Why is it so important for intelligence agencies to make conspiracy theorists look nuts? Because critical thinkers have the power to upend the system so they must be undermined, by any means necessary. Those who fell for the no bomb no victims lie walked straight into the trap to make conspiracy theorists look mad and bad in front of their peers.
The only reason the mainstream media gave Richard D Hall so much coverage is because they knew his conclusion was false, as did he. If there was no bomb, what killed the 22 people at the Manchester Arena on May 22, 2017? Should be kind of obvious. The victims aren’t pretending to be dead. If Hall had been in any way over target, the spotlight would have steered clear. The BBC’s first disinformation and social media correspondent, award-winning journalist Marianna Spring would not have been dispatched to cover the story. The aim of the game was bad publicity to act as a turn-off to the wider public to avoid those rabbit holes. You’d never know where you’d end up. Picking on victims is about as low as it gets. Who wants to be in that gang?
Marianna Spring also covered Richard D Hall’s co-conspirator Gemma O’Doherty’s deliberate sloppy journalism in Ireland. Not a coincidence. And yes O’Doherty has been nothing but abusive towards grieving mother Edel Campbell as previously covered on this Substack. All done on purpose to act as a deterrent to would-be critical thinkers. Her bad behaviour contaminates the message.
Personally, I would welcome an opportunity to show Marianna Spring or anyone in the mainstream media the excess mortality figures since the rollout of the Covid injections, even though they know what they’re hiding. You’d think they’d be intrigued by a story from someone who spent 16 years on national TV and had some kind of public profile before dropping off the radar for calling out the scam. Of course they’re not interested in something that’s easily verifiable, that makes conspiracy theorists look reasonable and measured and that exposes their own treachery. The goal here is encourage the public to think we’re a bunch of nasties who pick on a man in a wheelchair and scoff at his daughter who’s recovering from a brain injury.
Incredibly the plan worked.
The first mistake people made was assuming Richard D Hall was on their side. The second was believing his output was honest.
No evidence was necessary to prove the victims were crisis actors. Still nothing to this day. Just empty speculation and endless bad publicity.
Those who fell for the network of operatives’ phoney analysis are under the illusion the mainstream media are on their backs because they’re telling the truth and are being persecuted. Nah. It doesn’t work like that. Those headlines serve a purpose.
The Manchester Arena bombing 'truther' narrative is a stunning example of how easy it is to manipulate those who think they're awake by feeding them dodgy information dressed up as investigative journalism. How many 10+ part series did it take from academic Agent Smith types who popped up out of nowhere to defend the counterintelligence narrative? Why couldn’t those critical thinkers see through the tricks and manipulations at play? How could they possibly conclude there was no bomb and no victims. Daft. What happened to common sense?
The real aim of these operations is to throw conspiracy theorists off the scent and make them look stupid at the same time. This means critical thinkers will have to think harder.
Extra caution is required in these deceptive times. Do I know exactly what happened on the night of the Manchester Arena bombing on May 22, 2017? No I don’t but I know the victims aren’t acting. Zero evidence has been offered to prove otherwise. That’s a major fail for those who fell for Richard D Hall’s books, DVDs and talks and paid for his output and legal bills. I’m not telling anyone to believe the official narrative but I’m certainly warning against falling for the counterintelligence narrative.
Tell your family, friends and neighbours that you think nobody was killed at the Manchester Arena nine years ago because there was no bomb and expect them to beat a hasty retreat. They quite rightly won’t listen to you after that. They won’t trust your judgement. I wouldn’t either.
Encouraging what appears to be mental illness is part of the job of counterintelligence.
It’s a devil’s trick to get people to pick on the victims without credible evidence. Frankly, it’s satanic.
This is why I’ve put together some highlights from my coverage of the story from the past few years as a way to show people what to look out for.
Yes there are false flags. Yes there are crisis actors (although not as many as you’d think) but smart people must work on the basis of proper evidence not pseudoscience or suggestion, speculation or hypotheses. That’s why the old school journalistic approach is the best way: constantly checking if something is true and looking out for misdirection.
Why would intelligence agencies go to so much trouble to throw conspiracy theorists off the scent of what really happened that night in the Manchester Arena? Probably because they don’t want online investigators examining how MI6 financed and supported the Abedis and meddled in Libyan affairs. That’s certainly one avenue worth exploring. Incredible how this isn’t even entertained such has been the success of the no bomb no victims campaign. It’s telling how truthers ignored the news that the families of the victims cannot continue to sue MI5 for failing to prevent the attack. Why would crisis actors sue MI5? The story doesn’t fit the counterintelligence narrative so gets ignored as if it’s no big deal.
As soon as Richard D Hall compared the aftermath of the Omagh bomb blast (August 15, 1998) to that of Manchester Arena bombing, the viewer should have picked up on trickery. Different bombs, different impacts. Comparing the two was a red flag. Or at least it should have been.
Richard D Hall describing how he was going to use a camera to secretly film 16-year-old Eve Hibbert should also have served as a warning to viewers that something dodgy was afoot. A former TV producer would have known he was asking for trouble putting that online. He was also lurking outside the home of the Mone sisters and spotted that hedge which is said Hannah might have been trimming and chopped off her finger. Anything but the blast. How did these signals go unnoticed?
We can only help each other to spot these anomalies as we go, lest we be deceived.
Related articles:
Suspicious behaviour: James Delingpole pretends he’s unaware of RDH’s Saffie Roussos theory
