your stated belief that such a collapse is indeed possible in a significantly less aggressive fire, can I assume all those firefighters in West London were aware of that belief, that they were aware of your report and indeed, of the NIST Report you apparently concur with...?

I believe you've been informed of the upcoming forensic findings by The University of Alaska following their 2 year study into WTC 7's demise. That report WILL be concluding the percentage chance of WTC 7 collapsing due to fire is zero.

That report will also be open for peer review, its working data available to anyone.

Do you stand by your views on WTC 7, given that the NIST report you trust has never been peer reviewed, has been found to contain fraudulent data,  and is actually protected from proper and scientific public scrutiny..?

Will you be studying The Alaskan University findings and reconsidering your position? 

And given the tragic events of this week, do you not think it fair/lawful/professional to inform your membership of the perilous risk of collapse you subscribe to, or should they continue to fight future high rise infernos in ignorance?

It's too late for my brother - it isn't for your 'brothers'. 


Matt Campbell

9/11 Victim Family Member


3. Statement from Tony Rook, maker of Incontrovertible. You are urged to send it your local fire service, your MP's and local press.


In the summer of last year
 I was approached by a group of concerned firefighters who had become aware of the 'mysterious' collapse of WTC 7. They were concerned that the US authorities had rubber-stamped the official cause of collapse as 'normal office fires'. As you will see these fire fighters submitted a comprehensive and detailed report on the collapse of WTC 7, 2001, to their Executives at the FBU which was presented one year ago to the Health and Safety Committee at the H&S National Convention.

The recommendations of that report, as you will see, state quite clearly that the so-called 'STAY PUT' policy adopted for high rise building fires, and employed with such disastrous results at Grenfell Towers last week, were emphatically highlighted to the FBU Executive and they were urged to suspend them pending further investigation...

To this day, they are still in place despite those warnings.

It is the FBU Executive's current position that they believe WTC 7 was brought down by normal office fires yet they have withheld a report explaining WHY to their wider membership despite promises that their conclusions could be peer reviewed.

(Sound familiar?)

Earlier this week and in the light of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, I emailed every FBU Chairperson and Secretary in every region of the UK to highlight just WHY weren't the warnings of professional firefighters heeded and the lethal 'STAY PUT' policy not suspended when received ONE YEAR AGO? 

Why, if a Class A fire insulated building such as WTC 7 can collapse with such rapidity after a far shorter period of far less fire, was it assumed Grenfell Tower would NOT, and that firefighters remained to fight fires inside that building which was a conflagration by anyone's standards...?

Here is the email Tony Rooke sent to the FBU...
Dear FBU Secretaries and Chairs,

My name is Tony Rooke, I am the writer and director of the online documentary 'Incontrovertible'. It should be noted this film was crowdfunded by and features many firefighters and police officers.

Firstly may I say, much respect and gratitude for the courageous efforts of the London crews at Grenfell Towers last week. What follows may well anger them but so it should - in fact, I hope it does.

The film I made between 2013 - 2015 features the sudden and total collapse of an American building known as The Saloman Brothers Building, which, in 2001, fell straight to the ground, into it's own footprint due to travelling “normal office fires”. This collapse, unprecedented in architectural history, followed fires of far LESS severity and time than the Grenfell Tower yet the building suddenly and completely collapsed at free-fall through its own structure. 

A small group of Firefighters within North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service,  became aware that the 2001 US collapse was curiously said to be due to fires alone. They set about investigating the level of risk posed to them and you at high-rise firefighting incidents. In accordance with Health & Safety legislation, they responsibly and conscientiously reported their assessment as quickly as possible through the appropriate channels, including the Health & Safety representative of the union.

This matter was taken very seriously and was rushed into the FBU National Health & Safety Conference at London in June last summer. (Please see the PowerPoint presentation linked here

Specific recommendations were made in the initial report regarding the safety of ‘Stay-put’ policies in high-rise building fires. In the presentation made to the FBU National Health & Safety Conference a key recommendation was clearly made "Suspend 'Stay-Put' policy and urgently review evacuation policies for high-rise occupants."

The report clearly recommended that, as a matter of critical public safety, all bodies and authorities who support NIST’s proposed theory of fire-induced building collapse, urgently reassess the use of ‘stay-put’ policies.

The relevant section of the conclusion (p.40) of this report states:

“Since [the high-rise building collapse] 15 years ago, Firefighters' 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.”

So it has to be asked, WHY is the 'stay put' policy for high rise fires still in place, a policy that had such drastic and fatal consequences at Grenfell Tower?
A response report was authored by FBU Assistant General Secretary Andy Dark with a promise that his report would be made available to FBU members for scrutiny and open to debate where necessary. Andy Dark's report has never been released to the wider membership to this day.

Having seen a partial summation of Andy Dark's report, [never the entire body of it] I can confirm Mr Dark is firmly of the opinion that a high-rise structure can succumb suddenly to fires and is quite capable of a total and swift collapse, the speed of which would leave NO time for residents or fire crew to escape. 

However, Mr Dark's belief has not been circulated to either his wider membership of the FBU, or to the general public, which could have called into question stay-put policies and potentially saved lives at Grenfell Towers.

Brian Maxwell, a former Edinburgh fire-fighter of some 15 years service actually RESIGNED in 2015 over the indifference of his superiors on this issue. 

It is not for me to advise a firefighting professional on the behaviour of any building or firefighting procedure, but, having studied the collapse of 2001 for over a decade, I would urge you to consider very carefully why your FBU superiors have chosen to remain silent on the issue of fire-induced 'sudden building collapse'. Should you choose to believe that the class-A fire protected US Building's demise was due to normal office fires of only 32kg/m2 combustible load levels, so be it. Should you choose to believe that building came down by another mechanism, then it did so on a day when 343 of your American colleagues perished. That alternative view, incidentally, will be endorsed by an independent 2 year forensic study by The University of Alaska this August, when they publish their findings which conclude the 2001 collapse had ZERO chance of being fire induced. (

Today, I read a copy of FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack's letter to PM Theresa May. The word 'hypocrisy' sprang immediately to mind as Mr Wrack demanded a full and proper investigation with transparency and honesty, including a review of the ‘Stay Put' policies, something he previously neglected to address when confronted with the “Sudden Building Collapse” report authored by your colleague, yet is now keen to have examined following the death of so many at Grenfell Towers. 

I should imagine, a year on from the above report’s initial warning of this problem, Mr Wrack and Mr Dark might seek to assuage your fears by suggesting The Saloman Brothers Building and Grenfell Tower were two different building construction types, and therefore no great urgency was required in bringing your attention of the 2001 collapse. I needn't remind you that this is a specious defence. Firefighting procedures for high-rise buildings do not differentiate between these two building types, as both are considered viable enough to implement the use of a forward control bridgehead. No firefighter would enter a building believing it could collapse on top of them regardless of concrete pour, or steel frame - they are ALL assumed to be up to the task. They may have you believe that The Saloman Building had suffered catastrophic damage or some mitigating factor which would ensure it could not sustain its 47 stories. THAT is not the conclusion of the US investigators. 'Normal Office fires' were sufficient. And still your brothers and sisters were permitted to fight long hours inside a building, suffering far greater fires at Grenfell. STILL those residents were left to perish based on an antiquated Stay Put procedure which your executive endorsed despite warnings.

Many of your colleagues are too frightened to speak out - ironic for firefighters - but I sympathise. How can one count on support from your Union superiors when their indifference is so obvious.

This information has now been passed to the National Press and media. It is also in the hands of lawyers and residents of the Grenfell Tower disaster. Mr Wrack and Dark will be getting a copy. Jeremy Corbyn is aware, as is Theresa May as are many others who should be apologising to you.

But having spent the last few years liaising with a fair few of your colleagues, the one thing we have all learned is that you can NOT rely on your FBU Executive, you MUST unite and fight this together. You are the Union. The EC works for you and your membership, not the other way around. Once you understand the gravity of this situation you will.


Tony Rooke

Director/Writer 'Incontrovertible'

Reinvestigate 9/11 326862 daytime

We will support any new investigation of the 9/11 attacks so long as
*it is run by uncompromised people with a range of opinion including those inclined to disbelieve the official 9/11 story,
*it follows the evidence wherever it leads
if it takes place in the US to be credible it will need
*full legal authority to demand immediate access to any evidence and any witness it chooses
*the resources it requires to carry out its investigation

Reinvestigate 911 is supported by Coffee Plant ( suppliers of organic and Fairtrade coffees to caterers and retail customers. Phone 0208 453 1144