Besides the ample evidence for a false flag here and in Richard Hall's anslysis, I hope everyone also noticed the "strange coincidence" of the number repetition here - it happened on the 22nd of the month, 22 people reported killed, during her 22nd song, the supposed "terrorist" was 22 years old, Martin Hibbert was "reportedly" struck by 22 pieces of sharpnel..
As Miles Mathis has suggested (see here: http://mileswmathis.com/occult.pdf ), and I kind of agree with him, whenever we see 'occult' we should rather see 'intelligence'. Given the psychology of these evil creatures, they do like to leave calling cards to each other, as if to say 'we did this'.
The London bombings are the most obvious, taking place on 7-7-7 (2005 = 2+5=7), 777 of course being a book by notorious secret agent Aleister Crowley.
I believe the Madrid bombings took place on 11 March - so that's 11x3=33.
9-11, 9x11 = 99 which is 3x33.
And so on.
The other reason for these calling cards is, of course, to act as a honeypot. This is where we go into the 'hybrid' operation idea, in which a genuine attack (albeit in the case of Manchester either a LIHOP, let it happen on purpose, or a remote control device with Abedi being the 'agent'/patsy) is intermixed with red herrings and anomalies to attract the conspiracy theorists - who can then be either debunked or sued and discredited and so on (as we've seen with Richard Hall). It's also a nice conduit for cognitive infiltrators.
But it should be remembered also that we are dealing with very evil psychopaths here, who take pleasure out of inflicting pain, especially on children and young people. In the case of Manchester, this is like telling the next generation about the 'reality of terrorism' - they will then neurologically reinforce the trauma on each other via social media, MK-Ultra style.
Manchester also took place during the 2017 general election of course and they needed to discredit Jeremy Corbyn.
In the case of Manchester, the number 22 here would also refer to the major arcana in the tarot, of which there are 22. Furthermore, each of the 78 tarot cards can be assigned their own number. In this case, 22 is 'the Fool'.
The fool, here, would refer to quite a few things - 1/ the patsy, 2/ the general public being fooled, and 3/ the young people who were the target of the attack.
That's extremely interesting about it being the 22nd song in the setlist - once I've posted this I'll have to do a quick research. Thanks for the setlist link btw, I'll have a look at the lyrics and if possible a video to see if there's any suspicious imagery in it. My current thought is that the 4/ for the fool is Ariana Grande herself, especially if, like a lot of manufactured pop stars, she's another Monarch. She wouldn't have had a need to know about the operation, however, just for the record. There are, after all, spooks reading these articles and checking out the comments. Obviously they're a little shy so they won't be acknowledging that, but rest assured they will be enjoying my little musings. So long as they don't think I'm a threat. I'm not. Honest.
On that note I really don't know why they get so panicky and anxious about the likes of us who can read all their machinations and who understand the dark arts of espionage/occult. It's not as if the general public are going to listen, let alone act on it. So they are quite safe, really, all these spooks...
I love Richie Allen warts and all but felt disappointed in his interpretation, which seems tempered by a grudge from years ago. I have sent him comments directly and mentioned Halls Jo Cox analysis too. Shame
I am proud of you Iain, for sticking by Richard on this matter. Thank you for your attention to the details and for observing the stitch up that has been pulled on Richard.
I think you are quite right about the entrapment aspect of this operation, provoking someone to investigate, publish, get sued and then provide a pretext for a new law. I wouldn't be surprised if that Alex Jones/Sandy Hook thing was designed and executed in the same way. Jones is, after all, CIA I believe.
I wouldn't use the word honeytrap, though. Honeypot I would say is the more appropriate intel jargon...
The similarities with Manchester are, indeed, striking. These evil people do learn from history - they learn they can get away with it. So, if a method works, they will repeat it.
If he goes on to lose his case and face significant costs, I would happily contribute again. We need to help him continue his work, by any means available.
He’s clearly been stitched up with the summary judgement but then the establishment couldn’t risk another John Hill case. If you’re not familiar with this then head over to the “In one place” website of Tony Rooke and watch his “Death & Taxes” film. Then dig out “7/7 ripple effect” by Maud dib on IMDb. Shows how the 7/7 bombings were, well,not as reported.
There are several discrepancies between the evidence visible in John Barr's video and the testimony presented at the Manchester Arena Inquiry. For instance, the Events Manager on duty in the CCTV control room that night said:
”I was looking at the CCTV monitors and the ones relating to the City Rooms suddenly went white. This wasn’t the white of static when there is no signal, but it was obvious that something was obscuring the cameras. After a few seconds, the screens started to clear and I realised it was white smoke that was within the rooms.”
This means that the whole of the City Room was filled with smoke that was dense enough to obscure all of the CCTV cameras. And yet, I don't see any smoke in the John Barr video. Where did the smoke come from, and where did it go?
Another anomaly - although many witnesses mention seeing smoke, I've yet to find anyone who says they suffered from smoke inhalation, or even describe any discomfort such as coughing or stinging eyes.
What kind of smoke was this?
I have put together a 15 minute analysis of the strange "fumes" Richard spotted on the CCTV images after the bang.
With regards to the hybrid idea. There is some merit in this. Given we dealing with evil creatures here they wouldn't necessarily pass up the opportunity to kill lots of innocent humans. It's what they do.
However, in order to know whether this was a real attack or a hoax we'd need to examine the bona fides of those two videographers. If the second one, Barr if I remember correctly, is a suspicious person in any way, then we can't rule out the possibility that his little video was pre-recorded at a different time with all the crisis actors, but posted 4 minutes after the (genuine) attack. Meaning there were real victims of a real attack, but the same crisis actors mixed in. After all, how come his video was so short in length? And why aren't there any other videos? What with the proliferation of smartphones these days and young people's tendency to 'share', and use them as protection blankets.
This to me seems like a repeatable method for the bad guys, and with this in mind we should re-examine some of the previous false flag attacks, specifically to filter out the deliberately inserted anomalies and separate what's left as 'what really happened'. We can also use that to better detect cognitive infiltrators, who will naturally be picking up on the red herrings.
Anyway, without knowing any more about the two videographers, I really can't offer a definitive opinion. But it's certainly worth a consideration.
My eyes were opened only from the most recent plandemic, Convid. My friend's grandchild was at this concert and to them, it was real but simulations are meant to be, yes? I once worked for St John's Ambulance, co-ordinating First Aid Courses, some of 4 days duration. We had a bank of volunteers to act as casualties, from severe head wounds to complicated fractures, with bones protruding from flesh, along with copious amounts of spurting blood, quite gory and realistic! I've already seen Mr Hall's work on Manchester and his other investigations and have no doubts we are mislead and lied to. Whilst the UK public may accept we were lied to about WMD elsewhere to get public approval to bomb and kill 500,000 children in a far away land, they can't comprehend our or any government doing anything bad, real or perceived, to their own, not realising our ministers are globalist puppets where borders are irrelevant and events staged to nudge opinions or force another event.
Besides the ample evidence for a false flag here and in Richard Hall's anslysis, I hope everyone also noticed the "strange coincidence" of the number repetition here - it happened on the 22nd of the month, 22 people reported killed, during her 22nd song, the supposed "terrorist" was 22 years old, Martin Hibbert was "reportedly" struck by 22 pieces of sharpnel..
Mossad's favorite numerology games all over again (like in numerous other cases) and part of their frequent and vast false flag 'islamic terror' operations https://swprs.org/ari-ben-menashe-on-israeli-black-operations/
Regarding the repeated number 22:
As Miles Mathis has suggested (see here: http://mileswmathis.com/occult.pdf ), and I kind of agree with him, whenever we see 'occult' we should rather see 'intelligence'. Given the psychology of these evil creatures, they do like to leave calling cards to each other, as if to say 'we did this'.
The London bombings are the most obvious, taking place on 7-7-7 (2005 = 2+5=7), 777 of course being a book by notorious secret agent Aleister Crowley.
I believe the Madrid bombings took place on 11 March - so that's 11x3=33.
9-11, 9x11 = 99 which is 3x33.
And so on.
The other reason for these calling cards is, of course, to act as a honeypot. This is where we go into the 'hybrid' operation idea, in which a genuine attack (albeit in the case of Manchester either a LIHOP, let it happen on purpose, or a remote control device with Abedi being the 'agent'/patsy) is intermixed with red herrings and anomalies to attract the conspiracy theorists - who can then be either debunked or sued and discredited and so on (as we've seen with Richard Hall). It's also a nice conduit for cognitive infiltrators.
But it should be remembered also that we are dealing with very evil psychopaths here, who take pleasure out of inflicting pain, especially on children and young people. In the case of Manchester, this is like telling the next generation about the 'reality of terrorism' - they will then neurologically reinforce the trauma on each other via social media, MK-Ultra style.
Manchester also took place during the 2017 general election of course and they needed to discredit Jeremy Corbyn.
In the case of Manchester, the number 22 here would also refer to the major arcana in the tarot, of which there are 22. Furthermore, each of the 78 tarot cards can be assigned their own number. In this case, 22 is 'the Fool'.
The fool, here, would refer to quite a few things - 1/ the patsy, 2/ the general public being fooled, and 3/ the young people who were the target of the attack.
That's extremely interesting about it being the 22nd song in the setlist - once I've posted this I'll have to do a quick research. Thanks for the setlist link btw, I'll have a look at the lyrics and if possible a video to see if there's any suspicious imagery in it. My current thought is that the 4/ for the fool is Ariana Grande herself, especially if, like a lot of manufactured pop stars, she's another Monarch. She wouldn't have had a need to know about the operation, however, just for the record. There are, after all, spooks reading these articles and checking out the comments. Obviously they're a little shy so they won't be acknowledging that, but rest assured they will be enjoying my little musings. So long as they don't think I'm a threat. I'm not. Honest.
On that note I really don't know why they get so panicky and anxious about the likes of us who can read all their machinations and who understand the dark arts of espionage/occult. It's not as if the general public are going to listen, let alone act on it. So they are quite safe, really, all these spooks...
Some believe the Boston Marathon Bombing was a false flag...
https://whowhatwhy.org/hidden-power/confounding-unresolved-questions-about-boston-marathon-bombing-suspects/
I love Richie Allen warts and all but felt disappointed in his interpretation, which seems tempered by a grudge from years ago. I have sent him comments directly and mentioned Halls Jo Cox analysis too. Shame
I am proud of you Iain, for sticking by Richard on this matter. Thank you for your attention to the details and for observing the stitch up that has been pulled on Richard.
I am with you both, all the way.
I think you are quite right about the entrapment aspect of this operation, provoking someone to investigate, publish, get sued and then provide a pretext for a new law. I wouldn't be surprised if that Alex Jones/Sandy Hook thing was designed and executed in the same way. Jones is, after all, CIA I believe.
I wouldn't use the word honeytrap, though. Honeypot I would say is the more appropriate intel jargon...
Dave McGowan has an excellent (and v amusingly written, as always) analysis of Boston:
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/bostonmarathon/
The similarities with Manchester are, indeed, striking. These evil people do learn from history - they learn they can get away with it. So, if a method works, they will repeat it.
I have contributed to R D Hall's legal fund.
If he goes on to lose his case and face significant costs, I would happily contribute again. We need to help him continue his work, by any means available.
He’s clearly been stitched up with the summary judgement but then the establishment couldn’t risk another John Hill case. If you’re not familiar with this then head over to the “In one place” website of Tony Rooke and watch his “Death & Taxes” film. Then dig out “7/7 ripple effect” by Maud dib on IMDb. Shows how the 7/7 bombings were, well,not as reported.
I'm listening to Richie Allen's interview of Nick Kollerstrom, about R D Hall.
All I'm getting is a protracted, Oirish, whine about 'proof', 'celebrity truthers' and "you know it's bollocks, Nick".
It smacks of nothing less than sour grapes, to these ears.
I stopped paying attention to the irritating little bog-trotter, years ago.
There are several discrepancies between the evidence visible in John Barr's video and the testimony presented at the Manchester Arena Inquiry. For instance, the Events Manager on duty in the CCTV control room that night said:
”I was looking at the CCTV monitors and the ones relating to the City Rooms suddenly went white. This wasn’t the white of static when there is no signal, but it was obvious that something was obscuring the cameras. After a few seconds, the screens started to clear and I realised it was white smoke that was within the rooms.”
This means that the whole of the City Room was filled with smoke that was dense enough to obscure all of the CCTV cameras. And yet, I don't see any smoke in the John Barr video. Where did the smoke come from, and where did it go?
Another anomaly - although many witnesses mention seeing smoke, I've yet to find anyone who says they suffered from smoke inhalation, or even describe any discomfort such as coughing or stinging eyes.
What kind of smoke was this?
I have put together a 15 minute analysis of the strange "fumes" Richard spotted on the CCTV images after the bang.
https://odysee.com/@Pighooey:7/rdhbizarreobservation
2:26 - you can see a hole in the jeans.
Been following the guy for years, quite a character. Just sent him 20 quid.
With regards to the hybrid idea. There is some merit in this. Given we dealing with evil creatures here they wouldn't necessarily pass up the opportunity to kill lots of innocent humans. It's what they do.
However, in order to know whether this was a real attack or a hoax we'd need to examine the bona fides of those two videographers. If the second one, Barr if I remember correctly, is a suspicious person in any way, then we can't rule out the possibility that his little video was pre-recorded at a different time with all the crisis actors, but posted 4 minutes after the (genuine) attack. Meaning there were real victims of a real attack, but the same crisis actors mixed in. After all, how come his video was so short in length? And why aren't there any other videos? What with the proliferation of smartphones these days and young people's tendency to 'share', and use them as protection blankets.
This to me seems like a repeatable method for the bad guys, and with this in mind we should re-examine some of the previous false flag attacks, specifically to filter out the deliberately inserted anomalies and separate what's left as 'what really happened'. We can also use that to better detect cognitive infiltrators, who will naturally be picking up on the red herrings.
Anyway, without knowing any more about the two videographers, I really can't offer a definitive opinion. But it's certainly worth a consideration.
My eyes were opened only from the most recent plandemic, Convid. My friend's grandchild was at this concert and to them, it was real but simulations are meant to be, yes? I once worked for St John's Ambulance, co-ordinating First Aid Courses, some of 4 days duration. We had a bank of volunteers to act as casualties, from severe head wounds to complicated fractures, with bones protruding from flesh, along with copious amounts of spurting blood, quite gory and realistic! I've already seen Mr Hall's work on Manchester and his other investigations and have no doubts we are mislead and lied to. Whilst the UK public may accept we were lied to about WMD elsewhere to get public approval to bomb and kill 500,000 children in a far away land, they can't comprehend our or any government doing anything bad, real or perceived, to their own, not realising our ministers are globalist puppets where borders are irrelevant and events staged to nudge opinions or force another event.
Banning critical examination because the narrative can't withstand scrutiny - how very holocaust.