Neil Saunders DEBUNKS the last vestiges of his already dubious credibility..... while he also (as a sort of bonus!) infers that he possess mutant genitalia that floats about his navel like a tiny satellite, no doubt sterilized by cosmic radiation and a freezing atmosphere ?!
Here he is again, glaringly GASLIGHTING his way into a smarmy cul-de-sac of projection and denial . He proves conclusively how the MSM has no credibility for thinking folk, and is in fact an INVERSION of all common sense and any'reality' as most would recognize. How can someone with such boggley eyes be so unobservant, is it due to being snowblind ?
The word LION (symbol of many rulers) can be pronounced LIE-ON. The name Neil reversed = LIE-N / LYIN' / LYING .
Oh yes indeed! By the way, I wonder what Neil will spend his hard earned 30 shekels of silver on? I hope he doesn't have to think too hard as it could give him a headache.
Sanders says Spring "took him out for a beer" and after that he judged that he'd participate in her 'doumentary'.
Doesn't he see this is the same tactic BBC former jurno John Swinney used on members of the Tommy Ten Names/Wasim Kempson crew to encourage them to participate on the one that he was making: he piled Lucy-whatever-her-name-was and two young men with drinks encouraging them to participate and gossip. But the whole thing got secretly recorded: it backfired on Swinney when Mr Kempson/Robinson responded with his 'Panodrama' documentary. 'Panodrama' served many agendas and probably was an attempt to enhance Mr Kempson/Robinsons deep cover status as a state and hope not hate asset. But I digress.
Anyway, after his 'drink' with Ms Spring and participation, Sanders then complains about how what he was said was edited and cut to shreds...doesn't he see what she did there?
Apparently, he was persuaded to do it because there'd be no one there to defend RDH otherwise. That isn't sufficient reason, every day certain points of view are piled on and ridiculed by the BBC (covertly and overtly) and have no one to defend them - but most of the time the proponent of those views does not care what the BBC thinks in the first place.
Sanders also made unnecessary references to certain sexual acts during this one (or the last one) - seriously, who on earth behaves like this knowing that what they are saying is recorded and going to be broadcast?!
I look foward to it! I could have shortened my last contribution to "Alleged Mind-Control Expert drinks alcohol with a BBC journalist and didn't for a moment think he was going to be vulnerable..."
Excellent work Iain, you have more patience then me, I couldn't be bothered with integrity for sale clowns like these two, it's like wack-a-mole with nonsense.
Sanders blew his cover with the Covid BS he spewed all over his blog, that didn't age well eh Neil LOL. Brent reminds me of Charlie Veitch, another "ex conspiracy theorist" I can't remember which came first his witness for sale BBC interview regarding Ian Tomlinson, or that farcical BBC conspiracy roadtrip nonsense. I guess his controllers dropped him because he was unreliable and or mentally unstable at the time, maybe as a result of comming to terms with selling his soul when he was widely called out for it afterwards. They all seem to have overtly Narcissistic traits, I guess that's what makes them useful to intel types. Narcissists can self justify absoloutly anything abhorrent and still think they're they're the good guy.
I didn't need to see RH's work, a fine piece of investigative journalism tho it was, I only needed to see that one picture of the blood smeered concourse supposidly taken after the bang. It's the building 7 footage of Manchester. I'm trained in EOD, I know what the aftermath of an explosion looks like, I know what to expect from a given ammount of explosive, I know for a fact that no shrapnel bomb went off there, all those illuminated panels above the concourse doors were completely intact, the merch stall was completely intact, all the windows completely intact, there was simply zero evidence of an explosion, let alone a shrapnel device that supposidly blew bodies to bits. But the RH coverage of those "victims" pointed out running about in the aftermath was the cherry on top, watching them on the news visited by the Queen almost made me gag.
30kg of sharpnel? is that correct? is that what they went with? Have you ever tried to pick up 30kg? A bag of cement is 20kg, anyone would struggle with that for a few yards, but to have a bag and a half of cement in a rucksack, and be photographed running as if you were jogging in the park for hundreds of yards is physically impossible. 4lb of PE4 without the shrapnel would have blown out every single window and panel in the City Room, most people nearby would be bleeding from their ears at least as the blast wave burst their eardrums, lots of internal injuries too, funny how nobody suffered either.
Here's a little ditty about an event during my EOD training to make a point, we were split into groups of two to set relatively small explosive exercises on the range, one pair was set a task to cut a 6ft length of railway rail, you're supposed to use 2 x 1lb blocks of PE4, one each side of the rail set apart to act like scissors to cut the line, well our intrepid pair set on on top and one underneath, we all retreated to the shelter, 300yrds away, to set the charges off. When this charge was set off it sent the railway line skywards, we all heard a whooping sound a bit like a helicopter, or a boomerang sound faiding then comming back, we all looked at each other sideways as we heard it crash to the ground outside, just missing the landrover by a few ft. Google tells me rail line weighs 57-70 kg/M, only half that 2lb charge sent over 100kg over 300M, this may help visualise how much damage a real explosion would have caused in that City Room.
Keep up the good work Iain, it's a faitless task, but I guess someone has to call out these traitors, and that is exactly what these two clowns are, Trailtors, traitors to their own people, traitors to the human race, traitors to themselves. If they don't realise this yet, one day, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but one day, their psycological chickens will come home to roost, and they'll have to accept the fact they are the enemy of the people.
Neil, Brent: How do you look yourselves in the mirror without seeing evil? Turn whistle blower now, confess to Iain and tell the world how it all works, you will be forgiven, and praised.
My thoughts exactly! Iain has proven himself a paragon of patience and fairness with this pair of charlatans. Personally I would enlighten them to the fact that they are complete twats and that it's no good scratching your elbow when your arse is itching.
A sober and thought-provoking analysis, thank you. For me, RDH has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the so-called Mancester Area bombing did not happen.
If this event was fabricated by some 'rogue' element within the security forces, say, there was ample opportunity to reveal this in the subsequent investigations and enquiries. However this did not happen. Instead the Establishment 'doubled down' on the claim that this was a real terrorist attack and that real people died or were injured.
A good example of State-endorsement of this falsehood, if not actual collusion in its planning and execution, is the film footage of the then-monarch speaking to alleged survivors of the 'blast' in a hospital. If Manchester was a hoax, which I believe it to have been, then the monarch must have known the the truth. In those circumstances her participation in the propaganda programme to deceive the public indicates how deep this conspiracy is.
If you accept that premise, other organs of the establishment, like the judiciary, the media, etc. must also be part of the cover-up. This is not to suggest that every individual working in these areas is corrupt or even aware of the truth about Manchester. A few might be suspicious, but they are probably afraid of 'rocking the boat' so they keep their heads down and say nothing.
Then there are the relatively small number of people who might sway others through their positions of influence. These could be politicians, journalists or members of the security services, for instance. So why do they not only NOT reveal the truth but actually support the 'big lie'? Are they bought off, intimidated, or blackmailed? Or are they 'idealists' who are persuaded they should support the lie for the sake of some 'higher' cause'? Who knows? Will we ever know?
Personally I don't hold out much hope of RDH finding justice within the State's own legal system. The State is doing all it can to discredit his work and demoralise him, even to the extent of persuading some of his 'friends' to participate in the attack. That he has kept going despite this relentless onslaught is to his eternal credit.
Perhaps RDH's words and actions in court might cause a few people to feel uneasy or embarrassed about what they are engaged in. Otherwise the system will trundle on relentlessly. The outcome seems all but inevitable.
Iain, another excellent piece - this is such important work.
I have a question about the image about half way through which shows the location of the 22 who died in the blast. Do you know who created this image?
I ask because the only plan I could find which gives the names and location of the deceased victims is from a BBC article dated 3rd Nov 2022 (link below.) It is somewhat similar to yours, but one really interesting difference is the location of Michelle Kiss. The BBC plan shows her on the City Room floor, close to the foot of the stairs, and not at the top of the stairs as described at the Inquiry, and shown on the plan you used in your article.
There's no question that, according to the official narrative, Michelle Kiss was standing at the top of the JD Williams staircase when she was killed instantly at 10.31pm, so how the 2022 BBC Plan could get this so wrong is strange.
I don't know where the BBC plan came from - it is labelled "Source: Manchester Arena Inquiry", but I looked high and low in the MAI evidence, and couldn't find it.
Here's the link - the plan is about halfway into the article.
I'm going to throw some spanners into these works and go all counter-espionage on your arses. Why? Because it's fun, that's why.
Question 1/ Given how hooked to social media and smartphones and so on 'the kids' are these days, how come there aren't hundreds, if not thousands of little smartphone-recorded videos from the Manchester Arena that night? Go on YouTube and you will find a multitude of bootleg videos from concerts. Making 'found footage' movies - 'hiding behind that phone' does, indeed, make you feel safe.
It's the 'absence' of information that is often more interesting than the information that does exist. In Holmesian terms, it's the classic case of 'the dog that didn't bark'.
This suggests 'mobile phone jamming' of course. A similar thinking applies to a wide range of 'events'. 9/11 is indeed a case in point here. Mobile phones with video cameras were available at that time, even if social media wasn't. People could've uploaded that stuff years later when social media did arrive (or YouTube, even).
2/ I'm going to have to elaborate on this one because it entails some serious (semi-)classified intel services history, but for now I will just throw this 'hypothesis' out there. This hypothesis has its origins in the immediate aftermath of the 7/7 event, if that helps. The 7/7 event was characterised in particular by the 'very low number' of casualties. This is the crucial piece of information which clearly gets lost in all this 'detailed analysis' stuff regarding false flag events. So it leaves one with this question: how come the casualty rate was so low? In the case of 7/7 you have four bombers, who had planned for at least a year, with the whole of London to choose targets from, and they could only manage 52 kills. Each of them detonated their bombs in locations designed to minimise the number of kills (3 in tube trains in the tunnel, not on the platform in the rush hour, 1 at the back on the top of the bus in a side-square, not crowded street at the bottom of the bus in the middle).
This raises psychological questions. And if you don't address the psychology, you will never get to the truth.
So here is the 'deep' counter-espionage hypothesis. It's going to scare the shit out of you. The word you are looking for is 'blackmail'. Another few words you may want to consider are 'Samson Option'.
Explanation: 'we would like you to carry out a terrorist attack in your country. If you don't do it, we will.'
Work the rest out yourself - I've probably said too much already. But let's just say the 'infiltration' of the intel services goes back to a certain Victor Rothschild, as shown in Peter Wright's Spycatcher (which was the real point of that book). The crucial anecdote that proves this is the K7 dossier, which Victor asked Peter to produce 'for the PM' - except when Peter was in Victor's office the PM comes in and Victor introduces Peter then the PM says 'so you're the one who's caused all this trouble' - thus revealing to Peter that Victor did not want the dossier for the PM, but for himself and 'the agency to which he was actually loyal'. Peter didn't realise all of this at the time, it only occurred to him later. By which time, it was somewhat too late. But at least we have his book, which, if you know how to read it and understand these things, tells you everything you need to know.
This hypothesis (point number 2) suggests that there are very, very patriotic and noble reasons for carrying out 'fake terrorist attacks' - the alternative being to allow a real one to take place.
Let's just say if I was a spook reading this, I would like this comment. Furthermore, I would maybe propagate the hypothesis. The Samson Option is not as deadly as you think it is. By definition, it's a last resort. It can be pushed further than you think before it is initiated...
You didn't mention that on the morning of 7/7 a crowd of people congregated together on Bidborough Street (a side-street one block south of Euston Road) all behaving in a very un-citizen-like manner. They were directed by a man with a megaphone. Just the sort of thing you'd do if your tube train stopped prematurely at Kings Cross underground and you were trying to get to 'work'! And there were two bangs in the Tavistock square area. And, that ex-military man, Peter Power was at the Kings Cross fire on the 18th of the month (!) some years earlier. PP. P2. P-SQUARED. And, there's no explanation of how some of the codes were scattered into the Dr Who BBC TV Series episode "Rose" months before.
Tavistock = Avi.stock=Ave.talk=Ave to talk=Way to talk.
Four bombs. And Four Bombers. 7x7=49; 4+9=13; 1+3=4=FOUR.
On Manchester, what is your view on the three circulated pictures of the Hibbert's "table for two" that has been discussed on substack? Links below:
On your point (1), in its early days, mobile phone pictures, could be used to make something look more real and live, to an observer who views them quickly and not thinking about the context in which they were 'taken'.
Unfortunately those notes don't seem to be available. If it's something to do with Dub then that might be because I blocked him for being a troll (along with the rest of his gang of stooges).
I suspect, however, that you may be overthinking to a certain degree here. Especially with the 'Rose' stuff. Your numerological analysis of 7/7 for example requires three reductions, which is not credible. You might also do 7+7 = 14 then 1+4 = 5 and you get a different result. A better version of the numerology in the date includes the year number, 2005 - so that's 2+0+0+5 also equals 7. So you actually have 7-7-7, which of course is a book by Aleister Crowley.
As for 'Tavistock' again you don't need to go that far. There is the Tavistock institute of course, and in that square you had the BMA I believe. So a whole load of 'doctors' could immediately come out. I do think it's a more important fact to think about the psychology - like if he was a genuine suicide bomber why did he wait until he was in that square, given he'd previously been on a busy thoroughfare. These are the kinds of rhetorical questions with regards to 'narrative continuity' (in the psychological sense) that allow one to see things more obviously.
Note I'm not necessarily saying it was a real bomb, although you do have to observe the obvious damage to the bus. It would have been far easier to set off a bomb rather than bring in some 'already damaged' bus. Likewise with the tube trains.
There was something about mobile phones not working on the morning of 7/7.
The 7/7 event is, I believe far more interesting in terms of the history - or rather, development - of the new strategy of tension (Gladio B), and perhaps marks a historical crossover or turning point between 'real' massive terrorist attacks and 'fake' attacks. My point about the low level of casualties in the 7/7 event (assuming they were real people, that is, not crisis actors - remember I'm thinking here about 'perception of the event' - which is what the public see, and therefore the point of any psyop) is extremely important. You could say the same about Manchester of course - like 'only' achieving 22 deaths despite having thousands of people/potential targets is telling. In fact, the choice of target, if we assume a multitude of targets from which to choose, is equally worthy of analysis.
The 9/11 event, for example, is more 'believable' precisely because of the large number of casualties and the prominence of the target. As I said, if I was a terrorist mastermind with 4 genuine suicide bombers and the whole of London to choose from I would expect a much greater death toll.
Your mentioning of Peter Power is obviously extremely relevant. One of the intriguing hypotheses there is that Power was not completely 'in on it' and genuinely thought he was simply overseeing a simulation/exercise, but then discovered it was a 'real event' - thus he panics and thinks 'in order to protect myself I need to mention this in public' otherwise I'm a loose end. This hypothesis suggests a (long-term) simulation (the 4 alleged bombers playing the part of a terrorist cell for training purposes etc.) which was then 'hijacked' or 'piggybacked on' by the real bad guys (most people would immediately think 'Mossad' there). This then had to be 'covered up' by people in the intelligence services. Although if that's true, that's where the psychological continuity breaks down unless everyone in that intelligence service is a psychopath (which shouldn't be discounted). The only other option, then, is that they knew it wasn't a real event - which assuages their conscience. In which case, we are left the question 'what was the purpose of the fake event' - what did it lead to? The answer is political repression (dystopia) and the continuation of the 'war on terror'. How any decent (or patriotic) person in the intelligence services can possibly think either of those things is in any way 'morally good' is beyond me.
Thanks for replying. Some very interesting things to think about, and I need to spend far longer doing that.
The number 4 is important though. It was on clear display in two recent UK events the Ammanford stabbing and North East London Stabbing. e.g. time of 11:20 am 1+1+2+0=4. And, 13 year old, which was later changed to 14 year old.
113 has important properties in Gematria. These words are 113 in various forms of Gematria:
Dishonest
Not true
Not factual
Illusions
Disinfo
B*lls**t
Politics
The "London Under Attack" BBC Panorama documentary, which discussed preparations for a terrorist attack on London, was aired on Sunday 16th May 2004. Thus, it preceded 7/7 by 1 year 1 month and 3 weeks! 113.
The yellow Beetle car in the Dr Who episode had registration RLF77IR, which is 113 in Reduction and Reverse Reduction Gematria!
The episode was aired on Saturday 26th March 2005, which was 3 months and 11 days before 7/7. 311, which is 113 reversed.
And, 113 reduces to the number 5: 1+1+3=5.
Also, "Batman Begins" was filmed in some of the areas affected by 7/7 about 13 or 14 months before, similar time of year, similar weather. Notices making residents aware of its filming used a disguised name for the movie: "The Intimidation Game".
If I was being really picky I'm not sure if the bus incident was on Upper Woburn Place or Tavistock Square, but obviously the media used the latter from very early on.
So I do know what you mean about all this kind of stuff.
I've got another, unrelated one for you. The number of days between the wow! signal and the blc1 signal was precisely 15,231. Subtract 6 and you have 15,225. 225 is 15x15. 1+5=6. So you have 6-6-6 then bring back your other 6 and you have 6-6-6-6. The original wow signal was at 02:16 on 16-8-1977. 216 is 6x6x6. 1+9+7+7=24 , so that's 16-8-24 (reduces to 213). It was precisely 20 days, 10 hours, 40 minutes and 1 second before the launch of the Voyager 1 probe. Remove the zeroes there and you have 214. Add you 1 second remainder and you have 215, thus giving you the 213-216 sequence.
There's a lot more cool mathematics in the wow signal (and blc1 for that matter). But in these instances, I don't think it was the cabal that did it. And that would've scared the shit out of them.
Thank you very much for those links, especially the Guardian article, which I had not read before, and contains some information I had not been aware of (consider it bookmarked). Presumably because it was then lost in the wall of noise. The bombs under carriages scenario is indeed the one that best fits all the facts. Especially in the light of the assassination of Jean-Charles de Menezes, who was an electrical contractor for the underground (so would've been seen as a potential loose end).
The bits about Paul Dadge are obviously intriguing and highly suspicious of course. I think it's ironic how Honigsbaum says it's ironic that Dadge works for AOL 'monitoring discussion threads'. And just happened to wander in and investigate, as you do, then 'take command' - like wtf?! 'ok, sir, do you have any qualifications to take over?' 'Yeah, I'm a deep cover agent working as a cognitive infiltrator in AOL.' 'Any medical qualifications?' 'Not aside from the standard med course we do as part of TC101 when you join the service.' 'Hmm. Well, very good, sir, carry on.' So then he's not only working alongside paramedics (as you do), one of whom handily gives him some surgical gloves (as you do), but presumably barking orders at them (as you do). Like that happens *all the time*.
Sometimes I do think they are all just having a laugh at people's expense.
As for that Rachel North, I'm going to go all Obi-Wan here and say 'well that's a name I've not heard in a long, long time...'
"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."
PMSL, love the pithy comment Iain, Solzhenitsyn would be proud of that one!
About the Bickerstaff footage... I found this interesting little detail in an interview with a concert-goer (Zac Haniff) - he said that after the final song... "a lot of people were leaving early because they didn't know whether the encore was on or not."
This suggests there was quite a long time between the final song and the encore, and that some people left thinking it was over. It also suggests that the concourse would be busy at that time - with people leaving, and others getting a last drink before going back to watch the encore.
Neil Saunders DEBUNKS the last vestiges of his already dubious credibility..... while he also (as a sort of bonus!) infers that he possess mutant genitalia that floats about his navel like a tiny satellite, no doubt sterilized by cosmic radiation and a freezing atmosphere ?!
Here he is again, glaringly GASLIGHTING his way into a smarmy cul-de-sac of projection and denial . He proves conclusively how the MSM has no credibility for thinking folk, and is in fact an INVERSION of all common sense and any'reality' as most would recognize. How can someone with such boggley eyes be so unobservant, is it due to being snowblind ?
The word LION (symbol of many rulers) can be pronounced LIE-ON. The name Neil reversed = LIE-N / LYIN' / LYING .
I wonder what Neil's scabby tattoos mean ?
Oh yes indeed! By the way, I wonder what Neil will spend his hard earned 30 shekels of silver on? I hope he doesn't have to think too hard as it could give him a headache.
With friends like him.......
Excellent series Iain
Sanders says Spring "took him out for a beer" and after that he judged that he'd participate in her 'doumentary'.
Doesn't he see this is the same tactic BBC former jurno John Swinney used on members of the Tommy Ten Names/Wasim Kempson crew to encourage them to participate on the one that he was making: he piled Lucy-whatever-her-name-was and two young men with drinks encouraging them to participate and gossip. But the whole thing got secretly recorded: it backfired on Swinney when Mr Kempson/Robinson responded with his 'Panodrama' documentary. 'Panodrama' served many agendas and probably was an attempt to enhance Mr Kempson/Robinsons deep cover status as a state and hope not hate asset. But I digress.
Anyway, after his 'drink' with Ms Spring and participation, Sanders then complains about how what he was said was edited and cut to shreds...doesn't he see what she did there?
Apparently, he was persuaded to do it because there'd be no one there to defend RDH otherwise. That isn't sufficient reason, every day certain points of view are piled on and ridiculed by the BBC (covertly and overtly) and have no one to defend them - but most of the time the proponent of those views does not care what the BBC thinks in the first place.
Sanders also made unnecessary references to certain sexual acts during this one (or the last one) - seriously, who on earth behaves like this knowing that what they are saying is recorded and going to be broadcast?!
I will get to the little anecdote Ross. Still to come.
I look foward to it! I could have shortened my last contribution to "Alleged Mind-Control Expert drinks alcohol with a BBC journalist and didn't for a moment think he was going to be vulnerable..."
Excellent work Iain, you have more patience then me, I couldn't be bothered with integrity for sale clowns like these two, it's like wack-a-mole with nonsense.
Sanders blew his cover with the Covid BS he spewed all over his blog, that didn't age well eh Neil LOL. Brent reminds me of Charlie Veitch, another "ex conspiracy theorist" I can't remember which came first his witness for sale BBC interview regarding Ian Tomlinson, or that farcical BBC conspiracy roadtrip nonsense. I guess his controllers dropped him because he was unreliable and or mentally unstable at the time, maybe as a result of comming to terms with selling his soul when he was widely called out for it afterwards. They all seem to have overtly Narcissistic traits, I guess that's what makes them useful to intel types. Narcissists can self justify absoloutly anything abhorrent and still think they're they're the good guy.
I didn't need to see RH's work, a fine piece of investigative journalism tho it was, I only needed to see that one picture of the blood smeered concourse supposidly taken after the bang. It's the building 7 footage of Manchester. I'm trained in EOD, I know what the aftermath of an explosion looks like, I know what to expect from a given ammount of explosive, I know for a fact that no shrapnel bomb went off there, all those illuminated panels above the concourse doors were completely intact, the merch stall was completely intact, all the windows completely intact, there was simply zero evidence of an explosion, let alone a shrapnel device that supposidly blew bodies to bits. But the RH coverage of those "victims" pointed out running about in the aftermath was the cherry on top, watching them on the news visited by the Queen almost made me gag.
30kg of sharpnel? is that correct? is that what they went with? Have you ever tried to pick up 30kg? A bag of cement is 20kg, anyone would struggle with that for a few yards, but to have a bag and a half of cement in a rucksack, and be photographed running as if you were jogging in the park for hundreds of yards is physically impossible. 4lb of PE4 without the shrapnel would have blown out every single window and panel in the City Room, most people nearby would be bleeding from their ears at least as the blast wave burst their eardrums, lots of internal injuries too, funny how nobody suffered either.
Here's a little ditty about an event during my EOD training to make a point, we were split into groups of two to set relatively small explosive exercises on the range, one pair was set a task to cut a 6ft length of railway rail, you're supposed to use 2 x 1lb blocks of PE4, one each side of the rail set apart to act like scissors to cut the line, well our intrepid pair set on on top and one underneath, we all retreated to the shelter, 300yrds away, to set the charges off. When this charge was set off it sent the railway line skywards, we all heard a whooping sound a bit like a helicopter, or a boomerang sound faiding then comming back, we all looked at each other sideways as we heard it crash to the ground outside, just missing the landrover by a few ft. Google tells me rail line weighs 57-70 kg/M, only half that 2lb charge sent over 100kg over 300M, this may help visualise how much damage a real explosion would have caused in that City Room.
Keep up the good work Iain, it's a faitless task, but I guess someone has to call out these traitors, and that is exactly what these two clowns are, Trailtors, traitors to their own people, traitors to the human race, traitors to themselves. If they don't realise this yet, one day, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but one day, their psycological chickens will come home to roost, and they'll have to accept the fact they are the enemy of the people.
Neil, Brent: How do you look yourselves in the mirror without seeing evil? Turn whistle blower now, confess to Iain and tell the world how it all works, you will be forgiven, and praised.
My thoughts exactly! Iain has proven himself a paragon of patience and fairness with this pair of charlatans. Personally I would enlighten them to the fact that they are complete twats and that it's no good scratching your elbow when your arse is itching.
A sober and thought-provoking analysis, thank you. For me, RDH has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the so-called Mancester Area bombing did not happen.
If this event was fabricated by some 'rogue' element within the security forces, say, there was ample opportunity to reveal this in the subsequent investigations and enquiries. However this did not happen. Instead the Establishment 'doubled down' on the claim that this was a real terrorist attack and that real people died or were injured.
A good example of State-endorsement of this falsehood, if not actual collusion in its planning and execution, is the film footage of the then-monarch speaking to alleged survivors of the 'blast' in a hospital. If Manchester was a hoax, which I believe it to have been, then the monarch must have known the the truth. In those circumstances her participation in the propaganda programme to deceive the public indicates how deep this conspiracy is.
If you accept that premise, other organs of the establishment, like the judiciary, the media, etc. must also be part of the cover-up. This is not to suggest that every individual working in these areas is corrupt or even aware of the truth about Manchester. A few might be suspicious, but they are probably afraid of 'rocking the boat' so they keep their heads down and say nothing.
Then there are the relatively small number of people who might sway others through their positions of influence. These could be politicians, journalists or members of the security services, for instance. So why do they not only NOT reveal the truth but actually support the 'big lie'? Are they bought off, intimidated, or blackmailed? Or are they 'idealists' who are persuaded they should support the lie for the sake of some 'higher' cause'? Who knows? Will we ever know?
Personally I don't hold out much hope of RDH finding justice within the State's own legal system. The State is doing all it can to discredit his work and demoralise him, even to the extent of persuading some of his 'friends' to participate in the attack. That he has kept going despite this relentless onslaught is to his eternal credit.
Perhaps RDH's words and actions in court might cause a few people to feel uneasy or embarrassed about what they are engaged in. Otherwise the system will trundle on relentlessly. The outcome seems all but inevitable.
Iain, another excellent piece - this is such important work.
I have a question about the image about half way through which shows the location of the 22 who died in the blast. Do you know who created this image?
I ask because the only plan I could find which gives the names and location of the deceased victims is from a BBC article dated 3rd Nov 2022 (link below.) It is somewhat similar to yours, but one really interesting difference is the location of Michelle Kiss. The BBC plan shows her on the City Room floor, close to the foot of the stairs, and not at the top of the stairs as described at the Inquiry, and shown on the plan you used in your article.
There's no question that, according to the official narrative, Michelle Kiss was standing at the top of the JD Williams staircase when she was killed instantly at 10.31pm, so how the 2022 BBC Plan could get this so wrong is strange.
I don't know where the BBC plan came from - it is labelled "Source: Manchester Arena Inquiry", but I looked high and low in the MAI evidence, and couldn't find it.
Here's the link - the plan is about halfway into the article.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-63499030
I'm going to throw some spanners into these works and go all counter-espionage on your arses. Why? Because it's fun, that's why.
Question 1/ Given how hooked to social media and smartphones and so on 'the kids' are these days, how come there aren't hundreds, if not thousands of little smartphone-recorded videos from the Manchester Arena that night? Go on YouTube and you will find a multitude of bootleg videos from concerts. Making 'found footage' movies - 'hiding behind that phone' does, indeed, make you feel safe.
It's the 'absence' of information that is often more interesting than the information that does exist. In Holmesian terms, it's the classic case of 'the dog that didn't bark'.
This suggests 'mobile phone jamming' of course. A similar thinking applies to a wide range of 'events'. 9/11 is indeed a case in point here. Mobile phones with video cameras were available at that time, even if social media wasn't. People could've uploaded that stuff years later when social media did arrive (or YouTube, even).
2/ I'm going to have to elaborate on this one because it entails some serious (semi-)classified intel services history, but for now I will just throw this 'hypothesis' out there. This hypothesis has its origins in the immediate aftermath of the 7/7 event, if that helps. The 7/7 event was characterised in particular by the 'very low number' of casualties. This is the crucial piece of information which clearly gets lost in all this 'detailed analysis' stuff regarding false flag events. So it leaves one with this question: how come the casualty rate was so low? In the case of 7/7 you have four bombers, who had planned for at least a year, with the whole of London to choose targets from, and they could only manage 52 kills. Each of them detonated their bombs in locations designed to minimise the number of kills (3 in tube trains in the tunnel, not on the platform in the rush hour, 1 at the back on the top of the bus in a side-square, not crowded street at the bottom of the bus in the middle).
This raises psychological questions. And if you don't address the psychology, you will never get to the truth.
So here is the 'deep' counter-espionage hypothesis. It's going to scare the shit out of you. The word you are looking for is 'blackmail'. Another few words you may want to consider are 'Samson Option'.
Explanation: 'we would like you to carry out a terrorist attack in your country. If you don't do it, we will.'
Work the rest out yourself - I've probably said too much already. But let's just say the 'infiltration' of the intel services goes back to a certain Victor Rothschild, as shown in Peter Wright's Spycatcher (which was the real point of that book). The crucial anecdote that proves this is the K7 dossier, which Victor asked Peter to produce 'for the PM' - except when Peter was in Victor's office the PM comes in and Victor introduces Peter then the PM says 'so you're the one who's caused all this trouble' - thus revealing to Peter that Victor did not want the dossier for the PM, but for himself and 'the agency to which he was actually loyal'. Peter didn't realise all of this at the time, it only occurred to him later. By which time, it was somewhat too late. But at least we have his book, which, if you know how to read it and understand these things, tells you everything you need to know.
This hypothesis (point number 2) suggests that there are very, very patriotic and noble reasons for carrying out 'fake terrorist attacks' - the alternative being to allow a real one to take place.
Let's just say if I was a spook reading this, I would like this comment. Furthermore, I would maybe propagate the hypothesis. The Samson Option is not as deadly as you think it is. By definition, it's a last resort. It can be pushed further than you think before it is initiated...
You didn't mention that on the morning of 7/7 a crowd of people congregated together on Bidborough Street (a side-street one block south of Euston Road) all behaving in a very un-citizen-like manner. They were directed by a man with a megaphone. Just the sort of thing you'd do if your tube train stopped prematurely at Kings Cross underground and you were trying to get to 'work'! And there were two bangs in the Tavistock square area. And, that ex-military man, Peter Power was at the Kings Cross fire on the 18th of the month (!) some years earlier. PP. P2. P-SQUARED. And, there's no explanation of how some of the codes were scattered into the Dr Who BBC TV Series episode "Rose" months before.
Tavistock = Avi.stock=Ave.talk=Ave to talk=Way to talk.
Four bombs. And Four Bombers. 7x7=49; 4+9=13; 1+3=4=FOUR.
On Manchester, what is your view on the three circulated pictures of the Hibbert's "table for two" that has been discussed on substack? Links below:
https://substack.com/@dub1/note/c-44236318
https://substack.com/profile/113729808-ross/note/c-52084772
On your point (1), in its early days, mobile phone pictures, could be used to make something look more real and live, to an observer who views them quickly and not thinking about the context in which they were 'taken'.
I need time to think about the rest.
Unfortunately those notes don't seem to be available. If it's something to do with Dub then that might be because I blocked him for being a troll (along with the rest of his gang of stooges).
I suspect, however, that you may be overthinking to a certain degree here. Especially with the 'Rose' stuff. Your numerological analysis of 7/7 for example requires three reductions, which is not credible. You might also do 7+7 = 14 then 1+4 = 5 and you get a different result. A better version of the numerology in the date includes the year number, 2005 - so that's 2+0+0+5 also equals 7. So you actually have 7-7-7, which of course is a book by Aleister Crowley.
As for 'Tavistock' again you don't need to go that far. There is the Tavistock institute of course, and in that square you had the BMA I believe. So a whole load of 'doctors' could immediately come out. I do think it's a more important fact to think about the psychology - like if he was a genuine suicide bomber why did he wait until he was in that square, given he'd previously been on a busy thoroughfare. These are the kinds of rhetorical questions with regards to 'narrative continuity' (in the psychological sense) that allow one to see things more obviously.
Note I'm not necessarily saying it was a real bomb, although you do have to observe the obvious damage to the bus. It would have been far easier to set off a bomb rather than bring in some 'already damaged' bus. Likewise with the tube trains.
There was something about mobile phones not working on the morning of 7/7.
The 7/7 event is, I believe far more interesting in terms of the history - or rather, development - of the new strategy of tension (Gladio B), and perhaps marks a historical crossover or turning point between 'real' massive terrorist attacks and 'fake' attacks. My point about the low level of casualties in the 7/7 event (assuming they were real people, that is, not crisis actors - remember I'm thinking here about 'perception of the event' - which is what the public see, and therefore the point of any psyop) is extremely important. You could say the same about Manchester of course - like 'only' achieving 22 deaths despite having thousands of people/potential targets is telling. In fact, the choice of target, if we assume a multitude of targets from which to choose, is equally worthy of analysis.
The 9/11 event, for example, is more 'believable' precisely because of the large number of casualties and the prominence of the target. As I said, if I was a terrorist mastermind with 4 genuine suicide bombers and the whole of London to choose from I would expect a much greater death toll.
Your mentioning of Peter Power is obviously extremely relevant. One of the intriguing hypotheses there is that Power was not completely 'in on it' and genuinely thought he was simply overseeing a simulation/exercise, but then discovered it was a 'real event' - thus he panics and thinks 'in order to protect myself I need to mention this in public' otherwise I'm a loose end. This hypothesis suggests a (long-term) simulation (the 4 alleged bombers playing the part of a terrorist cell for training purposes etc.) which was then 'hijacked' or 'piggybacked on' by the real bad guys (most people would immediately think 'Mossad' there). This then had to be 'covered up' by people in the intelligence services. Although if that's true, that's where the psychological continuity breaks down unless everyone in that intelligence service is a psychopath (which shouldn't be discounted). The only other option, then, is that they knew it wasn't a real event - which assuages their conscience. In which case, we are left the question 'what was the purpose of the fake event' - what did it lead to? The answer is political repression (dystopia) and the continuation of the 'war on terror'. How any decent (or patriotic) person in the intelligence services can possibly think either of those things is in any way 'morally good' is beyond me.
More food for thought there...
Thanks for replying. Some very interesting things to think about, and I need to spend far longer doing that.
The number 4 is important though. It was on clear display in two recent UK events the Ammanford stabbing and North East London Stabbing. e.g. time of 11:20 am 1+1+2+0=4. And, 13 year old, which was later changed to 14 year old.
113 has important properties in Gematria. These words are 113 in various forms of Gematria:
Dishonest
Not true
Not factual
Illusions
Disinfo
B*lls**t
Politics
The "London Under Attack" BBC Panorama documentary, which discussed preparations for a terrorist attack on London, was aired on Sunday 16th May 2004. Thus, it preceded 7/7 by 1 year 1 month and 3 weeks! 113.
The yellow Beetle car in the Dr Who episode had registration RLF77IR, which is 113 in Reduction and Reverse Reduction Gematria!
The episode was aired on Saturday 26th March 2005, which was 3 months and 11 days before 7/7. 311, which is 113 reversed.
And, 113 reduces to the number 5: 1+1+3=5.
Also, "Batman Begins" was filmed in some of the areas affected by 7/7 about 13 or 14 months before, similar time of year, similar weather. Notices making residents aware of its filming used a disguised name for the movie: "The Intimidation Game".
If I was being really picky I'm not sure if the bus incident was on Upper Woburn Place or Tavistock Square, but obviously the media used the latter from very early on.
I believe the Madrid bombing was 11th of March?
So I do know what you mean about all this kind of stuff.
I've got another, unrelated one for you. The number of days between the wow! signal and the blc1 signal was precisely 15,231. Subtract 6 and you have 15,225. 225 is 15x15. 1+5=6. So you have 6-6-6 then bring back your other 6 and you have 6-6-6-6. The original wow signal was at 02:16 on 16-8-1977. 216 is 6x6x6. 1+9+7+7=24 , so that's 16-8-24 (reduces to 213). It was precisely 20 days, 10 hours, 40 minutes and 1 second before the launch of the Voyager 1 probe. Remove the zeroes there and you have 214. Add you 1 second remainder and you have 215, thus giving you the 213-216 sequence.
There's a lot more cool mathematics in the wow signal (and blc1 for that matter). But in these instances, I don't think it was the cabal that did it. And that would've scared the shit out of them.
11/3.
113.
"Power Surge"
"77 70"
7/7/7
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56838490
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jun/27/july7.uksecurity
Thank you very much for those links, especially the Guardian article, which I had not read before, and contains some information I had not been aware of (consider it bookmarked). Presumably because it was then lost in the wall of noise. The bombs under carriages scenario is indeed the one that best fits all the facts. Especially in the light of the assassination of Jean-Charles de Menezes, who was an electrical contractor for the underground (so would've been seen as a potential loose end).
The bits about Paul Dadge are obviously intriguing and highly suspicious of course. I think it's ironic how Honigsbaum says it's ironic that Dadge works for AOL 'monitoring discussion threads'. And just happened to wander in and investigate, as you do, then 'take command' - like wtf?! 'ok, sir, do you have any qualifications to take over?' 'Yeah, I'm a deep cover agent working as a cognitive infiltrator in AOL.' 'Any medical qualifications?' 'Not aside from the standard med course we do as part of TC101 when you join the service.' 'Hmm. Well, very good, sir, carry on.' So then he's not only working alongside paramedics (as you do), one of whom handily gives him some surgical gloves (as you do), but presumably barking orders at them (as you do). Like that happens *all the time*.
Sometimes I do think they are all just having a laugh at people's expense.
As for that Rachel North, I'm going to go all Obi-Wan here and say 'well that's a name I've not heard in a long, long time...'
Bickerstaff is most certainly not a crisis actor. No, he is an actor in crisis, and his crisis being that he can't fucking act!
"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."
PMSL, love the pithy comment Iain, Solzhenitsyn would be proud of that one!
About the Bickerstaff footage... I found this interesting little detail in an interview with a concert-goer (Zac Haniff) - he said that after the final song... "a lot of people were leaving early because they didn't know whether the encore was on or not."
This suggests there was quite a long time between the final song and the encore, and that some people left thinking it was over. It also suggests that the concourse would be busy at that time - with people leaving, and others getting a last drink before going back to watch the encore.
https://www.today.com/video/manchester-bombing-witness-it-sounded-like-a-gunshot-951139907937