Brent and Neil go to Manchester - Part 4

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

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.

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

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.

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

At the start of Part 5 of Brent and Neil go to Manchester, the pair discuss the appeal to authority propaganda technique they have used ad-nauseam to this point. Again claiming psychic powers, Sanders tells their audience what Hall would think or what he would say.

Having alleged in Episode 4—please read Part 3—that Hall placed a camera in the garden of one of the purported victims, in Episode 5 of their podcast series, Neil Sanders says:

Imagine you went outside and there's a man, in his 50's, sleeping in his van, with a camera set up filming your teenage daughter while she's in her own home.

Casting Hall as some sort of weirdo—seemingly insinuating he’s a hebephile—Sanders practically admits that everything he accused Hall of in the pairs’ previous Episode—that Hall put a camera in Eve Hibbert's garden—was false. Richard D. Hall left the van and returned later, he was not sleeping in the van outside of her home and he did not try to film anyone's teenage daughter “in her own home.” He tried to observe the teenagers movements in a public road, via a dash cam in his own vehicle, parked outside of their home for two hours. This is precisely the kind of secret filming that investigative journalists commonly use.

Despite his evidence-free character assassination of Hall, Neil Sanders claims that he likes Hall. Perhaps he does, he earlier claimed he still considered Hall a friend.

Remarkably, claiming it is Hall who has lost "perspective," as Sanders misleads his audience, misreports the evidence and embellishes his narrative with stuff he has made up to attack Hall, Sanders tells his and Brent Lee’s audience that people—meaning Hall—do "terrible things" because they are driven by their convictions. Behaviour Sanders has just seemingly demonstrated himself.

I cannot read minds and I do not know what Neil Sanders' motivations are for the hit piece he and Brent Lee have concocted to discredit Hall. At the start of Episode 5 Brent and Neil provide a narrative about their working relationship with the BBC and with the BBC's first social media and disinformation correspondent, Marianna Spring. In light of this relationship, and other salient points, I will speculate on what their motivation may be later this article series.

Having made it clear that they are only analysing Hall's original book and film, the pair then start introducing evidence that was revealed post Hall's publication, primarily as revealed during the Public Inquiry. Brent and Neil rarely report any of Hall's years of subsequent research. As Lee and Sanders have now abandoned the stated premise of their podcast series, in the interest of fairness, so will we.

Hall's more recent findings are highly relevant. We will consider them because Brent and Neil don't report them to any extent. Consequently, they ultimately leave their audience holding on to a string of falsehoods about what Hall believes and what his presented theory is actually based upon.

Neil Sanders embarks upon a section of Brent and Neil got to Manchester that is so absurd, I'm surprised they didn't cut it. Neil points out that training scenarios are used to train people for real world scenarios. He then asserts that the claimed "logic" behind Hall's theory can be demonstrated using the following analogy:

If there's a training scenario for it, it can't happen in a real world situation. [. . .] Just because there is a training scenario that copes with this [terrorist attacks], does not mean that every time it happens it's a training scenario.

Nowhere in Hall's research does he make such an idiotic claim. Of course terrorism happens.

Hall cites examples of real terrorist attacks, such as the Omagh bombing and the Admiral Duncan pub bombing, in the work Brent and Neil are supposedly trying to analyse. Personally, I don't think many people who agree with Hall think that all terrorist attacks are hoaxed either.

The whole point of Hall's reporting on Manchester is that the evidence we have does not correspond to the evidence we might expect to see or hear if a real suicide bombing terrorist attack happened. Hall is not suggesting, and has never suggested, that terrorism never happens or that all terrorists attacks are fake.

Further asserting that official narrative of the Boston Bombing is true, again avoiding any mention of the film cited by Hall—the Boston Unbombing—which shows it was a hoax, Sanders offers the following, broad argumentation: because false flag terror events have reportedly happened overseas, that is a reason to reject the possibility that the UK government would ever do such a thing.

What became collectively known as Operation Gladio—a multi-decade long, Europe wide false flag terrorism campaign—was run under the auspices of NATO but was instigated and primarily overseen by US and British intelligence agencies. In John Stevens final recommendations report, published in in 2003 as a result of his investigation instigated by the murder of the lawyer Patrick Finucane, Stevens noted:

I conclude there was collusion in both murders and the circumstances surrounding them. [. . .] This included [British intelligence] agents being involved in murder. [. . .] Informants and agents were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes.

So why Brent and Neil imagine British intelligence are somehow above involvement in false flag terror or hoaxed terror events is unfathomable. The pair merely state, without reason, that it "doesn't work like that." Although evidently, on occasion, it does and, quite clearly, UK intelligence agencies are often involved when it does.

Brent and Neil have been peddling the myth, since their podcast series began, that Hall claims we know that Manchester was a hoax because Boston was a hoax. Not only have Brent and Neil consistently misreported Hall's source for his opinion that Boston was hoaxed, their given interpretation of Hall's statements amounts to complete fabrication.

Hall cites Boston as an example of a hoaxed terror event, reported as real by the epistemic authorities, because the evidence presented in The Boston Unbombing—a fact which Brent and Neil have chosen to withhold from their audience—is compelling. At no stage has Hall ever implied that because Boston was a hoax that infers that Manchester was a hoax. Hall has presented evidence to show that Manchester was a hoax.

Hall put out a video guide for viewers who might want to use his image database software to examine all of the CCTV stills presented at the official Saunders Inquiry. If we go to 08:25 in that Richplanet video, Hall again makes it clear why he considers the Boston bombing to be an example of a hoaxed terror event and its relevance to Manchester:

I would like to draw people's attention to [. . .] "The Boston Unbombing." It is very clear, in my opinion, that the 2013 bombing at the Boston Marathon was not a real bomb. The film shows comprehensively how the bombing was staged. [. . .] If you don't accept this, you must spend the time to watch that film - available HERE. [. . .] We must bear in mind, when we look at the Manchester evidence, that terror events can and have been faked in the recent past.

That Hall frequently references The Boston Unbombing is very obvious. It is not unreasonable to ask why Brent and Neil have, by omission, effectively misled their audience in regard to Hall's reason for doubting the official narrative of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

Neil Sanders next reports that still images were released at the official Saunders Inquiry into Manchester which were said shows where "everyone was standing" one second before the reported blast. The officially reported time of the explosion was said to be 22:31:00 precisely. Brent and Neil do not tell their listeners that Hall has since reported evidence that casts significant doubt upon the official timing. Go to 01:03:12 in this Richplanet video to see Hall's investigation.

At the inquiry British Transport Police WPC Bullough testified that she was stood next to the War Memorial in Victoria Station when she heard the bang. Upon hearing it, she said she immediately ran to the City Room. Yet at 22:31:09, nine seconds after the alleged time of detonation, she is seen on CCTV chatting to colleagues at the War Memorial.

None of the officers, nor anyone else seen in this CCTV image, show any sign of responding or reacting to any loud bang.

WPC Bullough was caught on CCTV again, no more than 30 meters away from her starting position, running across the platform at 22:31:37. She is then seen arriving in the City Room (Manchester Arena foyer) at 22:31:47.

There appears to be an approximate 30 second discrepancy between the stated detonation time and the recorded, timestamped CCTV of WPC Bullough's movements. Contrary to Sanders claims, Hall has reported evidence that suggests the official timestamp, allegedly showing people in the City Room "one second before the blast" actually shows the scene around 30 seconds before the bang. Why that matters will become clear.

Sanders acknowledges that, other than the Parker image and the Barr footage, neither of which were examined during the Saunders Inquiry, there are no images of any allegedly deceased or injured victims in the City Room. What we have are the reported positions of individuals in the City Room supposedly between one to three seconds before the bang. The timestamp evidence is questionable. There are other notable anomalies that Lee and Sanders overlook and we'll get to those in a moment.

Sanders claims that the reason we have not seen "any" images of the dead and or the wounded, either from official reports or from people's smartphones, is that it would be offensive, insensitive and distasteful to show them. Sanders reads the sections of relevant BBC guidelines for reporting on terror events. Brent and Neil did not read the relevant BBC guidelines on secret filming that we previously discussed.

Sanders alleges that this explains why there are "no images," anywhere of any identifiable dead or injured in the City Room. According to Brent and Neil, this clarifies why there were none shown at the official inquiry and absolutely none at all posted anywhere on social media. Nor indeed, anywhere else on the entire internet. His explanation is utterly preposterous.

While we can all appreciate why there are no graphic images of "dead children" shown on the BBC, or by other legacy media outlets, and while we can also understand why these images would not have been shown—if they existed—to family members at the public inquiry, Sanders' offered debunk is not remotely convincing. There are no relevant images, anywhere on the internet. Not one, single Arena witness has posted any images showing anything plausibly corroborating a shrapnel laden bomb blast in the City Room on any social media profile or anywhere else online. This is not explained either by moral virtue or the BBC's guidelines on reporting terror events.

As I write, the internet is awash with the most horrendous images of death, mutilation and suffering from Gaza. If you want to see images of children's corpses then search "Gaza" in Elon Musk's 'X' platform and see how long it takes you to find hundreds.

Hall was conducting deep and extensive research into an alleged bombing that supposedly killed 22 people and reportedly injured at least 38 more. There aren't even any images of these alleged victims on the Dark Web.

Sanders' argues that the absence of any images from Manchester on "gore sites" somehow corroborates the official narrative. His contention being that images of deceased children in the City Room would simply be too much, even for twisted snuff movie enthusiasts.

This is a derisory argument. The total absence of “any” images strongly supports Hall's theory, not Brent’s and Neil’s debunk, as the duo claim.

Hall has never suggested—not once—that the absence of distressing images of physical injury and death on UK day-time television is among the reasons why he suspects the Manchester Arena bang was a hoax. What he has reported is that there are no images of any victims anywhere, at all. Further, that none have been produced in any official report or investigation of the alleged bombing.

He's right, there aren't any and none have ever been shown. All we have are the Parker photo, the Barr footage and a blurred out, somewhat incongruous video broadcast by the BBC which no one has claimed responsibility for filming.

Sanders then claims that the timestamp CCTV stills, allegedly taken one to three seconds before the bang, meets Richard's criteria for placing the victims in the City Room immediately prior to the bang. Setting aside the dubious official timestamp claims, Sanders neglects to report that those images do not show the 22 allegedly deceased victims in the City Room.

For example, according to the witness testimony of Ruth Murrell, Michelle Kiss—the mother of her daughter's friend—was stood next to her on the steps leading down into the City Room when the "bomb" supposedly detonated. Michelle reportedly died instantly when shrapnel from the alleged blast struck her in the head while she was stood on the steps next to Ruth.

The Saunders Inquiry reported that Ruth Murrell told investigators:

She turned to her left to ask Michelle what had happened, but Michelle was lying on the floor. Ruth believed Michelle was dead at that time.

According to the official inquiry, Ruth Murrell was next to Michelle Kiss when she was killed by shrapnel and realised almost instantaneously that Michelle was dead when she looked down and saw Michelle lying next to her on the steps. Please go to 31:32 in this Richplanet video to see Hall's analysis of the alleged "last second" CCTV stills presented at the inquiry.

At 22:28:14 Ruth Murrell and Michelle Kiss are seen stood together in the City Room. At 22:30:59, supposedly one seconds before the blast, Ruth Murrell is stood on the steps next to her daughter, Emily.

Emily can be seen stood next to her mother in the position where Michelle Kiss was reportedly standing when she died. Ruth Murrell is in the position, on the steps, where she was reportedly struck by shrapnel. This situates Ruth and Emily, but not Michelle Kiss, approximately 17 meters away from the epicentre of the alleged bomb blast.

Michelle Kiss is not present and is not stood to the left of Ruth Murrell. Nor is Michelle Kiss visible anywhere else in the “last second” CCTV frame.

Michelle Kiss cannot be seen in the CCTV image which Sanders asserts was taken one second before the supposed blast. As Hall pointedly asks, "where is Michelle Kiss?"

"One second," or 30 seconds, before the supposed bomb blast, Michelle Kiss is evidently not in the position where, the inquiry would later claim, she was reportedly killed by a suicide bomber. The reported circumstances of Michelle Kiss’ alleged death are false.

Michelle Kiss is not the only one of the 22 reportedly deceased victims that cannot be seen in the alleged final images. Hall has identified four of the reportedly 22 deceased in the CCTV images taken shortly before the bang. Michelle Kiss, Jane Tweddle, Lisa Lees and Alison Howe. Of these, only Jane Tweddle is seen in the final images purportedly captured "one second before the blast."

I have also searched the same images and I cannot see 18 of the 22 allegedly deceased victims in the claimed final moments before the blast either. An important caveat, as noted by Hall, is the potentially significant CCTV blind spot (shown below highlighted in green). Only the blind spot marked ‘C’ is relevant.

At 02:08 in this Richplanet video Hall makes an important observation. The CCTV cameras recorded video. Yet, at the inquiry, all that was produced from the videos were still image frames extracted from the CCTV. This "far from comprehensive" evidence further suggests that images were "cherry picked" to support the official narrative.

At 01:06:17 in this Richplanet video Hall presents evidence that casts doubt upon official narrative regarding Jane Tweddle. She and her companion, Jo Aaron were met by Kim McKeown and Izzy Aaron in the City Room. Hall interviewed Kim McKeown who was also reportedly injured. Brent and Neil apparently feel questioning purported victims to be a "terrible thing," but the information gleaned by Hall from Kim McKeown is a valuable piece of investigative journalism.

We mentioned earlier in this series that Martin Hibbert said he intends to lobby parliament to create a law that would make Hall's interview with Kim McKeown illegal. If this law is enacted, no journalist will ever be able to question a purported survivor of a terror attack ever again.

It will be virtually impossible for anyone to question the official accounts of these events. If “Hibbert’s Law” is enacted, we will all be forced, by law, to accept whatever we are told without question. Airing dissenting opinions will potentially be legally hazardous for all of us, not just journalists like Richard D. Hall.

Kim McKeown told Hall that she and Izzy Aaron were in the company of Jane Tweddle for about a minute before the bang. But neither Kim nor Izzy are seen on CCTV at 22:30:41, just 19 seconds before the official timing of the alleged blast. Again this suggests that the bang did not occur at the time reported in the official inquiry and corroborates Hall's analysis of the WCP Bullough CCTV timings.

In the same video, at 01:02:26, Hall questioned why an area outside of the lift has been entirely redacted from the official CCTV inquiry images. It was shielded from the blast by a wall and a short corridor to the City Room and did not sustain any damage (either). The last un-redacted image taken from that area was captured 22 minutes before the bang.

Last image of the inexplicably redacted area 22 minutes before the bang

No reportedly murdered or injured victims were located or treated in that area. Why was it subsequently hidden from the Inquiry and the British public?

Redacted area outside the lift as shown at the Inquiry

At 50:05 in this video, Hall reports the movement of Jane Tweddle and Lisa Lees shortly before the bang. Their repositioning appeared to allow better access to and from the mysteriously redacted CCTV area outside the lift. Hall speculates that the hidden area may have been a staging point for crisis actors. While we cannot know if this is accurate, no explanation has ever been offered to account for the CCTV redaction.

Movement of Jane Tweddle and Lisa Lees, from the grey dots to the red dots. Also showing likely position of the a pyrotechnic device (soon to be discussed)

Sanders mentions the account of Abbey Mullen who, as Hall previously reported, posted the following on social media:

Just out of the Ariana Grande Concert in Manchester, I thought we would leave second before the last song finished in order to get home quicker instead of waiting longer for a taxi. As we where leaving a bomb or explosion went off centimetres in front of me. Peoples skin, blood & feces where everywhere including in my hair & on my bag, I’m still finding bits of god knows what in my hair. [. . .] We are being told it was a balloon/sound system but I can assure you it was not. You never, ever expect these tings too happen to you but this proves it can happen to anybody. That sound, the blood & those who were running around clueless with body parts & bits of skin missing will not be leaving my mind any time soon or the minds of those involved.

Brent and Neil say that Mullen was pilloried on social media for making this statement. Sanders added that she had posted images of gore in her hair and on her bag. These supposedly gory images are shown below.

There are other notable things about Abbey's account, not discussed in any detail by Brent and Neil, that were explored by Hall. If she left before the end of Grande's 22nd song with the intention of avoiding the rush she should have been clear of the Arena before the bang. Abbey said people had body parts missing, skin missing etc. According to Abbey, some of these people were mobile, “running around” in panic.

Therefore, in the extensive video footage and images of people fleeing the City Room that night (see sample below), there should be at least one or two examples of people with missing limbs and flesh hanging off them. If it were a real suicide bombing, regrettably, this is what you would expect to see. Again, there are no such images. Brent and Neil didn't think it was necessary to point this out to their listeners.

By 23:42 all of the reported injured survivors had been taken from the City Room to the Victoria Station concourse, leaving only the reportedly deceased in the City Room. Therefore, images of the exits from the City Room, captured between 22:31 and 23:42, should show some evidence that at least 38 people, supposedly struck by shrapnel from a TATP suicide bomb, were moved through the areas shown in the CCTV stills.

There are four possible observable blood trails leading from the City Room. They are very minor, if they are blood splatter, and not clearly distinguishable. There are also images of the stairs leading down from the walkway exit from the City Room. These images show no sign of any significant blood splatter after the bang. If we contrast this to Abbey Mullen’s statement, there is no observable physical evidence to support it.

At 23:15:47 the image below shows what the stairs leading down from the walkway exit of the City Room to Victoria Station concourse looked like. There is virtually no observable physical evidence suggesting people blown up by a bomb were moved down these stairs.

The area highlighted in yellow shows what could possibly be blood splatter. However, at 23:46:14, four minutes after the last of 38 shrapnel bomb victims were supposedly moved down these stairs, the same spots are observable and none have been smeared by any footfall. In all likelihood what we see is not blood splatter. Even if it is, it in no way corroborates the official narrative about a huge suicide bombing.

The physical evidence supporting the official account is nonexistent. The evidence we have actually seen, and heard—more on this shortly—unequivocally supports the hoaxed attack hypothesis.

Episode 5 of Brent and Neil go to Manchester then starts to, as usual, deploy the appeal to authority propaganda technique the pair rely upon in an attempt to justify claims made without evidence, both by them and the official "epistemic authorities." Neil Sanders correctly reports that it was stated at the Inquiry that there were CCTV and smartphone images taken by concert goers of the dead and injured, but that none will ever be shown.

While Brent and Neil found this convincing, Richard D. Hall, and presumably those of us who agree with him, do not. A claim made without evidence is tantamount to meaningless, no matter who makes it.

If I have understood this element of the pairs debunk correctly, by unquestioningly accepting the epistemic authorities' offered narrative about the existence of gory images—that no one has ever seen or will ever see—Brent and Neil are proposing that, of the few hundred or so smartphone videos and images, presumably captured by a minority of the 14,000 who attended the concert, allegedly showing the physical evidence of a suicide bombing, somehow the authorities intercepted all of them before anyone was able to upload a single one to social media or anywhere else on the internet. Despite the fact that there are no reports of any mass seizure of people's phones nor of images being wiped from the internet.

We should also, presumably, ignore the fact that concert goers like Jordan Kenney and Abbey Mullen did post video and images they took in and outside the Arena. None of which provided any evidence of massive suicide bomb detonated in the City Room.

Neil Sanders adds that he has pored over the "photographs and stuff" of the dead and injured shown at the inquiry. This is quite amazing, because there weren't any.

I think he means he contrasted the Parker photo and the Barr footage with the supposed last second frames, taken before the bang, that were presented at the inquiry. He didn't do this very well because he has apparently missed that Michelle Kiss isn't seen where she was reportedly standing when she was said to have been killed by a so-called shrapnel bomb.

By completing this comparative analysis—I think—Sanders claims that he identified dead bodies "in the pile." He says he completed this process "to a degree." Further he states, "I am not highlighting the dead children in a photograph."

I suggests there is very good reason for this. There are no images of dead children in any photograph that can possibly be highlighted and 18 of the 22 reportedly deceased victims are not in any of the inquiry still images allegedly taken in the last few seconds before the purported blast.

let's consider Marcin Klis, a large Polish gentleman who Neil Sanders say's can be seen "lying there dead" in the Bar footage. There is a composite still Hall compiled from the Barr footage shown below. I have numbered the apparent victims I can see. According to Neil Sanders, Mr Klis is number 9.

The man Sanders thinks he has identified as Marcin Klis does have the same frame, shaved head and red shirt, which Mr Klis was photographed wearing the day before the bang. It is understandable why Neil thinks he has identified him.

In his book, Hall also thought it likely that this was Marcin Klis:

It is probably Marcin Klis. There were no other bald ‘victims’ wearing a red shirt that I am aware of.

It is important to remember that Hall was writing before the evidence emerged that Brent and Neil are using in their debunking analysis. At the time, Hall thought this image was taken in the morning before the bang. He has subsequently revised that opinion in light of new evidence.

It is certainly possible that it is Mr Klis, but even if it is, there is no reason to think he is "lying there dead," as Sanders claims. Other than written accounts offered by the "epistemic authorities" at the inquiry.

Among the many problems I have with Neil's claim is that the large man in the red shirt cannot be seen in any of the last minute frames supposedly taken one or two second prior to the bang. The official inquiry claims that Marcin and Angelika Klis were stood holding hands before being killed by the blast. There are no images I can find of a couple matching their description in any of the “last few seconds” images captured inside the City Room. So it is not unreasonable to ask how the inquiry could possibly establish their presence, at that time, as "fact."

If they are seen in redacted images taken before the bang, why were they redacted? These pre-bang images would have shown the quite normal scene before the bang, not potentially distressing images taken after the bang.

Though Sanders apparently thinks the Parker photo and Barr footage are consistent with the story we’ve been told, they quite clearly are not. They should show a scene consistent with 22 people being murdered and another 38 people—including Hall's High Court adversary Martin Hibbert—being injured by a TATP shrapnel bomb exploding in the City Room. They do not.

I can make out, at best, 16 possible dead or dying and one injured person (number 17 - seen more clearly in the Barr footage video). I am very uncertain about numbers 4 -7. If anyone else can identify anyone I would be interested to read your comments.

Nevertheless, we are a long way short of the approximate 60 people who should be somewhere in or around that scene. We don't know who is off camera, but we are broadly looking toward the reported epicenter of the claimed blast. We might reasonably expect at least 40 severely injured, dead or dying people to be in the footage. They aren’t there.

Nor are anywhere close to 60 dead, dying and injured people observable in the BBC footage shown in their documentary “Manchester the Night of the Bomb.” Though very blurred, this did at least give us a wider view of the scene inside the City Room immediately after the alleged bomb exploded. It doesn’t support the official account either.

If, as Sanders contends, Marcin Klis can be seen in the Barr footage, how and when did he arrive in the City Room? Did he enter the scene from the CCTV redacted lift area in the 30 missing seconds. This is a possibility suggested by the evidence reported by Hall. Again, the caveat is that there is a CCTV blind spot. Marcin and Angelika Klis could have been stood out of sight of the CCTV but, if so, how did the official inquiry know they were stood together holding hands in the last few seconds before the alleged bombing?

We are told, by all official accounts and the testimony of people like Abbey Mullen, that this was a devastating, large TATP bomb packed with 30kg of deadly shrapnel. Shortly we will discuss why we can know that people standing anywhere in close proximity to the alleged bomb—within the immediate 10m blast zone—with nothing between them and the suicide bomber except other people, who were then struck by nuts, bolts and screws travelling at thousands of miles an hour, would have been ripped apart.

If the official account is true, the City Room would have become an unimaginable scene of horror and carnage. It would have been a bloodbath.

Go to 44:55 in this Richplanet video to see Hall's account of the images we have to purportedly substantiate the presence of this carnage in the City Room. All of the images of the allegedly injured were redacted at the inquiry.

Hall has pieced together a number of composite images, taken inside the City Room, from the heavily redacted CCTV stills provided to the Inquiry. While captured over an approximate three hour period, it provides us with a view of the inside of the City Room in the first few hours after the bang.

It cannot be stressed enough that there are no images of any deceased victims, or significant blood splatter, in or around any of the positions they allegedly fell.

There is no observable physical evidence that 22 people have recently been killed and another 38 seriously injured inside the City Room. There is no observable physical evidence that anyone has been struck by a massive shrapnel laden TATP suicide bomb.

It is as if all the people seen lying on the floor in the Parker photo and the Barr footage simply got up and left.

Hall also reported that the first responders inside the City Room were the Arena medical team. They are seen on CCTV, casually strolling out of the City Room at 23:51, just nine minutes after the last of the 38 treated casualties, that they were reportedly working on, were moved out of the City Room.

There is no sign of “any” blood staining or splatter on any of them. Nor any blood splatter consistent with 38 bomb victims being moved along the walkway leading out of the City Room. Again, there is no observable physical evidence that they have just been working in a reportedly horrific, bloody mess nor that seriously injured people were moved along the walkway from the City Room and down the steps to the Victoria Station concourse.

There is nothing consistent with massive TATP bomb blast striking a densely packed crowd of people in either Barr footage or the Parker photo. These are the only records clearly showing the physical evidence inside the City Room in the immediate aftermath of the bang. What we see comprehensively undermines the official narrative.

Of course, none of Brent's and Neil's listeners can "see" anything. They are solely reliant upon whatever Brent and Neil tell them.

There is no observable physical evidence—at all—to corroborate the official narrative. Indeed, its absence is so marked it is entirely reasonable to conclude, as Hall has, that the bombing did not occur.

Hall states:

My conclusion is simple. [. . .] The CCTV image evidence shows that the event was far more consistent with a staged attack than it was with a real terrorist attack where people were injured and died.

I, and many others, agree with Hall's conclusion. I don't speak for anyone else, but may I venture this is not because we are "conspiracy theorists," suffering from some sort of psychological or intellectual deficiency. It is because the evidence does not support the official account but does support the notion that the alleged bombing looked more like the kind of terror training exercises commonly practiced by governments around the world, including the UK government.

Despite Sanders claims about the man he believes to be Marcin Klis, there is no observable physical evidence, in either the Barr footage or the Parker photo, that anyone has been killed by a shrapnel bomb. If they were crisis actors their role would have been to play dead.

Moulage is applied to make crisis actors appear to be severely injured, dead or dying in training exercises and, taking all the other evidence as a whole—which we’ll get to shortly—the event in the City Room was observably more consistent with a staged training exercise than a real shrapnel bombing.

Crisis actors - Manchester 2016

What Neil thinks he sees in regard to Mr Klis, and, to be fair, what I think I see, is subjective to an extent. On balance, however, the physical evidence supports Richard D. Hall's hypothesis, not Brent’s and Neil’s.

Regardless of Sanders poorly evidenced claims, none of the prone people in the either the Barr footage or the Parker image are clearly identifiable. Nor are there any children observable in any "pile" of bodies. Where Sanders has found this alleged evidence is a complete mystery. Perhaps he and Brent will produce accompanying videos to show what they are referring to. Without that, there appears to be very little to substantiate the duo's claims.

Following a stomach churning appeal to emotion propaganda love-in, Sanders chimes in with another ludicrous claim.

We have all seen the footage taken outside the Arena (again shown below) and Hall has examined this himself. Sanders simply asserts that the exterior footage and images we have seen are consistent with, to be blunt, people being blown apart. None of it is consistent with a shrapnel bombing, yet Sanders claims it is Hall who "can't have it both ways."

There is certainly footage of people apparently bleeding, but there is nowhere near enough carnage to substantiate the official narrative. As Hall consistently reports, the "evidence shows that the event was far more consistent with a staged attack than it was with a real terrorist attack."

Brent Lee and Neil Sanders want us to trust what we are told by the epistemic authorities, despite the fact that the evidence to support the official narrative is absent and the physical evidence we have seen is wholly inconsistent with everything we are told to believe. It seems it is Brent and Neil who want to "have it both ways."

The pair's intention is to "debunk" Hall. In their haste to do so, it appears they abandoned reason along the way.

With regard to Jenny Brewster, who says she was turned away by Showsec stewards while trying to go to the car park before the bang, Sanders claims to have "debunked" Hall's reporting of this crucial, contradictory witness testimony.

Sanders decides, for no evident reason, that the girls including Brewster were directed away from the City Room by the stewards because they were heading in the wrong direction for the car park. Brent's and Neil's guest, Joel Hill, is impressed by this simple explanation. Unfortunately for Joel and the pairs' listeners, it is completely wrong.

In 2017, if you were leaving the arena via the concourse located near the City Room, the then NCP car park was best accessed by going through the City Room. Therefore Sanders explained debunk makes no sense. Hall's observation that this is evidence suggesting Showsec stewards were turning people away from the City room before the bang has not been "debunked" by Sanders. Brent's and Neil's offered debunk is factually wrong.

Brent and Neil then turn to the second witness statement of the girl called Freya who also said she and her friends were "stopped" from entering the city room before the bang. We are going on to discuss the many problems with so-called statement analysis, but Sanders wants his audience to believe that when the Freya said "stopped" she meant stopped by the crowd. This is possible, but it is a very questionable contention in my view.

I don't know about you, but when I use the word "stopped" in the context of stewarded event I don't mean blocked or hindered by the crowd. I think Freya's statement strongly infers she was "officially" stopped, though Sanders explanation is plausible. His alleged "debunking" of the far clearer Brewster statement, that corroborates the more likely meaning of Freya’s, is not.

Sanders moved on to "debunk" Hall's analysis of the Bickerstaff Video (below) which Hall claims Bickerstaff filmed before the bang. If so this would clearly demonstrate the likelihood that Bickerstaff was a crisis actor who either had foreknowledge himself or was acting on the instruction of people with foreknowledge. If substantiated, it practically "proves" the official account is false.

Sanders made a good point about the video feed seen on the screen behind Bickerstaff's head. In his book, Hall wrote:

In the final sequence, Bickerstaff stands next to the bar underneath a TV screen. The concourse screens usually display a live feed showing the concert
inside the arena bowl. Although it is not perfectly clear, it looks like the video screen above Bickerstaff’s head is showing the Ariana concert. If this is the case, then Nick Bickerstaff’s video was filmed before the bang, because the bang occurred after the concert had finished.

Sanders claims that live feeds of concerts are not shown outside of the main venue arena and reasons that, if they were, people with rubbish seats would all gather in the concourse and watch the live video. This seems plausible, I agree it is unlikely that a live feed was being broadcast on the screen behind Bickerstaff. Hall's suspicion about the live feed is probably unfounded. Other than that, Sanders offered "debunk" of the Bickerstaff video is incoherent.

Neil Sanders observed that in the video there were a number of people in the concourse. Therefore, he alleges, we are watching people leaving the Arena after the purported bomb exploded. This, Sanders claims, demonstrates that the Bickerstaff video was shot after the bang. This was presented as a definitive "debunk." If we apply some common sense to the evidence, it was no "gotcha!" at all.

Hall noted that the Bickerstaff video must have been shot toward the end of the concert because some people are seen holding pink balloons that were released 20 minutes before the gig finished. It could have been filmed at any time in that 20 minute period before the bang.

There were 14,000 people in the Arena. We have already discussed the accounts of people who left early to avoid the rush. There are certainly a number of people in the Bickerstaff video gathered around the bar, and others walking along the concourse, as you might expect in the last 20 minutes of a concert. Their presence does not support Sanders claimed "debunk." Other evidence virtually disproves Sanders theory.

In the Kerslake Report there are eyewitness accounts of the stampede and panic that was triggered when the audience heard the bang. Many of whom were already leaving the Arena because the concert had just finished.

Jordan Kenney, the man seen heading toward the bar in the Bickerstaff Video, had yet to leave his seat. He filmed the stampede from inside the main Arena and posted it on social media prior to fleeing himself. If Brent and Neil's account, allegedly explaining why there were no nasty images on social media, is correct, presumably Kenney was one of the lucky few not to have his phone seized.

The point is, Jordan Kenney was inside the main Arena after the bang. He then fled the main concert Arena, via the concourse, with everyone else. There is a screenshot of Kenney's post below. Kenney said that after the bang he had "never been so petrified" in his life.

In a then Facebook conversation with Hall's fellow researchers—UK Critical Thinker (UKC)—Kenney added:

We stayed like a few minutes after the bang and then realised something wasn't right. And so did everybody else and everybody started panicking. I was pulling my friend over the seats towards the top of the Arena, because she had heals on. [. . .] There was smoke everywhere. People were screaming and crying. [. . .] It [the smoke] was all coming from the foyer [City Room]. [. . .] There was smoke from a bomb, a bomb creates smoke and mess. It smelt really bad, people were running. People had lost family members and friends in the crowd because 22 thousand people were trying to get out at once. People were running, people were falling over and getting stamped on. We saw blood we saw heaps and heaps of ambulances and police cars.

Undoubtedly this was an extremely distressing and frightening experience for Mr Kenney and everyone else in the Arena that night. At first reading, seeing smoke coming from the City Room, smelling something "really bad" and seeing blood and "heaps and heaps" of emergency vehicles would certainly have convinced Kenney, and everyone else, that they were in an arena where a bomb had just exploded. For reasons we are about to explore, what Kenney reported was largely inconsistent with the official narrative.

What is most pertinent, with regard to the Bickerstaff video, is that the crowd panicked and stampeded after the bang. If the official account is plausible, there were certainly less than 70 people who were directly harmed by a bomb. The blood Kenney saw was outside the City Room. The majority of injuries were sustained in the stampede, not in any bombing.

What we cannot see anywhere in the Bickerstaff video is any sign of anyone, other than Mr Bickerstaff, being remotely concerned about anything in particular. Kenney himself appears to be calm and relaxed. In fact, we see two men and a woman in a wheelchair waiting as they calmly watch people stroll past. A few people can be heard mimicking Bickerstaff. They evidently had no cause to panic or stampede for the exits when Mr Bickerstaff filmed himself allegedly searching for his daughter.

In the John Barr footage, taken in the immediate aftermath of the bang, and also heard in the original BBC footage, the siren alarm and public announcement is clearly audible. In the Kerslake report some eyewitnesses stated that this siren didn't help and made it harder for them to communicate. That siren is not audible in the Bickerstaff video. If it was filmed after the bang it almost certainly would have been.

Sanders then offers some wild speculation about what Kenney is observed doing in the Bickerstaff video. Kenney was evidently heading toward the bar, which is located on the main Arena side of the concourse, opposite but below blocks 208 and 209 (see image below). From Kenney's location, as seen in the Bickerstaff video, the two possible exits are more or less equidistant. He could leave the Arena by running toward the City Room or Trinity Way exits. If he wanted to access the NCP car park, his quickest route would have been via the City Room exits. He does not appear to heading toward either in the Bickerstaff video.

Sanders offers the following debunk:

The main evidence for [Hall’s foreknowledge theory] is that he [Kenney] is reaching for his pocket and they [Hall and UKC] assume that he is reaching for his wallet and going for a drink. [. . .] That's not evidence that the concert's not over. He's just witnessed a bomb. Perhaps he wants a sugary drink or a shot of whiskey to calm his nerves. Perhaps he's not reaching for his wallet, perhaps he's reaching for his car parking ticket, or his keys, or perhaps he's scratching his f*cking nuts. You know what is also behind Nick Bickerstaff, in the direction of the Bar, all of the exits.

This is yet another strawman and it is factually incorrect. Mr Kenney apparently reaching for his wallet is not the "main evidence" Hall presented. That neither Kenney, nor anyone else seen in the Bickerstaff video are running away from anything, is the main evidence observable in the Bickerstaff video and reported by Hall.

Kenney is not reaching for his pocket either. He has two hands in front of him and looks like he is is reaching to take something out of, what appears to be, his wallet. Why would you reach for your car parking tickets or your car keys if you were nowhere near the car park and heading toward the bar? More pertinently, why would you even care where your car is if you are fleeing away from a bombing via nearest exit?

The exits were not behind Bickerstaff, the bar was behind Bickerstaff and the exits were located to the left and the right of Kenney, via the concourse, in the Bickerstaff video. As for scratching his testicles, unless they usually hover like satellites just in front of his body, this seems unlikely too.

Then we get to the key "evidence" which Sanders simply brushes aside with an implausible, speculative narrative. Kenney said he was in the main Arena, and filmed the stampede, after the bang. It is glaringly obvious that Kenney is among the many people, seen in the Bickerstaff video, who were not evacuating the building after the bang because, quite evidently, the bang had not occurred when Bickerstaff recorded his selfie footage.

Sanders "debunk" is to suggest, having just heard a suspected bomb and fleeing in a mass evacuation, after pulling his panicked friend Laura over seats to get out as quickly as possible, amid the frenzied stampede and the chaos that petrified him, Kenney abandoned any notion of actually escaping the Arena and, according to Sanders, may have decided to stop off at the bar for a quick snorter to calm his nerves. Maybe he just hung around for a bit, hoping another bomb didn't blow him up. Although there probably wouldn't have been much of a queue at the bar and no bar staff, so he could have helped himself and wouldn't have needed his wallet.

It could not be clearer that Hall's presented evidence is solid. The Bickerstaff video was manifestly filmed before the bang. This is compelling evidence of foreknowledge.

Bickerstaff, or someone instructing Bickerstaff, had foreknowledge of what was about to happen. It is not possible that people were "bashed to bits" behind Bickerstaff because, even if the official account of the bomb itself is true, the bomb had not yet detonated. Bickerstaff was acting out a scene to support the official account. All the evidence suggests that Bickerstaff was a crisis actor.

Sanders has singularly failed to "debunk" the Bickerstaff video, irrespective of the apparent self-congratulatory hubris.

The Bickerstaff video shows that the official account of the Manchester Arena bombing is false. It is far from the only evidence substantiating Hall's theory.

Check out this Substack tomorrow for Part 5 and we'll start to dig deep as Brent and Neil get into the meat and potatoes of their debunk during Episode 6 - 8 of Brent and Neil go to Manchester.