Seeds of Deconstruction - 7/7 movie

Discussing the most relevant "sequels" or "reminders" of 9/11. The so-called "War On Terror" is a global scam finalized to manipulate this world's population with crass fear-mongering tactics designed to scare you shitless.

Seeds of Deconstruction - 7/7 movie

Postby Vinciguerra on August 21st, 2010, 12:00 pm

As this place is evidently some sort of circlejerking treehouse I'll have to post my response here.

Original thread here:
http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shac ... c=9&st=300
"timothymurphy" wrote:I hope it’s ok to share these
brief responses to the latest victim-hugging 7/7 conspiracy films:

I basically don’t trust them.
This is not because of any information about the film-makers but because they:

1/ Re-hash the same old issues from the previous films.
2/ Have a na?ve trust of all sources except police and government.
3/ Hug victims.


These films are:
7/7 Anomalies (2009) by Spudxxxx and ConspiracyTVUK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uBRatJupGc
7/7 The Big Picture (2010) by Keelan Balderson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m630pIT6 ... re=related
7/7 The Seeds of Deconstruction (2010) by Tom Secker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAj6RF5inqw



I put it to you that it is wholly unjustified to lump my film in with the two others. In fact, I put it to you that you haven't paid sufficient attention to my film to make such an analysis of it.

So, to your individual criticisms:


1/ Re-hash the same old issues from the previous films.



No prior 7/7 film put the event in the context of historical covert operations and the proxy warfare behind the 'war on terror'. No prior 7/7 film contained the analysis of the CCTV and the train times from Luton, certainly not in the way I combined them in my film, and certainly not pointing out that the authorities must have had this footage only days after 7/7 and yet still managed to tell an untrue story about what the pictures showed almost a year later in the Home Office narrative.

No prior 7/7 movie raised the question of the number of explosions, the locations or directions of the trains when the explosions hit them, or why so many witnesses spoke of electrocutions or explosions that sounded like power surges or other things suggestive of some sort of electrical explosion. Similarly, no prior 7/7 film spoke of Daniel Obachike as a possible disinformation agent, or discussed the relevance of the Bourgass/Barot cases to the 'intelligence failures' or the role of 'Q' in both the fertiliser plot and the alleged 7/7 conspiracy.

I could go on, but while of course my film does go over certain things covered to some extent in other films, it only does so in the context of telling an overall story of an ever-deconstructing narrative of what happened. It's not like I've just said the same things but in different words. This is a lazy, generic criticism not at all applicable to the actual film that I made.


2/ Have a na?ve trust of all sources except police and government.



Which sources did I trust? I didn't postulate any specific theory about what happened, hence I didn't cite any source in particular as being particularly trustworthy. I took witness accounts at face value most of the time because my whole thesis was that given what we've so far been told, any narrative of 7/7 dissolves into ambivalence and contradiction. And given my treatment of the contradictions in the accounts of Ian Wade and his wife Eve I think it's fair to say they are a non-police or governmental source that I don't have a 'naive trust' of.

Again, a lazy criticism not in any way applicable to the actual film that I made.


3/ Hug victims.



I don't see that I did this. For the most part I only referred to the victims where their stories contradicted the home office/police narrative (Jenny Nicholson, David Foulkes etc.).

Also, even if I did do this, why would it be cause for distrusting my film? Do you honestly believe that no one died or was seriously injured on 7/7? That every single story of every single victim is somehow a concoction of the mainstream media? The discussion on the 7/7 thread very much indicates that is the running thesis about what really happened. Correct me if I'm wrong here, or elaborate on how you think I 'hugged victims' in my film and why you think this is cause to doubt my intentions as a filmmaker, or at least the integrity of my film.

You then posted this picture:

Image



So I'll respond to that too.

It is 1950s Guatemala, the part about Guatemala is only 4 minutes long so how you can know 'a lot more' about '1940s Guatemala' than you did before is a total mystery to me. As a sarcastic put down this is pretty lame.

My film is a 'big picture' though it's hardly 'bulked up' with 20th century history when the parts on history are less than 50 minutes of a 2 1/2 hour film. Again, this is a pretty half arsed attempt to criticise my film, based on nothing more than a rhetorical dismissal.

Your summary is approximately what I was trying to get across regarding 7/7, but my point was that in the absence of any comprehensive narrative of events, it is fair and proper to consider the hypothesis that it was some kind of covert operation, possibly a psyop involving mass media. I don't see what you're criticising here.

I did not 'draw' the power surges question 'into the conspiracy narrative' because there was no conspiracy narrative. I didn't have any particular thesis to put forth in the film, and it's pure interpretation on your part that I was saying that 'rather than bombs, the people in the trains were electrocuted'. Some people said they were electrocuted, or at least that they felt like they were being electrocuted. That's what I put in the film.


It is clear that the basis for this idea was prepared in advance, with a number of 7/7 'witnesses' having mentioned electric shocks, etc.

So, for some reason, the time is ripe for a new element of conspiracy narrative to be added - electric shocks.



It isn't remotely clear that the power surges story was prepared in advance, and I stake my presence here on you having no evidence (beyond your wild interpretations) that this is the case.

Also, what do you mean that 'the time is ripe for a new element of conspiracy narrative'? The issue of power surges being the initial story, and perhaps to some extent the truth about what happened on the underground, was picked up five years ago, shortly after 7/7. If you'd visited the July 7th Truth Campaign's site and read the years-old discussion between members of the nascent J7 group and Rachel 'North' from the Alex Cox forum:
http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/alexcoxforum/index.html
Then you would realise that this isn't a new conversation. In fact, that you're obviously ignorant of this says to me that you're in no position whatsoever to be judging other people's views and work about what happened on 7/7.


This last film (seeds of deconstruction) especially illustrates Hoi's comment about deliberate loose ends being left for conspiracy theorists to obsess over.



I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't obsess. I would put it to you that given the wholly misleading nature of your response to my film that you should see if those terms of derogation better describe your own behaviour.


(and to bore other people with...
The first part has >1000 views, the final part <200 )



I hate to break this to you, but when a 2 1/2 hour film is broken into 18 parts on youtube, a lot of people tend to watch it in chunks. Also, there are full length versions of my film on VeeHD and blip.tv. They've both got hundreds of views, which accounts for much of the difference between the numbers of people who've watched part one on youtube and the number who've watched through to part 18. Most people who've watched the introduction, by my count, have gone on to watch the rest of the film in one way or another.

So, aside from a bunch of diversions, strawmen arguments and in some places complete and utter horseshittery, do you actually have any criticisms of my film other than 'it didn't flatter my preconceptions and beliefs about what happened?'
Vinciguerra
Newbie
 
Posts: 1
Joined: August 21st, 2010, 10:43 am

Postby timothymurphy on August 21st, 2010, 1:43 pm

welcome to the "treehouse" Vinciguerra.

I understand why you gave my review of your film nil points.
It was bitchy and simplistic.

The thing is, this forum is not specifically dedicated to 7/7 so it's unlikely that most readers would want to watch those 3 long films, or be interested in my detailed opinions on them.

And I would not recommend that they watch them.

In a film about 7/7, 4 minutes on 1950s Guatamala is too long.


You're right that my criticisms are generic. They are aimed at 3 films at once, just to save time and ink.

re: criticism 1 - Old themes re-hashed
Your film is sophisticated in focusing on the deconstructing narrative etc.
So it may seem harsh to describe your film as "re-hashing" the same old stuff.
But it's my hope that a film-maker will come along who will not even bother mentioning train-times, CCTV, Daniel Obachike - contraditions or not- because they will have actually found something out about 7/7.


I did refer to your interesting observation about the power surge/electric shock theme. But i maintain the view that this theme has been latent in the story from the start, consciously inserted to whip out when the time is ripe.
(similar to how the anomoly of "the ball" in 9/11 footage is now starting to be exploited for conspiracies.)


If you've looked around this site, you'll see that there is skepticism about things that other sites might regard as crucial.

e.g. On the 9/11 threads you will not find detailed discussion of, say, whether buildings can collapse from top-down.
This is because the point is that the videos of buildings collapsing from top-down, are fake.

Following that model, I would like to see an editing out of distracting issues from presentations of 7/7.
There are some very interesting analyses in your film, but many of them cover issues which are the equivalent of the WTC top-down collapse. - Complicated distractions.

It is a mistake at this stage to burden people with every possible issue and perspective (including 4 mintues on 1950s Guatamala!), especially if you are taking witness accounts at "face value", adding every possible twist, turn and complication that is thrown in your path.

You wrote that:


I took witness accounts at face value most of the time because my whole thesis was that given what we've so far been told, any narrative of 7/7 dissolves into ambivalence and contradiction.



You demonstrate your thesis very well.
But isn't the overall effect of this likely to be that 7/7 appears so complicated that people conclude it is impossible to understand, and give up?
timothymurphy
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: November 8th, 2009, 8:51 pm

Postby simonshack on August 21st, 2010, 7:09 pm

Vinciguerra 4 Aug 21 2010, 11:00 AM wrote: Do you honestly believe that no one died or was seriously injured on 7/7? That every single story of every single victim is somehow a concoction of the mainstream media?


Vinciguerra,

Welcome - I have not seen your film and will just assume for now that you are here to defend, quite legitimately, your integrity as a researcher. You may naturally wish to answer Timothymurphy first, so don't feel compelled to address right away this post of mine - I nonetheless hope you will do so at some later stage.

Yes, we honestly believe no one gets killed in the so-called "Al-Qaeda! attacks. We believe they are entirely staged psyops to generate public consensus for wars. Our outlook on all this, as you can gather from the bulk of information in this forum is, shall we say, certainly not based on thin air.

Also, for the sake of fairness and mutual respect, I'd like to point out that your introductory words on this forum was to describe it as "some kind of circlejerking treehouse". I'm not the type who gets easily offended - but maybe some of the other 250 members might be - so now I guess we (you/Timothy/this forum) are even - as far as "mindless criticism" is concerned! <_<

In fact, it is precisely the widespread 'circlejerking' of many researchers/truth orgs/infiltrators and such that we oppose and denounce. I, for one, am a firm supporter of William of Ockham's principles: "When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question." A.k.a the "Ockham's razor" principle.

Let me now go straight to a 7/7 issue which we are focusing on at this time which, failing a forthcoming, satisfactory explanation from the entities involved, would confer to our thesis an irrefutable validity. It represents, IMHO, a textbook application of an Ockham's razor approach to 7/7:

JOHN HOWARD'S "52 PREDICTION"
As you may have read in the dedicated thread, Timothymurphy has demanded official clarifications from a number of entities regarding Australian prime minister's inexplicable foreknowledge of the exact number of casualties of the LONDON 7/7 events. We're still waiting for a reponse from all of them.

http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shac ... st=0&#last

Let me briefly sum up here what this is about a few weeks ago, I found two similar statements by John Howard in "Der Spiegel" and in "La Repubblica", two major European newspapers. Both are (timestamped) press releases still to be found on their respective online web archives of July 8 2005 (Yes, I have saved/backed-up those articles for posterity). It so happens that John Howard is quoted as stating in the early morning hours of July 8 (less than 24 hours after the bombings) that the death-toll of the attacks was “52”. He could not have known that figure since the Russell square bomb site (where 26 bodies were allegedly finally found) was reached by the first responders many hours later - as reported by Der Spiegel, La Repubblica - and by everyone else. In fact, the final and confirmed official death-toll of "52" was released by the authorities only three days later (July 11).

Now, Vinciguerra, take your pick:

1- It was a haphazard misprint by the newspapers
2- John had a lucky guess
3- John knew the "death-toll" in advance

Please choose one of the 3 above alternatives (or any other you may think of) which appears more plausible to you and expound your views on it as a response to this post. Thanks!
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6427
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby idschmyd on September 6th, 2010, 3:55 pm

simonshack 4 Aug 21 2010, 07:09 PM wrote:
Vinciguerra 4 Aug 21 2010, 11:00 AM wrote: Do you honestly believe that no one died or was seriously injured on 7/7? That every single story of every single victim is somehow a concoction of the mainstream media?


Vinciguerra,

Yes, we honestly believe no one gets killed in the so-called "Al-Qaeda! attacks. We believe they are entirely staged psyops to generate public consensus for wars. Our outlook on all this, as you can gather from the bulk of information in this forum is, shall we say, certainly not based on thin air.


Now, Vinciguerra, take your pick:

1- It was a haphazard misprint by the newspapers
2- John had a lucky guess
3- John knew the "death-toll" in advance




Did Viniciguerra get back to anyone PM style? Has he gone off to verify the John Howard fiasco? Or did he melt into his shoes leaving a pointy hat?

VINCI!!!



"In a film about 7/7, 4 minutes on 1950s Guatemala is too long."


The first YT chunk quickly moves off 7/7 and onto Guatemala, and by part six had covered Cuba and Gladio on top, and was still going. I haven't watched enough closely enough to convince myself of the position of the makers, though the scepticism metre is on red. The film might be useful for those with no previous knowledge who might defend the 7/7 narrative on grounds that governments don't indulge in false flaggery. But if Steven EJ did anyone a favour publicising WTC7's demise, there was always a better way to find out than through a campaign of lies and misdirection. I can't say that's what this film is, but it’s at best redundant if it doesn’t acknowledge the simulated nature of the ‘attack’ - not so much a false flag as a false ship operation.
idschmyd
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: October 19th, 2009, 10:33 pm

Postby simonshack on September 6th, 2010, 5:15 pm

idschmyd @ Sep 6 2010, 02:55 PM wrote:
Did Viniciguerra get back to anyone PM style? Has he gone off to verify the John Howard fiasco? Or did he melt into his shoes leaving a pointy hat?

VINCI!!!



No - not AFAIK- Can't say if Mr. Vinciguerra's flown off to Australia or melted into his socks. Perhaps both? Let me propose 3 things that might have happened:

1. He found nothing of interest in our treehouse and went back to his own research.
2. He was struck by Stendhal's syndrome in admiration of the beauty of our work, is still recovering - and will get back to us as soon as he's gone through the full contents of this forum.
3. He melted into his combat shoes leaving a pointy hat. :lol:
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6427
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby timothymurphy on September 6th, 2010, 6:50 pm

idschmyd 4 Sep 6 2010, 03:55 PM wrote:Did Viniciguerra get back to anyone PM style? Has he gone off to verify the John Howard fiasco? Or did he melt into his shoes leaving a pointy hat?








No PMs here.

I facebook messaged him (Vinciguerra is called Tom Secker), though.
My message was along the lines of:

"I'm still sorry to have been a bitch about your film. You've covered the material you had, with skill and care.
But I don't trust the website you're affiliated with. And I think it's important to deal with the propaganda aspect of the survivors and victims."

No reply. Fair enough.

I get the idea he's quite a serious student of history.

Tom Secker this year on an American radio show, talking about al qaeda:
http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/2010-0 ... Secker.mp3

He knows alot about Al Qaeda.
timothymurphy
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: November 8th, 2009, 8:51 pm

Postby timothymurphy on September 11th, 2010, 12:41 am

first of all, HAPPY 11/9!
Peace on Earth and goodwill t'wards men etc.


I was just sneaking around the 7/7 thread at 911truth UK.
Vinciguerra has also ingratiated himself there, and they're having a pleasant discussion.




I'm the maker of 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction and would like to respond to some of the comments and criticisms made of it on the 9/11 forum. However, I tried to register there two days ago and because it is set up with the ludicrous rule that an admin has to approve you before you've even posted anything (i.e. when they can't know if you're a spammer, troll, serious poster, whatever) I've yet to be granted the ability to post.

Needless to say, I think allowing people to mindlessly slate my film without granting me the right of reply contradicts everything you've ever said about free speech. But hey ho, just another conspirocrite.



:D
That's an e mail that the admin posted on the thread:
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=19578


Vinciguerra, if you're reading, I know it's not nice of me to re-post those words, but you have to admit it's funny how it's so similar to your introduction here.
timothymurphy
Member
 
Posts: 254
Joined: November 8th, 2009, 8:51 pm

Postby ozzybinoswald on September 11th, 2010, 1:01 am

timothymurphy @ Sep 11 2010, 12:41 AM wrote:

contradicts everything you've ever said about free speech. But hey ho, just another conspirocrite.





I always laugh when these righteous whiners complain that private individuals owe them their soapbox rights, as if we're government bureaucrats held to some constitutional stricture enshrined somewhere. My only rule is kill the shills.
ozzybinoswald
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 12:52 pm

Postby reel.deal on September 25th, 2010, 11:00 pm

Vinciguerra 4 Aug 21 2010, 12:00 PM wrote:
I put it to you that it is wholly unjustified to... In fact, I put it to you that you haven't paid sufficient attention to my film to make such an analysis of it.

So, to your individual criticisms:


Seeds of Deconstruction, response to mindless criticism

yeah yeah, whatever

QUOTE (simonshack @ Aug 21 2010, 07:09 PM)
2- John had a lucky guess

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtd7o9x5uN0

great speech steve, write it yourself?
"nah, johnny howard emailed it me this morning,
i mean; ...i cannot precisely source that advice"
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Postby simonshack on September 25th, 2010, 11:10 pm

reel.deal @ Sep 25 2010, 10:00 PM wrote:
"nah, johnny howard emailed it me this morning,
i mean; ...i cannot precisely source that advice"



:lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6427
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby reel.deal on September 26th, 2010, 12:11 am

.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am


Return to London, Madrid, Oslo and other faked terror events: the psyops are everywhere

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests