A Response To Aisling O'Loughlin

Recently the independent journalist Aisling O’Loughlin posted three pieces claiming, among other things, that I have fallen for a con. Namely, that I have written a book—FREE to subscribers of my website—highlighting the evidence that exposes the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing as a hoaxed false flag. You can read Aisling’s posts here, here, and here.

Aisling’s broad concern appears to be that, by questioning the official Manchester Arena bombing narrative, I have somehow been duped by the work of Richard D. Hall who originally reported much of the evidence I cited in my book. I added further evidence, such as findings which show the apparent fabrication of evidence submitted to the official inquiry into the bombing.

Aisling’s primary contention appears to be that those of us who question the official account have fallen into a trap. Further, the sees me as among the people leading what she calls the conspiracy theory “movement” into the same trap:

Of course counterintelligence offers some interesting facts. That’s part of the job to hook you in, but the ultimate aim of the game is to destroy the reputation of conspiracy theorists by saying dumb shit (excuse my French), to undermine the movement and to give an excuse for draconian new laws.

While I think the term “conspiracy theory” is a label employed by state propagandists, and though I am not aware that any identifiable “movement” exists, Aisling’s concerns are not without merit. Of course it is possible that the state has manipulated information to ensnare me and by extension—according the Aisling—my readers. This, she fears, is some sort of cunning device to make me (and you) look stupid and thereby “undermine the movement” or something.

I am no leader, just an independent journalist, and I certainly do not ask, or expect, anyone to trust me or believe what I say. I report the evidence I am aware of, offer my own observations and conclusions, and ask all of my readers to decide for themselves what they make of it. My own firm conclusion, based on the evidence, is that the Manchester Arena “bombing” was a hoax.

Equally, there is little doubt that draconian censorship laws are being rolled-out and, as I have written about extensively, I fear Richard D. Halls High Court case may be used to further the censorship agenda. This is something I recently discussed with James Delingpole.

The pseudonymous MIRI AF wrote an interesting piece covering many of the same issues. She wrote:

[. . .] this appears to be the purpose of Richard D. Hall's theories, and why they are given such extensive publicity in the mainstream: to frame the people who believe in and promulgate these theories as some of the worst possible people, about whom something must be done. [. . .] The reason the MSM is "exposing" (promoting) Richard D. Hall's work, work which he may have produced in perfectly good faith - or he may not - is because it is driving us in a direction that is ultimately going to be helpful to them.

I agree with this analysis to an great extent. I believe the Manchester hoax, and Hall’s subsequent trial, serve a number of propaganda purposes. Not least of all to marginalisation any who question the evidence. Of course that does not mean Manchester was not a hoax. Indeed, it may provide further rationale to explain why it was a hoax.

Aisling seemingly accepts the official account of the Manchester Arena bombing event without question. She is presumably convinced by the stories reported by the legacy media which has studiously avoided reporting any of the evidence cited by Hall and, now, myself.

Any doubts she appears to have about what supposedly happened in the City Room on 22nd May 2017 at 22.31 are limited to the extent to which the reported “suicide bomber,” Salman Abedi, was possibly an asset of the intelligence agencies. The subsequent legal claims, made by the families of the victims, to that effect, as extensively reported by the legacy media, also supports the official account of the purported bombing.

The Abedi family’s evident links to the intelligence agencies are something I explore in my book. Presumably, this aspect of my investigation is not among the “grave errors” Aisling says I made in reporting the evidence:

There’s only one place for Ian Davis five-star rated ‘Astonishing’ new book, The Manchester Attack, An Independent Investigation, available to buy on Amazon for €19.99 and that’s in the bin.

Aisling, as far as I can tell, is essentially arguing that we should not question the Manchester Arena bombing narrative. This appears to me to be the same argument forwarded by the legacy media. I stand to be corrected.

I have responded to Aisling:

I am delighted to say that Aisling is willing to discuss the evidence.

Hi Iain, Great. Let's set up an interview and thank you for getting in touch. Yes I'm afraid you've made a grave error basing your book on the apparent investigative journalism of Richard D Hall. If it's any consolation he's tricked a lot of people as you can see from the comments. Sadly his research doesn't stand up to scrutiny and it has led his followers down a blind alley. There was a bomb and real people died in Manchester on the night of May 22, 2017. They're not acting. Admittedly there are lots of anomalies surrounding the event as even the victims' families would attest but these anomalies have been manipulated by Hall to reach a false conclusion. You have a good reputation and I sense you've taken Richard D Hall at his word, so many have. It's a trap, though. I'll get in touch and we can arrange a time for a discussion. Many thanks, Aisling

As Ailing rightly points out, “if you don’t love the Truth enough you may easily fall prey to deceptions.” I look forward to discussing the Manchester Arena evidence with Aisling at her soonest convenience.