Independent journalist Aisling O’Loughlin is of the view that everything we have been told about events inside the City Room of the Manchester Arena on 22nd May 2017 at approximately 22:31 is true. I think the evidence clearly shows there was no bomb.
Just became a paid subscriber. I knew you would wipe the floor with her. I don't know if it was a false flag but I knew she was unprepared and her reasoning was just emotional.Great point u made on COVID. She's so useless it almost seems like she has been put up to this but I don't know why yet.
Thanks Jonathan. It goes without saying that I really couldn't do this stuff, and would not be able to dedicate the hours required to research much of anything, without the support of people who value the content I eventually produce. The same goes for all of us in this independent media space. So it is greatly appreciated.
Oh god, I just got to the part where she tries to do a discredit-by-association tactic. So slimy and disingenous. I don't trust this lady and her reasoning skills, and I suspect she might be using this rhetoric on purpose.
How can you claim to be a journalist and not understand that people are free to make up their own minds, and each person is responsible for their own actions? Maybe someone should sue her for incorrect jounralistic practice, just as she said it was ok for Hibber to sue Hall, maybe it's time someone sued her for her incorrect journalistic practices.
Sadly she has destroyed her credibility in my eyes (& the eyes of many) as a critical thinker with her highly subjective & emotional foray into the Manchester ‘bombing’.
You have to ask why now after all these years? Richard Ds work has been around as far back as 2019.
I have a strong suspicion that her interest arose when it became known to her that her bete noir - Gemma O’Docherty - & Richard D were ‘connected’. She even mentions this several times. This is obviously a cat fight motivated by personal animosity.
Iain did very well to keep the conversation focused on evidence. Something Ms O’Loughlin had no interest in. Thanks Iain. You were a gentleman caught up in a cat fight.
Next time she mentions 'injuries that are consistent with the official narrative, therefore it is likely the official narrative is true', you should show her the example of the boston marathon "bombing", where you've got people who lost their limbs! Are you telling me they're going to fake people who lost their limbs!?!?! And most of their injuries were perfectly consistent with the bomb they said exploded next to them. But alas, we know the event is completely fake, and all the 'injuries' were fake as well as clearly shown in the 'boston unbombing' film:
Thank you Charles - I remember seeing this a while back and it is certainly similar with lying about it all - yet it was sooooo obvious. I hoped this was still about somewhere - YT would have disappeared that! I wonder what Aisling's opinion is of this - it really, really happened - she saw the testimonies!
A very interesting but frustrating discussion. I would not have had the patience to discuss this issue with someone like Aisling O'Loughlin. She either doesn't understand what evidence is or she is completely inflexible and incapable of admitting she has made a mistake. I suspect it is the latter because she seems very arrogant and narrow-minded. All she has done is repeat to virtually everyone the question of how the 22 people died if it was not the bomb and if they cannot answer that question it means they HAD to have died from a bomb! It's a ridiculous and nonsensical argument. Thank you for inviting her to discuss the issue.
Aisling O'Loughlin's stance here is ridiculous. It is entirely based on her unjustified assumption, derived uniquely from MSM, that 22 people really were killed by a bomb and that, therefore, any denial of that narrative is either morally offensive or a trap to discredit the "truth and freedom movement". Her recycling of emotive MSM propaganda, including the video clips, further confirms the nature of her position. To me, it is quite clear that the Manchester event was part of a 20-year series of false flag and psy-ops "terrorist" attacks designed to stigmatise Muslims and thereby provide advance moral/political cover for Israel's current ethnic-cleansing massacre in Gaza, as well as for increased domestic restrictions on freedom in the name of security. The present wave of "controlled opposition" accusations, supposedly from dissident ranks, on Richard D. Hall, Iain Davis, Derrick Broze, Whitney Webb and other consistent and coherent voices of dissent, smacks of an "outflanking" initiative from the system - an assault from the inside which appears to come from outside. I would also note that O'Loughlin constantly mentions her journalistic career as if that sets her above others and means that she is right about everything. This is not so. I was a full-time professional journalist for 25 years. Not only am I not right about everything, but I can also see right through her pretty face and pro-system gaslighting.
Yep Paul, that is the context I see it in too. I also strongly suspect that the hoax was used on this occasion to invite the "Sandy-Hook" style no-death's narrative. Thus providing scope to use the inevitable conclusions of independent researches to offer the narrative perfectly encapsulated by Ailing and outlined in your comment.
It's as if the indoctrination from her mainstream media training has kicked in and prevented her from seeing the logical deductions made from primary evidence. Instead, she seems mesmerized solely by the emotional prevailing mainstream media narrative (The Spell) and its crafted super-imposed implied morality. It's as if the emotion and morality are acting as a Spell preventing her from asking critical and stark uncomfortable questions. As Iain pointed out, it's like saying that you can't question the lies of Covid because The Narrative forbids it. The dictatorial State Narrative 'must be right' - because the State says so.
Congratulations to you both. It's wonderful to hear two informed and articulate people debate with civility and good humour these days, especially on such an emotive subject. Well done. For the record, I believe Richard and your view that the entire event requires forensic scrutiny. Don't hold your breath.
Slight of hand 🤣🤣🤣 an invisible blast proof barrier blocked the blast in the video footage. Look over there because the radius of the epicentre has been cut in half by magic. All the nuts bolts bodies and wind blast destruction was pushed behind the video. Is she for real?
I couldn't watch the whole video as the argument was repetitive and tedious.
When she said that it was unacceptable to question what happened to the victims who died because it disrespects their family and their memory, instead of bringing up covid which she claimed was totally different, I think it would have been clearer to ask:
"If they actually didn't die from a terror attack in the arena, but from something else, would it not be disrespectful to them and their family to not investigate it?"
Or
"If we do nothing while a potentially fictitious account of their death is used for political purposes, and allow the true cause of death to be covered up, that too would be a great disrespect."
And if she asks, "why would they lie?", you can say, "perhaps they are under duress". As she appears to respond strongly to victimhood.
Anyway, the difference she sees between covid and this arena event is that she believes the official account of the latter. That is all.
No doubt, with covid she read the accounts of the vaccine injured among other things, and became convinced from them.
She strikes me as the type to ignore statistics, logic or physical evidence and go straight to the human element.
It's her prerogative to value these things in her analysis, everyone has some kind of bias, but it's not convincing to those of us who know how easy it is for some people to lie.
Moreover, many abusers pretend to care about their victims on television. It means nothing.
Yep there were many moments where, in retrospect, I wish I had made better arguments. One that stood out for me was the clip of (sorry, forgot her name) explaining that 13 families were gathered in a football stadium to be to collectively informed their loved ones were unidentifiable and probably dead. There are many problems with this. Not least of all the likelihood that this is the way the police would inform families of a death. But there is also the point that if 13 people were physically destroyed beyond recognition that should be evident in the Barr footage. To be honest I was stumped at times. For example, having to consider if it was necessary to explain what a bomb is.
It is very unlikely, and it sounds like the plot from a B-movie.
Actually, most of the event does. If it was contrived by people with no expertise, rather than by an intelligence agency, it would explain all the inconsistencies.
Anyway perhaps it is better that she disagrees in the end.
Since she holds doubtful opinions so easily, she may end up discrediting herself and then her belief in a theory may serve as evidence against it by association.
Well, Iain, I sat through it and chuckled several times, as you gamely remained patient and on point, while 'Ailing' was a'flailing and ultimately failing. Not even ultimately; she'd already lost the key part of the argument before the interview started, as most of us know.
My great hope is that your efforts, combined with Aisling's unwitting assistance, will encourage a few more people to check the evidence for themselves and come to the same, inescapable, conclusion: no bomb, ergo, no fatalities or injured at the Manchester Arena on the night in question.
A very painful watch. I’m sure everyone noticed the couple of snide “sofa journalism” insults thrown in. Clearly only a real journalist can dish out such insults.
You wrote: "The only possible way the state could “expose” those of us who question the official account is to “debunk” the evidence we cite."
I think you're actually wrong there, and for psychological reasons. The 'State' know perfectly well they don't need to go anywhere near the 'evidence' or do any 'debunking' - the reason being that the vast majority of people do not judge things like this on 'evidence', they judge it on emotional impression.
Thus, all the 'State' needs to do is provide the majority/the public with an 'impression' of 'conspiracy theorists' which is loaded with negative tags/connotations and this will be a sufficient 'turn-off' for the public to just outright reject any discussion of 'evidence', or anything that anyone labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' ever says.
This, I contend, is actually one of the main purposes of State subversion/cognitive infiltration - it's to portray a distinctive impression of 'conspiracy theorists' which puts them in such a bad light that 'normal' people wouldn't go anywhere near them or their theories or evidence - thus discrediting the 'resistance' and preventing the resistance from gaining any new members or making any headway with the general public in order to wake them up to the evils of those in power (and thus no revolution).
This is a point which, unfortunately, too many people in the conspiracy theory community fail to see. And so instead they fall for each new manufactured 'theory' - including the fabricated fake 'evidence' specifically created and designed to fuel these manufactured theories - and likewise get so lost in the 'details' of this or that theory that they can no longer see the simple big picture.
That big picture being something like 'evil is as evil does'.
I agree and I suggest Aisling is providing "an 'impression' of 'conspiracy theorists' which is loaded with negative tags/connotations." I'm not suggesting she is doing it deliberately, but it is one of the reasons I wanted to talk to her.
I also agree that the state has absolutely no intention of highlighting evidence such as the Barr footage because it is content to deal only in general impressions. With regard to challenging evil that leaves us in a tricky position.
Something like the Manchester hoax can only be revealed by examining the details and the intent of the propaganda, in my view, is also to stop "normal people" examining the details. So, in accepting your criticism, My response is that we need to do both.
We must examine the details to hopefully get closer to the truth. At the same time, as your comment suggests, we should not lose sight of the bigger picture.
I'm glad you agree (!), as I'm not really being critical as such - I think your 'big picture' articles about conspiracy theories in general, the 'confessions of...' that kind of thing, and what the likes of Agent Slazenger are for are exceptional and exactly the kind of thing that's needed. It's just so frequently annoying that when one tries to talk to 'normal' people about this or that, however rational one comports oneself, they just switch off.
Still, not that this is going to make one ever stop trying, eh...
The real horror is actually sanctimonious brats who claim to know what the 'majority of people think & feel' , while deluding themselves there is a ' conspiracy theory community ' other than a massive controlled opposition spectrum.
That spectrum of opinions & agendas is saturating the internet with time-vampire fanaticism that numbs, befuddles, & eventually bores the tits off inquisitive folk.
I've read many times that 'conspiracy theorists' are laughed at by the general public, yet that is a lie. The general public (who I've dealt with over many decades growing up, working with, and being part of!) are almost all familiar that conspiracies are facts of life. It was always rare to find anyone lumping someone as a conspiracy theorist until David Ike took off, & then rarely except as a 'short hand cliche' typically derived from THE MEDIA.
War & Peace, The Bible & Shakespeare are all obsessed & involve conspiracies & theories of such natural mechanisms of influence.
Artificial Stereotypes, cliches & gross generalizations fester away among all your outpourings EverLyin'. You seem out of touch, almost as if you were a spy from another universe suffering MPD & terminal hubris.
Merry Gnome Davis with pulsating hooter he need to itch often looked for analogies when 'psycho twat' would suffice. Very polite considering bare faced madness he embraced here.
What is point?
Maybe also to deflect Dick Stag Ring Halls failings & make more sympathetic, while he still acts pathetic?
My surprise originally is how quite he is since Convid, when he should be busier than ever righting wrongs. Now surprise is replaced with acceptance of complicity in circus games.
Well done Iain. You have the patience of a saint.
I don't know how you found the patience, Iain. Her apparent inability to get the points you were arguing was frustrating beyond words.
Just became a paid subscriber. I knew you would wipe the floor with her. I don't know if it was a false flag but I knew she was unprepared and her reasoning was just emotional.Great point u made on COVID. She's so useless it almost seems like she has been put up to this but I don't know why yet.
Thanks Jonathan. It goes without saying that I really couldn't do this stuff, and would not be able to dedicate the hours required to research much of anything, without the support of people who value the content I eventually produce. The same goes for all of us in this independent media space. So it is greatly appreciated.
Oh god, I just got to the part where she tries to do a discredit-by-association tactic. So slimy and disingenous. I don't trust this lady and her reasoning skills, and I suspect she might be using this rhetoric on purpose.
How can you claim to be a journalist and not understand that people are free to make up their own minds, and each person is responsible for their own actions? Maybe someone should sue her for incorrect jounralistic practice, just as she said it was ok for Hibber to sue Hall, maybe it's time someone sued her for her incorrect journalistic practices.
I used to rate Aisling O’Loughlin.
Sadly she has destroyed her credibility in my eyes (& the eyes of many) as a critical thinker with her highly subjective & emotional foray into the Manchester ‘bombing’.
You have to ask why now after all these years? Richard Ds work has been around as far back as 2019.
I have a strong suspicion that her interest arose when it became known to her that her bete noir - Gemma O’Docherty - & Richard D were ‘connected’. She even mentions this several times. This is obviously a cat fight motivated by personal animosity.
Iain did very well to keep the conversation focused on evidence. Something Ms O’Loughlin had no interest in. Thanks Iain. You were a gentleman caught up in a cat fight.
I’ve said exactly this (and spelt O’Doherty’s name wrong too) 😂
I think you meant Gemma O'Doherty!
Senior moment!
I know the feeling!
Great job, Iain!
Next time she mentions 'injuries that are consistent with the official narrative, therefore it is likely the official narrative is true', you should show her the example of the boston marathon "bombing", where you've got people who lost their limbs! Are you telling me they're going to fake people who lost their limbs!?!?! And most of their injuries were perfectly consistent with the bomb they said exploded next to them. But alas, we know the event is completely fake, and all the 'injuries' were fake as well as clearly shown in the 'boston unbombing' film:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QIZAZbNbsdyE
Thank you Charles - I remember seeing this a while back and it is certainly similar with lying about it all - yet it was sooooo obvious. I hoped this was still about somewhere - YT would have disappeared that! I wonder what Aisling's opinion is of this - it really, really happened - she saw the testimonies!
A very interesting but frustrating discussion. I would not have had the patience to discuss this issue with someone like Aisling O'Loughlin. She either doesn't understand what evidence is or she is completely inflexible and incapable of admitting she has made a mistake. I suspect it is the latter because she seems very arrogant and narrow-minded. All she has done is repeat to virtually everyone the question of how the 22 people died if it was not the bomb and if they cannot answer that question it means they HAD to have died from a bomb! It's a ridiculous and nonsensical argument. Thank you for inviting her to discuss the issue.
Well I must say you handled her with good grace and respect. It was a pleasure watching a debate between logic v emotion.
I know your ego isn’t bothered by such things but I would chalk it down to a win by your good self.
Aisling O'Loughlin's stance here is ridiculous. It is entirely based on her unjustified assumption, derived uniquely from MSM, that 22 people really were killed by a bomb and that, therefore, any denial of that narrative is either morally offensive or a trap to discredit the "truth and freedom movement". Her recycling of emotive MSM propaganda, including the video clips, further confirms the nature of her position. To me, it is quite clear that the Manchester event was part of a 20-year series of false flag and psy-ops "terrorist" attacks designed to stigmatise Muslims and thereby provide advance moral/political cover for Israel's current ethnic-cleansing massacre in Gaza, as well as for increased domestic restrictions on freedom in the name of security. The present wave of "controlled opposition" accusations, supposedly from dissident ranks, on Richard D. Hall, Iain Davis, Derrick Broze, Whitney Webb and other consistent and coherent voices of dissent, smacks of an "outflanking" initiative from the system - an assault from the inside which appears to come from outside. I would also note that O'Loughlin constantly mentions her journalistic career as if that sets her above others and means that she is right about everything. This is not so. I was a full-time professional journalist for 25 years. Not only am I not right about everything, but I can also see right through her pretty face and pro-system gaslighting.
Yep Paul, that is the context I see it in too. I also strongly suspect that the hoax was used on this occasion to invite the "Sandy-Hook" style no-death's narrative. Thus providing scope to use the inevitable conclusions of independent researches to offer the narrative perfectly encapsulated by Ailing and outlined in your comment.
It's as if the indoctrination from her mainstream media training has kicked in and prevented her from seeing the logical deductions made from primary evidence. Instead, she seems mesmerized solely by the emotional prevailing mainstream media narrative (The Spell) and its crafted super-imposed implied morality. It's as if the emotion and morality are acting as a Spell preventing her from asking critical and stark uncomfortable questions. As Iain pointed out, it's like saying that you can't question the lies of Covid because The Narrative forbids it. The dictatorial State Narrative 'must be right' - because the State says so.
Yes, a circular "argument" entirely trapped within the framework of the official narrative.
Congratulations to you both. It's wonderful to hear two informed and articulate people debate with civility and good humour these days, especially on such an emotive subject. Well done. For the record, I believe Richard and your view that the entire event requires forensic scrutiny. Don't hold your breath.
Slight of hand 🤣🤣🤣 an invisible blast proof barrier blocked the blast in the video footage. Look over there because the radius of the epicentre has been cut in half by magic. All the nuts bolts bodies and wind blast destruction was pushed behind the video. Is she for real?
No.
Looks like actor, acts like actor, talks like actor = lying shit for a living.
I couldn't watch the whole video as the argument was repetitive and tedious.
When she said that it was unacceptable to question what happened to the victims who died because it disrespects their family and their memory, instead of bringing up covid which she claimed was totally different, I think it would have been clearer to ask:
"If they actually didn't die from a terror attack in the arena, but from something else, would it not be disrespectful to them and their family to not investigate it?"
Or
"If we do nothing while a potentially fictitious account of their death is used for political purposes, and allow the true cause of death to be covered up, that too would be a great disrespect."
And if she asks, "why would they lie?", you can say, "perhaps they are under duress". As she appears to respond strongly to victimhood.
Anyway, the difference she sees between covid and this arena event is that she believes the official account of the latter. That is all.
No doubt, with covid she read the accounts of the vaccine injured among other things, and became convinced from them.
She strikes me as the type to ignore statistics, logic or physical evidence and go straight to the human element.
It's her prerogative to value these things in her analysis, everyone has some kind of bias, but it's not convincing to those of us who know how easy it is for some people to lie.
Moreover, many abusers pretend to care about their victims on television. It means nothing.
Yep there were many moments where, in retrospect, I wish I had made better arguments. One that stood out for me was the clip of (sorry, forgot her name) explaining that 13 families were gathered in a football stadium to be to collectively informed their loved ones were unidentifiable and probably dead. There are many problems with this. Not least of all the likelihood that this is the way the police would inform families of a death. But there is also the point that if 13 people were physically destroyed beyond recognition that should be evident in the Barr footage. To be honest I was stumped at times. For example, having to consider if it was necessary to explain what a bomb is.
It is very unlikely, and it sounds like the plot from a B-movie.
Actually, most of the event does. If it was contrived by people with no expertise, rather than by an intelligence agency, it would explain all the inconsistencies.
Anyway perhaps it is better that she disagrees in the end.
Since she holds doubtful opinions so easily, she may end up discrediting herself and then her belief in a theory may serve as evidence against it by association.
Oh the irony.
You missed humour of it all Mara, or familiar too much so with game of lies?
O'Ludicrious is compulsive liar from generational Hixos scum, (name means 'servant of the wealthy traders') acting like brat in denial.
Here is big act, or even more horrid fact she is mental simpleton bitch-thing?
I’m with Iain
Well, Iain, I sat through it and chuckled several times, as you gamely remained patient and on point, while 'Ailing' was a'flailing and ultimately failing. Not even ultimately; she'd already lost the key part of the argument before the interview started, as most of us know.
My great hope is that your efforts, combined with Aisling's unwitting assistance, will encourage a few more people to check the evidence for themselves and come to the same, inescapable, conclusion: no bomb, ergo, no fatalities or injured at the Manchester Arena on the night in question.
A very painful watch. I’m sure everyone noticed the couple of snide “sofa journalism” insults thrown in. Clearly only a real journalist can dish out such insults.
You wrote: "The only possible way the state could “expose” those of us who question the official account is to “debunk” the evidence we cite."
I think you're actually wrong there, and for psychological reasons. The 'State' know perfectly well they don't need to go anywhere near the 'evidence' or do any 'debunking' - the reason being that the vast majority of people do not judge things like this on 'evidence', they judge it on emotional impression.
Thus, all the 'State' needs to do is provide the majority/the public with an 'impression' of 'conspiracy theorists' which is loaded with negative tags/connotations and this will be a sufficient 'turn-off' for the public to just outright reject any discussion of 'evidence', or anything that anyone labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' ever says.
This, I contend, is actually one of the main purposes of State subversion/cognitive infiltration - it's to portray a distinctive impression of 'conspiracy theorists' which puts them in such a bad light that 'normal' people wouldn't go anywhere near them or their theories or evidence - thus discrediting the 'resistance' and preventing the resistance from gaining any new members or making any headway with the general public in order to wake them up to the evils of those in power (and thus no revolution).
This is a point which, unfortunately, too many people in the conspiracy theory community fail to see. And so instead they fall for each new manufactured 'theory' - including the fabricated fake 'evidence' specifically created and designed to fuel these manufactured theories - and likewise get so lost in the 'details' of this or that theory that they can no longer see the simple big picture.
That big picture being something like 'evil is as evil does'.
I agree and I suggest Aisling is providing "an 'impression' of 'conspiracy theorists' which is loaded with negative tags/connotations." I'm not suggesting she is doing it deliberately, but it is one of the reasons I wanted to talk to her.
I also agree that the state has absolutely no intention of highlighting evidence such as the Barr footage because it is content to deal only in general impressions. With regard to challenging evil that leaves us in a tricky position.
Something like the Manchester hoax can only be revealed by examining the details and the intent of the propaganda, in my view, is also to stop "normal people" examining the details. So, in accepting your criticism, My response is that we need to do both.
We must examine the details to hopefully get closer to the truth. At the same time, as your comment suggests, we should not lose sight of the bigger picture.
I'm glad you agree (!), as I'm not really being critical as such - I think your 'big picture' articles about conspiracy theories in general, the 'confessions of...' that kind of thing, and what the likes of Agent Slazenger are for are exceptional and exactly the kind of thing that's needed. It's just so frequently annoying that when one tries to talk to 'normal' people about this or that, however rational one comports oneself, they just switch off.
Still, not that this is going to make one ever stop trying, eh...
"Evil is as evil does."
If the state and the state courts do evil ...
What are we dealing with?
Common law courts committed to truth and justice?
Or corporate courts flying the flag: crime pays?
Follow the money.
"The simple big picture" is what most on both sides miss, because they "get lost in the 'details' of this or that theory ..."
Expect the mafia to play by the rules?
Expect the devil to wear his angelic garb in appropriate contexts, to keep the faith intact?
If "the entity" is doing evil it is not good, regardless of pretenses.
😂🤣😂 (deep breath)
The real horror is actually sanctimonious brats who claim to know what the 'majority of people think & feel' , while deluding themselves there is a ' conspiracy theory community ' other than a massive controlled opposition spectrum.
That spectrum of opinions & agendas is saturating the internet with time-vampire fanaticism that numbs, befuddles, & eventually bores the tits off inquisitive folk.
I've read many times that 'conspiracy theorists' are laughed at by the general public, yet that is a lie. The general public (who I've dealt with over many decades growing up, working with, and being part of!) are almost all familiar that conspiracies are facts of life. It was always rare to find anyone lumping someone as a conspiracy theorist until David Ike took off, & then rarely except as a 'short hand cliche' typically derived from THE MEDIA.
War & Peace, The Bible & Shakespeare are all obsessed & involve conspiracies & theories of such natural mechanisms of influence.
Artificial Stereotypes, cliches & gross generalizations fester away among all your outpourings EverLyin'. You seem out of touch, almost as if you were a spy from another universe suffering MPD & terminal hubris.
Time Vampire Epidemic !
Still, funny in a way even if staged to be so.
Merry Gnome Davis with pulsating hooter he need to itch often looked for analogies when 'psycho twat' would suffice. Very polite considering bare faced madness he embraced here.
What is point?
Maybe also to deflect Dick Stag Ring Halls failings & make more sympathetic, while he still acts pathetic?
My surprise originally is how quite he is since Convid, when he should be busier than ever righting wrongs. Now surprise is replaced with acceptance of complicity in circus games.