There is nothing logical about offering ZERO evidence to support the theory the 22 people died elsewhere, not from the blast. You'd need some evidence, don't you think. Anything? No?
That is not my theory. My theory is that there was no bomb and Manchester was a hoaxed false flag.
You say you wish to honour the dead and that Richard and I are dishonouring the dead. Both Richard and I hope there will be further investigation precisely because we want to know what happened to the reported victims. We want to know because the evidence clearly shows there was no bomb. Therefore, whatever we are told about there deaths evidently is not true. Something we can comprehensively prove in the case of Michelle Kiss, one of the 22 who you claim was killed by a bomb.
It seems to me, in refusing to consider the evidence that shows there was no bomb, you are disinterested in what caused the reported deaths. Certainly, you don't seem interested in what happened to Michelle Kiss.
Despite your beliefs Aisling, and without for one minute suggesting it is your intention, you are effectively dishonouring the supposed dead.
I think you are wasting your time because she really does not seem to understand what evidence is however many different ways it is explained to her. Either that or she lacks the ability to change her mind once she has made it up. She is clearly very inflexibly minded once she has got an idea in to her head. In most of her replies to people she just keeps asking what happened to the 22 people who have disappeared and she has done the same to you despite your saying several times you do not know what happened to them. She will probably do the same to me as she has done to everyone else. In her mind she probably sees this as "real journalism" and "real" evidence.
In either case, you are not dealing with an open-minded person who is genuinely interested in finding out the truth of what happened but someone who seems more intent on aggrandizing her own reputation.
Sorry you were conned into reaching a false conclusion but it's time to get over your ego and turn your attention to the very real victims of the very real bomb.
It seemed to me that she was saying the obvious but you are entitled to say what you think. It is a pity that the internet is such a controlled space ....
I haven't been conned at all regardless of how much you would like to believe this. Unlike you I do understand evidence when I see it and can change my mind when I know I have made a mistake. Far from me getting over my ego you really need to get over your arrogance and dislike of being disagreed with. With every comment you have made on this issue the concern for the victims you claim you have becomes very questionable.
What do you think killed Michelle Kiss? Are you saying her family are lying about her death? Maybe it's you who has a few details mixed up, as is the norm with sofa journalism.
How many times does he have to say he doesn't know what happened to Michelle Kiss or any of the others? You keep asking people what they think happened to the 22 people as though not knowing proves them wrong. You don't seem to understand what actual evidence is and come across as a rank amateur. This wouldn't be so bad if you had an open mind as to the evidence but you are clearly so inflexible that you cannot admit you have ignored the actual evidence much less that you do not understand what evidence is.
This 'evidence' you speak of doesn't make the grade. If you can't establish what caused the deaths and injuries (in lieu of a bomb) on the night, the argument collapses. This is about as basic as it gets.
It doesn’t make the grade in YOUR mind but many other people do know evidence when they see it. You can only speak for yourself but you are trying to speak for everyone else by assuming everyone thinks as you do. They do not. The evidence shows there was no bomb. It does not have to show which way these people died in order for it to be real evidence. The evidence of no bomb stands on its own account. There is nothing to be added or subtracted from that. To say, as you do, that claiming there was no bomb while failing to show how these people died proves they HAD to have died because of a bomb is a ridiculous argument which never gets off the ground never mind collapses! Your point is nonsensical.
The powers that be are so evil that I actually wouldn’t put it past them to use pyrotechnics to create the illusion of an explosion and while chaos ensues shoot a number of people dead. Mix in some MI5 and crisis actors and hey ho, the ‘bomb’ story shapes up nicely. We know these people are beyond the pale, they are Luciferian. There is nothing they wouldn’t stoop to, to push their nefarious agendas.
A TATP bomb wouldn't cause structural damage like say a fertiliser based explosion - v different impacts. There certainly was a bomb and it killed 22 people. Yes we're dealing with satanists but we've got to use our God-given discernment not to be deceived. Worst thing we could do here is turn on the victims of the blast. They're not crisis actors. Their suffering is real. Satan would love if we treated them poorly quite frankly.
I never realised before just how clever Iain is. Super analytical brain the man has. On a side issue from the Manchester '' thing '' he managed to draw some very pertinent giveaways out of you. He said he was '' on the spectrum '' ( and laughed slyly ) and went on to say that despite that and its inability to feel excessive emotion he felt very emotional after viewing the Gaza conflict. Your face was stony. No emotion there but when it comes to the 22 who allegedly died in Manchester you're all emotion. Like I said, a very very clever bloke is Iain.
This was wonderful. Congratulations to you both. It's so unusual to hear a sane and respectful conversation between two informed and intelligent people, who in the end agree to differ. It's unfortunately a very rare and experience. Well done both.
Thank you Dr McCloskey. We need to bring back heated debates and remind people what it used to be like pre-Covid when arguments were hammered out at the table. It's the only way we'll make progress. This is where we find ourselves: Are the Manchester Arena victims real or fake? That's what it boils down to in the end. Do you believe the survivors' testimonies or are they just crisis actors undeserving of our sympathy? This is a very big deal. If a bomb didn't kill the dead, what did? And how did the survivors sustain their injuries if there was no bomb?
I agree about the need for debate Aisling. The fact that you posted the entire discussion without edit is testimony to your commitment to open and honest debate. It was a pleasure to participate.
In that spirit, you asked: "Do you believe the survivors' testimonies or are they just crisis actors undeserving of our sympathy?"
I would say this is a fake binary.
In my book I explore many of the reasons that could possibly explain false witness testimonies. Everything from implanted memories, through possible coercion to trained security cleared crisis actors who believe they are doing the right thing in the interests of national security. This means it is perfectly possible to explain why some may have given false statements while maintaining sympathy for the positions they may have found themselves in.
Your analysis of the room is spot on. The floor should be littered with all sorts of debris. The people in the room should at least have shocked expression. That whole scene is dodgy. Just my layman’s opinion.
I am very impressed Iain with the manner in which you have conducted yourself under very strong pushback from Aisling. I'm not sure I would have been able to deal so gracefully with these questions in your position. But then, this is a very controversial subject, and she is a professional journalist. And I think she has raised an excellent point. Or rather, refocussed this analysis on a crucial aspect. The victims. I think Aisling is right when she requests an explanation of what happened to them. I think you or somebody else needs to do a deep dive here, cos if after that, it is discovered that they did all have tickets for the concert, and none of them came back, then as far as I am concerned, the evidence this is a false flag shrinks to vanishing point.
Another thought which has occurred to me since this debate relates to the lack of bomb damage. That seems to be a key driver here for people claiming false flag. But then, we don't know the size of the bomb. In a crowded room a small bomb could do enormous damage to people and still leave untouched the surrounding infrastructure, surely?
We do know the purported size of the bomb. It was powerful enough to allegedly kill 22 people and seriously injure another 38 within a 20 meter radius. It contained an undisclosed KG amount of TATP (probably at least two) and 30KG of metal shrapnel. It reportedly blew a human torso hundreds of feet through the air and blew fist sized holes in metal window surrounds 20M from the epicenter of the blast. The bomb is described in the official account, at various points, as "massive," "enormous," "huge," etc.
There isn't a "lack of bomb damage" observable in the Barr footage, there is no bomb damage at all. Not even from a small bomb which, according to the official account, this one certainly wasn't. Nor is there any sign of the 13 people who were supposedly blown apart beyond the point of recognition.
People not coming home after buying tickets is no evidence of a bomb. That said, I agree, someone does need to do a "deep dive" and find out what happened to the victims. That is exactly what Richard D. Hall embarked upon and look what happened to him.
Of course, if Mr Hibbert succeeds in pressing for the law he reportedly wants, with notable political support, then no one will ever be able to do a "deep dive" into a claimed terrorist event ever again. Mr Hibbert wants to make it "illegal" to question the reported survivors of terrorist events. There will be no questioning of any terrorist attack narratives if he and his powerful lobby of supporters succeed.
yes absolutely if this was just Mr Hibbert there wouldn't be a trial, he's their battering ram.
I know absolutely nothing about explosives but I have no trouble imagining a bomb which could maim and seriously injure humans in a confined space whilst not impacting the surrounding hard standing, particularly if it was a high ceiling, was it? . Even if the bomb were expertly packed and brilliantly reported upon in the official report, we can only speculate as to its power and effect.
yes, this deep dive it seems absurdly easy to do, but it's not is it. Getting hold of the right people, asking them basic questions without setting off an alarm is a tricky old business. That's what we used to have the MSM for, before they withdrew from their obligations. At this point, if even one credible person came forward to say 'yes I worked with X, they mentioned they were going to the concert, they never came back' it would be enough to make me question whether this was a false flag. Surely this should be doable, given there were thousands there that night.
This is very telling and explains the absence of structural damage at the arena and also explains the victims' injuries. RDH was being misleading by comparing the Manchester Arena bombing to the Omagh bombing, which was a car loaded with fertiliser based explosives. Very different impacts.
So TATP is not a sensitive primary high explosive then? It doesn't propel a shock wave at 5300m/s? You don't have to believe me of course, but you can't have it both ways and maintain any kind of logical consistency. It was either the powerful bomb, as described in extensive detail in the official account, or it wasn't.
A bomb incapable of causing structural damage in an enclosed space cannot "also" kill and seriously injure 61 people within a 20m radius. Nor can a bomb that caused the damage it reportedly caused, simultaneously not cause any damage in the first few minutes following its detonation.
Heated debate? Iain calmly presented evidence to support his position while you repeatedly shouted over him with unsubstantiated assertions such as “preposterous” and “ridiculous,” and how you believe the families.
To say the least, I was generally unimpressed with your performance.
Fascinating example of how the fear of insulting feelings can obstruct a factual analysis. This is the same tool used by the tyrants with their hate speech laws.
What factual analysis? Speculation is NOT factual analysis. Journalists need to get on the ground and ask questions. Sofa journalism doesn't cut the mustard, it's prone to error and leads to accusing innocent people in the wrong as we've seen in this case. Something very bad has happened here and it needs to be rectified.
Indeed, sofa journalism does not cut the mustard, which is no doubt why RH knocked on the Hibbert's door to request an interview. You are getting yourself tied in knots trying to damn him Aisling.
Richard D. Hall found himself in court precisely because he is not a "sofa journalist." You can level that accusation against me if you like but not Hall.
Thank you for this lively and interesting discussion. I’ve never paid much attention to this story, so I cannot comment.
However, having seen the Nick Bickerstaff video, the most obvious question has to be why is he filming himself at all? Surely in such a situation one’s first response would be to simply find your child, not seek attention by filming yourself looking? Very odd footage.
Thank you Nicola. Well according to Nick Bickerstaff, he'd just seen a load of dead bodies, he couldn't find his daughter, thought he was going to be blown up too - so he turned the camera on himself to make a recording in case that's all that was found of him and he wanted people to know he was looking for his daughter, if he turned up dead. He panicked. Nobody knows how they'd react in that situation. He was one of the lucky ones that night and was reunited with his daughter. I don't see the big deal, frankly. In my opinion, it's just another example of how RDH has twisted the 'evidence' in his favour by making up stories around the video. People may have been running for their lives in one part of the arena, doesn't mean they were everywhere. It's a huge space. One way or the other, the Nick Bickerstaff video proves nothing - 22 people still died that night as a result of a bomb.
I certainly would never allege that it proves or disproves anything. I simply mentioned it because it was touched upon in the interview.
I do think that Bickerstaff is something of an attention seeker, however . There was a YouTube video of him on some game show - I’ll try to find it. Perhaps he’s one of these who go actively seeking their fifteen minutes of fame.
Thanks for the interview Aisling. I think debates are valuable. I need to correct a couple of errors you have made.
You state: "Richard D Hall can provide ZERO evidence to support his theory that those killed and injured on the night of the bombing sustained their wounds elsewhere and not in the arena."
I thought we had clarified that this is not Hall's "theory." His theory is that the evidence shows there was no bomb. He has provided ample evidence to support his "theory." He subsequently explored what could possibly explain the claims of the purported victims, but that was as a consequence of his theory. You have misrepresented his theory I suggest.
You say Richard and I contend that the Barr footage shows "a drill of some sort." I have never said that and I am pretty sure Richard hasn't either. I say it shows evidence of a hoaxed false flag.
You say that the Barr footage is "limited footage of the apparent bomb site." As I tried to stress to you in our discussion Aisling, this is the only clear footage of the Manchester Arena bomb scene. It clearly shows that there was no damage caused by a massive TATP shrapnel bomb. The view in the Barr footage is toward the epicentre of the reported blast where most of the damage is said to have occurred. Analysis of the observable physical details provides clear evidence that there was no bomb.
Hey Iain, thanks again for your participation in this really important discussion. Neither Richard D Hall nor yourself has offered any reasonable explanation as to what killed the 22 people in the Manchester Arena on May 22, 2017, if there was no bomb. Neither of you can offer any reasonable explanation as to how the survivors sustained their injuries, if there was no bomb. This is where your whole argument collapses and descends into farce. You've written an entire book ignoring the testimonies of the victims. Bit of an omission, wouldn't you say? RDH has got his audience all hunting for clues in one area, a distractionary trick. This is not good enough and I would submit, he's misleading his viewers on purpose. I'll agree with you that authorities are withholding information deliberately and that's the trap for conspiracy theorists to walk straight into. RDH did call it a drill. I'll pull up the clip. As we discussed, different types of bombs have different impacts and it's clear this bomb killed 22 people and injured more than 100 people. They're not playing dead, Iain. They're dead. The injured aren't making up their injuries. Can't you see how wrong it is to insinuate they're liars without offering some kind of reasonable explanation as to where they sustained their injuries? RDH has everyone looking in the wrong direction jumping to all sorts of conclusions. It's a trap. The whole thing is set up to make conspiracy theorists look untrustworthy, easily manipulated and downright nasty.
RDH suspected that the EXIF data on the Parker Photo indicated that the Barr footage was filmed in the morning. Suggesting it was drill.
Examining the EXIF data was a very complex and lengthy process but, by looking at the difference in time zones and the chain of custody for the image, and given that Ruth Murrell is at least clearly observable, and in light of his interview with Mr Barr, Richard has subsequently and extensively reported that he no longer thinks it was a drill.
You keep going on about how neither of us can offer any explanation about what happened to the reported victims. To be clear, and to reiterate for the last time, in order to establish what DID happen to those people, there needs to be further investigation. Unlike you, I am not claiming that I know what happened to them. I am reporting the overwhelming evidence which shows what DID NOT happen to them.
I have not insinuated that they are liars nor have I made a "bit of an omission" in my book. IF you have read my book, which I now question because I extensively analyse witness statement in it---not "ignore" them as you claim---you will know that I have called for further investigation into the circumstances of their deaths and have explored why some of them may have provided provably false statements. There are many potential explanations for this. Ultimately I conclude, absent significant further investigation, we cannot know why some of those statements are evidently false.
You allege Hall has people "hunting for clues in one area." That "one area" is the observable physical evidence which is where "clues" will be found. Conversely your argument appears to be that we should completely ignore all of the observable physical evidence and instead unquestioningly accept whatever the bereaved families believe, irrespective of the fact that there is no evidence of a bomb. You are using an appeal to emotion fallacy, instead of offering a rational argument.
You are concerned that evidence may have been provided to us by the state to lead us into a trap whereby people who question the official account can be exposed as heartless liars. Notably, that is exactly what you are doing.
That said, I agree with you to the extent that I suspect that is how the state intends to "use" both the questioning of Manchester Arena and Hall's court case. That does not mean the state wants people to know about the evidence which exposes the Manchester arena hoax.
As we discussed, the ONLY way the state could legitimately do this is to openly discuss the evidence as revealed by the Parker photo, the Barr footage, the police chatter recordings, etc. Which RDH reported. To date, despite your claim that the state has driven people toward this evidence, it and its legacy media have done everything they can to stop anyone discussing this evidence.
This includes the state apparently attempting to censor the views of the journalist who first reported the evidence. In no small measure, that is what the prosecution of Hall seems to be focused upon.
If the state wants people to be aware of the evidence why doesn't it highlight that evidence? Why did Hall have a summary judgement brought against him specifically barring him from discussing the evidence in the High Court?
The state "trap" you suspect, to make so-called "conspiracy theorists" appear heartless, can only work as longs as the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion is allowed to prevail instead of looking at the observable physical evidence. It appears to me that you are pursuing this path.
You are upholding the official account of the Manchester Arena bombing using precisely the same tactics the state deploys. Just like the state, you are imploring people not to look at the evidence. You are framing it slightly differently to appeal to a different audience. Your argument for not examining the evidence is that it is a ruse of the state. You allege, without offering any evidence, the RDH is some sort of controlled op' utilised for this end.
Can you not see, that by claiming the real physical evidence is irrelevant and that only the emotional accounts of the bereaved have credibility, that it is actually you who are serving the interests of the state? Unlike you, I do not suggests that this infers you are some sort of useful tool of the state. I do note however that you, unwittingly perhaps, are effectively acting in the states interest.
A digital token economy is probably the plan all along and "volunteering" will no doubt be part of that system. The current economic system is being dismantled to be replaced by community currencies on a blockchain network. This allows them to keep track of every point earned and redeemed. So "volunteering" to have your injection for example, will pay you well.
Agreed, the digital panopticon is being offered as a convenient choice. But a voluntary society is a very different thing from a sociopolitical system. In a voluntary society you would be free not to choose digital slavery, use technology as you see fit and create your own monetary system outside of any regulation by any state authority. You asked me what I recommended as an "alternative" to the state.
Given the lack of evidence (I don't think you offered any) to support your claim that a TATP bomb detonated and Iain's irrefutable evidence that there was no such bomb, your claim that all the deaths and injuries were caused by the said bomb are ill-founded. The burden of proof upon you has not been satisfied and therefore the causal relationship between the two has not been established.
The burden of proof is on those making the claims. If the official narrative is that a bomb killed 22 people and injured countless more, then evidence needs to be provided. Where is it?
Oh my goodness. This is simply nonsense ... but dangerous nonsense.
Where is the clear evidence that Martin Hibbert was injured at all? That he's going around in a wheelchair? Pleeeeaze. Watch UK Critical Thinker's analysis of Martin Hibbert's testimony - it doesn't add up in any shape or form. https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest.php?ref=821&part=1&person=18
There is no clear evidence that anyone was injured or killed in any way related to the Manchester faked bombing. None. If you think there is then please provide it.
Manchester was fake, fake, fake, fake, fake from every possible angle. How can you possibly be faced with all this argument and still steamroll on with nothing at all to brandish for any reality whatsoever.
Staged terror events are a dime a dozen and people don't get killed or injured in them unless very exceptionally. They're drills and crisis actors are not going to participate in them unless they're confident they won't get killed or injured, will they?
They ship people off somewhere. I guess that the Roussos's are now living nicely on some Greek island and sometimes they don't even bother to ship them off - the 1986 Challenger disaster being exemplar extraordinaire. https://fakeotube.com/video/3665/nasa-challenger-crew-alive
You need to read Miri AF's piece showing how Richard D. Hall is putting forward misinformation that undermines genuine callers out of the event that is the Manchester Hoax.
No one at the time who recognised it as a hoax was suggesting for a nanosecond that there was any injury or death - how could there be when there wasn't a bomb - but now suddenly people are talking as if there are suspicious deaths and injuries? It's hogwash, dangerous hogwash.
No idea, Aisling, but not knowing what happened to the alleged dead people doesn't mean that they must have died. There was clearly no bomb and all the signs of an anti-terror drill pushed out as a real event are clear.
The world is a big place and they effectively "disappear" people using Witness Protection Programs so no reason not to do the same with people allegedly killed in staged terror events. My feeling about the Roussos's is that they're living on a Greek island but, of course, I have no evidence for it and they could be somewhere completely different. In big ones such as 9/11 they make some of the people up but in the smaller ones most if not all of the people will be real although some may certainly have died at a different time but had their deaths kept secret for the event.
But they really don't have to worry about "disappearing" people with too much care because they didn't bother at all with the Challenger disaster crew. They're just walking around bold as brass with the same names and I know of one other very small event where the person seemed to simply carry on living in the same area without changing their name. The thing is if you encountered the Roussos family on a Greek island what would you do about it? Report it to the police? Tell the media? They're all in on it. https://fakeotube.com/video/3665/nasa-challenger-crew-alive
You're repeating lies, Petra, that you're convinced are true because of misleading 'evidence'. I'm sorry you were taken in by RDH. I'm sorry Iain Davis was too. But the objective Truth is all that matters here. The dead people aren't faking their deaths, Petra. I understand you think they are but it's not true. They're gone. Time to recalibrate and reassess. Stop conflating every false flag ever with this. Focus on this one. See how wrong it is to pick on the guy in the wheelchair. See how wrong it is to accuse the grieving parents of killing their child instead of accepting the Truth. You've been lured into a very dark place and I'm telling you it's the wrong way. Snap out of it.
Taken in by RDH? I haven't looked at a word he said. I didn't know what he said nor did I know he was being charged (until I read Miri's post) but I could tell from the sense of fanfare around his coming out about Manchester ... which quite a few of us came out about 7 years ago but got zero attention in the media like him he must be CONTROLLED OPPOSITION.
Are you familiar with the phenomenon of controlled opposition? It's a very important one and that is why I suggest you read Miri's posts above.
Aisling, I am a hardened psyop analyst and Manchester is only one of very many psyops I've looked at. You're new to this game and you're obviously clueless. There's no shame in that but you need to wake up a little.
You need to apply rigour. Come back to me on Adam Lawler and the alleged injured children shown to us in the Daily Mail versus what Dr Ibrar Majid said about "wounds from a battlefield."
Do you seriously think that I would have emailed Dr Majid if I had the SLIGHTEST doubt that this event was completely fake? Do you really think I would have emailed him unless I KNEW for certain that this event was fake?
I'm not the only one calling Manchester fake am I? There's quite a few of us. But as far as I'm aware NO ONE apart from RDH and Iain Davis are suggesting that any suspicious injuries or deaths are involved. Everyone who doesn't believe the nonsense story just thinks it's a drill pushed out as real, no one else thinks what RDH and Iain think.
What happened to the dead people in the 3 planes on 9-11? You are looking at this from the perspective of, I can only hope to assume, a rational ethical human.
I think we can all agree that false flags happen.
The people that carry them out have neither ethics or compassion. Remember we are seen as nothing but expendable cattle by these parasites (I refuse to call them elites).
They are rewarded for carrying out orders, money and status in the cult are what motivates them, most are probably psychopaths at best.
When something isn't in your paradigm of how the world works you simply won't believe it. We're no different from tribal people who see ships for the first time and think they're ghosts or whatever it is that makes sense to them. I understand especially as I was the same. When my sister tried to tell me that 9/11 was an inside job and said that the buildings clearly came down by controlled demolition I shouted her down with, "They wouldn't have had the confidence they could get away with it." But I had no clue about the phenomenon of psyops and ... so very much else.
What shifted my mind was watching the 3.5 hour film, JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man's Trick, by English filmmaker and historian Francis Richard Conolly. I've since come to learn that JFK and 9/11 aren't actually as portrayed in the film but nevertheless the information I learnt was enough to start opening my mind.
I highly recommend this film even though I know that there are some fundamental things wrong with it ... but you can get to them later.
To carry on with your football analogy ⚽...I think it was all square at half time but around the hour mark Iain's clinical logically concise dribbling left the defence one dimensional & open goals were aplenty as the away side finished strongly for a decisive win 🎱
Aisling I admire your mettle on this but I think you are coming at things from a less optimum angle. If this was a psy op, and it was planned by the security services (so unlimited resources etc), how can it be reasonable to say to the Truther Movement, 'where is the evidence they died elsewhere'. How can the Truther Movement ever come up with that evidence? For instance, how would you be able to reach behind the net of the security services, and begin to track their movements? it would be next to impossible. That is not the test that needs to be satisfied. The test for us surely is, 'does what we have been told, hang together'. And if it doesn't, we should not be shy of speculating on what we think really happened. Certainly we should not be holding our tongues solely on the basis that 'people died'. On that basis, we've got to suck up 9/11 and just go an sit in the corner. Nobody is advocating harassment of the survivors of course. If that has happened, then RDH will feel the full force of the law. and rightly so.
the truth is out there though. I think your journalistic instincts are correct to focus on the victims. At the moment, nobody knows who they are or anything. If a journalist was able to do a deep dive on each one, on their friends and family and show that they did all go to that concert and never came back, ]then I think at that point your argujment is carried.
What we ‘think’ happened to people or what we ‘believe’ to be true is irrelevant. What Iain has done is look at the evidence, video evidence and the statements of those allegedly injured and they do not tie up with the official narrative. We do not need to speculate, it is not for us to say what happened to the dead people; we do not know. What we do know is that there is no visual evidence of a bomb of the sort alleged.
Well done to both parties for having a debate, it’s refreshing in the times we’re in.
Can't you see what you're doing? You're denying the victims. That's very serious. You're denying their families' grief, their loss, their suffering. You're denying the injured. You're believing false and misleading information over their testimonies. That's on you Susan. RDH's 'evidence' holds no water. It's inadmissible. Getting everybody to look one direction is just a magician's trick. You've been conned. What are you going to do about it? Stubbornly stick to the lie or honour the dead and send prayers to their families? Your choice. You've been made aware. The rest is on you.
[The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when someone attempts to persuade others by provoking feelings of guilt or pity. Instead of presenting factual information and evidence to support an argument, one may try to play on people's feelings.]
She didn't deny victims. She denied the claim of an event because the burden of proof wasn't satisfied. You don't understand journalism. Please move on before some of us do damning pieces on your dangerous behavior.
look its good to debate, but you are using secondary evidence, did you do 5 years in journo school or not? because you have zero real evidence at all? please show if you have any real evidence.
Yes, yes I know all about false flags - it doesn't mean I jump to conclusions. Was there a bomb or not, that night in Manchester? This is the focus of the conversation. Are the victims real or fake? There was a bomb and the victims are real. Start from there and I'd respect you better.
all i need to know is that when people ask questions and they get logical fallacies in return. something is wrong. if you can prove these people died you would show that evidence. did you go to journo school or not please? please show the evidence these people died and i will be on your side.
This is madness. You think the friends and family of all 22 people who died in the Manchester Arena bombing are covering up fake deaths? Too bonkers to respond. We've descended into farce. That's where sofa journalism leads.
Not surprised he took you to the cleaner's. You were clearly unprepared for this. I do appreciate your bravery in putting yourself out there. But going up against someone who wrote a book on the subject with no counter arguments was foolish. I don't know if there was a false flag but you did your side no favours here.
There was a bomb and real people died and were injured. That's the bottom line. The book is obsolete. There's only one thing that matters here, the objective Truth.
Aisling, "that's the bottom line'. Oh well, that settles it then. The ppl who say it was a false flag have described evidence, you have neither dismantled it or given good evidence that there was a bomb. You made a decent point on the finger photo which u didn't bring up on the interview but other than that your argument is weak-even if you are right!
Fair enough, but there's is a real disconnect between the footage of Ruth Murrell strutting around in high heels with a red patch on her thigh, with that of an actual horrific bombing. Gaslighting doesn't work on me, nor many others I would imagine. There's so many inconsistencies here that have yet to be resolved. Dogmatically repeating "there was an actual bomb and people died" doesn't cut the mustard and does little to refute Iain's claims.
You're just cross with me because I'm exposing how flimsy all this apparent 'evidence' is that you've bought into and believe to be true. I'm 'rabid' about this because innocent people are being accused in the wrong and lies and falsehoods are flourishing like weeds. Not good enough. We need standards. I put my name and my face and my reputation on the line for this, that's how sure I am of what I'm saying, so you can be certain I'm someone 'genuinely interested in the truth'. You, on the other hand, hide behind an anonymous name, Ancara, an apparent 'Truth Lover' who can't stand the Truth when it's looking at you square in the eye. The Manchester Arena bomb victims are real. Stop denying them.
Bali was a TATP device, it destroyed the building and shattered all the windows in the town for 200M, yet all the light bulbs and perspex covers above the doors in the foyer in Manchester remained intact. You also said they have backup systems to defend the lights not being blown out "they have generators" the best generator in the world can't light light bulbs that should have been blown to bits, 2lb of explosives without shrapnel would smash all the lights for ~20M, with shrapnel the scene would have looked like a bomb went off, yet it doesn't. Ex EOD personel here.
You said Murells injury was genuine, if you think you can walk on high heels with no physical symptoms after a bolt followed by a blast wave was blown 13cm though your tigh, you are seriously deluded.
Here's a video of someone who is actually shot in the leg, within seconds it looks like someone chucked a bucket full of blood all over his leg, there's a trail of claret for the few yards he managed to stumble before collapsing to the floor, within 40 seconds he's completely unconcious. He died right there. And that was just a 9mm bullet, not a bolt shot 13cm clean through his thigh followed by a blast wave. 40 seconds unconcious, then dead, is a long way from 4 mins and still no visible symptoms of a severe leg injury.
I joined your channel after coming across your views on the covid palava particularly as you had been a legacy media journalist who seemed to recognise that on this occasion the truth about covid didn’t seem to add up. You seemed open to hearing out others with alternative viewpoints from the official narrative and seemed to agree that it was wrong that people were getting censored for having opposing views particularly those backed up with evidence.
In short you seemed open minded and willing to consider things with critical thinking.
However your interview with Iain and your one sided spamming on this issue (Manchester Bombing) has left me very disappointed.
You are behaving like an obsessed person who is completely closed to objective evidence that contradicts your current belief. You are completely stuck and it’s a shame because I thought you were more open to knowledge.
The thing I have acknowledged myself about using critical thinking and logical reasoning is that it has to be applied continuously. If we pick and choose when you use these skills then we become our own censor. We end up closing our minds to evidence when we feel we already ‘know’ the truth and then allow cognitive dissonance to bolster that view.
If we agree that using critical thinking and logical reasoning is the key to learning about our own reality then we must accept that we use it every single time on every single subject no matter how uncomfortable that may be. We have to follow where all of the evidence leads and assess each element along the journey.
As Iain says himself he doesn’t know if what he is saying may be proved right or wrong in the end. All he is doing is looking at what is available right now but open to changing views as new evidence appears.
We should never be afraid to be wrong but we should be afraid of not wanting to find out.
Wow, dumbfounded that every response is "22 people died so there was definitely a bomb". No critical thinking whatsoever, and a conclusion already decided upon.
Sadly it seems you are just looking to use emotions (just as the MSM do), to influence the thoughts of people and dismiss the arguments that are being put forward by trying to use grief and despair to win your argument. No facts at all, the only fact you keep coming back to is 22 people died!
This was such a wonderful exchange. Two people holding diametrically opposed views on an issue maintaining a relationship throughout the conversation which was sufficient to support meaningful and honest communication i.e. at no stage did it descend into personal abuse. Such a gem because it's so rare. It models a skill that should be lauded and encouraged to the hilt. Thank you Aishling. Thank you Iain.
Thanks Dave. It certainly is rare these days. I really appreciated Iain Davis for getting stuck in and defending his position, even though I vehemently disagree with his findings.
I enjoyed it too. I have---I'm sure we all have--- these kinds of conversations all the time. It is only in the media, and sadly I have to include the independent media in this criticism to a great extent, where uniformity of thought seems to be a necessity. Even the BBC used to air real debates. It is really important that we reinvigorate open and honest debate. Thanks Aisling.
My goodness. Iain Davis is logical.
There is nothing logical about offering ZERO evidence to support the theory the 22 people died elsewhere, not from the blast. You'd need some evidence, don't you think. Anything? No?
That is not my theory. My theory is that there was no bomb and Manchester was a hoaxed false flag.
You say you wish to honour the dead and that Richard and I are dishonouring the dead. Both Richard and I hope there will be further investigation precisely because we want to know what happened to the reported victims. We want to know because the evidence clearly shows there was no bomb. Therefore, whatever we are told about there deaths evidently is not true. Something we can comprehensively prove in the case of Michelle Kiss, one of the 22 who you claim was killed by a bomb.
It seems to me, in refusing to consider the evidence that shows there was no bomb, you are disinterested in what caused the reported deaths. Certainly, you don't seem interested in what happened to Michelle Kiss.
Despite your beliefs Aisling, and without for one minute suggesting it is your intention, you are effectively dishonouring the supposed dead.
I think you are wasting your time because she really does not seem to understand what evidence is however many different ways it is explained to her. Either that or she lacks the ability to change her mind once she has made it up. She is clearly very inflexibly minded once she has got an idea in to her head. In most of her replies to people she just keeps asking what happened to the 22 people who have disappeared and she has done the same to you despite your saying several times you do not know what happened to them. She will probably do the same to me as she has done to everyone else. In her mind she probably sees this as "real journalism" and "real" evidence.
In either case, you are not dealing with an open-minded person who is genuinely interested in finding out the truth of what happened but someone who seems more intent on aggrandizing her own reputation.
Sorry you were conned into reaching a false conclusion but it's time to get over your ego and turn your attention to the very real victims of the very real bomb.
It was patently obvious in the interview that you had no interest in Iain's points of view. All you wanted to do was demonise RDH.
He was clever enough not to play your little game.
Well he's just written a book based on Tricky Dicky's dodgy 'investigative journalism' that's hoodwinked so many of you, so there's that.
What a clever bloke Iain is . A super analytical brain there
It seemed to me that she was saying the obvious but you are entitled to say what you think. It is a pity that the internet is such a controlled space ....
I haven't been conned at all regardless of how much you would like to believe this. Unlike you I do understand evidence when I see it and can change my mind when I know I have made a mistake. Far from me getting over my ego you really need to get over your arrogance and dislike of being disagreed with. With every comment you have made on this issue the concern for the victims you claim you have becomes very questionable.
What do you think killed Michelle Kiss? Are you saying her family are lying about her death? Maybe it's you who has a few details mixed up, as is the norm with sofa journalism.
How many times does he have to say he doesn't know what happened to Michelle Kiss or any of the others? You keep asking people what they think happened to the 22 people as though not knowing proves them wrong. You don't seem to understand what actual evidence is and come across as a rank amateur. This wouldn't be so bad if you had an open mind as to the evidence but you are clearly so inflexible that you cannot admit you have ignored the actual evidence much less that you do not understand what evidence is.
This 'evidence' you speak of doesn't make the grade. If you can't establish what caused the deaths and injuries (in lieu of a bomb) on the night, the argument collapses. This is about as basic as it gets.
It doesn’t make the grade in YOUR mind but many other people do know evidence when they see it. You can only speak for yourself but you are trying to speak for everyone else by assuming everyone thinks as you do. They do not. The evidence shows there was no bomb. It does not have to show which way these people died in order for it to be real evidence. The evidence of no bomb stands on its own account. There is nothing to be added or subtracted from that. To say, as you do, that claiming there was no bomb while failing to show how these people died proves they HAD to have died because of a bomb is a ridiculous argument which never gets off the ground never mind collapses! Your point is nonsensical.
The powers that be are so evil that I actually wouldn’t put it past them to use pyrotechnics to create the illusion of an explosion and while chaos ensues shoot a number of people dead. Mix in some MI5 and crisis actors and hey ho, the ‘bomb’ story shapes up nicely. We know these people are beyond the pale, they are Luciferian. There is nothing they wouldn’t stoop to, to push their nefarious agendas.
A TATP bomb wouldn't cause structural damage like say a fertiliser based explosion - v different impacts. There certainly was a bomb and it killed 22 people. Yes we're dealing with satanists but we've got to use our God-given discernment not to be deceived. Worst thing we could do here is turn on the victims of the blast. They're not crisis actors. Their suffering is real. Satan would love if we treated them poorly quite frankly.
Have you ever quantified how many deaths have been caused by Satanists compared to self-proclaimed CHRISTIANS ?
What are the ruff figures on that?
I never realised before just how clever Iain is. Super analytical brain the man has. On a side issue from the Manchester '' thing '' he managed to draw some very pertinent giveaways out of you. He said he was '' on the spectrum '' ( and laughed slyly ) and went on to say that despite that and its inability to feel excessive emotion he felt very emotional after viewing the Gaza conflict. Your face was stony. No emotion there but when it comes to the 22 who allegedly died in Manchester you're all emotion. Like I said, a very very clever bloke is Iain.
ZERO evidence ? Well 22 funerals prove absolutely nothing . The 22 people dying elsewhere was a theory and not presented as evidence by RDH.
This was wonderful. Congratulations to you both. It's so unusual to hear a sane and respectful conversation between two informed and intelligent people, who in the end agree to differ. It's unfortunately a very rare and experience. Well done both.
Thank you Dr McCloskey. We need to bring back heated debates and remind people what it used to be like pre-Covid when arguments were hammered out at the table. It's the only way we'll make progress. This is where we find ourselves: Are the Manchester Arena victims real or fake? That's what it boils down to in the end. Do you believe the survivors' testimonies or are they just crisis actors undeserving of our sympathy? This is a very big deal. If a bomb didn't kill the dead, what did? And how did the survivors sustain their injuries if there was no bomb?
I agree about the need for debate Aisling. The fact that you posted the entire discussion without edit is testimony to your commitment to open and honest debate. It was a pleasure to participate.
In that spirit, you asked: "Do you believe the survivors' testimonies or are they just crisis actors undeserving of our sympathy?"
I would say this is a fake binary.
In my book I explore many of the reasons that could possibly explain false witness testimonies. Everything from implanted memories, through possible coercion to trained security cleared crisis actors who believe they are doing the right thing in the interests of national security. This means it is perfectly possible to explain why some may have given false statements while maintaining sympathy for the positions they may have found themselves in.
Your analysis of the room is spot on. The floor should be littered with all sorts of debris. The people in the room should at least have shocked expression. That whole scene is dodgy. Just my layman’s opinion.
I am very impressed Iain with the manner in which you have conducted yourself under very strong pushback from Aisling. I'm not sure I would have been able to deal so gracefully with these questions in your position. But then, this is a very controversial subject, and she is a professional journalist. And I think she has raised an excellent point. Or rather, refocussed this analysis on a crucial aspect. The victims. I think Aisling is right when she requests an explanation of what happened to them. I think you or somebody else needs to do a deep dive here, cos if after that, it is discovered that they did all have tickets for the concert, and none of them came back, then as far as I am concerned, the evidence this is a false flag shrinks to vanishing point.
Another thought which has occurred to me since this debate relates to the lack of bomb damage. That seems to be a key driver here for people claiming false flag. But then, we don't know the size of the bomb. In a crowded room a small bomb could do enormous damage to people and still leave untouched the surrounding infrastructure, surely?
We do know the purported size of the bomb. It was powerful enough to allegedly kill 22 people and seriously injure another 38 within a 20 meter radius. It contained an undisclosed KG amount of TATP (probably at least two) and 30KG of metal shrapnel. It reportedly blew a human torso hundreds of feet through the air and blew fist sized holes in metal window surrounds 20M from the epicenter of the blast. The bomb is described in the official account, at various points, as "massive," "enormous," "huge," etc.
There isn't a "lack of bomb damage" observable in the Barr footage, there is no bomb damage at all. Not even from a small bomb which, according to the official account, this one certainly wasn't. Nor is there any sign of the 13 people who were supposedly blown apart beyond the point of recognition.
People not coming home after buying tickets is no evidence of a bomb. That said, I agree, someone does need to do a "deep dive" and find out what happened to the victims. That is exactly what Richard D. Hall embarked upon and look what happened to him.
Of course, if Mr Hibbert succeeds in pressing for the law he reportedly wants, with notable political support, then no one will ever be able to do a "deep dive" into a claimed terrorist event ever again. Mr Hibbert wants to make it "illegal" to question the reported survivors of terrorist events. There will be no questioning of any terrorist attack narratives if he and his powerful lobby of supporters succeed.
yes absolutely if this was just Mr Hibbert there wouldn't be a trial, he's their battering ram.
I know absolutely nothing about explosives but I have no trouble imagining a bomb which could maim and seriously injure humans in a confined space whilst not impacting the surrounding hard standing, particularly if it was a high ceiling, was it? . Even if the bomb were expertly packed and brilliantly reported upon in the official report, we can only speculate as to its power and effect.
yes, this deep dive it seems absurdly easy to do, but it's not is it. Getting hold of the right people, asking them basic questions without setting off an alarm is a tricky old business. That's what we used to have the MSM for, before they withdrew from their obligations. At this point, if even one credible person came forward to say 'yes I worked with X, they mentioned they were going to the concert, they never came back' it would be enough to make me question whether this was a false flag. Surely this should be doable, given there were thousands there that night.
For example: Watch how a TATP bomb explodes in this demonstration by Hong Kong police and notice how the van remains in tact...
https://youtu.be/KMPjLt-1SGo?si=dmKPA1KYOImsX_N6
This is very telling and explains the absence of structural damage at the arena and also explains the victims' injuries. RDH was being misleading by comparing the Manchester Arena bombing to the Omagh bombing, which was a car loaded with fertiliser based explosives. Very different impacts.
So TATP is not a sensitive primary high explosive then? It doesn't propel a shock wave at 5300m/s? You don't have to believe me of course, but you can't have it both ways and maintain any kind of logical consistency. It was either the powerful bomb, as described in extensive detail in the official account, or it wasn't.
A bomb incapable of causing structural damage in an enclosed space cannot "also" kill and seriously injure 61 people within a 20m radius. Nor can a bomb that caused the damage it reportedly caused, simultaneously not cause any damage in the first few minutes following its detonation.
the van does not remain totally "intact"; the windows blew out. it would blow out lighting and glass at the foyer too eh? not too difficult to imagine
Heated debate? Iain calmly presented evidence to support his position while you repeatedly shouted over him with unsubstantiated assertions such as “preposterous” and “ridiculous,” and how you believe the families.
To say the least, I was generally unimpressed with your performance.
Fascinating example of how the fear of insulting feelings can obstruct a factual analysis. This is the same tool used by the tyrants with their hate speech laws.
What factual analysis? Speculation is NOT factual analysis. Journalists need to get on the ground and ask questions. Sofa journalism doesn't cut the mustard, it's prone to error and leads to accusing innocent people in the wrong as we've seen in this case. Something very bad has happened here and it needs to be rectified.
Indeed, sofa journalism does not cut the mustard, which is no doubt why RH knocked on the Hibbert's door to request an interview. You are getting yourself tied in knots trying to damn him Aisling.
Richard D. Hall found himself in court precisely because he is not a "sofa journalist." You can level that accusation against me if you like but not Hall.
Thank you for this lively and interesting discussion. I’ve never paid much attention to this story, so I cannot comment.
However, having seen the Nick Bickerstaff video, the most obvious question has to be why is he filming himself at all? Surely in such a situation one’s first response would be to simply find your child, not seek attention by filming yourself looking? Very odd footage.
Thank you Nicola. Well according to Nick Bickerstaff, he'd just seen a load of dead bodies, he couldn't find his daughter, thought he was going to be blown up too - so he turned the camera on himself to make a recording in case that's all that was found of him and he wanted people to know he was looking for his daughter, if he turned up dead. He panicked. Nobody knows how they'd react in that situation. He was one of the lucky ones that night and was reunited with his daughter. I don't see the big deal, frankly. In my opinion, it's just another example of how RDH has twisted the 'evidence' in his favour by making up stories around the video. People may have been running for their lives in one part of the arena, doesn't mean they were everywhere. It's a huge space. One way or the other, the Nick Bickerstaff video proves nothing - 22 people still died that night as a result of a bomb.
Found it. It appears he may have been on Judge Rinder:-
https://rumble.com/v47mk6o-is-this-nick-bickerstaff-on-judge-rinder-manchester-arena-bombing-victim.html
I certainly would never allege that it proves or disproves anything. I simply mentioned it because it was touched upon in the interview.
I do think that Bickerstaff is something of an attention seeker, however . There was a YouTube video of him on some game show - I’ll try to find it. Perhaps he’s one of these who go actively seeking their fifteen minutes of fame.
Lets get real here . If what Bickerstaff claimed were true he would be filming the bodies not his scrungy mush.
If he were to turn up dead it is most likely his phone would also be destroyed in the event that killed him.
Thanks for the interview Aisling. I think debates are valuable. I need to correct a couple of errors you have made.
You state: "Richard D Hall can provide ZERO evidence to support his theory that those killed and injured on the night of the bombing sustained their wounds elsewhere and not in the arena."
I thought we had clarified that this is not Hall's "theory." His theory is that the evidence shows there was no bomb. He has provided ample evidence to support his "theory." He subsequently explored what could possibly explain the claims of the purported victims, but that was as a consequence of his theory. You have misrepresented his theory I suggest.
You say Richard and I contend that the Barr footage shows "a drill of some sort." I have never said that and I am pretty sure Richard hasn't either. I say it shows evidence of a hoaxed false flag.
You say that the Barr footage is "limited footage of the apparent bomb site." As I tried to stress to you in our discussion Aisling, this is the only clear footage of the Manchester Arena bomb scene. It clearly shows that there was no damage caused by a massive TATP shrapnel bomb. The view in the Barr footage is toward the epicentre of the reported blast where most of the damage is said to have occurred. Analysis of the observable physical details provides clear evidence that there was no bomb.
Hey Iain, thanks again for your participation in this really important discussion. Neither Richard D Hall nor yourself has offered any reasonable explanation as to what killed the 22 people in the Manchester Arena on May 22, 2017, if there was no bomb. Neither of you can offer any reasonable explanation as to how the survivors sustained their injuries, if there was no bomb. This is where your whole argument collapses and descends into farce. You've written an entire book ignoring the testimonies of the victims. Bit of an omission, wouldn't you say? RDH has got his audience all hunting for clues in one area, a distractionary trick. This is not good enough and I would submit, he's misleading his viewers on purpose. I'll agree with you that authorities are withholding information deliberately and that's the trap for conspiracy theorists to walk straight into. RDH did call it a drill. I'll pull up the clip. As we discussed, different types of bombs have different impacts and it's clear this bomb killed 22 people and injured more than 100 people. They're not playing dead, Iain. They're dead. The injured aren't making up their injuries. Can't you see how wrong it is to insinuate they're liars without offering some kind of reasonable explanation as to where they sustained their injuries? RDH has everyone looking in the wrong direction jumping to all sorts of conclusions. It's a trap. The whole thing is set up to make conspiracy theorists look untrustworthy, easily manipulated and downright nasty.
RDH suspected that the EXIF data on the Parker Photo indicated that the Barr footage was filmed in the morning. Suggesting it was drill.
Examining the EXIF data was a very complex and lengthy process but, by looking at the difference in time zones and the chain of custody for the image, and given that Ruth Murrell is at least clearly observable, and in light of his interview with Mr Barr, Richard has subsequently and extensively reported that he no longer thinks it was a drill.
You keep going on about how neither of us can offer any explanation about what happened to the reported victims. To be clear, and to reiterate for the last time, in order to establish what DID happen to those people, there needs to be further investigation. Unlike you, I am not claiming that I know what happened to them. I am reporting the overwhelming evidence which shows what DID NOT happen to them.
I have not insinuated that they are liars nor have I made a "bit of an omission" in my book. IF you have read my book, which I now question because I extensively analyse witness statement in it---not "ignore" them as you claim---you will know that I have called for further investigation into the circumstances of their deaths and have explored why some of them may have provided provably false statements. There are many potential explanations for this. Ultimately I conclude, absent significant further investigation, we cannot know why some of those statements are evidently false.
You allege Hall has people "hunting for clues in one area." That "one area" is the observable physical evidence which is where "clues" will be found. Conversely your argument appears to be that we should completely ignore all of the observable physical evidence and instead unquestioningly accept whatever the bereaved families believe, irrespective of the fact that there is no evidence of a bomb. You are using an appeal to emotion fallacy, instead of offering a rational argument.
You are concerned that evidence may have been provided to us by the state to lead us into a trap whereby people who question the official account can be exposed as heartless liars. Notably, that is exactly what you are doing.
That said, I agree with you to the extent that I suspect that is how the state intends to "use" both the questioning of Manchester Arena and Hall's court case. That does not mean the state wants people to know about the evidence which exposes the Manchester arena hoax.
As we discussed, the ONLY way the state could legitimately do this is to openly discuss the evidence as revealed by the Parker photo, the Barr footage, the police chatter recordings, etc. Which RDH reported. To date, despite your claim that the state has driven people toward this evidence, it and its legacy media have done everything they can to stop anyone discussing this evidence.
This includes the state apparently attempting to censor the views of the journalist who first reported the evidence. In no small measure, that is what the prosecution of Hall seems to be focused upon.
If the state wants people to be aware of the evidence why doesn't it highlight that evidence? Why did Hall have a summary judgement brought against him specifically barring him from discussing the evidence in the High Court?
The state "trap" you suspect, to make so-called "conspiracy theorists" appear heartless, can only work as longs as the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion is allowed to prevail instead of looking at the observable physical evidence. It appears to me that you are pursuing this path.
You are upholding the official account of the Manchester Arena bombing using precisely the same tactics the state deploys. Just like the state, you are imploring people not to look at the evidence. You are framing it slightly differently to appeal to a different audience. Your argument for not examining the evidence is that it is a ruse of the state. You allege, without offering any evidence, the RDH is some sort of controlled op' utilised for this end.
Can you not see, that by claiming the real physical evidence is irrelevant and that only the emotional accounts of the bereaved have credibility, that it is actually you who are serving the interests of the state? Unlike you, I do not suggests that this infers you are some sort of useful tool of the state. I do note however that you, unwittingly perhaps, are effectively acting in the states interest.
bingo
If you hate "the state" so much what do you recommend as an alternative?
Voluntarism.
A digital token economy is probably the plan all along and "volunteering" will no doubt be part of that system. The current economic system is being dismantled to be replaced by community currencies on a blockchain network. This allows them to keep track of every point earned and redeemed. So "volunteering" to have your injection for example, will pay you well.
Agreed, the digital panopticon is being offered as a convenient choice. But a voluntary society is a very different thing from a sociopolitical system. In a voluntary society you would be free not to choose digital slavery, use technology as you see fit and create your own monetary system outside of any regulation by any state authority. You asked me what I recommended as an "alternative" to the state.
Given the lack of evidence (I don't think you offered any) to support your claim that a TATP bomb detonated and Iain's irrefutable evidence that there was no such bomb, your claim that all the deaths and injuries were caused by the said bomb are ill-founded. The burden of proof upon you has not been satisfied and therefore the causal relationship between the two has not been established.
The burden of proof is on those making the claims. If the official narrative is that a bomb killed 22 people and injured countless more, then evidence needs to be provided. Where is it?
Oh my goodness. This is simply nonsense ... but dangerous nonsense.
Where is the clear evidence that Martin Hibbert was injured at all? That he's going around in a wheelchair? Pleeeeaze. Watch UK Critical Thinker's analysis of Martin Hibbert's testimony - it doesn't add up in any shape or form. https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest.php?ref=821&part=1&person=18
There is no clear evidence that anyone was injured or killed in any way related to the Manchester faked bombing. None. If you think there is then please provide it.
Aisling, you provided Adam Lawler's testimony which I responded to showing that his testimony doesn't stand up. Where is your response? https://aislingoloughlin.substack.com/p/evil-richard-d-hall-and-genevieve/comment/68412700
I also pointed you to the ludicrous images of supposedly injured children showing zero wrong with them versus the testimony from orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Ibrar Majid, claiming "wounds from a battlefield." https://aislingoloughlin.substack.com/p/evil-richard-d-hall-and-genevieve/comment/68336676
Manchester was fake, fake, fake, fake, fake from every possible angle. How can you possibly be faced with all this argument and still steamroll on with nothing at all to brandish for any reality whatsoever.
Staged terror events are a dime a dozen and people don't get killed or injured in them unless very exceptionally. They're drills and crisis actors are not going to participate in them unless they're confident they won't get killed or injured, will they?
Essays mostly by academics - Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It Was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control - https://www.reformation.org/NobodyDiedAtSandyHook.pdf
CASTING CRISIS: Orlando’s Actors, Agents and Casualty Role Players - https://21stcenturywire.com/2016/06/18/casting-crisis-orlandos-actors-agents-and-casualty-role-players/
They ship people off somewhere. I guess that the Roussos's are now living nicely on some Greek island and sometimes they don't even bother to ship them off - the 1986 Challenger disaster being exemplar extraordinaire. https://fakeotube.com/video/3665/nasa-challenger-crew-alive
You need to read Miri AF's piece showing how Richard D. Hall is putting forward misinformation that undermines genuine callers out of the event that is the Manchester Hoax.
No one at the time who recognised it as a hoax was suggesting for a nanosecond that there was any injury or death - how could there be when there wasn't a bomb - but now suddenly people are talking as if there are suspicious deaths and injuries? It's hogwash, dangerous hogwash.
https://miri.substack.com/p/audio-richard-ds-hall-of-mirrors
Miri's most recent post on the subject is well worth a read too.
https://miri.substack.com/p/eric-idles-legs
Simple question Petra: What happened the dead people?
No idea, Aisling, but not knowing what happened to the alleged dead people doesn't mean that they must have died. There was clearly no bomb and all the signs of an anti-terror drill pushed out as a real event are clear.
The world is a big place and they effectively "disappear" people using Witness Protection Programs so no reason not to do the same with people allegedly killed in staged terror events. My feeling about the Roussos's is that they're living on a Greek island but, of course, I have no evidence for it and they could be somewhere completely different. In big ones such as 9/11 they make some of the people up but in the smaller ones most if not all of the people will be real although some may certainly have died at a different time but had their deaths kept secret for the event.
But they really don't have to worry about "disappearing" people with too much care because they didn't bother at all with the Challenger disaster crew. They're just walking around bold as brass with the same names and I know of one other very small event where the person seemed to simply carry on living in the same area without changing their name. The thing is if you encountered the Roussos family on a Greek island what would you do about it? Report it to the police? Tell the media? They're all in on it. https://fakeotube.com/video/3665/nasa-challenger-crew-alive
You're repeating lies, Petra, that you're convinced are true because of misleading 'evidence'. I'm sorry you were taken in by RDH. I'm sorry Iain Davis was too. But the objective Truth is all that matters here. The dead people aren't faking their deaths, Petra. I understand you think they are but it's not true. They're gone. Time to recalibrate and reassess. Stop conflating every false flag ever with this. Focus on this one. See how wrong it is to pick on the guy in the wheelchair. See how wrong it is to accuse the grieving parents of killing their child instead of accepting the Truth. You've been lured into a very dark place and I'm telling you it's the wrong way. Snap out of it.
Taken in by RDH? I haven't looked at a word he said. I didn't know what he said nor did I know he was being charged (until I read Miri's post) but I could tell from the sense of fanfare around his coming out about Manchester ... which quite a few of us came out about 7 years ago but got zero attention in the media like him he must be CONTROLLED OPPOSITION.
Are you familiar with the phenomenon of controlled opposition? It's a very important one and that is why I suggest you read Miri's posts above.
Aisling, I am a hardened psyop analyst and Manchester is only one of very many psyops I've looked at. You're new to this game and you're obviously clueless. There's no shame in that but you need to wake up a little.
You need to apply rigour. Come back to me on Adam Lawler and the alleged injured children shown to us in the Daily Mail versus what Dr Ibrar Majid said about "wounds from a battlefield."
Do you seriously think that I would have emailed Dr Majid if I had the SLIGHTEST doubt that this event was completely fake? Do you really think I would have emailed him unless I KNEW for certain that this event was fake?
I'm not the only one calling Manchester fake am I? There's quite a few of us. But as far as I'm aware NO ONE apart from RDH and Iain Davis are suggesting that any suspicious injuries or deaths are involved. Everyone who doesn't believe the nonsense story just thinks it's a drill pushed out as real, no one else thinks what RDH and Iain think.
I'm afraid you're all wrong.
What happened to the dead people in the 3 planes on 9-11? You are looking at this from the perspective of, I can only hope to assume, a rational ethical human.
I think we can all agree that false flags happen.
The people that carry them out have neither ethics or compassion. Remember we are seen as nothing but expendable cattle by these parasites (I refuse to call them elites).
They are rewarded for carrying out orders, money and status in the cult are what motivates them, most are probably psychopaths at best.
When something isn't in your paradigm of how the world works you simply won't believe it. We're no different from tribal people who see ships for the first time and think they're ghosts or whatever it is that makes sense to them. I understand especially as I was the same. When my sister tried to tell me that 9/11 was an inside job and said that the buildings clearly came down by controlled demolition I shouted her down with, "They wouldn't have had the confidence they could get away with it." But I had no clue about the phenomenon of psyops and ... so very much else.
What shifted my mind was watching the 3.5 hour film, JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man's Trick, by English filmmaker and historian Francis Richard Conolly. I've since come to learn that JFK and 9/11 aren't actually as portrayed in the film but nevertheless the information I learnt was enough to start opening my mind.
I highly recommend this film even though I know that there are some fundamental things wrong with it ... but you can get to them later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oVpt_I9iQQ
Iain David 1 Aisling O'Loughlin 0
Iain supported his point all the way through and sorry but Aisling continually kept repeating herself.
My conclusion was Iain ran circles round her in my opinion 🤷🏼♀️
Tell that to victims of the bombing Deborah.
To carry on with your football analogy ⚽...I think it was all square at half time but around the hour mark Iain's clinical logically concise dribbling left the defence one dimensional & open goals were aplenty as the away side finished strongly for a decisive win 🎱
One little problem with your summary: There was a bomb and real people died and were injured. Otherwise, great stuff!
Aisling I admire your mettle on this but I think you are coming at things from a less optimum angle. If this was a psy op, and it was planned by the security services (so unlimited resources etc), how can it be reasonable to say to the Truther Movement, 'where is the evidence they died elsewhere'. How can the Truther Movement ever come up with that evidence? For instance, how would you be able to reach behind the net of the security services, and begin to track their movements? it would be next to impossible. That is not the test that needs to be satisfied. The test for us surely is, 'does what we have been told, hang together'. And if it doesn't, we should not be shy of speculating on what we think really happened. Certainly we should not be holding our tongues solely on the basis that 'people died'. On that basis, we've got to suck up 9/11 and just go an sit in the corner. Nobody is advocating harassment of the survivors of course. If that has happened, then RDH will feel the full force of the law. and rightly so.
the truth is out there though. I think your journalistic instincts are correct to focus on the victims. At the moment, nobody knows who they are or anything. If a journalist was able to do a deep dive on each one, on their friends and family and show that they did all go to that concert and never came back, ]then I think at that point your argujment is carried.
What we ‘think’ happened to people or what we ‘believe’ to be true is irrelevant. What Iain has done is look at the evidence, video evidence and the statements of those allegedly injured and they do not tie up with the official narrative. We do not need to speculate, it is not for us to say what happened to the dead people; we do not know. What we do know is that there is no visual evidence of a bomb of the sort alleged.
Well done to both parties for having a debate, it’s refreshing in the times we’re in.
Can't you see what you're doing? You're denying the victims. That's very serious. You're denying their families' grief, their loss, their suffering. You're denying the injured. You're believing false and misleading information over their testimonies. That's on you Susan. RDH's 'evidence' holds no water. It's inadmissible. Getting everybody to look one direction is just a magician's trick. You've been conned. What are you going to do about it? Stubbornly stick to the lie or honour the dead and send prayers to their families? Your choice. You've been made aware. The rest is on you.
[The appeal to pity fallacy occurs when someone attempts to persuade others by provoking feelings of guilt or pity. Instead of presenting factual information and evidence to support an argument, one may try to play on people's feelings.]
what is really going on here??
Something is very, very off about this woman demanding evidence while providing none.
Spot on nfk99. 🎯
Emotional tosh!
She didn't deny victims. She denied the claim of an event because the burden of proof wasn't satisfied. You don't understand journalism. Please move on before some of us do damning pieces on your dangerous behavior.
5 years of journalist school - doesn't know the difference of primary and secondary evidence.
proceeds to show you tube video as evidence - smfh. either being really dumb or bad faith arguments. wow.
What do you think happened the 22 dead people, smartarse?
is this your first day on the internet or something?, the security services create fake characters for their plays all the time.
this website is almost 10 years old.
https://this-person-does-not-exist.com/en
look its good to debate, but you are using secondary evidence, did you do 5 years in journo school or not? because you have zero real evidence at all? please show if you have any real evidence.
Yes, yes I know all about false flags - it doesn't mean I jump to conclusions. Was there a bomb or not, that night in Manchester? This is the focus of the conversation. Are the victims real or fake? There was a bomb and the victims are real. Start from there and I'd respect you better.
all i need to know is that when people ask questions and they get logical fallacies in return. something is wrong. if you can prove these people died you would show that evidence. did you go to journo school or not please? please show the evidence these people died and i will be on your side.
This is madness. You think the friends and family of all 22 people who died in the Manchester Arena bombing are covering up fake deaths? Too bonkers to respond. We've descended into farce. That's where sofa journalism leads.
I'm asking to see your evidence! its very interesting seeing how you respond. just logical fallacies and no evidence.
things that make you go hmmmmmmm........
Thank you for taking the time and energy to reply.
Not surprised he took you to the cleaner's. You were clearly unprepared for this. I do appreciate your bravery in putting yourself out there. But going up against someone who wrote a book on the subject with no counter arguments was foolish. I don't know if there was a false flag but you did your side no favours here.
There was a bomb and real people died and were injured. That's the bottom line. The book is obsolete. There's only one thing that matters here, the objective Truth.
Aisling, "that's the bottom line'. Oh well, that settles it then. The ppl who say it was a false flag have described evidence, you have neither dismantled it or given good evidence that there was a bomb. You made a decent point on the finger photo which u didn't bring up on the interview but other than that your argument is weak-even if you are right!
Fair enough, but there's is a real disconnect between the footage of Ruth Murrell strutting around in high heels with a red patch on her thigh, with that of an actual horrific bombing. Gaslighting doesn't work on me, nor many others I would imagine. There's so many inconsistencies here that have yet to be resolved. Dogmatically repeating "there was an actual bomb and people died" doesn't cut the mustard and does little to refute Iain's claims.
Why are you so rabid about this? You certainly don't sound like someone who is genuinely interested in truth.
You're just cross with me because I'm exposing how flimsy all this apparent 'evidence' is that you've bought into and believe to be true. I'm 'rabid' about this because innocent people are being accused in the wrong and lies and falsehoods are flourishing like weeds. Not good enough. We need standards. I put my name and my face and my reputation on the line for this, that's how sure I am of what I'm saying, so you can be certain I'm someone 'genuinely interested in the truth'. You, on the other hand, hide behind an anonymous name, Ancara, an apparent 'Truth Lover' who can't stand the Truth when it's looking at you square in the eye. The Manchester Arena bomb victims are real. Stop denying them.
I think you're paid to act like this
Bali was a TATP device, it destroyed the building and shattered all the windows in the town for 200M, yet all the light bulbs and perspex covers above the doors in the foyer in Manchester remained intact. You also said they have backup systems to defend the lights not being blown out "they have generators" the best generator in the world can't light light bulbs that should have been blown to bits, 2lb of explosives without shrapnel would smash all the lights for ~20M, with shrapnel the scene would have looked like a bomb went off, yet it doesn't. Ex EOD personel here.
You said Murells injury was genuine, if you think you can walk on high heels with no physical symptoms after a bolt followed by a blast wave was blown 13cm though your tigh, you are seriously deluded.
Here's a video of someone who is actually shot in the leg, within seconds it looks like someone chucked a bucket full of blood all over his leg, there's a trail of claret for the few yards he managed to stumble before collapsing to the floor, within 40 seconds he's completely unconcious. He died right there. And that was just a 9mm bullet, not a bolt shot 13cm clean through his thigh followed by a blast wave. 40 seconds unconcious, then dead, is a long way from 4 mins and still no visible symptoms of a severe leg injury.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwOJ4AIa6w4&rco=1
It's called primary evidence. Emotional rhetoric doesn't cut it.
I joined your channel after coming across your views on the covid palava particularly as you had been a legacy media journalist who seemed to recognise that on this occasion the truth about covid didn’t seem to add up. You seemed open to hearing out others with alternative viewpoints from the official narrative and seemed to agree that it was wrong that people were getting censored for having opposing views particularly those backed up with evidence.
In short you seemed open minded and willing to consider things with critical thinking.
However your interview with Iain and your one sided spamming on this issue (Manchester Bombing) has left me very disappointed.
You are behaving like an obsessed person who is completely closed to objective evidence that contradicts your current belief. You are completely stuck and it’s a shame because I thought you were more open to knowledge.
The thing I have acknowledged myself about using critical thinking and logical reasoning is that it has to be applied continuously. If we pick and choose when you use these skills then we become our own censor. We end up closing our minds to evidence when we feel we already ‘know’ the truth and then allow cognitive dissonance to bolster that view.
If we agree that using critical thinking and logical reasoning is the key to learning about our own reality then we must accept that we use it every single time on every single subject no matter how uncomfortable that may be. We have to follow where all of the evidence leads and assess each element along the journey.
As Iain says himself he doesn’t know if what he is saying may be proved right or wrong in the end. All he is doing is looking at what is available right now but open to changing views as new evidence appears.
We should never be afraid to be wrong but we should be afraid of not wanting to find out.
Wow, dumbfounded that every response is "22 people died so there was definitely a bomb". No critical thinking whatsoever, and a conclusion already decided upon.
Sadly it seems you are just looking to use emotions (just as the MSM do), to influence the thoughts of people and dismiss the arguments that are being put forward by trying to use grief and despair to win your argument. No facts at all, the only fact you keep coming back to is 22 people died!
This was such a wonderful exchange. Two people holding diametrically opposed views on an issue maintaining a relationship throughout the conversation which was sufficient to support meaningful and honest communication i.e. at no stage did it descend into personal abuse. Such a gem because it's so rare. It models a skill that should be lauded and encouraged to the hilt. Thank you Aishling. Thank you Iain.
Thanks Dave. It certainly is rare these days. I really appreciated Iain Davis for getting stuck in and defending his position, even though I vehemently disagree with his findings.
I enjoyed it too. I have---I'm sure we all have--- these kinds of conversations all the time. It is only in the media, and sadly I have to include the independent media in this criticism to a great extent, where uniformity of thought seems to be a necessity. Even the BBC used to air real debates. It is really important that we reinvigorate open and honest debate. Thanks Aisling.