Victims or Actors? Part 6

Sleight of hand

In the discussion of the Manchester Arena event helpful points have been made by those advocating different views. In propounding her belief that the reported victims of the event are genuine, Aisling O'Loughlin warns the dissident community to preserve its intellectual rigour and condemns Richard D Hall for what she calls, “sleight of hand,” in his film, “Manchester: the Night of the Bang.” O'Loughlin is right that much of what Richard D Hall proffers in support of his theory that the event was wholly faked, is speculative, but Hall could make the case that where he offers speculation it is labelled as such.

As we have seen in many ways in recent years, fools rush in. The application of a cautious approach to reaching conclusions with regards to government narratives is wise. We have to evaluate evidence impartially in the manner of detectives or historians, with an awareness of what constitutes strong evidence and with attention to the interests and biases of our sources. The UK college of policing advises investigators to apply, “the ABC approach to material and evidence to ensure the collection of best evidence – Assume nothing, Believe nothing, Challenge everything.”

Richard D Hall has long been regarded as a purveyor of disinformation -even within the truth movement. Just as the 9/11 litmus test provides a helpful indication of the bonafide dissident, so a further helpful filtration process is provided by those who disseminate the no plane and Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) theories relating to 9/11. For his propagation of these notions Hall and his co-presenter Andrew Johnson were included in a list of 9/11 disinfo trolls and Hall's website was noted as a source of disinformation by 9/11 researcher Ken Doc, years before the current controversy.

A further note of caution is provided by Miri Finch who observes that, rather than being ignored, Hall has been given the attention of the state and a high profile by the media. He seems to be providing the UK's Alex Jones moment, where a notorious, media condemned, 'conspiracy theorist,' is declared to have transgressed the bounds of public decency in his investigation of the deaths of children and is then heavily censured. Thus others are potentially deterred from publicly questioning or investigating similar suspected state crimes. A new law further restricting inquiry has been proposed as a result of the case against Hall.

We have seen comparable personas and scripts tailored for each side of the Atlantic when Johnson and Trump provided similar, rotund, blonde, maverick characters to mislead people over lockdowns and vaccines. A parallel between Jones and Hall has been made explicit by the BBC’s so-called ‘disinformation specialist,’ Marianna Spring.

O'Louchlin's observation that Hall's documentary contains, “really, really, loose crap,” is another point of concern. It is important to note, as O'Loughlin does, that the Manchester arena incident is, “dodgy as hell.” Important questions remain unanswered but it is so easy to sully that message and distract from the truth with baseless suggestions.

Intended or otherwise this seems to have been the effect of some of Hall's speculations and evaluations, and particularly of the statement analysis which has been seen as farcical. The most effective disinformation is said to be 95% true because the 5% provokes a reaction that distracts from the rest and allows important information to be dismissed.

In his essay, The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics, early 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman made a series of observations that could equally apply to the Manchester arena incident,

The controversy has thrived in the evidence vacuum created by official actions in the wake of the attack.

“The mystery of the attack has lured researchers into endless debates, much to the detriment of public outreach around easily proved issues.

The sloppy analysis of ...certain...researchers...leaves these researchers, and by association the entire ...(9/11) Truth Movement, open to attack by detractors.

Defenders of the official story have seized on this issue as representative of the gullibility and incompetence of… (9/11) "conspiracy theorists."

The ongoing controversy could then be exploited by the perpetrators to several ends:

to keep the skeptics divided

to divert skeptics' resources from other more productive lines of inquiry

to provide a bizarre-sounding theory with which to tar the entire…(9/11) Truth Movement.”

Aisling O'Loughlin warns us of the Manchester arena incident that “these intelligence agencies want us to believe it’s a false flag,” citing the prevalence of the number 22 in the official narrative. The incident was reported to have been carried out by 22 year old Salman Abedi who killed 22 people at 22:33 (later established as 22:31) after the 22nd song of an Ariana Grande concert, on 22/5/17 (5+17). One victim, Martin Hibbert, was reportedly left with 22 pieces of shrapnel in his leg, and later testified before the Saunders Inquiry on the 22nd July 2021. MI5 “had 22 pieces of information about Salman Abedi,” and Richard D Hall’s trial for harassment began on 22nd July 2024.

In addition, the first paramedic entered the City Room 22 minutes after the incident and an eyewitness report of a man fitting Abedi’s description fleeing the scene of the incident was given to British Transport Police (BTP) Sergeant 2202.

Here O'Loughlin is on shakier ground. As we saw in my article on the Revelation of the Method the inclusion of symbolic numbers and even an open declaration of a deception is not necessarily a trap, but could be a part of a ritual.

Historian Michael Hoffman writes in his book ‘Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare,’

“The alchemical principle of the Revelation of the Method has as its chief component, a clown-like, grinning mockery of the victim(s) as a show of power and macabre arrogance. When this is performed in a veiled manner, accompanied by certain occult signs and symbolic words and elicits no meaningful response of opposition or resistance from the target(s), it is one of the most efficacious techniques of psychological warfare and mind-rape.”

Norwegian attacks (perpetrator Anders Breivik) — 22/07/2011

Woolwich attack (Lee Rigby murder) — 22/05/2013

Brussels bombings — 22/03/2016

Munich mass shooting — 22/07/2016

London attack (Westminster Bridge) — 22/03/2017

Manchester Arena attack — 22/05/2017

Crocus City Hall Attack (Russia) — 22/03/2024

Rather than the public being encouraged to view the Manchester event as a false flag, as with the Pentagon event on 9/11, enough evidence has been both released and withheld to stir the current controversy among dissidents as to whether the event was faked. As we have seen, the purpose of disinformation is to to deny, disrupt, degrade, and deceive so we should be cautious of those people and subjects who achieve these goals.

The statement analysis provided by Richard D Hall and a woman using the alias of Genevieve Lewis is of interest here. The speculation, tone, and lack of foundation involved in this analysis has been understandably criticised by O'Loughlin in her opposition to Hall's central thesis that the Manchester event was faked.

At the end of the relevant segment of Hall's film he tells us that Genevieve Lewis analysed 33 witness statements. Perhaps 32 were too few and 34 were too many. Hall goes on to explain that 23 statements indicated deception, 10 were inconclusive and zero were reliable. These numbers total 66 and are shown on screen.

In the context of the concerns about Hall described above, are these numbers highlighted by Hall significant? Hall finishes his videos with the line, “Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.” This seems a strange instruction for someone to deliver after they have finished imparting information, but, if we are to entertain the notion of Revelation of the Method, perhaps we should heed it.

As we observe this information in our role as historian investigators it is important to note that none of it proves conclusively that Hall is anything other than a sincere citizen journalist. More importantly, none of it affects the physical evidence of what happened at the Manchester arena, which we will go on to explore. At all times we have to be open to being led by the evidence.

Part 7 is here.