MANCHESTER BOMBING: FACT OR FRAUD?
Richard D Hall - RICHPLANET.NET <news@richplanet.net>
Tue, 25 Apr at 03:43
Greetings,
As you may know, the BBC and all mainstream media have recently produced
further hit pieces against myself and in particular my work covering the
2017 Manchester Arena incident.
The BBC has criticised me for 'profiting' from the Manchester Arena
incident because I published a book about it. I have therefore decided to
give the book away as a free download here …
Please download the book (right click and save link as) from the link and
send it to everyone you think may be interested in the content.
You can find reviews (scroll down) about the free book from this link,
It is clear from their recent articles that the legal action they have
described, which they say has been submitted to the High Court against me
(but I still have not to date yet received notice of), has the intention to
censor/remove my book permanently and remove all my videos on this subject
- as well as attempting to hit me with a 'damages' claim.
The associated films and lecture can be watched from the links below. I
advise you download and re-distribute these also, as it appears that the
intention is to censor all my work on this subject, which consists of no
more than hard evidence and honest opinion.
UK Critical Thinkers videos on the subject can be found here ...
If you wish to donate to my impending legal costs, please use this link ...
Sapere aude,
Richard D. Hall
[If you want to reply you must use richard@richplanet.net]
Just the Introduction and Conclusion of 'The Night of the Bang' by Richard D Hall, reproduced below:
About the book
‘Manchester, The Night of the Bang’, is an independent forensic investigation
of the 2017 Manchester Arena ‘bombing’ incident. 14,000 Ariana Grande fans
had just finished watching a concert, when a loud bang was heard coming
from the arena foyer. The vast majority of people did not witness an
explosion because the foyer is a separate enclosure unsighted from the main
arena. Immediately after the bang, crowds flooded out of the arena, some of
them in panic. The mainstream media quickly reported that a suicide bomber
had detonated a ‘nuts and bolts’ bomb in the centre of the foyer, which they
quickly claimed killed 22 people and injured dozens more. Despite the foyer
being comprehensively covered by CCTV cameras, to date, no CCTV footage
of the foyer area has been released for public scrutiny. Only 2 short pieces of
video footage and one still photograph have surfaced showing the alleged
aftermath within the foyer. Astonishingly, forensic examination of these
videos and still image shows they were produced 15 hours before the time of
the alleged explosion! Close scrutiny of first hand eye witness testimony and
other evidence casts doubt on the official narrative and leads to the possibility
that the event was a carefully stage managed exercise involving scores of
enlisted participants. Richard D. Hall with help from two trusted researchers
examines the evidence and builds a picture of what most likely occurred.
MANCHESTER
The Night of the Bang
An Investigation of the 2017 Manchester Arena Incident
By Richard D. Hall
Special Thanks
Genevieve Lewis
UK Critical Thinker
Thanks, as ever
Andrew Johnson
This is the First Edition
Available from www.richplanet.net
For news and updates visit www.richplanet.net/manchester
Note: All images used in this book are necessary to be able to fully scrutinise claims made by the
various parties which the book is examining. Care has been taken to only use images which are
absolutely necessary to explain each particular point. All the images have already appeared in
either mainstream media articles or on viewable website pages. I believe their inclusion constitutes
fair use.
Note: Throughout the book, opinions are expressed by the author and by Genevieve Lewis about
the veracity of statements made by those involved in the 2017 Manchester Arena incident. All
the opinions contained herein are not being expressed as factual claims. All the conclusions and
assertions made in this book concerning whether individuals have lied or have been untruthful
are expressed purely as the author’s opinions.
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Impossibility of the Official Narrative 7
3.0 Foyer Physical and Photographic Evidence 26
4.0 Foyer Participants Database 36
4.1 ‘Victims’ 36
4.2 ‘Responders’ 40
5.0 Witness Testimony Archive 41
6.0 The ‘Dead’ 44
7.0 The ‘Injured’ 46
8.0 Foyer Participants Investigation 65
8.1 ‘Victims’ 67
8.2 ‘Responders’ 352
8.3 Analysis 383
9.0 Conclusion 407
10.0 Appendices
10.1 Appendix 1, ‘Twenty Two’ 414
10.2 Appendix 2, Funerals & Alleged Cause of Deaths 416
10.3 Appendix 3, Some Real Bomb Victims 417
10.4 Appendix 4, Investigation Questions 420
10.5 Appendix 5, Links 421
Index 430
1.0 Introduction
This book is intended to include all relevant information regarding my
investigation into the Manchester Arena bombing. Information has been
gleaned from mainstream media sources, official documents and from my
own private investigative activities. Throughout the book I will refer to the
event which took place on 22 May 2017 at 10:31pm in the Manchester Arena
foyer as the ‘bang’.
I would like to thank researcher ‘UK Critical Thinker’, for making his research
available to me, which has contributed to this book. Throughout the book I
refer to him as UKCT. I would also like to thank Genevieve Lewis who has
carried out analysis on many witness statements.
I will refer to two sets of videos throughout the book. The first are those
produced by UKCT which can be accessed from the Richplanet.net website.
You will find them under the ‘Regular Guests’ tab, then by selecting ‘UK
Critical Thinker’. The second set of videos is an archive of witness testimonies
and news reports that have appeared in mainstream media. A full list is given
in Chapter 5 and they can be accessed from the Richplanet.net website, under
the ‘Manchester Videos’ tab.
The Manchester Arena bombing was an alleged suicide bomb attack, which
media reports claimed killed 22 people and a suicide bomber, and injured
over 100. Numbers vary on the amount of people injured.
Arena foyer layout
Aerial view of arena, foyer in red
2
Walkway from Victoria Station Foyer entrance from Victoria Station
The location of the bang,
concourse doors (left), booking office (right)
Foyer exits to car parks
Foyer windows (left) Location of merchandise stall (left)
According to witnesses the event started with a loud bang at 10:31pm located
inside the arena foyer or the booking office, sometimes referred to as the City
Suite. The foyer building is a large enclosed area just outside the main arena,
and adjoins onto a raised walkway which leads to the Manchester Victoria
Train Station. I have compiled a database of the people who were alleged to
have been in the immediate vicinity of the bang. I decided to limit the remit
of my investigation to the zone where an alleged explosion (the bang)
occurred. What happened to people in the main concert hall or to people
outside of visual range of the foyer at the time of the bang, is outside the
scope of this investigation.
3
Here is a statement from a source, whose son was in the arena at the time of
the bang,
“My son Luca attended the concert and I just wanted to let you know that
his experience was the same as the one noted here, he was situated near
the front, heard two gunshot sounds and thought there might be a
gunman on the loose. The shots appeared to come from different
directions. Everybody ran in a panic but he saw nothing else. My husband
was waiting in a car nearby and heard no explosion.”
Many witnesses inside the arena reported hearing two bangs. The official
Kerslake report and most media reports only mention one explosion. People
have postulated that one of the two bangs was played over the arena PA
system. It is clear from witness accounts that one of the bangs did originate
from something that was situated in the arena foyer.
This investigation will focus on the foyer, and attempt to investigate the
claims of people who the media claimed were inside the foyer or were in the
immediate vicinity of the foyer, or came into the foyer shortly after the time of
the bang. These people will be known as ‘foyer participants’ or ‘participants’.
The investigation will gather information on these people and attempt to
ascertain what happened to them, and what most likely happened inside the
foyer.
Some readers may be perplexed as to why I am attempting to investigate what
happened in the arena foyer, when details of what happened have already
been reported extensively in mainstream media. I need to explain here about
previous terror events and how some terror drills are organised. Terror
exercises are conducted to varying degrees of scope/realism. In order to
make an exercise effective or realistic, organisers may require the public to
(wrongly) believe the incident is a real act of terrorism. They may also require
most emergency service workers, who are not directly involved in the
exercise, to believe the incident is a real act of terrorism. There may be a
requirement within the remit of the drill for the media to report an exercise as
though it were a real act of terrorism. One example of such an exercise took
place at the Boston marathon in 2013. This terror drill was reported, and is
still being reported on Wikipedia for example, as a real attack, but in fact was
a simulated terrorist training incident. The training exercise has been
comprehensively exposed in the film ‘The Boston Unbombing’ – 2016. When
such an event is planned, a number of participants are contracted to play the
role of victims and responders. Such participation may require the
participants to sign non disclosure contracts for playing their part in the
exercise. Their contracts may require them to always report their narrative in
terms of a real event whenever they speak about it publicly.
4
If the Manchester terror event was just a well planned exercise where the
public were required to believe the event was real, then there would have
been mechanisms put in place to make sure that the foyer participants and
their families adhered to false pre-agreed accounts of what happened to them.
The exercise may also have involved coaching witnesses on how to answer
questions about what happened to them and about how to describe their
injuries. All foyer participants and their families have received a large
amount of money, which could be a factor in encouraging them to adhere to
pre-agreed narratives. It is possible that penalties exist for breaking such
contracts.
People sometimes refer to funerals as proof that somebody must have died.
Seeing a funeral is not evidence of a death. Staging a funeral only requires a
small number of people to know that the funeral is just a guise. It is rare in
the UK for a body to be put on show for everyone attending a funeral to see.
A funeral is an effective way of fooling the public into believing that a death
has occurred, when there was no death. The effectiveness is amplified when
the funeral is then reported in the media.
People also refer to the injuries of the victims as evidence of an explosion. My
investigation will look at the injury evidence objectively to try and establish
whether there are any genuine injuries received in the arena foyer, and
whether they are consistent with the type of device that was allegedly used in
the attack.
If the event was an exercise and not a real terror attack, it means that most or
all foyer participants would have been made subject to non disclosure
contracts. This investigation will attempt to ascertain which people might be
subject to such a contract. If non disclosure contracts are in place, then
logically, over 100 people must have signed one. It is unlikely that any person
who has been made subject to a non disclosure contract would offer my
investigation reliable information. If any foyer participant did agree to be
interviewed by me, it is possible that statement analysis could reveal whether
the witness is fabricating or telling the truth.
Evidence which will be described in detail later, suggests it is likely that a
practice terrorist simulation exercise was carried out in the arena foyer at
7:11am on the day of the concert. Evidence for this claim includes EXIF data
from a photograph taken inside the foyer, two image archive entries in online
image databases, and video showing foyer participants in the foreground
with daylight coming through a glass door which leads to the Victoria Train
Station walkway. I will present this evidence in detail in Chapter 3.
Evidence which can prove what actually happened in the arena foyer at
10:31pm, such as CCTV footage, has not been released by the authorities. A
strategy I use therefore in the investigation is to examine carefully many of the
5
foyer participants’ statements and actions. The first stage of this process was
to create a database of foyer participants and collate information relating to
their participation in the event. Once the database was complete, the next
stage was to identify people who might be worth communicating with to
gather more information. The overall objective of the investigation has been
to try and establish where the truth lies in relation to the reality of the event.
Was there a real bomb? Did people get injured at the arena? Did people die
at the arena?
If the foyer participants were enlisted to take part in an exercise, it means a
narrative has been constructed about how they came to be at the concert, and
how they got their ticket. A number of foyer participants have given
information in media interviews about how they came to have tickets for the
concert. Many of these narratives seem scripted as we shall see later.
Using the Richplanet internet TV show, which reaches hundreds of thousands
of viewers, I made appeals in 2017 for first hand foyer witnesses to come
forward and contact me, but I did not hear back from any reliable witnesses
who were located in or near the arena foyer. If all the foyer participants were
enlisted to take part in an exercise, then one would not expect them to come
forward with information. It is likely that their contract would specifically
restrict them from talking to anyone other than pre-agreed media channels.
Therefore if the event was a terrorist exercise which was made to seem like a
real attack, it is not surprising that no genuine foyer witness has so far made
contact in response to my appeals.
I did receive contact from one person who claimed her partner ran into the
foyer shortly after the alleged explosion. Numerous statements made by her
partner were inconsistent with other evidence. I conducted a recorded
interview with him and have had statement analysis carried out on his words.
The conclusion of the analysis is that both he and his partner fabricated their
claims about him entering the foyer, in order to qualify for a large
compensation payment.
As you will see I have amassed a large amount of information on the foyer
participants and have forensically analysed many of their statements.
Due to the sheer number of participants involved, the amount of possible
further investigation of the participants of this event is immense. This book
will be useful for people who want to conduct their own investigation of the
witnesses. I have created a database set out in Chapter 4 which should prove
useful for people as a tool in their own research. The book also provides
necessary contention to the ‘official’ narrative, and will serve as an important
reference book for anyone looking further into this case. At the end of the
book I will offer a hypothesis of what most likely occurred in the arena foyer.
6
If you are perplexed at the idea that the event might have been a hoax, I ask
you to consider very carefully the two statements put forward at the
beginning of the next chapter.
CONCLUSION
What do I believe happened?
This is a statement of my own personal opinion, based on the evidence I have
been able to find which has been presented in this book. It is not necessarily a
statement of absolute fact:
The 2017 Manchester Arena bombing was a well organised and well
planned fake terrorist incident involving over 100 enlisted participants or
actors. The participants had been coached and briefed on what their roles
would be in the event.
The pre-planning of the event must have involved thousands of man
hours of work by security services personnel. Care would have been
taken to select suitable participants to ensure they would adhere to the
narrative given to them. The recruitment process probably involved
bodies such as schools, colleges, hospitals, charities, businesses, clubs and
other networks. The vast majority of participant groups chosen were from
‘broken’ and low income families. Some of the participants had criminal
records. These factors made it easier to persuade or reward the
participants so they would adhere to their pre-agreed narratives. Looking
at each group of participants (see database in Chapter 4), the ‘need to
know’ was limited within every group to a maximum of two families.
Only trusted members of immediate family were informed and recruited
into the exercise. Friends and extended family of the participants were not
informed about the exercise, and were made to believe the official
narrative. Participants were probably coached to ensure they looked
reasonably convincing in media interviews. Many participants would
have been supplied with fake injury kits comprising fake wounds, blood
etc, and instructed on how to use them.
Of the participants about 20 were to be given new lives in other parts of
the world, and it would be reported in the media that they had died. New
homes for those being relocated would have been organised in advance.
A small number, perhaps 1 or 2 of those named as deceased had already
recently died prior to the event in an accident or some other scenario.
Around 60 participants played roles of being injured to varying degrees of
severity. Just over half of the ‘injured’ ran out of the foyer immediately
after the bang, the rest remained on the floor. Around 30 family members
played the roles of waiting in the foyer to collect their chilren.
The exercise involved at least two scheduled mock terror operations.
One took place in the Manchester Arena foyer at 7am on 22.5.2017. This
involved about 20 of the ‘deceased’ and some (a fairly small number) of
the other actors, arena medical staff, SMC staff and some British Transport
Police. Participants taking part in the 7am drill were instructed not to tell
410
anyone about where they were going that morning.
In the first exercise the 20 or so ‘dead’ lay down on the ground with fake
blood etc, as is normally the case in terror training drills. Photographs
and video were taken showing the ‘dead’ along with some of the
‘survivors’ with SMC, arena medical staff and British Transport Police
attending to them. The purpose of the first drill was to obtain images
showing the deceased people on the floor, so they could be used in media
reports the following day. Some of the bodies could be approximately
matched to those that were declared ‘dead’.
After the first exercise, most of the 20 ‘deceased’ left the arena and at some
point were relocated. Australia and the USA were the two most popular
places where they relocated to.
Another exercise started at 22:31 immediately after the concert. This was
intended to fool the public that a major terror attack had taken place in the
foyer. Of the 90 actors, around 60 played the role of concert goers, and the
remaining 30 played the role of parents collecting their children from the
arena. All of the ‘injured’ participants had with them means with which to
fake their injuries, i.e. blood pump, moulage etc.
At around 22:20 SMC staff cleared the foyer, during which time the 30
parent participants started to arrive to wait for the other members their
group. The 60 actors who were in the arena watching the concert had
been instructed to head to the foyer during the last song or at 10:20pm.
Once the 90 actors were inside the foyer, SMC staff closed off access to the
foyer so that nobody would see what was going to occur. Once everyone
was in position, an actor playing the role of the terrorist, MI6 asset Salman
Abedi, entered the foyer and placed a large rucksack against the wall and
then ran out of the foyer. The rucksack contained a pyrotechnic device,
which when detonated sounded like and looked like a large explosion
going off, but caused no physical injury. It was very loud, gave off a
bright flash and produced smoke. When the device detonated, the actors
immediately played their roles screaming and pretending to be injured. If
a bystander had been present it would have looked to the untrained eye
like a real attack. Some of the actors had been instructed to run from the
foyer out of the Victoria Station entrance, and others out of the main
Hunts Bank entrance. It was necessary for concert goers to see some of the
‘inured’ exhibiting fake injuries. Some were instructed to lie on the floor
in the foyer pretending to be hurt. SMC staff ensured that the concert
goers on the concourse side of the foyer doors were panicked by shouting
“RUN”, indicating something bad had happened in the foyer.
The organisers of the drill spent a lot of time and effort to make the
injuries seem real. They used a number of people who had already
411
sustained injuries or complications before the event in everyday scenarios
such as accidents. I believe these included Hannah Mone, Martin Hibbert,
Amelia Tomlinson, Lily Harrison and Adam Lawler.
It is possible that Martyn Hett was at the concert with Stuart Aspinall as
reported. If he was at the concert, I suspect he left the arena via the Hunts
Bank exit and was not caught up in the alleged explosion. I suspect Hett is
living in the United States.
Assuming most of the ‘deceased’ are still alive, I do not know where any of
them are living, but based on the little information available, in the table
below I have made a guess as to where some of the ‘dead’ might be currently
living. I’ve included a category into which each participant might fit, outlined
in Chapter 6.
If you have read the whole book, I hope I have helped you to make your own
mind up about what really occurred. If you’ve come to the same conclusion
as me you might be asking why? Why would the authorities go to such
lengths to plan and carry out a fake terrorist attack, and in doing so attempt to
deceive the entire general public?
I could probably write another book attempting to answer this question. I
suspect the event was influenced and even organised to some extent by the
security services of the United States for geopolitical strategic purposes. The
majority of the leg work must have been carried out by UK security services.
My guess is that there was some agreement between UK and US security
service to stage this event. That’s not to say the United States government
dreamt up the idea. Israeli political influence over the United States should be
considered whenever there is a Middle East aspect to western military
operations.
These kinds of events provide justification for our government to take action
both internally and externally. They allow our government to pass stricter
laws which further infringe upon public freedoms. They allow our
government to justify bigger budgets for the security and intelligence services.
They also make it easier for our government to take military action or other
types of action against the state or ideology that was perceived to have carried
out the attack. In Manchester’s case Libya or Islamic ‘extremism’.
You might also be curious about how it is possible for so many people to be
involved in such a massive deception. Why don’t people in the security
services speak out? Within the security services and other agencies that are
involved in staging such attacks, I believe there is a belief that these events are
necessary to protect national security. Some of their personnel probably
believe that the Manchester Arena hoaxed ‘attack’ was a useful disaster
preparedness exercise. The exercise was a test of how effective our response
would be. It was a test of how well the media could put across the desired
narrative. It was an exercise in which to learn things and thus improve
preparations for the next ‘real’ terrorist attack. The hoaxed attack although
deceptive was working for the greater good. I believe that’s how they justify
these charades internally.
If you were not aware before you read this book what our mainstream media
is, then I hope you know now. They are a perception management tool and
their most serious and important narratives, the non trivial issues that is, are
organised and scripted by intelligence agencies. The media do not find out
and inform you about the truth. The media’s raison d'être in the present era is
to hide the truth, so you can be manipulated in whatever direction ‘they’ see
fit. I hope I have opened your eyes and your mind, but not to the extent that
your brain has fallen out. And now … here’s Tom with the weather.
"Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see".
"I’m Richard D. Hall, good night".
For the full text of the book with tables and illustrations, go to:
See also earlier articles on this Blog:
9th May, 2023.
The attack on freedom of expression and enquiry continues.
Tue, 9 May at 12:51
Greetings,
Firstly THANK YOU to everyone who has so far donated to my legal fund. I am
very grateful to you.
I have received notification that a legal claim has been filed against me
in the High Court.
The claim is seeking damages and an injunction for harassment and breaches
of the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018.
Note that there is no claim of libel or defamation which has been
incorrectly reported across most of mainstream media.
I have until the 1st of June 2023 to submit my defence.
I am in the process of appointing a solicitor/barrister and am appealing to
you to recommend a reliable, suitably experience and qualified professional
to present my evidence in court.
If you wish to help financially, I have set up a fund to pay for legal
fees, here,
(Note : the Gofundme funds are being transferred to my bank account daily,
therefore there is no risk of losing the funds).
Iain Davis has written an excellent article covering the issue here,
My book is available free here ...
Thankyou
Richard D. Hall
[Note : do not reply to this email. Use : richard@richplanet.net]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.