Brent and Neil go to Manchester - Introduction

*******************************************

I have not received any encouragement or inducement from anyone to write about or discuss any information related to the Manchester Attack. All research discussed is exclusively my own and based solely upon information freely available in the public domain.

*******************************************

Brent Lee and Neil Sanders have released their 8 part exploration of Richard D. Hall's Book and film called Manchester The Night of the Bang. You can download Richard's book For Free Here.

I will release each consecutive post, exploring their whole podcast series, here on Substack every day for the next 9 days. I hope you will read them with interest.

The release dates are:

Part 1 - 30/04/2024

Part 2 - 01/05/2024

Part 3 - 02/05/2024

Part 4 - 03/05/2024

Part 5 - 04/05/2024

Part 6 - 05/05/2024

Part 7 - 06/05/2024

Part 8 - 07/05/2024

Part 9 - 08/05/2024

If you would like to support Richard's work you can buy his Book HERE and HERE. You can also donate to support his ongoing legal battle HERE.

For some background on Brent Lee please read Part 1 and Part 2 of my brief investigation into his apparent objectives and legacy media connections. Neil Sanders appears to have researched and presented most of the evidence, but the pairs' podcast series is a joint effort and Brent Lee deserves as much credit and bears equal responsibility.

Brent Lee and I had a brief exchange on Twitter that resulted in Brent blocking me. Prior to publishing this article series, I downloaded and shared all eight episodes which led Brent to threaten to sue me for copyright infringement. I agreed to remove the post at Brent's request and the whole thing ended very amicably.

I hold no ill will toward either Brent or Neil, although I don't appreciate being called a liar by Brent. Brent alleges that I have somehow jeopardised his safety. Brent’s accusation is unfounded. I haven’t lied about him and it is, in any event, a ridiculous claim. Absent direct incitement, a writer bears no responsibility for the actions of others who make their own stupid decisions after reading the writers' work.

This is all a bit 'handbags at dawn' and I only mention it here to lay my cards on the table from the outset. I am not motivated by any malice and I have been as objective as possible in my analysis of Brent's and Neil's work. Neil Sanders is a diligent researcher and compelling writer who does not agree with Richard D. Hall's opinion that the Manchester Arena bombing was a hoaxed false flag.

Brent and Neil have correctly identified some errors made by Hall. I have spent about three weeks examining Brent and Neil's so-called “debunk” of Hall’s theory. I think I have identified many of their errors, assumptions and flawed arguments. I have been as careful and balanced as I can.

I make no claim that everything I have written is beyond question. All I know for certain is that my work will also contain some errors.

Hall has presented a body of work on the Manchester Arena bang that spans four years of research. It is almost impossible that he avoided all error. But what matters are the relative strengths and weaknesses of his core thesis that the Manchester Arena bang was a hoaxed false flag.

I agree with Hall.

At the end of the podcast series, we'll call it Brent and Neil go to Manchester, Lee and Sanders offer 21 points to supposedly demonstrate that Hall's hypothesis is entirely wrong. Unless you've already listened to Episode 8 of their podcast series, this won't presently mean much to you but, just to set out where we are heading, these are my conclusions about Brent's and Neil's list of "debunks."

1. Irrelevant

2. Irrelevant

3. True

4. True in part but also partly false and a strawman argument

5. False

6. Irrelevant

7. True but Irrelevant

8. False and a strawman argument

9. False, irrelevant and a strawman argument

10. False

11. Partly true and partly false but also largely irrelevant

12. False, irrelevant and a strawman argument

13. False

14. Irrelevant, speculative and assumptive

15. Irrelevant

16. Irrelevant but interesting

17. Irrelevant

18. False

19. False, irrelevant and partly self-contradictory

20. False and suspicious

21. False and pernicious propaganda

At the end of the series Neil Sanders claims that he and Brent have "annihilated" Hall's evidence. Not only have they failed to do so, they either avoided, misinterpreted or misrepresented a considerable amount of the evidence presented by Hall.

They did expose some of Hall's errors—found in his original book and film—and, to that extent, I agree with some of their related criticisms. However, while they used evidence that emerged post Hall's publication of his book to debunk Hall, they only applied that to his original hypothesis and pretty much ignored Hall's own subsequent findings and his updated theory.

As highlighted recently by independent journalist and researcher James Corbett, it is possible to identify a common propaganda technique that Corbett termed the fact-checker trick:

The trick is to take the stupidest, most easily debunkable, nonsensical version of a conspiracy adjacent claim you can find [. . .] You take that as the exemplar of the conspiracy theory that people are parroting and you boldly tear it down in-front of everyone.

I do not believe that Richard D. Hall has presented anything that could be described as either stupid or nonsensical. However, like anyone who tackles such a massive, sprawling narrative with evidence that is hidden, obfuscated and denied by the State and its "epistemic authorities"—more on them shortly—he made a few mistakes.

Brent and Neil have seized on the errors to allegedly "debunk" Hall's hypothesis in its entirety but have barely touched upon his years of subsequent research. Essentially, to the extent they have been able to do so, Brent and Neil have debunked Hall by using strawman arguments.

Unfortunately, the fact-checker trick is not the only common propaganda technique they used. The propagandist manipulation the pair commonly deploy thoroughly undermines their claims of intellectual honesty. This fact, and other notable deceptions, suggests a possible intention to mislead their audience.

A major failing in the pairs' claimed debunk is precisely that they are trying to "debunk" Hall. They make virtually no effort to ascertain what happened at Manchester Arena at approximately 10:31pm on 22nd May 2017. They seemingly accept the official narrative of "what happened" with little or no question. This is a critical point.

Hall has tried to show what happened, or didn't happen, and has not investigated why it happened or who made it happen to any great extent. Hall speculated on these issues but he focused tightly upon the alleged bombing itself. Brent and Neil have broadened the discussion to include consideration of who may have been involved in a possible false flag and what their motivations may have been. None of which is particularly relevant to Hall's central thesis.

Brent and Neil's examination of the deaths and "what happened" to the injured effectively represents the parroting of the official narrative absent any notable critical analysis. This is not to say they haven’t produced some excellent research themselves.

Broadly, their arguments successfully debunks some of the oversights in Hall's original publication. But Brent and Neil simple reiteration of the claim that people were murdered and injured at the Manchester Arena on the 22nd May 2017 is made without the pair making any notable effort to demonstrate that they were.

The pairs' appraisal does not, in any way whatsoever, explain or account for the most convincing evidence, presented by Hall, that the bombing was a hoax and crisis actors were used, some of whom evidently had foreknowledge or were instructed by those who had foreknowledge. Brent and Neil have not addressed this evidence either objectively or rationally, if at all.

Simply put: without a bomb there cannot have been any bomb victims. There is no observable physical evidence of a bomb as described by the "epistemic authorities."

We are therefore presented with a paradox. On the one hand, Lee and Sanders have reeled off all the reported evidence which appears to substantiate deaths and injuries cause by a suicide bomb detonated in the City Room of the Manchester Arena at 22:31:00 on 22/05/2017. On the other, what evidence we can see and hear, as reported by Hall, compellingly refutes the idea that a large shrapnel laden bomb detonated in the City Room of the Manchester Arena that night.

Despite Brent's and Neil's repetition of the official account, the lack of any clear physical evidence that a bomb killed or injured anyone leaves more outstanding questions than the duos "debunking" answers. The balance of evidence strongly supports Hall's contention that the alleged bombing was actually a staged event.

Before we proceed, I think we should take heed of Hall's own usual closing statement to his films and videos:

Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.

It is incumbent upon each and every one of us to take responsibility for thinking critically. We should no more take Richard D. Hall's opinion as established fact than we do Brent Lee's or Neil Sanders'. With respect, you shouldn't "trust" mine either. We must consider all the evidence and come to our own, independent conclusions.

So, over the next few days, let's dig into the evidence presented by Brent and Neil and, if you are interested, I hope you will come to appreciate why I disagree with Brent Lee and Neil Sanders and why I agree with Richard D. Hall.

Before every Episode, Brent and Neil warn their listeners they will be discussing distressing material. I will be discussing the same and will include distressing images and video. Please do not read these articles if you are not prepared to consider such material.

If you are ready to do this, and have the stomach for it, then please check my Substack tomorrow for Part 1.