Brent and Neil go to Manchester - Part 9

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

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 that 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.

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

I know next to nothing about numerology. That said, even I noticed the staggering repetition of the number “22” in the official narrative of the alleged Manchester Arena bombing.

We are told that on 22nd of May 2017, 22 people were killed by a 22 year old Islamist terrorist Salman Abedi who committed suicide when he detonated his TATP bomb at 22.31:00. The bomb detonated just after Ariana Grande ended her set, following the conclusion of her 22nd song. Martin Hibbert, the most well known of the surviving victims, was struck by 22 pieces of shrapnel. Apparently, the intelligence agencies missed 22 key pieces of information in their failure to stop Abedi.

Brent and Neil have scheduled their final Episode to be released on 22nd May 2024, the 7th anniversary of the Manchester Arena hoax.

I swear, I am not making this up.

Are these "Easter eggs," inserted into the official account to cock a snook at those who know it was a hoaxed false flag? Do they have numerological or occult significance? Who knows, but I think the excessive repetition of “22” in a hoaxed terrorist bombing is a quite extraordinary coincidence.

By far the best section in Brent Lee's and Neil Sanders so-called debunk of Hall's work is presented at the 14 minute mark in Episode 8. Sanders demonstrates why Richard D. Hall supported him to launch his independent media career.

Sanders gives an excellent report on the UK State's working relationship with Islamist extremists, including the Abedi family.

Pointing out many of the harebrained things Salman Abedi allegedly did, all of which made it extremely easy for the intelligence agencies and counter-terrorism police to "investigate" and "prove" his involvement—such as supposedly buying most of his bomb making paraphernalia with his own credit card from Amazon—Sanders reports:

There are questions that are legitimate. [. . .] Martin Hibbert has asked questions about it. What it looks like is that MI5 are trying to hide some connection to him [Salman Abedi]. And so they're only releasing the information that people need to know.

This, I suggest, may reveal more about Brent’s and Neil’s possible motivation than any other statement. The duo are, at least, aligned with State propagandists. They appear to be attempting to define, like the epistemic authorities they believe, what “legitimate” questions we are allowed to ask about Manchester.

To be fair, the questions the pair pose are legitimate. But they are not the most important. Other “legitimate” and more pertinent questions have already been asked by Richard D. Hall. Brent and Neil have produced six an half hours of podcast content to seemingly dissuade anyone else from asking them.

The questions the epistemic authorities permit have led a group of more than 250 Manchester survivors—less than 50 could possibly have been injured by a bomb in the City Room—to sue MI5. Their claim is that MI5 were familiar with Abedi and could have prevented the attack but potentially chose not to. Clearly, Brent and Neil support this legal challenge as well.

Once again we are faced with the same old, inevitable narrative. Mistakes were made, lessons need to be learned… blah, blah, blah! No one will be held accountable and the whole sorry affair will drag on for years until even those directly involved have forgotten the point of it all.

The State has no problem with people wasting years bickering about what the intelligence agencies perhaps could have done to stop a terrorist attack. All the legacy media reports about the subsequent investigation and the trial will constantly reinforce the lie that a terrorist attack happened.

In truth, Manchester was a hoaxed false flag terrorist attack and a monumental fraud perpetrated by the UK State on the British people. The claim lodged against MI5 will control the public narrative for years to come.

Sanders said earlier in the podcast series "it just doesn't work like that." This legal action is precisely how it works, almost without exception. It establishes the "Overton window" of permitted dissent ensuring the wider public never examines the real evidence.

The High Court case against Hall has already denied the public any right to test the evidence he has reported in a court of law. The likelihood is that Hall will be slapped with an injunction compelling him to wipe all the evidence we have discussed in these articles from the internet. This will constitute an attempt to bury the evidence and deny the public access to his investigative journalism.

Sanders offered his own speculation about the why the intelligence agencies may have allowed the bombing that didn’t happen. He said, "the upshot of the bombing [. . .] was that political campaigning was cancelled. Which put a right stopper on [Jeremy Corbyn's] campaign."

Could it be, he postulates, that the bombing was instigated to avoid a potential coup if Jeremy Corbyn was elected Prime Minister.

Like Neil Sanders, "I have no idea."

I know, from documented history and the testimonies of people like Operation Gladio false flag terrorists Vincenzo Vinciguerra, that governments often utilise the strategy of tension. Vinciguerra said:

You had to attack civilians [. . .]. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people [civilians] to turn to the State to ask for greater security [. . .] [A] strategy aptly called the ‘Strategy of Tension’ in so far as [the State] had to get ordinary people to accept that at any moment [. . .] a state of emergency could be declared. So, people would willingly trade part of their freedom for the security of being able to walk the streets, go on trains or enter a bank. This is the political logic behind all the [false flag] bombings.

If you can carry one off, as long as it is believed, a hoaxed false flag terrorist attack works just as well. One that seemingly targets children and young people will have a far greater emotional impact and serve as excellent propaganda.

Perhaps there were other specific reasons why the British deep state ran a hoaxed false flag operation.

Another "upshot" of the Manchester Arena bang is the draft Terrorism (Protection of premises) Bill, also known as Martyn’s Law—named after Martyn Hett who was purportedly killed by Abedi. This will place a legal "duty to protect" on the operators of large venues and events.

Biometric scanning and identification checks will be the norm when any of us go to a gig, a festival or a football match. It is likely that we won’t be permitted to attend without our digital ID’s. Thus ensuring our whereabouts can be more easily tracked. We’ll accept all of this because we will be constantly reminded that Salman Abedi supposedly killed 22 people in Manchester.

Another "upshot" is Martin Hibbert's proposed law to censor journalism. Despite the terrible reported tragedy there appear to be quite a few "upshots" for those ready to capitalise of what will undoubtedly be some tasty taxpayer funded government contracts and for those who wish to maintain control of the UK population.

As promised at the start of this series of articles, here are my final conclusions in regard to Brent Lee's and Neil Sanders 21 "debunking" points. The pair claim their 21 points annihilate the evidence presented by Richard D. Hall.

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

1- The EXIF data isn't EXIF Data, it is IPTC data and does not show the Parker photo was taken in the morning and, therefore, neither was the Barr footage.

1- Response: - Irrelevant - This finding is the product of some excellent research by Brent and Neil and has answered a complex conundrum that has plagued those looking at the evidence for years, including Richard D. Hall. But it is completely irrelevant to Hall's central contention that Manchester was a hoaxed false flag. Furthermore, Hall no longer believes the Parker photo was taken in the morning in any event and he said so long before Brent and Neil released their podcast series.

2- The foyer window does not show daylight, it is the reflected light from the bank of lights on the opposite wall.

2- Response: - Irrelevant - This is accurate and is again based on some solid research, but Hall no longer maintains the early morning hypothesis. Therefore, it is irrelevant if the intention is to debunk Hall's hoaxed false flag theory as it only contradicts his original hypothesis using evidence that has subsequently emerged but ignores Hall's own appraisal of that new evidence.

While Brent and Neil claimed their podcast series was solely focused upon Hall's original book and film, they abandoned this premise at the start of Episode 5. Furthermore, because it was a reflection from the completely undamaged lighting in the entirely intact glass panel door, Sanders “debunk” actually strengthens Halls primary theory that the alleged Manchester Arena bombing was a hoaxed false flag.

3- Statement analysis is not reliable and lacks scientific credibility. Even if it were reliable, Genevieve Lewis has made string of fundamental errors.

3- Response: - True - There are many failings evident in Genevieve Lewis's use of statement analysis as reported by Hall in his original book and film. Statement analysis is not scientifically rigorous and is among the many analysis techniques, such as hair follicle analysis and bite mark analysis, that is often presented as evidence in court trials but lacks credibility.

However, while Hall's faith in statement analysis was overly confident in my view, he used it as an aid to his investigation and own logical analysis at time when the only officially acknowledged evidence available were witness accounts—reported by the legacy media—and the Kerslake Report. Statement analysis was an adjunct to Hall's other findings. Statement analysis is in no way the foundation of Hall's theory as Brent and Neil claim.

4- The grey Audi was registered to the same person for three years after the bang. Such a vehicle would not be used in a terror plot. There is no evidence that Abedi either arrived or left in the car and there is CCTV showing he arrived on the metro.

4- Response: - True in part but also partly false and a strawman argument - It is true that there is no proof that Abedi ever drove the Audi. It is not true that there is "no evidence" indicating that he may have driven the Audi.

There is evidence that an Asian male was stopped at gunpoint while driving the grey Audi and there has been no statement from the police identifying the apprehended driver. There is also evidence that Salman Abedi fled the City Room.

Hall's contention, that it is possible that Abedi was the driver stopped by armed police, has considerable primary, circumstantial and some witness evidence to support it. The car's MOT history does not prove that Hall's theory is false. Hall does not contend that Abedi arrived at the Arena in the Audi and the suggestion that he does is a strawman argument.

5- While there were no images of the deceased shown at the official inquiry, the timeline and narrative presented at the inquiry is consistent, complex and there are many witness statements to support it. There are images of the deceased that were acknowledged at the enquiry which substantiates the existence of this physical evidence.

5- Response: - False - It is true that the official account offered an extremely complex, interweaving narrative comprised entirely from numerous witness accounts and both written and oral testimony. None of these accounts are supported by observable physical evidence demonstrating that a shrapnel bomb exploded in the City Room.

Many of these accounts contradict the official narrative and Hall has shown that the failure to examine observable physical evidence, such as the Barr footage, at the official inquiry is highly suspicious. There was no physical evidence of deceased victims presented at the inquiry and to believe that there was, from nothing but hearsay claims made at the Inquiry and dubious documents produced from the Inquiry, is simply to believe something because you trust whatever the epistemic authorities tell you.

It does not make any difference how complex the story presented at the inquiry was. Nor does it make any difference how many people say they saw something or how many documents are produced to uphold claims about physical evidence that does not exist. There is no observable physical evidence that a bomb exploded and Hall has shown clear inconsistencies in the inquiry timeline and the claims made by witnesses.

6- TATP can emit heat and light if it is mixed with contaminates.

6- Response: - Irrelevant - There is no observable physical evidence of a TATP bomb. Even if there were, the possible presence of contaminates and some experiments that show TATP can emit a brief heat signature or even release a little light in no way accounts for the video evidence of a bright flash, nor the many witness statements referencing light, heat, smoke, fireballs, etc. Furthermore, all the evidence indicates that Abedi was a trained terrorist who knew how to make, handle and use TATP explosives.

There is no reason to suspect that Abedi or his terrorist associates would have been inept and unable to mix TATP safely or would unwittingly introduce contaminates. Abedi's own officially admitted movements show, that if he did make a TATP bomb, it was very stable and therefore well constructed.

All of this conjecture is completely irrelevant because all of the observable physical evidence shows that no major explosion occurred. Discussions about the nature of explosives that were not used is pointless.

7 - Hall provides no evidence to substantiate that Saffie Rousoss, for example, was killed by her parents or that anyone is living abroad, etc.

7- Response: - True but Irrelevant - Hall was very clear that he was speculating about what may or may not have happened to the reported victims. Equally, Brent and Neil have speculated about the same.

The reason Hall speculated is because there is no physical evidence of a bomb and the physical evidence we can observe demonstrates foreknowledge, the use of crisis actors and something that looks far more like a training exercise than a real bombing. We also have a considerable amount of witness testimony indicating a hoax which is supported by the observable physical evidence.

Brent Lee and Neil Sanders have speculated because they evidently believe a convoluted story told to them by the epistemic authorities.

Therefore, while Hall's speculation has been widely considered "offensive" it is epistemologically reasonable, given that we have no plausible explanation for any deaths nor any injuries caused by a bomb that evidently did not explode. Brent’s and Neil’s speculation runs contrary to all the observable physical evidence, is supported by nothing but a story, and is not epistemologically reasonable.

8- His theory about Martin Hibbert is implausible because Hibbert is seen standing shortly before the bang and that is not enough time for him to sustain the back injury Hall alleges to account for his paralysis. Nor would Hibbert have been able to conceal his paralysis prior to the bang.

8- Response: - False and a strawman argument - Hibbert was also photographed standing after the bang. Photographs of Hibbert standing are inconclusive either way and somewhat irrelevant. That he would not have been able to conceal his paralysis prior to the bang is also irrelevant because Hall does not suggest that he did conceal it. Hall avers that Hibbert may have sustained his injury prior to the bang.

9- Hall based his theory in the presumption that the Boston bombing was a hoax. It has never been proven that the Boston bombing was a false flag and certainly not a hoaxed false flag. It is pure speculation to claim that it was.

9- Response: - False, irrelevant and a strawman argument - To claim Hall thought Manchester was a hoax because he thought Boston was a hoax is yet another strawman argument. Hall has not based his theory on anything other than observable physical evidence, supported by a considerable amount of witness testimony, showing the Manchester bang was a hoax, irrespective of whether or not Boston was a hoax.

The investigation of the physical evidence shown in the film—The Boston Unbombing—clearly demonstrates that Boston was, in all likelihood, a hoax. Brent and Neil have scrupulously avoided drawing their listeners attention to this evidence and have deceived their audience into believing Hall has not reported the evidence that shows Boston was a hoax.

False flag terror events are never admitted by the epistemic authorities. Even Operation Gladio, proven in the European courts and sanctioned in the European parliament, has not been openly admitted by either the CIA or MI6, nor any other involved NATO aligned intelligence agencies or governments.

Brent's and Neil's evident prerequisite for believing anything is that it has to be admitted by the epistemic authorities. This is wholly illogical, disregards observable physical evidence and is nothing more than the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

10- The Bickerstaff evidence is weak and open to interpretation. The behaviour of Jordan Kenney and the crowd in the corridor show that the Bickerstaff video was filmed after the bang.

10- Response: - False - The Bickerstaff video evidence is very strong and damning for the official narrative. It is only "open to interpretation" if you ignore the evidence and abandon rational inquiry. The mere presence of Kenney and the people seen in concourse does not remotely prove or even suggest that the Bickerstaff video was filmed after the bang.

Kenney's own statements and video posted on social media, the Kerslake Report, the calm behaviour of the people seen in the Bickerstaff video and the absence of any audible alarm ostensibly "proves" the Bickerstaff video was shot before the bang. The Bickerstaff video is compelling evidence of foreknowledge and the use of crisis actors and demonstrates that the official account of the Manchester Arena bombing is false.

11- Hall is wrong about the injuries. For example, he misunderstand Martin Hibbert's x-ray.

11- Response: - Partly true and partly false but also largely irrelevant - Hall made some errors when he speculated about what may have happened to the injured. However, the shown images of Hibbert's x-ray are not conclusive and the hand placement is inexplicable and suspicious.

Hall clearly shows there is no observable physical evidence placing either Martin or Eve Hibbert in the City Room of the Manchester Arena. We have a ticket receipt and hearsay evidence suggesting Martin and Eve were in the Arena that night.

Brent and Neil have presented some plausible evidence indicating that people may well have been injured at or around the time of the Manchester bombing. This presents us with an apparent paradox.

Before we can assume anyone was harmed by a bomb, we first have to establish that there was a bomb and all the observable physical evidence demonstrates that there was no bomb. No matter what claimed evidence there is to suggest that people were injured at Manchester Arena that night, they cannot possibly have been injured by a shrapnel bomb that wasn't there and did not explode.

12- Hall is wrong about the suitability of the City Room because it is a "grey area" not owned or controlled by the Manchester Arena or Victoria station and with easy public access during morning rush hour. An assumed 07:11:18 timing for the Parker photo and the Barr footage makes it extremely difficult to maintain security for the alleged morning "hoax."

12 - Response: - False, irrelevant and a strawman argument - No one, including Hall, contends that the Parker photo and the Barr footage were taken in the morning. The claim is a strawman argument. Evidently they were both taken after the bang and, combined with the CCTV released at the official inquiry, they provide us all with the observable physical evidence showing that the alleged bombing did not happen.

The ownership of the City Room is completely irrelevant. All the evidence shows that the City Room was tightly controlled prior to, during and after the bang.

13- The hoax theory has far too many failure points and is untenable.

13- Response: - False - this is the trite argument trotted out by everyone who claims large-scale conspiracies are impossible, despite the numerous examples we have, such as the Operation Gladio, MK-Ultra, Operation Mockingbird, Epstein island, years of UK intelligence service collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, the Manhattan Project and many more. There are many examples of scrupulous secrecy being maintained for decades in relation to considerably larger conspiracies. In total, the Manchester hoax conspirators would need to control or deceive no more than around 150 people to maintain so-called secrecy.

To imagine that governments and their intelligence agencies, or even global corporation for that matter, are incapable of doing so, is not only contrary to all known evidence, it is completely illogical. Thousands of people were being managed in active witness protection programs before the bang. The Official Secrets Act, non-disclosure agreements, financial and criminal coercion can be used and have been used, on many occasions, to maintain operational secrecy for much larger projects.

14- How could so many people be controlled? Why would anyone agree to be involved? How could you guarantee there won't be any leaks?

14- Response: - Irrelevant, speculative and assumptive - These are interesting questions worthy of further consideration. However, without observable physical evidence to demonstrate that a shrapnel bomb detonated in the City Room, they are nothing more than some of the outstanding questions we are left with. Such questions do not negate nor override the evidence showing that no bomb exploded. In terms of debunking Hall hoax theory, they are practically irrelevant.

Furthermore, Brent and Neil assume that the so-called "impossible" secrecy will be maintained. As we have seen many times before, it sometimes takes years for the already exposed evidence to become more widely accepted. When it does, official accounts and so-called “secrecy” falls apart. There is no reason to think that won't happen in this case. Although clearly, the High Court is trying to keep the evidence hidden from the public.

It should also be noted that the evidence that shows the Manchester Arena hoax is not a “secret.” Richard D. Hall has already reported it. The evidence has leaked. There is no “secret.”

What Brent and Neil call a “secret” is really just a refusal by the epistemic authorities they trust to acknowledge the evidence that already exists in the public domain.

15- Why have none of those involved shown any financial benefit from being involved?

15- Response: - Irrelevant - The observable physical evidence shows that there was no bomb. Therefore, just as in point 14, we do not have answers to these questions but they are irrelevant in terms of debunking Hall's central thesis: Manchester was a hoax.

16- How much would all this cost? Wouldn't it be easier to just set off a bomb?

16- Response: - Irrelevant but interesting - Just as points 14 and 15 this is irrelevant for the same reasons. That said, the UK government has already pledged £12 billion in military assistance to Ukraine. When it comes to war and killing people the magic money tree—a whole other argument—is seemingly infinite. While completely irrelevant, asking why those behind the hoax chose to use a hoax and not just kill people is worth pursuing.

Of course, we don’t know 22 people weren’t killed, we only know they weren’t killed in the City Room of Manchester Arena at 22:31 on 22nd May 2017. They could have been murdered at any time after that. Again, we can only speculate. That speculation does not alter the evident fact that Manchester was a hoax.

17- If people are lying about injuries, etc. why has nobody who knows the person claiming injury come forward to point that out.

17- Response: - Irrelevant - The only people who certainly know how, where, when or why a person sustained an injury, are the injured person themselves and any witnesses present when the injury was incurred. Therefore, absent any observable physical evidence of a bomb, regardless of what claims this small group of people make about where and when they sustained their injuries, it is not plausible that they were injured by a bomb detonated in the City Room of the Manchester Arena.

Even if we accept the official narrative, the vast bulk of injuries sustained that night were not the result of a bomb. They happened during a crush and stampede. People's injury stories do not substantiate any claim that they were injured in a bombing that evidently did not happen.

18- The idea that no one would listen and whistleblowers would be ignored is stupid.

18- Response: - False - Whistleblowers are consistently ignored—or worse—by the legacy media and the government. There are countless examples of entirely plausible whistleblowers being ignored by both the government and the legacy media. In addition, the government can suppress legacy media reports whenever they like.

19- Hall provides absolutely no evidence of the involvement of intelligence agencies of any kind. He shows no material evidence of a plot and no clear motivation for the alleged conspiracy.

19- Response: - False, irrelevant and partly self-contradictory - This goes to the heart of one of the key deceptions seemingly underpinning Brent and Neil go to Manchester. They have consistently applied double standards.

Their claimed premise was to analyse Hall's original book and film of the same name: "Manchester The Night of the Bang." The focus of the book and the film was almost exclusively on what happened in the City Room that night and what may have happened to the claimed victims. The wider issues of possible intelligence involvement, potential plots, who may have been involved in such plots, etc. were touched upon, but only in so far as they related to what happened.

Sanders admits that Hall's description of Abedi's relationship with the intelligence was incomplete but accurate, partially contradicting point 19 of his own claimed debunk. Brent and Neil have used evidence which emerged after publication of Hall's book and film, but they have ignored nearly all of the subsequent years of Hall's investigative journalism

Again, based on what evidently didn't happen in the City Room, and based upon inquiry testimony produced after his book was published, not only has Hall added evidence suggesting a potential plot he has named people he suspects of involvement. The possible motivation for a false flag offered by Sanders, to derail Jeremy Corbyn's election campaign, is very interesting but just as speculative as any other we might suspect.

All of which is practically irrelevant to Hall's primary, original thesis that the so-called Manchester Arena bombing was a hoax.

20- Hall is incorrect about the potential involvement of the BBC. They hadn't heard about him until Martin Hibbert approached them. Hall acted in a shady manner but had the best of intentions. People are cross with Hall because he doxed people and accused them of really despicable things.

20- Response: False and suspicious - Richard D. Hall is in legal trouble and has been vilified in the press because somehow we have allowed a culture to flourish where it is acceptable to attack people for their opinions and to allege they have caused some sort of harm by expressing them. Not because they have incited violence or encouraged others to commit crimes, but because they have said things that some people don't like or claim they found offensive.

What's worse, is that we tolerate a global State apparatus that is aiming to exploit this dangerous, anti-democratic, cancel culture to bring legislation to bear that is designed to censor any challenge to power and silence all dissent against the diktats of the epistemic authorities. Wittingly or not, Brent Lee and Neil Sanders are actively contributing toward this effort.

Hall has not "doxed" anyone and Sanders incessant claim is false. Sanders has gone to considerable lengths to paint Hall as some sort of social menace and his offered caveats and reservations cannot hide the fact that he has heaped vitriol upon someone he says he calls a friend. Lee and Sanders have unerringly parroted the allegations levelled against Hall by the epistemic authorities and the claimants in his High Court case.

All we have to supposedly substantiate Point 20 of Brent's and Neil's alleged debunk are anecdotes.

"All" the evidence clearly shows that the BBC were fully aware of Hall prior to publication of his book; that Mr Hibbert launched his legal case against Hall, long after the BBC began hounding Hall; that Martin Hibbert's relationship with the BBC predates the launch of the legal claim; that the BBC have actively targeted Hall business and livelihood and that Brent's and Neil's story about how and why they became entwined with the BBC, and Marianna Spring in particular, is questionable.

Neil Sanders offers an anecdote of a text exchange he had with Hall following the BBC panorama program. Discussing the Bickerstaff video, Sanders claims he texted words to the effect "perhaps Kenney is reaching for his car keys." So here's another anecdote.

Richard D. Hall tells me that that Sanders suggested that Kenney may have stopped off at the bar as he was fleeing the arena and that explains "why he is seen reaching for his wallet." A very silly claim he has repeated in this podcast series and an observation that he now disavows.

It is perfectly reasonable to change your mind. It is not reasonable to construct spurious alleged debunks by denying that right to others.

There is nothing "shady" about seeking interviews with reportedly injured witnesses or engaging in the secret filming of subjects whose accounts, you have reasonable cause to suspect, conceal a number of serious crimes. This is standard investigative journalism practice.

21- If they [the epistemic authorities including the BBC] wanted to destroy Hall, they could go for other work he has done, such as his work on the alleged Jo Cox assassination or his Madeleine McCann investigation. Hall believes you can only catch a disease if you are injected by a Jew and is good friends with Holocaust denier Nick Kollestrom.

21- Response: - False and pernicious propaganda - Richard D. Hall has been attacked by epistemic authorities' legacy media for his views on the Jo Cox investigation. He has also been attacked for his work on the Madeleine McCann case. Sanders claim that they could go after Hall for this work ignores the fact "they" already have.

Professor (Dr) Nick Kollestrom PhD—former honorary research fellow in The Department for Science and Technology Studies (STS) at University College London (UCL)—certainly does question many aspects of the Holocaust. Hall has interviewed Kollestrom on subjects ranging from 7/7, the Falklands War, propaganda, the so-called Protocols of Zion and many other topics. Neil Sanders is very strongly insinuated that, because Hall knows Kollestrom, both he and Kollestrom are antisemites.

Brent Lee and Neil Sanders are peddling the guilt by association canard and thoroughly misrepresenting Hall's other work, in an obvious attempt to slap the "antisemite" label on Hall and discredit him.

Neil Sanders has appeared on Richard D. Hall's show 13 times. This association with Hall suggests Neil Sanders is an antisemite. I’ve appeared with Hall on Richplanet too, so I must be an antisemite as well.

Of course, my claim above—that Sanders and I are both antisemites, based upon nothing but the fact that we both know and have worked with Richard D. Hall—is utterly ridiculous. As is Neil Sanders insinuation that Hall is an antisemite simply because he knows and has worked with Dr Nick Kollestrom.

Here is a BBC interview with perhaps the most famous Holocaust “denier” David Irving. Irving was given ample opportunity by the BBC to expound on his theories in front of a national TV audience. If we accept Brent’s and Neil’s guilt by association accusation, this means the BBC is antisemitic.

The BBC has frequently broadcast interviews and discussions with the radical Islamist "hate preacher," terrorist recruiter and supporter Anjem Choudary. Undoubtedly, there are many people working at the BBC who know Choudary. Therefore, according to Sanders' proffered logic, we can also hold a legitimate suspicion that the BBC is not only antisemitic, it supports Islamist terrorism.

Seeing as Brent and Neil also have a working relationship with the BBC, they must be antisemites who promote Islamist terrorism. After all, that is the argument they are making.

This kind of absurdity has no place in logical, evidence based discourse and we should vigorously challenge such idiotic attempts to smear people by association. Brent and Neil are scraping the very bottom of the propaganda barrel.

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

Brent and Neil conclude their 8 part podcast series with the following words, spoken as usual by Neil Sanders:

One, we did what Richard said nobody has done. Which is actually go over the evidence and give it a fair go. And two, I think we have annihilated his evidence. [. . .] All the questions Richard asked, we asked them as well. [. . .] We haven't upset anybody. We didn't set up a camera in anybody's front yard and we've found out more information than Richard.

Like me, Brent Lee and Neil Sanders have sat on their backsides reading, watching and listening to the evidence reported by others. Like me, they are keyboard warriors, quick to criticise. If potentially upsetting people is a line Brent and Neil won't cross, they are in the wrong business.

Richard D. Hall is not that kind of investigative journalist. He puts in the groundwork and follows his hunches in the real world. He dares to upset people in his pursuit of the truth and exposes himself to risk by doing so. I suggest to Brent and Neil that this makes Hall a threat to "them"—the Establishment and its epistemic authorities—and that is why "they" are going after him.

I further suggest the reason “they” are going after Hall for reporting his Manchester Arena hoax theory is that the State, the Establishment and their epistemic authorities have an evident “need to persuade.” Hall had too many viewers, readers and listeners to ignore.

To establish that people were killed or injured by a bomb you first have to know there was a bomb. The Manchester Arena narrative we were given by the State and its epistemic authorities, and now by Brent Lee and Neil Sanders, did not follow any kind of logical investigatory process.

We were convinced to believe the Manchester Arena narrative because we were told tragic stories about murdered children and young people. These emotional accounts were drilled into our brains by propagandists.

Virtually nobody examined the evidence to substantiate whether a bombing actually happened. People like UK Critical Thinker and Richard D. Hall did consider the available evidence that supposedly substantiated the story of a suicide bombing.

Richard D. Hall is the only journalist to have put his name to a significant body of work that exposes what actually happened in the City Room that night. He is now being hounded and punished for daring to challenge the very sad stories.

Brent Lee and Neil Sanders have presented the same very sad stories as if they are reason to reject all the evidence reported by Hall. Brent's and Neil's argument is not tenable.

Like Hall, I do not know what happened to the people who reportedly died and were injured. But neither do Brent Lee and Neil Sanders.

They evidently believe the official account because it is very complex and detailed and presumably because they cannot accept that the UK State would ever perpetrate such a monumental deception. It is easy to believe the official account if you ignore nearly all the evidence showing it's not true.

If you have stuck with this series of articles over the last ten days, thank you for taking the time to consider my appraisal of Brent Lee's and Neil Sanders' claimed debunk of the Manchester Arena evidence reported by Richard D. Hall over the last four years.

I leave it entirely to you, dear reader, to make of it what you will.

Please support Richard’s ongoing fight for justice.

—Please support my work—

Everything I write, whether on Substack or on my blog, will always be freely available to everyone. I can’t guarantee that my articles for other publications will be—it’s out of my control—but currently they mostly are.

There is no need to subscribe to read my Substack posts and there are no inducements or advantages for being one of my paid Substack subscribers. So why bother?

I need your support if I am going to continue this work. If you think my work is worth it, I hope you will consider becoming one of my paid Substack subscribers. If that’s too much you can always donate to “buy me a coffee” via my website if you like.

All the best.