In this clip the devious duo insinuate that Lisa Roussos, the mother of eight-year-old Saffie Roussos is lying about the blast and covering up for an earlier incident they can't prove.
Have you not noticed the footage from the area in which there was meant to be a bomb shows no one injured? No smoke? No debris? Have you not noticed a lot of the interviews have conflicting information? Did you notice the strange number of people happy to do interviews while in hospital? Do you think it's normal to go through something traumatic and then immediately talk to the news? You're telling us what *isn't* investigative journalism, but are you going to show us what *is* investigative journalism?
You've been presented with certain images to mislead you into all sorts of false conclusions and you've accepted them as true. It's a trap. The victims are real. The bomb was real. Work from there are show some respect for the dead.
They victims are dead Ricky! They're not pretending to be dead. There's your evidence. Go and listen to the testimonies of the survivors. They're NOT lying. Richard D Hall is lying and look what he's made you believe. Nonsense.
UK Critical Thinker has done a meticulous study of this event and has presented 40 videos on the subject. Strangely, Richard Hall has them on his website because if he's watched them I cannot see how he'd be accusing any parent of killing their child. It was all so obviously staged.
You can make the claim but you need to back it up.
Are you unfamiliar with staged events, Aisling? You've got some wising up to do.
On this page you will see alleged injured children. Do they look injured to you? Especially do they look injured in the way that orthopaedic surgeon Ibrar Majid describes their injuries. I emailed Dr Ibrar Majid questioning him about the children's injuries. No response.
Claims have been made for an event for which zero clear evidence has been provided and in which are numerous anomalies. Why would you believe what they tell you when the evidence has nothing convincing about it and is riddled with anomalies?
Petra I wouldn't waste one minute more of your time on Aisling. She has the monopoly on the truth , she just KNOWS when people are lying or telling the truth..............................she's a REAL journalist you know......................not like all the charlatans that are attempting to deceive us and WE , of course ,
Hi Aisling. I note you say: "There’s only one place for Ian Davis five-star rated ‘Astonishing’ new book, The Manchester Attack, An Independent Investigation, available to buy on Amazon for €19.99 and that’s in the bin. It’s unclear if Davis has made a grave error or if he’s purposefully misleading."
I would just like to point out that the book is available on my own website and is made available for FREE to any reader who wants to grab a pdf copy. - https://iaindavis.com/sfcz9nrjt/
Obviously, you have read my book, so by all means highlight where you think I have made a "grave error." I can assure you I am not "purposefully misleading" anyone. I don't intend to respond to that point again, unless you wish to raise it again.
That said, I may well have made errors with the evidence. I don't currently think I have. but it is certainly possible. So, seeing as you have read the book, perhaps you could highlight what aspect of the evidence you think I've got wrong.
Happy to discuss the evidence with you any time. Please let me know if and when you would like to do so.
Great. Let's set up an interview and thank you for getting in touch. Yes I'm afraid you've made a grave error basing your book on the apparent investigative journalism of Richard D Hall. If it's any consolation he's tricked a lot of people as you can see from the comments. Sadly his research doesn't stand up to scrutiny and it has led his followers down a blind alley. There was a bomb and real people died in Manchester on the night of May 22, 2017. They're not acting. Admittedly there are lots of anomalies surrounding the event as even the victims' families would attest but these anomalies have been manipulated by Hall to reach a false conclusion. You have a good reputation and I sense you've taken Richard D Hall at his word, so many have. It's a trap, though. I'll get in touch and we can arrange a time for a discussion.
I don't see anyone here who has been tricked by Hall, but I do see a lot of people questioning "official" information. If there are anomalies, why aren't "real journalists" pointing that out and clarifying? How is mainstream media not the problem? They are the ones claiming this event was real. People are simply asking for proof.
I have no previous knowledge of this whole incident nor have I investigated myself, but what I can say is that this person, Aisling, has utilized all the most vile emotional and bullying based tactics I’ve seen from the corrupt ‘powers that be’. I don’t believe or trust a single thing she says.
Just in this thread she tries to browbeat anyone from questioning this incident because of how it makes the ‘dead victims’ families feel. Totally ignoring the point that there may be no ‘dead victims’ and therefore no ‘dead victims’ families.. This smacks as an attempt to silencing those questioning government much like for Sandy Hook in the US.
in other posts and interviews she attacks the readers if they even think of believing or giving credence to objections. Again, vile tactics. This is a bad person period.
There's only one thing that's important in all of this and that's the objective Truth. It doesn't matter what you think of me, I'm irrelevant. Iain and his book are irrelevant. RDH is irrelevant. What's relevant is the objective Truth. Was there a bomb? Yes. Did it kill 22 people in Manchester on May 22, 2017? Yes. That's it. Work from there. Or if you have ANY proof that the 22 dead people are just acting, put it on the table. So far we have ZERO evidence, just made up scenarios that make the victims out to be murderous liars. Evil.
There only one way to hopefully find the objective truth and that is to examine the evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests there was no bomb. Your accusation that highlighting this evidence amounts to an allegation that "22 dead people are just acting" or that my argument accuses the victims of being "murderous liars" is an utter falsehood. There can never be any "evidence" to support or challenge your point, because you've made it up out of whole cloth.
My God one would need a shower after reading some of the comments supporting Halls utter flimflam. It's a healthy reminder of the utter imbecility of subsets within society, you now see how easy covid and its many manifestations of irrationality was to perpetrate. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this entire enterprise is a phyop itself with the goal of highlighting how dangerous a free for all internet can be. The establishment will cry, look at what people like Hall can do to families and communities, this must be stopped, we need controls. And all of your conspiracy nuts will welcome it with open arms because you'll believe any old nonsense as long as it sounds authoritative. In the meantime, while you all are arguing over no smoke and fingers lost in so called gardening accidents the real perpetrators slink away, namely the Islamic barbarian death cults that walk among us. It's frightening to contemplate how easily people can fooled.
It's opened my eyes John which is why I persist. I thought everyone knew Richard D Hall was a joke. Can't believe they've fallen for his fake journalism. They're playing a very stupid game and the cost for those of us who rely on sound argument and solid evidence will be very high indeed.
Adam Lawler is NOT a crisis actor, neither was his friend Olivia Campbell-Hardy who died in the Manchester Arena blast which was real, not a loud bang. I've listened to as many victims as I could find. They're NOT acting. As a news reporter I've interviewed thousands of people in my time, I'd be able to spot it if they were acting.
You cannot simply assert things without clear evidence. Propaganda has magical qualities so the fact that you've interviewed thousands of people doesn't protect you from that magic. My analysis:
1. He says, "I've been passed out in the hospital for three days on some sort of drug," and then indicates how he was given a tracheotomy during those three days. Recovery from anaesthetic usually takes a couple of hours and if you don't wake up then you die. To be passed out for three days after an operation makes no sense.
2. "I had a spare ticket for Christmas and someone else cancelled ... so I asked ...." From this we would infer that his parents gave him two tickets for Christmas for him to give one to a friend which seems rather generous - also if she was his best friend you wonder why he didn't give it to her in the first place. They gave him two tickets so he could give one to someone else. Possible, of course, but not the norm.
3. His injuries seem very extreme - 2 broken legs, 7 missing teeth, tongue had to be surgically reconstructed, hit on the face and under the jaw, eye nearly completely destroyed but "thankfully only needed cataract surgery" however there are no clear signs of any of these injuries apart from the tracheotomy and cataract surgery does not fit the circumstances. Cataracts are not caused immediately by injuries and cataracts don't match "eye nearly completely destroyed." He ends with, "a couple of burns, nothing major really" which is in contradiction of all the things he's just listed.
As UK Critical Thinker points out in his video on Gary Walker if you put people's stories together someone has to be lying, "for example, if one person is saying they had flesh, body parts, faeces, all this kind of thing in their hair how is it that this guy who says he was stood 3 metres away from the blast has nothing on him whatsoever? ... this guy's doing interviews on the night when he's just described how badly injured his wife is and he's not going to the hospital with her. Why is it such a priority?" https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest.php?ref=817&part=1&person=18
3. No images show any clear evidence of a recent tracheotomy. This is a photo of Adam "recovering". No signs that his tracheotomy is recent. I do not deny he shows a tracheotomy scar, however, often people's previous injuries and scars are used in staged events.
I've responded to your Adam Lawler video - will you respond to the questions I ask you about the supposedly injured children and Dr Ibrar Majid's claims about injuries? And what is your response on Adam Lawler?
Hmm I dunno Aisling. Evil ? Evil Conspiracy theorists?
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. Sounds like you're attacking the messenger and not the message and for someone in your shoes that should always ring alarm bells.
Yes it's evil to wrongfully accuse a mother of harming her daughter with zero evidence, especially in the circumstances and to put it out on the Internet for others to gobble up and repeat. He has NO evidence. He's just speculating that the child died before the bomb and the mother was involved somehow. Pure evil. Who does that? Why do you think it's ok?
Well I don't think it's okay if that is what he is doing, to cast aspeersions on the mother without evidence is wrong. But you are not just attacking him because of that, you are defending the official narrative. We know how much we are being manipulated by these events and its open season on us and the truth , so if these people want to question the narrative then it's their right.
I mean we have the yearly adoration of the 911 death cult approaching, and we all know that the story is a complete bunch of lies. To question it in the eyes of the believer, or those who participate in it, is always deemed evil and shameful and those trying to point out the truth are always personally attacked and denigrated with the usual slurs.
But the truth needs to be uncovered. if some of the hard questions grate on your ears, eyes and heart or conscience then so be it. We are in a very dangerous place , as you know.
I'm not defending the official narrative, I'm defending proper journalism. Of course we ask questions and seek answers. Of course we don't take the Daddy government's word for it - but this is something else entirely! This is purposefully misleading an audience to arrive at a false conclusion. It's also smearing a mother who's grieving for her dead child. If you're going to call them actors you'd better come up with some proof. Saffie is dead. These are very serious allegations made by Richard D Hall and Genevieve Lewis. They have provided zero evidence to support their claims. It's up to the audience to say NO NO NO. It's our test too.
Absolutely Billy. They're making up the most outrageous allegations against a grieving mother with ZERO evidence to support their claims. It's vile. For what? To make out there was no bomb and no real victims, like they hired a dead child for the night. Give me strength!
Aisling, Aisling, you need to blow away some magic propaganda dust here. They didn't even bother with a bomb for Manchester. For most of their staged bombings they actually use bombs ... after full evacuation ... but for Manchester they didn't bother.
Please point to a single piece of evidence that speaks for the reality of this event.
I highly recommend the meticulous series done by UK Critical Thinker - which funnily enough is published on Richard Hall's website so his claims of parents of killing their child means he's being completely disingenuous - he must know it was a staged event.
Let's start with the bottom line: Are the victims real or fake? The victims are real and their injuries are consistent with a nuts and bolts bomb. The dead weren't hired in for the night. Stop believing nonsense. Those who survived aren't crisis actors. Give your head a wobble. You've been conned.
As for the UK Critical Thinker. Who is he? What's his name? Let him come out of hiding and defend his research like a man or woman. At least Richard D Hall shows his mug but his findings are still ridiculous and hold no water. There was a bomb and the victims are real. Stop dishonouring them with this phoney investigative journalism. It's time to get real.
I don't "believe" anything. I just look at what they present to us and recognise it as clear fakery - it's always done very obviously following their Revelation of the Method rule.
* people writhing in pain (wounds from shrapnel are extremely painful)
* dead bodies or body parts
* children
* medical staff and equipment
* destruction
* sense of urgency
It appears someone is holding some kind of swab to someone's head where we see no blood and the swabber looks unengaged
We can only wonder at what the two parallel tracks of blood indicate
Overall, I think it's fair to say that this indicates much more the scene of an anti-terrorist (or similar) drill than a real bomb scene where 22 people were killed and 250 injured.
I worked in news for years - there are taste and decency limitations on footage plus they're playing us. It's a trap. They're withholding information on purpose to ensnare conspiracy theorists. Don't bite the bait.
Aisling, you may have been a journalist for years but I've been a psyop analyst for a decade myself. Fakery is my thing, and while I certainly may have bitten the bait quite a few times, over the years I've developed a pretty accurate lens for looking at these things ... and worked out a few no one else has worked out, eg, Operation Northwoods and Collateral Murder. And just very recently I worked out that they didn't drop any bombs on Pearl Harbor. Now that's a good one, isn't it? People had already worked out before me that it was an evacuated bombing where the death and injury were faked but I haven't seen anyone state that no bombs were dropped from planes. There was obvious bombing (but not too much really) - but we do not see any bomb drop from a plane and hit target ... and, in fact, that makes perfect sense. The "event", Pearl Harbor was no less a movie than any movie made about it.
"Taste and decency limitations" simply cannot account for the numerous anomalies in the Manchester event. This is my page on it and - as I've already said - I highly recommend UK Critical Thinker's videos.
Aisling, Have you read Miri AF's piece? She makes very good sense of it all. Richard Hall is part of an after-psyop psyop, undermining those who simply call it a hoax - which is perfectly legal - by "harassing" people and making accusatory intimations and thus providing reasons to be charged - his court case will simply be a show trial. Richard Hall and Genevieve Lewis are acting out a charade in their discussion intimating that Saffie Roussos's parents may have been involved in an "accident" prior to her death and, of course, the parents are all part of the act.
'However, it is crucial to note here that he is NOT being sued for saying the attack was a hoax: he is, as his lawyer pointed out, "perfectly entitled" to hold that belief.
He is being sued for (alleged) harassment and breaches in data protection, things which one is not "perfectly entitled" to do, regardless of whether one believes the persons in question are "crisis actors" or not.
However, the media is cleverly conflating the two, by focusing a lot of coverage on Hall's "hoax" theory, and then declaring he's being sued by "the victims", therefore implying he is being sued for his beliefs, and, consequently, frightening people out of questioning events or sharing their opinions, lest they get taken to court.
So we need to be very clear that there is no law insisting you have to accept the state's version of events, that you can't question media narratives, or that you have to accept any particular event as real. You don't. You're free to question as much as you like, and if you come to the conclusion the event was a hoax, you're free to say so (and other people are free to get offended and call you a "vile ghoul").
Basic newsroom test the same newsroom who lied about de covid with fake statistics and are now silent on all the jab deaths come on aisling that comment is mad
I'm not sure if Delingpole did say he defo believes them. Having them on the show doesn't mean that. That is certainly a bad vid clip u showed. No good points from them. Strangely nit picking over nothing and the woman laughing a few times is in bad taste. Even if you suspect it's a false flag you surely have to have some doubt and show some sensitivity.
Richard Hall interviewed 1 of our very own Gemma O'Doherty on 25 April past, and the hour long piece is another example of his not doing due diligent research as he appears bowled over by her antiQuare sentimenti midway thru.
Aisling Aisling Aisling, how COULD you treat a woman with cancer like this? Probably in the same way as Richard D Hall treats those poor Manchester bomb victims . The '' static '' daffodils '' and the '' disappearing ring '' look like planted clues to a hapless Conspiracy theorist, do they not? Perhaps better to go along with the official narrative rather than bring Conspiracy theorists and their wretched questions into disrepute. . What's the difference between you and Hall ? Tell me, I'm interested.
Have you not noticed the footage from the area in which there was meant to be a bomb shows no one injured? No smoke? No debris? Have you not noticed a lot of the interviews have conflicting information? Did you notice the strange number of people happy to do interviews while in hospital? Do you think it's normal to go through something traumatic and then immediately talk to the news? You're telling us what *isn't* investigative journalism, but are you going to show us what *is* investigative journalism?
You've been presented with certain images to mislead you into all sorts of false conclusions and you've accepted them as true. It's a trap. The victims are real. The bomb was real. Work from there are show some respect for the dead.
Then where is the evidence? Thousands of people with cell phones and no real evidence? Only phony evidence?
They victims are dead Ricky! They're not pretending to be dead. There's your evidence. Go and listen to the testimonies of the survivors. They're NOT lying. Richard D Hall is lying and look what he's made you believe. Nonsense.
The “survivors” have conflicting stories and some of them make no sense whatsoever. I have yet to see on person who was truly distraught.
UK Critical Thinker has done a meticulous study of this event and has presented 40 videos on the subject. Strangely, Richard Hall has them on his website because if he's watched them I cannot see how he'd be accusing any parent of killing their child. It was all so obviously staged.
https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest_menu.php?person=18
Yes, I've looked at the testimonies and I find nothing convincing about them. Can you point to one that you think is genuine?
Oh my goodness! Every which way you turn, Manchester was just so obviously staged.
The victims are real. Stop dishonouring them!
You can make the claim but you need to back it up.
Are you unfamiliar with staged events, Aisling? You've got some wising up to do.
On this page you will see alleged injured children. Do they look injured to you? Especially do they look injured in the way that orthopaedic surgeon Ibrar Majid describes their injuries. I emailed Dr Ibrar Majid questioning him about the children's injuries. No response.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4541026/The-Queen-visits-Royal-Manchester-Children-s-Hospital.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-40125302
Claims have been made for an event for which zero clear evidence has been provided and in which are numerous anomalies. Why would you believe what they tell you when the evidence has nothing convincing about it and is riddled with anomalies?
Petra I wouldn't waste one minute more of your time on Aisling. She has the monopoly on the truth , she just KNOWS when people are lying or telling the truth..............................she's a REAL journalist you know......................not like all the charlatans that are attempting to deceive us and WE , of course ,
are so stupid we can't tell the difference.
Hi Aisling. I note you say: "There’s only one place for Ian Davis five-star rated ‘Astonishing’ new book, The Manchester Attack, An Independent Investigation, available to buy on Amazon for €19.99 and that’s in the bin. It’s unclear if Davis has made a grave error or if he’s purposefully misleading."
I would just like to point out that the book is available on my own website and is made available for FREE to any reader who wants to grab a pdf copy. - https://iaindavis.com/sfcz9nrjt/
Obviously, you have read my book, so by all means highlight where you think I have made a "grave error." I can assure you I am not "purposefully misleading" anyone. I don't intend to respond to that point again, unless you wish to raise it again.
That said, I may well have made errors with the evidence. I don't currently think I have. but it is certainly possible. So, seeing as you have read the book, perhaps you could highlight what aspect of the evidence you think I've got wrong.
Happy to discuss the evidence with you any time. Please let me know if and when you would like to do so.
Hi Iain,
Great. Let's set up an interview and thank you for getting in touch. Yes I'm afraid you've made a grave error basing your book on the apparent investigative journalism of Richard D Hall. If it's any consolation he's tricked a lot of people as you can see from the comments. Sadly his research doesn't stand up to scrutiny and it has led his followers down a blind alley. There was a bomb and real people died in Manchester on the night of May 22, 2017. They're not acting. Admittedly there are lots of anomalies surrounding the event as even the victims' families would attest but these anomalies have been manipulated by Hall to reach a false conclusion. You have a good reputation and I sense you've taken Richard D Hall at his word, so many have. It's a trap, though. I'll get in touch and we can arrange a time for a discussion.
Many thanks,
Aisling
I don't see anyone here who has been tricked by Hall, but I do see a lot of people questioning "official" information. If there are anomalies, why aren't "real journalists" pointing that out and clarifying? How is mainstream media not the problem? They are the ones claiming this event was real. People are simply asking for proof.
I have no previous knowledge of this whole incident nor have I investigated myself, but what I can say is that this person, Aisling, has utilized all the most vile emotional and bullying based tactics I’ve seen from the corrupt ‘powers that be’. I don’t believe or trust a single thing she says.
Just in this thread she tries to browbeat anyone from questioning this incident because of how it makes the ‘dead victims’ families feel. Totally ignoring the point that there may be no ‘dead victims’ and therefore no ‘dead victims’ families.. This smacks as an attempt to silencing those questioning government much like for Sandy Hook in the US.
in other posts and interviews she attacks the readers if they even think of believing or giving credence to objections. Again, vile tactics. This is a bad person period.
There's only one thing that's important in all of this and that's the objective Truth. It doesn't matter what you think of me, I'm irrelevant. Iain and his book are irrelevant. RDH is irrelevant. What's relevant is the objective Truth. Was there a bomb? Yes. Did it kill 22 people in Manchester on May 22, 2017? Yes. That's it. Work from there. Or if you have ANY proof that the 22 dead people are just acting, put it on the table. So far we have ZERO evidence, just made up scenarios that make the victims out to be murderous liars. Evil.
There only one way to hopefully find the objective truth and that is to examine the evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests there was no bomb. Your accusation that highlighting this evidence amounts to an allegation that "22 dead people are just acting" or that my argument accuses the victims of being "murderous liars" is an utter falsehood. There can never be any "evidence" to support or challenge your point, because you've made it up out of whole cloth.
My God one would need a shower after reading some of the comments supporting Halls utter flimflam. It's a healthy reminder of the utter imbecility of subsets within society, you now see how easy covid and its many manifestations of irrationality was to perpetrate. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this entire enterprise is a phyop itself with the goal of highlighting how dangerous a free for all internet can be. The establishment will cry, look at what people like Hall can do to families and communities, this must be stopped, we need controls. And all of your conspiracy nuts will welcome it with open arms because you'll believe any old nonsense as long as it sounds authoritative. In the meantime, while you all are arguing over no smoke and fingers lost in so called gardening accidents the real perpetrators slink away, namely the Islamic barbarian death cults that walk among us. It's frightening to contemplate how easily people can fooled.
It's opened my eyes John which is why I persist. I thought everyone knew Richard D Hall was a joke. Can't believe they've fallen for his fake journalism. They're playing a very stupid game and the cost for those of us who rely on sound argument and solid evidence will be very high indeed.
Manchester was a staged event like dozens of others.
Supposedly 22 people were killed and 250 injured.
Can you show me a single image of a person who looks convincingly injured? Just one.
Here you go: https://youtu.be/pGdjSq6i8uo?si=B9-13Oi8so0SYedl
Adam Lawler is NOT a crisis actor, neither was his friend Olivia Campbell-Hardy who died in the Manchester Arena blast which was real, not a loud bang. I've listened to as many victims as I could find. They're NOT acting. As a news reporter I've interviewed thousands of people in my time, I'd be able to spot it if they were acting.
You cannot simply assert things without clear evidence. Propaganda has magical qualities so the fact that you've interviewed thousands of people doesn't protect you from that magic. My analysis:
1. He says, "I've been passed out in the hospital for three days on some sort of drug," and then indicates how he was given a tracheotomy during those three days. Recovery from anaesthetic usually takes a couple of hours and if you don't wake up then you die. To be passed out for three days after an operation makes no sense.
2. "I had a spare ticket for Christmas and someone else cancelled ... so I asked ...." From this we would infer that his parents gave him two tickets for Christmas for him to give one to a friend which seems rather generous - also if she was his best friend you wonder why he didn't give it to her in the first place. They gave him two tickets so he could give one to someone else. Possible, of course, but not the norm.
3. His injuries seem very extreme - 2 broken legs, 7 missing teeth, tongue had to be surgically reconstructed, hit on the face and under the jaw, eye nearly completely destroyed but "thankfully only needed cataract surgery" however there are no clear signs of any of these injuries apart from the tracheotomy and cataract surgery does not fit the circumstances. Cataracts are not caused immediately by injuries and cataracts don't match "eye nearly completely destroyed." He ends with, "a couple of burns, nothing major really" which is in contradiction of all the things he's just listed.
As UK Critical Thinker points out in his video on Gary Walker if you put people's stories together someone has to be lying, "for example, if one person is saying they had flesh, body parts, faeces, all this kind of thing in their hair how is it that this guy who says he was stood 3 metres away from the blast has nothing on him whatsoever? ... this guy's doing interviews on the night when he's just described how badly injured his wife is and he's not going to the hospital with her. Why is it such a priority?" https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest.php?ref=817&part=1&person=18
3. No images show any clear evidence of a recent tracheotomy. This is a photo of Adam "recovering". No signs that his tracheotomy is recent. I do not deny he shows a tracheotomy scar, however, often people's previous injuries and scars are used in staged events.
https://imgur.com/a/adam-lawler-recovering-HcoIq2r
From Daily Mail - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5086343/The-nurse-refused-leave-bomb-victim.html
I've responded to your Adam Lawler video - will you respond to the questions I ask you about the supposedly injured children and Dr Ibrar Majid's claims about injuries? And what is your response on Adam Lawler?
Hmm I dunno Aisling. Evil ? Evil Conspiracy theorists?
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. Sounds like you're attacking the messenger and not the message and for someone in your shoes that should always ring alarm bells.
Yes it's evil to wrongfully accuse a mother of harming her daughter with zero evidence, especially in the circumstances and to put it out on the Internet for others to gobble up and repeat. He has NO evidence. He's just speculating that the child died before the bomb and the mother was involved somehow. Pure evil. Who does that? Why do you think it's ok?
Well I don't think it's okay if that is what he is doing, to cast aspeersions on the mother without evidence is wrong. But you are not just attacking him because of that, you are defending the official narrative. We know how much we are being manipulated by these events and its open season on us and the truth , so if these people want to question the narrative then it's their right.
I mean we have the yearly adoration of the 911 death cult approaching, and we all know that the story is a complete bunch of lies. To question it in the eyes of the believer, or those who participate in it, is always deemed evil and shameful and those trying to point out the truth are always personally attacked and denigrated with the usual slurs.
But the truth needs to be uncovered. if some of the hard questions grate on your ears, eyes and heart or conscience then so be it. We are in a very dangerous place , as you know.
I'm not defending the official narrative, I'm defending proper journalism. Of course we ask questions and seek answers. Of course we don't take the Daddy government's word for it - but this is something else entirely! This is purposefully misleading an audience to arrive at a false conclusion. It's also smearing a mother who's grieving for her dead child. If you're going to call them actors you'd better come up with some proof. Saffie is dead. These are very serious allegations made by Richard D Hall and Genevieve Lewis. They have provided zero evidence to support their claims. It's up to the audience to say NO NO NO. It's our test too.
Purely on a language register level, I would dismiss these two as illegitimate. They simply don’t have the forensic lexicon or fluency to convince.
Absolutely Billy. They're making up the most outrageous allegations against a grieving mother with ZERO evidence to support their claims. It's vile. For what? To make out there was no bomb and no real victims, like they hired a dead child for the night. Give me strength!
Aisling, Aisling, you need to blow away some magic propaganda dust here. They didn't even bother with a bomb for Manchester. For most of their staged bombings they actually use bombs ... after full evacuation ... but for Manchester they didn't bother.
Please point to a single piece of evidence that speaks for the reality of this event.
I highly recommend the meticulous series done by UK Critical Thinker - which funnily enough is published on Richard Hall's website so his claims of parents of killing their child means he's being completely disingenuous - he must know it was a staged event.
This is a short 4-minute video which gives a pretty good impression of what kind of event Manchester really was. https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest.php?ref=833&part=1&person=18
This is the whole series - https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest_menu.php?person=18
Let's start with the bottom line: Are the victims real or fake? The victims are real and their injuries are consistent with a nuts and bolts bomb. The dead weren't hired in for the night. Stop believing nonsense. Those who survived aren't crisis actors. Give your head a wobble. You've been conned.
As for the UK Critical Thinker. Who is he? What's his name? Let him come out of hiding and defend his research like a man or woman. At least Richard D Hall shows his mug but his findings are still ridiculous and hold no water. There was a bomb and the victims are real. Stop dishonouring them with this phoney investigative journalism. It's time to get real.
I don't "believe" anything. I just look at what they present to us and recognise it as clear fakery - it's always done very obviously following their Revelation of the Method rule.
https://soundofheart.org/galacticfreepress/content/revelation-method-predictive-programming-and-prime-directive
It doesn't matter WHO UK Critical Thinker is, it's what he says. He doesn't have to defend it, he's simply putting forward an intelligent analysis.
Where was the bomb? This is the ONLY image of the alleged bomb scene presented across all media at various levels of crop and zoom. The ONLY image.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/foyer-full-of-young-girls-wearing-kitten-ears-was-the-softest-target-3kc0l25cj
Observations about this image:
* It is unclear
We cannot identify:
* specific injuries or maiming
* people writhing in pain (wounds from shrapnel are extremely painful)
* dead bodies or body parts
* children
* medical staff and equipment
* destruction
* sense of urgency
It appears someone is holding some kind of swab to someone's head where we see no blood and the swabber looks unengaged
We can only wonder at what the two parallel tracks of blood indicate
Overall, I think it's fair to say that this indicates much more the scene of an anti-terrorist (or similar) drill than a real bomb scene where 22 people were killed and 250 injured.
Check out what you see of the alleged bomb scene at 1:25 in this video. https://www.bitchute.com/video/d0U1oYMUpzfT/
I worked in news for years - there are taste and decency limitations on footage plus they're playing us. It's a trap. They're withholding information on purpose to ensnare conspiracy theorists. Don't bite the bait.
Aisling, you may have been a journalist for years but I've been a psyop analyst for a decade myself. Fakery is my thing, and while I certainly may have bitten the bait quite a few times, over the years I've developed a pretty accurate lens for looking at these things ... and worked out a few no one else has worked out, eg, Operation Northwoods and Collateral Murder. And just very recently I worked out that they didn't drop any bombs on Pearl Harbor. Now that's a good one, isn't it? People had already worked out before me that it was an evacuated bombing where the death and injury were faked but I haven't seen anyone state that no bombs were dropped from planes. There was obvious bombing (but not too much really) - but we do not see any bomb drop from a plane and hit target ... and, in fact, that makes perfect sense. The "event", Pearl Harbor was no less a movie than any movie made about it.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/operation-northwoods-false-flag-proposal
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/chelsea-manning-agent-collateral
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-and-pearl-harbor-its-a-bird
"Taste and decency limitations" simply cannot account for the numerous anomalies in the Manchester event. This is my page on it and - as I've already said - I highly recommend UK Critical Thinker's videos.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/manchester-bombing.html
https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest_menu.php?person=18
So they're using dead people as a trap, but you're mad at Hall? WTF?!?
You can't just say "it's real just because I say so." We have lots of fake events in America and we have seen many all over the world.
We sure have, loads in Australia, absolutely loads.
Aisling, Have you read Miri AF's piece? She makes very good sense of it all. Richard Hall is part of an after-psyop psyop, undermining those who simply call it a hoax - which is perfectly legal - by "harassing" people and making accusatory intimations and thus providing reasons to be charged - his court case will simply be a show trial. Richard Hall and Genevieve Lewis are acting out a charade in their discussion intimating that Saffie Roussos's parents may have been involved in an "accident" prior to her death and, of course, the parents are all part of the act.
https://miri.substack.com/p/richard-ds-hall-of-mirrors
'However, it is crucial to note here that he is NOT being sued for saying the attack was a hoax: he is, as his lawyer pointed out, "perfectly entitled" to hold that belief.
He is being sued for (alleged) harassment and breaches in data protection, things which one is not "perfectly entitled" to do, regardless of whether one believes the persons in question are "crisis actors" or not.
However, the media is cleverly conflating the two, by focusing a lot of coverage on Hall's "hoax" theory, and then declaring he's being sued by "the victims", therefore implying he is being sued for his beliefs, and, consequently, frightening people out of questioning events or sharing their opinions, lest they get taken to court.
So we need to be very clear that there is no law insisting you have to accept the state's version of events, that you can't question media narratives, or that you have to accept any particular event as real. You don't. You're free to question as much as you like, and if you come to the conclusion the event was a hoax, you're free to say so (and other people are free to get offended and call you a "vile ghoul").
None of this is illegal.'
It’s obvious you haven’t spent any time looking at the evidence. You sound as gullible as all the ones that fell for the Covid fraud.
The victims aren't lying. I've examined the 'evidence'. It falls flat. Wouldn't pass the most basic newsroom test, at least in my day.
Basic newsroom test the same newsroom who lied about de covid with fake statistics and are now silent on all the jab deaths come on aisling that comment is mad
I'm not sure if Delingpole did say he defo believes them. Having them on the show doesn't mean that. That is certainly a bad vid clip u showed. No good points from them. Strangely nit picking over nothing and the woman laughing a few times is in bad taste. Even if you suspect it's a false flag you surely have to have some doubt and show some sensitivity.
Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch.
What's the supposed purpose for a false flag pretext?
Richard Hall interviewed 1 of our very own Gemma O'Doherty on 25 April past, and the hour long piece is another example of his not doing due diligent research as he appears bowled over by her antiQuare sentimenti midway thru.
They're similar operations. Set up to make conspiracy theorists look mad and bad under the guise of 'investigative journalism'. They both slander and play the victim card. It's not journalism by any standards. Here's an example of what they're up to for those with eyes to see: https://rumble.com/v5cvvec-richard-d-hall-and-gemma-odoherty-help-turn-off-the-public-and-introduce-ne.html
Just read your March article on Kate Middleton
Aisling Aisling Aisling, how COULD you treat a woman with cancer like this? Probably in the same way as Richard D Hall treats those poor Manchester bomb victims . The '' static '' daffodils '' and the '' disappearing ring '' look like planted clues to a hapless Conspiracy theorist, do they not? Perhaps better to go along with the official narrative rather than bring Conspiracy theorists and their wretched questions into disrepute. . What's the difference between you and Hall ? Tell me, I'm interested.