London 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction

See video
Tom Secker
December 8, 2010
05:50

Description

London 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction
by grtv

Tom Secker's recently released film about the 2005 London Bombings "7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction" shows how the official story of what happened has been radically adapted and revised over time.

Working out exactly what did happen is very difficult, as investigators and researchers have to negotiate a minefield of bad reporting, misinformation, disinformation and outright propaganda.

The only way we can ever truly know is through the disclosure of evidence and information pertaining to what happened, something that has been jealously guarded by the authorities since day one.

Tom Secker is a writer, researcher and filmmaker based in the UK. He recently roduced a feature-length investigative documentary on the London Bombings and the history of covert operations called 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction. To view the trailer click here

Continue watching this film:
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdm_T0Wq-mk&p=DAA2512BEF7FC777
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BdKvK64hzM&p=DAA2512BEF7FC777
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt8QIuLPnpY&p=DAA2512BEF7FC777
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lotajAOBvQU&p=DAA2512BEF7FC777
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7o51yPisJ8&p=DAA2512BEF7FC777
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSovnEmkxhM&p=DAA2512BEF7FC777
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v2wYFpjHpM&p=DAA2512BEF7FC777
Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P1A7Ofj9kI&p=DAA2512BEF7FC777
Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddr0GySPKnA&p=DAA2512BEF7FC777
Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH7JU5MgXhU&p=DAA2512BEF7FC777
Part 12: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Yh3shoUQE&p=DAA2512BEF7FC777

Full length version available here:
http://veehd.com/video/4509871_7-7-Seeds-of-Deconstruction
and here:
http://stagevu.com/video/bzmyohjuatvm
and here:
http://blip.tv/file/3985398

Comments

 
2010 / 12 / 08
Mike corbeil says:

The links posted above, here, for up to part 12 at Youtube seem to be short several. Doing a Youtube search using the title for the video at Youtube and the Youtube user name of 77Archive turns up 19 resulting links, one for a trailer and the 18 others for parts 1 to 18. The 19 were all posted by the same user using the same title.

If people want a little more information in advance for a description of the film's content, then the following article is short, but it provides useful details for describing what the first and second halves of the film each consist of. This can be useful to people who would prefer to immediately jump to the second half, already knowing enough about Op. Gladio, and so on, from past history.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/77-seeds-deconstruction

That article also provides the links for the full single clip copies of the film, while also saying that the film can be downloaded via or from blip.tv.

2010 / 12 / 09
Mike corbeil says:

A review:

I viewed the complete documentary last night after having downloaded a copy from archive.org and having read at julyseventh.co.uk (J7) that this is now J7's top recommended documentary on the July 7, 2005 London bombings. The earlier recommendation, which still remains recommended and is one of the first of several recommended resources listed at the end of this new documentary released last August and narrated and directed by Tom Secker, previously was the sole documentary on 7/7 that J7 recommended. The earlier one is "Ludicrous Diversion" and it was released in Sept. 2006. Both films can be viewed at J7, which has embedded viewers, provides links for Youtube playlists for both films, and also has an interview with the team that produced the 2006 film. J7 is another of the resources that is recommended in the 2010 film, which says that some of the content of the film was drawn from J7.

I've read some articles at J7, before, and found it to be an evidently recommendable Web site; very qualitative.

Anyway, the 2010 film is very good, and I would not recommend jumping immediately to the second half of the film, which I mentioned in my earlier post that some people who already have sufficient knowledge of past false flag histories might want to do. The film begins with a good introductory segment about 7/7. Then it provides non-extensive, but nevertheless interesting bits on past false flag histories and the one about Afghanistan and Bosnia is definitely one I wouldn't want to have skipped. But the rest on 7/7 is not the second half of the 147-minute film. That part starts considerably before half-way through.

That's the part that was tedious, because there are many details and analyzing the 7/7 bombings, though it's not certain that all of the incidences called bombings on that morning were really bombings; well, this is more complex than analyzing the 9/11 attacks. There are many more details to 7/7 analysis.

That's for the trains, train stations, and many names. Trains going from one station to another, among several stations involved, going northbound, southbound, eastbound, and so on. Names of many alleged bombers, not only about 7/7, but also the liquid bombers, fertilizer bombers, and so on. This content is complex and if I really wanted to remember the details considerably well, then this part of the film would need to be viewed again, maybe two more times.

The part about bus no. 30 on 7/7 is straightforward to follow.

A clip of Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed speaking is shown at one point in the film and among the things that he talks about is the WTC bombing in NYC in 1993. He speaks of a Sheikh or Muslim cleric in NYC and who, he says, was an organizer, recruiter, and/or funder of terrorists; something like that. I'm not presently capable of more precisely recalling Nafeez Ahmed's words at the moment, but it's when he speaks about the 1993 WTC bombing. He also says the Sheikh was aka the "blind Sheikh" or "blind cleric", something like that anyway, and says this Sheikh was responsible, while adding that there's a lot of evidence for this, which came as a bit of a surprise to me. The only evidence I noticed him refering to is newspaper reports, and if that's all he used for repeating the "official story" claim that this Sheikh was guilty in the 1993 bombing, then we should all know better than to rely on the corporate news media extension of the imperialist government(s).

I think he may be mistaken about that, but instead of replaying the film and trying to find this part of it in order to listen, again, to what Nafeez Ahmed said, I'll do better by providing a reference to a very good article on attacks at the WTC in NYC. The first part of the article is about the 1993 attack, while of course the second half is the 9/11 attacks. One thing is obvious and it's that the FBI evidently was involved in the 1993 attack,the wrong person was or wrong persons were accused, and this evidently was deliberate; not some accidental mistake. Iow, there's a very high probability that the 1993 WTC bombing was another false flag incident.

The article is at Jim Hoffman's excellent Web site, 911review.com (NOT .org!), and is entitled as follows.

"Troubling Questions in Troubling Times
A critical look at the history of attacks
on the World Trade Center"
by James S. Adam
October 5, 2001

I'd include the direct link for the article, but tried posting earlier and the post would've contained full links, but the post was rejected due to the spam filterer.

Anyway, Tom Secker's film is very good, and since it really is for 7/7 analysis, then it's an excellent documentary. Some of the false flags history part could definitely be added to, but it's not what the documentary is about, which is mainly the 7/7 bombings in London; and a little about some of the other officially alleged bomb plots in the UK during this so-called "war on terrorism" period we've been in since 9/11.

2010 / 12 / 09
Tom Secker says:

Hi Mike,

Glad you enjoyed the film. To add to the above, the full youtube playlist is here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DAA2512BEF7FC777
The full version is available here:
http://veehd.com/video/4509871_7-7-Seeds-of-Deconstruction
And here:
http://blip.tv/file/3985398
And can be downloaded or watched via stagevu:
http://stagevu.com/video/bzmyohjuatvm

I appreciate the long section of my film on the tube train explosions can be a bit tedious to watch, but there's a lot in that section that other documentaries haven't covered. Indeed, the overall film is a bit longer than I wanted it to be.

The first section on false flags (etc.) is about providing a context in which to look at 7/7. It is not meant to be anything even close to an exhaustive history of such events, at best it is a primer on the subject. There's much, much more to it than the bits and pieces I looked at in the film.

WTC93 is a very complex case, but the Blind Sheikh (Omar Abdel Rahman) was convicted for a 'seditious conspiracy' that included the 93 bombing at his trial in NY in the mid 90s. On the balance of evidence it was not a false flag operation, and was carried out by Ramzi Yousef, Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and the rest. There is relatively solid evidence linking them to the crime. That does not, however, mean that it was an attack from outside. The Blind Sheikh got into the US and was able to take over the Al Kifah Center in NY because of visas provided by the CIA. Ali Mohamed, who trained most of the WTC93 group in paramilitary tactics and so on, did so while he was in the US Army reserve, having spent three years at Fort Bragg. He was also a CIA liaison during the Soviet-Afghan war, and later an FBI informant. Even Ramzi Yousef himself may have been involved with the CIA, and certainly seemed to have been protected for a while by the Pakistani ISI. My impression is that WTC93 was a sting operation that went wrong, was blowback in the sense of a covert operation going wrong, rather than a fully premeditated false flag operation. The article by James S Adam is far from a complete analysis of the bombing, for one thing it overlooks the DOJ's investigation into the forensic issues brought up at the first WTC93 trial (Salameh et al) by Frederic Whitehurst. For another, it makes too much of Emad Salem's involvement. He left the group that carried out the bombing in the summer of 1992, and the bombing didn't take place until February of 93. A lot happened in the intervening five or six months. It's a sexy headline 'FBI informant builds bomb used in WTC blast', but it isn't particularly accurate or true. That's my take on it.

2010 / 12 / 10
Mike corbeil says:

Hello Tom,
My post wasn't to complain about any part of the film.
And re. WTC93, the US govt convicts many innocent people and lies far more than telling truth. I just checked the 911review.com article referred to in my second post again and the author does not say whether Omar Abdel Rahman was really guilty, or not. But, he explains that the FBI was actually involved in this bombing, forced false evidence to be used for the prosecution, and withheld self-incriminating evidence. I'll excerpt a little re. the false evidence, the nitrate part.

I'm being spam-filtered for no valid reason, so can't respond regarding WTC93 except to say to read James S. Adams' article.

2011 / 01 / 08
Tom Secker says:

Hi Mike,

I'm fully aware that the US govt. has wrongly convicted people, but in the case of WTC93 I think they (sorta) got the right people. The FBI informant Emad Salem was only involved in the conspiracy up until August 1992, whereas the bombing took place at the end of February 1993, and quite a lot happened in the interim. There's practically no evidence in favour of the conclusion that the attack was a typical false flag operation, and the majority of evidence suggests that as far as the FBI is concerned was a sting operation that went badly wrong. The CIA had connections to the Blind Sheikh and possibly to Ramzi Yousef too, and they may have allowed the attack to go ahead, but the notion of it being a straightforward example of a state-sponsored attack is not born out by the facts.

As to the composition of the bomb, it is true that the evidence presented at the trial was false, the DOJ concluded as much in their internal investigation into the crime lab. However, that does not mean the basic story of it being a urea nitrate fuel oil (UNFO) bomb is untrue. When Ramzi Yousef was finally caught in 1995 he gave a detailed confession to the FBI, describing the bomb's production. He could be lying, or have been coerced, or the FBI documents of his confession could be fabrications, but again there's no evidence showing that to be the case. The way I see it, Yousef was probably responsible, along with the group under the Blind Sheikh including Salameh, Ayyad and Abouhalima.

2012 / 07 / 20
Dominic says:

It's actually a great and useful piece of info. I'm satisfied that you simply shared this helpful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.

2014 / 02 / 13
Mike Corbeil says:

It's been a couple of years now since my last post and I wish to thank Tom Secker again for his responses.

He may not see this new post, but it would be interesting to get his take on the following article, which I just came across and read this evening.

"Who Bombed the U.S. World Trade Center? — 1993
Growing Evidence Points to Role of FBI Operative
by Ralph Schoenman
First published in Prevailing Winds Magazine, Number 3, 1993, also on http://takingaim.info"

www.globalresearch.ca 23 April 2004

I'll cite from the end of Tom's first reply to me.

Quote:
The article by James S Adam is far from a complete analysis of the bombing, for one thing it overlooks the DOJ's investigation into the forensic issues brought up at the first WTC93 trial (Salameh et al) by Frederic Whitehurst. For another, it makes too much of Emad Salem's involvement. He left the group that carried out the bombing in the summer of 1992, and the bombing didn't take place until February of 93. A lot happened in the intervening five or six months. It's a sexy headline 'FBI informant builds bomb used in WTC blast', but it isn't particularly accurate or true. That's my take on it.

End quote

Ralph Schoenman's piece is, I expect, one that Tom will state much as above regarding Emad Salem; but, perhaps not.

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Related videos

Our newsletter