“There is a trap here where we can fall into, whereby we try and construct an alternative narrative based around a lack of evidence of what actually happened. And that is not only dangerous, it’s very foolhardy because if we’re wrong, we are wasting everyone’s time. And not just wasting everyone’s time but we are providing targets to the likes of the BBC Conspiracy Files, to the likes of whoever it is wants to debunk conspiracy theories. We are feeding them conspiracy theories to debunk. And if we don’t have the evidence, then we’re setting ourselves up for a fall”.
Tom Secker, Spyculture.com, 2011
Documentary maker Tom Secker is prickly, obnoxious even, but very good at research, in fairness. It’s a shame he’s so charmless because he’s articulate and annoyingly, he’s saying things I agree with on false flag investigations, even if he responded to one of my emails with: OK, fuck off you narcissistic prick.
I’d only asked him for an interview and complimented his website, spyculture.com, which has some decent material, well written and honest in its approach. Our exchange had started off promising. I wanted it to work out, I really did.
Secker said Richard D Hall and Kollerstrom had wilfully mischaracterised his work on the 2005 London bombings. “I've never trusted the guy or seen his work as valuable. Not surprised to hear he went down the 'no victims/crisis actors' route, it's one of the refuges for people with no actual ability to investigate anything”.
I had come upon Secker’s work the circuitous route. Alex Jones had tweeted a link to his own 2006 documentary, Terrorstorm: A History of Government Sponsored Terror, which I dutifully watched, on the lookout for traps and misdirection. MI5 whistleblower David Shayler showed up saying some things we can all agree on, like:
We have found out from our time in the services that there are certain people in the press who work as agents of influence of the intelligence services. In Britain, it’s very easy to reward people with privileges, with contracts, with honours, with appointments to the House of Lords, knighthoods and so on. So no money has to exchange hands but those people know very clearly that they have a job to put out propaganda on behalf of the services.
All good. We could say something similar about the alternative media. The intelligence agencies have this side covered too with well positioned players who tell us things we want to hear, like say, Alex Jones (CIA Dad) or the Tate brothers (CIA Dad) or Tucker Carlson (CIA Dad) or even David Shayler who went on to become a homeless tranny with a messiah complex, funnily enough. The war on conspiracy theorists has been going on a long time. It’s very important critical thinkers look insane to the wider public. “Jesus was a transvestite,” claims Shayler in this Daily Mail article from July 16, 2009, before the mainstream media pretended men could become women with the flick of a pronoun. Jesus would be a trans woman by today’s woke standards. They/them is the way, the truth and the life, kind of thing.
Why was Alex Jones using such a dodgy whistleblower in his documentary? Clearly David Shayler’s job was to discredit the truth movement and tarnish its image. Hence all the publicity surrounding his book with fellow MI5 officer Annie Machon, Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers, his arrest and imprisonment and subsequent ‘breakdown’. If Shayler was really saying anything truly explosive, the complicit mainstream media would have ignored him or he might have been suicided. Instead he turned up on BBC comedy panel show Have I got News for You and They Think It’s All Over for maximum exposure. It was at this point in my research/dicking around on the Internet, that I came across Tom Secker’s article: Disinfowars 19 – Is David Shayler a Fake Whistleblower?
Here was a conspiracy theorist’s conspiracy theorist, somebody questioning the whole thing - the mainstream narrative and those conspiratainment traps laid out to ensnare critical thinkers. Better still, Secker had detected Nick Kollestrom (a regular on Richard D Hall’s productions) was misleading his audience. Secker describes Kollestrom as a “relatively minor figure on the British truther scene who endorses every bullshit theory out there”.
In the Spyculture.com article, Secker pulls up a 2010 YouTube video of David Shayler (back as a he/him again) and Nick Kollestrom "knowingly lying” about the London 7/7 bombings. He writes:
The massive deception here is that Shayler and Kollerstrom refer only to the original still image released by the police about 2 weeks after 7/7. They ignore completely the reams of CCTV recordings the police released in 2008, which shows the four men, still not 100% identifiable, arriving and moving around the station. There are still dozens of problems with that CCTV footage which I get into in chapter 3 of my book but to simply pretend that this footage doesn’t exist is utterly shameful.
The funny thing is that Kollerstrom has no excuse for pretending to not know about this extra footage because he was shown some of it as part of the BBC’s Conspiracy Files show on 7/7. Those of you who have seen the Conspiracy Files may remember the moment where Kollerstrom insists that the four men were never in London that day, and then is shown a video clip of the four men walking through Kings Cross station.
Sounds like Kollerstrom is playing a role, just like Shayler. I mistakenly thought Secker and I might bond over his keen observations (we are few, after all) but things took a turn for the worse during our correspondence when I said: I found your piece on David Shayler really interesting - I'm not buying his tranny moment either. Funny how he turned up in that Alex Jones false flag documentary, which Jones reposted this week on X. Jones keeps telling us we're going to see more false flags, like we can trust him to dissect them for us after Sandy Hook.
Secker wasn’t feeling so chummy. He snapped back:
Honestly Aisling, this doesn't sound like something I want to be involved in.
1) Your use of the word 'tranny' suggest you're a bigot.
2) Shayler's 'tranny moment' (as you put it) is the least interesting thing about him, the least important, but it's the thing you pick up on and use against him. This suggests you're a bigot.
3) There will be more false flags. This is pretty much the only thing that Alex Jones has said which is true.
It goes on. We had quite the exchange! Don’t you just hate it when you think you’re going to hit it off with somebody but it derails unexpectedly and veers off into the bushes to spectacularly crash and burn moments after leaving the station? Surely Shayler’s tranny moment is the most interesting thing about him. Those shapely legs! The leopard print mini skirt. The hang of those prosthetic boobs - the overall look so professionally finished, like an Xposé makeover. It’s a sight I’ll never be able to erase from my mind. Such a hoot for the MI5 gang back in the office! Or am I missing something? What’s so bad about the word tranny anyway? Even trannies call themselves trannies. Is Tom Secker a woke conspiracy theorist? If he’s so touchy about the word tranny, what would he be like if I got his pronouns wrong?
Part of my response, hastily written in the car at a weekend sports venue, reads:
If David Shayler is only pretending to be a tranny to undermine critical thinkers, that hardly makes me a bigot for detecting his daring showmanship. Aren't you being a tad harsh? Are you not saying the same thing, perhaps more diplomatically? Is it the word tranny that got you? I'm bewildered.
His response:
OK, fuck off you narcissistic prick.
I’d really like to publish the full exchange because it’s excruciatingly revealing but I’ll hold off. Maybe Secker was having a bad day and lashed out at the wrong person who was only trying to acknowledge his work and give him a slap on the back. Instead I got a verbal slap in the face for my efforts. Or maybe he’s always like that which would be very sad for those around him having to put up with his moods and superiority complex.
Whatever the case, Tom Secker is a very good researcher - so annoying - and his work is worth assessing although he seems to have misgendered me in his final email:
I am not interested in these topics, I've made that clear, you seem insistent on picking an argument with me and somehow proving yourself. A common characteristic of Irish men, to be like that and to project it onto others when challenged over it.
Secker seems to think I’m an Irish man! He wouldn’t be the first, in fairness. When conspiracy theorists are losing the argument they always go for that old chestnut. The shadowy cabal put me up to it, your honour - the children are just actors. It’s all part of the script. May I make it clear that at no point did I sling insults at Secker throughout our exchange, I kept the conversation on point. I only asked for a bleed’n interview. Usually journalists want to share their knowledge. It’s par for the course, especially if you’re putting your content up on the Internet.
Strange how Secker says he’s not interested in these topics yet they’re all over his website in minute detail, on podcasts, in his books and on videos he posts online. He seems to be very, very interested in these topics. That’s why he writes about them, but let’s not get bogged down with facts.
A simple no thanks would have worked fine if he’s not up for an interview.
So what can we take away from this sorry tale?
Never use the word tranny in front of Tom Secker (or call him a truther for that matter).
Nick Kollestrom feeds dodgy information to conspiracy theorists.
David Shayler is most likely a fake tranny and not the messiah.
Too much time on the Internet leads to unexpected places.
Never trust intelligence assets to guide you through false flag investigations.
La fin.
Support independent journalism and buy Aisling a coffee HERE. Thank you.
Worth watching:
Share this post