MANCHESTER: Anatomy of a False Flag Operation | Richard D. Hall

Refuting Regime Narratives

Report on Richard D. Hall‘s High Court Hearing
Proof on CCTV, Apparently – 22 Feb 2024 | Richard D. Hall

Richard D. Hall breaks down his evidence questioning the Manchester Arena event in 2017 and discusses the lies, harassment, persecution and threats he’s received at the hands of the British security state. 

UK independent journalist, researcher and documentary filmmaker Richard D. Hall claimed that the Manchester Arena attack was faked and that no one died or was injured. He argued that there was no “first-hand tangible evidence,” such as CCTV footage or photographs of injuries, to prove that a father and daughter were at the arena or were hurt as a result of the blast. Martin and Eve Hibbert, who were reported to be seriously injured in the attack, sued Hall for harassment, misuse of private information, and data protection infringement. The judge ruled in favour of the Hibberts, stating that Hall’s assessment was “absurd and fantastical” and that there was no basis to rebut the conviction that the attack was real. The judge also said that it was “preposterous” to suggest that the attack was staged by government agencies and that no one was genuinely killed or injured.

“Over a four and a half year period, I have looked in detail at the evidence and it points to a wholly different scenario than what was purported at the public inquiry.”

Richard D. Hall

Richard D. Hall appeared at a High Court Hearing on Monday 29th January 2024. The Hearing was to determine the outcome of the Claimant’s Application to accept without question the official narrative of the Manchester bombing, and thus prevent him from presenting any evidence which challenges the official narrative at a trial. An article by Iain Davis can be found here. The Judgment can be found here. At the Hearing, video evidence was presented which was filmed at the scene of the Manchester incident, in the City Room, filmed 4 minutes after the blast. It showed a woman, Ruth Murrell, walking without impairment or any visual injury – who it was claimed had a nut or bolt travel all the way through her leg (15cm), and out of the other side. Also shown was a still image of the merchandise stall completely in tact, which was just yards from the blast and in direct line of sight of the blast. This evidence is not specifically referred to in this Judgment, and was not shown at the Public Inquiry. Images were also shown at the Hearing, of the City Room shortly after the blast, showing that no visible building damage was caused, and no blood is visible on the floor, and windows were not broken etc. This evidence is also not specifically mentioned in the Judgment. The evidence is first hand video and CCTV evidence from the crime scene. 

Sponsor

None of the CCTV evidence which is relied upon by the Claimants, which would demonstrate they were present at the Arena, has been released by the Public Inquiry, and has not been seen by the Court. An Application to the Court to have this CCTV evidence released was submitted and a second Application was submitted to have the 2017 medical records of the Claimants released for a surgeon to view. Both of the Applications have been rejected in this Judgment. With regards the CCTV evidence, what was relied upon, were statements made by two people who claim to have seen the CCTV evidence, but no footage or images have been provided. 

Many other evidential points were covered at the hearing which are presented In this video, and also the BBC‘s actions against Richard in relation to the timing of the Claim.

Manchester Arena Bombing in The_Void

Source: Proof on CCTV, Apparently

Related Posts

Richard D. Hall: Not all Crimes are Allowed to be Solved | The Delingpod

Nick Kollerstrom: Understanding Fabricated Terror | The Delingpod

77 Bombings What Did They Know? | WideShut

Why Did The Jew Cross The Road? | JACK’D

When Does the Narrative Replace Reality? | Truthstream Media

Nick Kollerstrom – The Art of Lying | Sheep Farm