Richard D Hall - Manchester, The Night Of The Bang (Manchester Arena Bombing 2017)

Video Transcript:

you Our heritage is unique one of the largest independent television and movie studios in America in 2002 created strategic operations and changed the face of training simulation and education. Strategic operations introduced the magic of Hollywood to live military and public safety training, transforming sterile training environments into dynamic recreation of any real world situation that could be imagined. The and movie special effects artists create realistic battlefield effects including rocket propelled grenades, mines and explosions from improvised explosive devices. Smoke, sound and smell add the highest level of realism safely to simulate the fog of war. It becomes stress inoculation. Medical products like the cut suit a human-worn surgical simulator, the six-in-one part task trainer and the simulated wounds kit to name just a few have introduced a new level of hyper realism to medical simulation training and education. Civilian traumas such as active shooter scenarios, industrial accidents, car crashes, collapsed buildings and mass casualty scenarios can be replicated from the point of injury through the continuum of the world. Ambulances can transport the injured to the fully equipped emergency department and two operating rooms. Strategic operations is changing the world of simulation, training and education. With innovative ideas, services and products, the results have been dramatic and are best described by those who go in harm's way. Better prepared because of hyper realistic training, simulation and education. The most important thing is to have a good time and experience. The most important thing is to have a good time and experience. The most important thing is to have a good time and experience. The most important thing is to have a good time and experience. The most important thing is to have a good time and experience. One of the bridges that people have to get over to process this information is recognizing that it's not a conspiracy theory to say that the government employs crisis actors to conduct these mass casualty simulations. It's an established fact that they do it. It's not as bizarre as it sounds once you realize that the government has been doing this for a very long time. They just did one here just a few weeks ago, written up in the LA Times at the Burbank Airport. Airports are one of the most common places to really stage these. They just did it in the LA Times of the crisis actors. They were using Hollywood people to make up people and special effects to stage these very realistic looking wounds. The Manchester Arena bombing was an alleged suicide bomb attack which media reports claimed killed 22 people under suicide bomber and injured over 100. The numbers vary on the amount of people allegedly injured. According to witnesses, the events 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. Many witnesses inside the arena reported hearing two bangs. The official Curzlake report and most media reports only mention one explosion. People have postulated that one of the two bangs was played over the arena's PA system. It is clear from witness accounts that one of the bangs did originate from something that was situated inside the arena foyer. The foyer is comprehensively covered by CCTV cameras but footage from these cameras which would prove what happened has not been released. And this is just one reason why there is contention about what may have happened. They don't necessarily need to release video of any carnage, just a sequence showing who was in the foyer and where they were situated immediately before the alleged explosion would go somewhere to establish whether what they have told us is true. But for some reason they have not done this. The film will attempt to establish where the truth lies in relation to the reality of this event. Was there a real bomb? Did people get injured at the arena and did people die at the arena? At the arena that night, over 14,000 concert goers attended. The vast majority of these people would have had in their possession a mobile phone containing a high definition digital camera. Here are two statements which throw into question the veracity of the claims that 22 died and over 100 were injured. Statement 1. There are no publicly available photographs that I have been able to find taken by concert goers which show any of the deceased victims taken after the bomb, either dead or alive and situated in or immediately outside the arena. Statement 2. There are no publicly available images that I have been able to find taken by concert goers showing any serious injury and situated in or immediately outside the arena. Think carefully about those two statements and ask why there are no photographs. Immediately before the bang, at least two witnesses claim in media statements that show sex stewards, the subcontractor to arena security staff, were stopping people from entering the foyer by blocking access to the doors which lead from the arena con course into the foyer. This is confirmed by a Jenny Brewster who was interviewed by Sky News that night. We went to the bathroom and then we said let's go now before the rush. So we walked towards where the car park was, where we were parked. There was a row of stewards stood in the line, stopping us getting to but they were very friendly and they said this isn't your best way girls, your best turning round, you can get to your car park that way. As I turn round, boom, one loud noise. In a recent TV episode of the programme called Educating Manchester, a girl called Freya also describes similar. We went to the foyer area and by running the waiting room with us passed and obviously we had a massive explosion and it wasn't quiet and then everyone started screaming and running. These statements are not mentioned in the official Curse Lake report. Indeed, the Curse Lake report states the opposite. Page 108. Within the first few minutes after the explosion, the duty manager instructed show sex stewards in the arena bowl to close the aisles nearest to the foyer exit and for the stewards on the con course to position themselves to divert concert goers in order as far as possible to avoid the public having to witness the scenes in the foyer. According to first-hand witnesses, the Curse Lake report is incorrect here. Show sex stewards diverted concert goers away from the foyer before the ban, not after the ban. The Sun newspaper featured a story about worried parent Nick Bickerstuff who filmed himself walking along the arena con course searching for his daughter Ellen and shouting out her name. The Sun implied that he recorded his film immediately after the ban. Let's watch the whole clip then I will make some observations. Oh, Ellen. Oh my god. Ellen. Ellen. Ellen. Ellen. Ellen. Ellen. Ellen. People are laughing and they don't know what's behind me. People bust into bits and off their bodies and everywhere. Ellen. Ellen. Ellen. The Sun's effect is that the person who is panicking can be seen in the background seem very calm and are not rushing for the exits. He is the only person who is panicking and people can be heard mimicking him. His video shows no evidence of a bomb having gone off, no smoke and no evidence of injured people. Everything in the background looks perfectly normal. The researchers to suspect his video may have been filmed before the ban and possibly even before the concert. A girl is seen in the video carrying a large pink balloon. These balloons were dropped from the ceiling onto the audience during the song Sometimes, which was played about 20 minutes before the end of the concert. So Bickerstuff's video cannot have been filmed before the concert. Activity in the Concourse towards the end of a gig can be significant because some people leave early while others buy late drinks at the bar. UK critical thinker recognised a young man called Jordan Kenny in the background of Bickerstuff's video and managed to contact him on Facebook. Kenny confirmed he was still in his seat inside the arena when he heard the ban but could not confirm what time it was when he was caught on Nick Bickerstuff's camera. In a YouTube video Kenny explains that when he left the arena immediately after the ban he was with a friend called Laura. But in Bickerstuff's video he is alone. The Concourse bar is directly behind Bickerstuff's camera and Kenny is seen going into his wallet walking towards the bar, presumably to buy a drink. This suggests that the concert had not yet finished and that Kenny was intending to go back to his seat after buying drinks. In the final sequence Bickerstuff stands next to the bar underneath the TV screen. The Concourse screens usually display a live feed showing the concert inside the arena bowl. Although it is not perfectly clear it looks like the video screen above Bickerstuff's head is showing the Ariana concert. If this is the case then Bickerstuff's video was filmed before the ban because the ban occurred after the concert had finished. If you consider Nick Bickerstuff's actions in his video, in my opinion he does not exhibit the behaviour of a parent looking for his child. After experiencing the adrenaline rush of realising your child is missing, would you start filming yourself on your phone? He walks past the arena stewards without asking for help. He does not try to phone his daughter. I suspect Nick Bickerstuff filmed his video some time before the ban. I also suspect he was a crisis actor who was merely playing the role of a worried parent and part of his remit was to film himself so that his footage could be used in media reports. People are laughing and they don't know what's behind me, people bust into bits and off their bodies and everywhere. Bickerstuff's words suggest that there was foreknowledge of what was about to occur. Another aspect which points to foreknowledge and proves the official narrative is impossible is the choice of the supposed perpetrator. The media put out still images showing the alleged suicide bomber purporting to show him on the night of the event with most of the background removed, making it difficult to establish his location. It has been established by researcher UK critical thinker that this photograph probably was taken in the Victoria Train Station lift, which goes from the Victoria Train Station platform up to the raised walkway and leads into the foyer. Former MI5 officer David Schaeherler has stated that Salmana Badi's father was an MI6 asset codenamed Tonworth and was paid handsomely for his part in a failed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadda. We can assume then that it is likely that Salmana Badi himself was an intelligence asset. Information from three independent sources suggests that whatever was used to make the bang was placed by an Asian male who ran out of the foyer before it went off. This means there was no suicide, nor any suicide bomber. The first source is from a recording from the Greater Manchester Police Radio comms in which a police officer states the following. Come on. 152 Sergeant double 2-0 to be approached by a male who said it was an Asian male put down a ruptak and ran out of the area and it could be a description. 1694, go ahead. Yes, an Asian male described as just somebody who is going to fill it. Wearing glasses, black baseball cap and it was a large black ruptak which is said to have been hidden by the wall. The second source is from the BBC documentary The Night of the Bomb. Dale Olcock, a column number 2032. There was a gentleman, family man, he was with his daughters, I asked him. I said, what's happened? And he said, there's a guy. There was a guy, and knew there was something wrong with him. He said he threw his bag and there was a large explosion. And he ran off and I'm thinking, right, he's at large. The third source is a witness who contacted me in 2018 and claimed he had witnessed police photographs of the aftermath of the bang. And in his interview with me, he said, it's not a suicide bomber because there was a mass of scorch mark up the wall. There was no torso, no legs, no anything, no blood up the wall. There was just a mass of scorch mark up the wall. While I cannot confirm the witness who I interviewed saw any photographs. If there was a scorch mark up the wall, the device that was used could have been placed against the wall in the foyer, not in the centre of the foyer as mainstream media have claimed. His account of the wall conquers with the police comm statement that the bag was hidden by the wall. It is also clear from the previous two police statements that the person who left the bag ran off before a bang occurred. I've marked on this diagram where I suspect the bag was dropped. So here we have two major points of contention with the official narrative. Firstly, a bag was placed against the foyer wall, not in the centre of the foyer. Secondly, the person who placed the bag ran off before it went bang. There was no suicide. Not only did the suspect flee the scene, it seems likely he was witnessed getting out of a car shortly before the bag was placed. Here is another section from the police radio comms. So I read in the log, we've had a call from the public saying a short while ago, he saw an Asian male out of the grey Audi, get a rucksack on his back and run off in a direction of the arena. He stayed at a vehicle when he called us, was still parked on the old tell on the corner next to the MEN arena. The radio comms also reveal that the grey Audi was parked on Cheatham Hill Road outside Land of Furniture, registration FV05 or PO. Land of Furniture is just 250 metres from the foyer. After sighting the vehicle, the police do not report that anyone else was inside it. They did not go too close to the vehicle in case it was booby trapped. Sometime later, the same Audi vehicle was pursued by armed police, so it is likely the same Asian male left the area in the grey Audi. Yeah, does anybody with it still have an Audi at the moment? It's under-op still, yeah. Yeah, I think it's just been driven up in the moment. And it's all got the Audi under-op. Yeah, it's 5'4", I can see it from a talentation, I think. It's going to traffic lights through Junction of Lord Street. The Audi is driven off Lord Street. Any direction is what you're lost to do, it's just going left on the Lord Street. Left on the Lord Street, yeah, it was so... Actually, don't you think there's just an object behind this vehicle? 758, directly behind the vehicle. We don't know how it needs to be glued. Yep, we are doing any at Drake-Olt, on this channel receiving. 588, sir. That's what's happening, sir. Normal road street, road street, down towards South-Fall Street in the moment. Yes. In towards South-Fall Street, normal road street received. Any at Drake-Olt, for any at Drake-Olt, for seven? The road on 14, 17, 17, being told. That's good, that's good. It was a right flag down South-Fall Street, down towards the very new road. South-Fall towards the very new road now. That's a very new road, he's indicating to the right. Perfect. Last normal occasion, please, the visual patrol following the possible suspect of the very new road. It's on the traffic channel, it's going to broaden the lane. I'll just track it somewhere. Okay, it's Andy Dogman, I'm very close to Drake, Johnson-Sus-Six Street, heading towards Lower Broad and Rolka. Okay mate, got an hour on the way. I do not have radio comms after this point, but just 400 metres further on, at the Black Fryers' Junction, is where armed officers stopped a grey vehicle and arrested someone at gunpoint that night. This post on Twitter shows video of an arrest by armed officers on Trinity Way, about half a mile from the arena. It is dated the 23rd of May 2017, and shows an armed response team stopping a grey vehicle and apprehending a suspect at gunpoint. Fucking armed... Fucking armed police man. Oh shit! The arrest took place at the crossroads of Trinity Way and Black Fryers Road. Was this the arrest of Salman Abadi? I think that's likely. None of this information has appeared in mainstream media. It completely contradicts the suicide bomber narrative they have falsely extolled. Considering the evidence, we can conclude it is very likely that after placing the bag in the foyer, the bomber ran out of the arena. Some time later, he got into a grey Audi and drove off, but was followed and then stopped under arrested at gunpoint about half a mile from the arena. Here is Detective Superintendent Nick Sejmore, Director of Intelligence at British Transport Police, talking about the type of explosives used. We've got him coming back on the plane from Libya. Then, first you see all the necessary stuff to make the bomb a rough sack, a shrapnel, nuts and bolts. It goes about making TATP, also known as Mother of Satan. It was used in the Brussels attacks, Paris and Barcelona. Just in front of the orange water balloon is 0.5 grams of TATP or about 1.68 of an ounce. It's about the size of a sugar packet. We're going to detonate it with current from a 9 volt battery. The water balloon is just to illustrate the effect. The air balloon is just to show that it's not a big deal. And there is no flame. TATP is what's called an intropic explosive. It works by creating a huge quantity of gas very quickly. What little energy there is is goes into creating the shockwaves. No light is given off, no flash, no smoke, no heat and the explosion is only blast. The light has never heard of a flash flash. The brightest flash you've ever seen in your life. Flash and light. Orange flash. Like a foil would give off, but like a fire would kind of go on. A wash of orange light surrounding the room. It's bright, like snow coming towards you. Flames rolled. Thick black smoke. There's a lot of smoke about. To be honest, I thought I was on fire. But her was very burned. A bit of like ashes coming from the ceiling, like a black ceiling. If any of these observations are truthful, then the device used was not a TATP device. How can all of these witnesses be mistaken? It is difficult to reconcile the eyewitness testimony evidence with the official TATP narrative. The TATP explanation is an appealing choice for those running a fake story, because TATP can be made with easy to obtain ingredients. So it's easy to explain how a device could have been made. However, if your remit is to scare people and present something that merely seems like a bomb, something that is more like a firework or pyrotechnic device is more in line with what people would expect to see. What witnesses described was more like a pyrotechnic device. They did not describe a TATP device. If the bomb was real and caused the damage that was reported, why have the authorities lied about the type of explosive used? I suggest the answer is because the explosive was merely a pyrotechnic device, therefore the official narrative has to lie about the type of explosive used. Safely to simulate safely to simulate. I received a statement from a roadie who was working at the arena that night. He is pictured in media photographs so I have verified he was there. Here's what he said. When the concert ended and we walked under the stage to start taking the drum kit down, heard a bang which we thought was just a flight case falling over, and then the stage manager's radio started going ballistic and he just went. There was panic, there was pandemonium in the arena. No one knew what had gone on and the stage manager said, write everyone out of the building. As you come off the stage of the arena, probably a 50-yard walk to the loading bay and then out to the backstaff entrance, so it would take what a minute. As we come out of the loading bay, there was eight armed police come running past, which is where I think they had some sort of intelligence about this, because the armed response was that quick. For coming off the stage to get there, there's eight armed plod coming in, so they must have knew something. The Kurzlake report states that the first armed response vehicle arrived at the Trinity Way entrance to the arena at 2241, and that the first armed police arrived in the foyer at 2243. The eyewitness saw eight armed police who would normally require four vehicles inside the arena just one minute after the bang, which was at 2232. Armed response being on-site within one minute again suggests that authorities had four knowledge of the event, and the Kurzlake report is being used to obfuscate this fact. We know that SMG or SHOS X stewards were controlling access to the foyer via the con course doors immediately before the bang. The Kurzlake report states that five stewards were inside the foyer at the time of the bang. It's interesting that none of the five stewards were reported to have been killed or injured. If this was an exercise, the five stewards may have played a role in managing the exercise inside the foyer, which might explain why none were reported as injured. I'm not aware that any SMG or SHOS X stewards have given interviews or posted information online about their experiences. The Kurzlake report states that a JMP inspector soon taking over the police management of the foyer from the BTP sergeant who had taken initial control. The great amantus to police inspector was Mike Smith. Smith has not been named in mainstream media. If we consider Inspector Smith's role described in the Kurzlake report, i.e. managing the foyer, this would have involved manning the foyer doors to the arena, the carparks and the train station. This would allow him to control who was permitted into and out of the foyer. Having eight armed officers with him would be ideal for controlling the foyer entrances and exits. Is this the real reason why eight armed officers were at the arena as soon as the bang occurred, to control who was allowed into the foyer? Police officers who were on call that evening were told by the control room to report to the booking office, i.e. the foyer, but most were not permitted entry to witness the casualties inside and were redeployed by Mike Smith elsewhere. This photograph released in mainstream media was allegedly taken by homeless man Chris Parker. The image was obtained by media company the Press Association via the Associated Press. It was uploaded to the api-images.com website. It is the only still photograph i am aware of that is alleged to show the aftermath of the event in the foyer. Although there appears to be blurred in various places, the photograph does not provide evidence of a casualty. Every participant in this image could merely be a crisis actor taking part in an exercise. UK critical thinkers submitted the image to a photographic forensics website to obtain the exf data for the image. Exf data is digital information which is saved every time a photograph is taken. The data includes information about the date and time the image was taken and other information. The first thing we note is the date and time the photograph was taken, 22 May 2017 at 07 11 and 18 seconds. This is more than 15 hours before the bang occurred. When images are taken by a mobile phone, the phone's software accesses the current date and time and creates exf data accordingly. In 2017 it was very rare for the date and time on a mobile phone to be incorrect. They are set by the phone network automatically. If the creation date and time is correct and there is no reason to believe it is not, it means the photograph is probably of an early morning drill or a dry run for what was going to happen at 10.31pm. According to the timestamp, the image does not show the aftermath of the 22.31 evening event. In this image we see a website entry for the image in the website library apiimages.com. This is an image archive website which hosts thousands of images for journalistic users. If we look at the creation date and time for this image we see, according to the website, the creation date is the 22 May 2017 at 03 11 and 18 seconds. This is exactly 4 hours before the creation time in the exf data. So the data must have been derived from the exf data by taking 4 hours away. East Coast US time is 5 hours behind UK time. So I would expect it to read 0211 18 if it was an East Coast UK conversion. Whatever the reason for the 4 hour difference, the entry is still suggesting the image was taken in the morning on the 22 May 2017. The image was taken at 11 minutes past 7 on the 22 May 2017 which is 15 hours and 20 minutes before the alleged attack. The only plausible scenario for this evidence is that the image depicts some sort of practice run or preparation for what was going to occur at 22.31. The purpose of the 7 11 AM event may have been to produce staged photographs for the media prior to the event. Foyer participant John Barr uploaded this 43 second mobile phone video of the arena foyer allegedly filmed shortly after the ban. Comparison of this video with the still image suggests it was filmed from a different vantage point in the foyer but at a similar point in time. The participants are wearing the same clothes and are in the same positions. I carefully compared the position of the red stains in the video with the red stains in the still image. From this analysis the phone camera has captured the same event as seen in the still image. The participants in the video all seem very casual and relaxed. Their reactions do not seem consistent with a real terror attack. Although there appears to be blood in various places the video does not provide evidence of a genuine casualty. When the camera pans to the left we briefly see one of the foyer glass doors which lead to the Victoria station walkway. On the far left hand side we see the glass door with what appears to be daylight entering. I have identified what we are seeing through the glass door looking out onto the walkway. The white rectangle of light is coming through the train station's ATFE panels and we also see the canopy, the walkway railing and the walkway. I conclude that the video was filmed during the hours of daylight. This is consistent with the still image which we have already seen was taken at 7.11am. A second piece of video showing the alleged aftermath in the foyer was released in a BBC documentary. People have been blurred out so we can't identify them, but close scrutiny of this video reveals that it is of the same event as the other video and still image. It was therefore filmed in the morning, not on the evening. Mainstream media reported that the large glass skylight in the foyer roof had shattered due to the blast from the bomb. This drone footage filmed within a few weeks of the bang shows there was no damage to the skylight in the foyer. In addition, the skylight appears to have blinds or cubbers fitted on the inside blocking daylight from the arena foyer. Here is a comparison with a Google Earth image. If photographs were being staged at 7.11am, were they blocking out the foyer light in order to give the impression in the foyer that it was night time? Media accounts spoke of shattered glass, but as we see from these early images, the glass doors going into the foyer were not shattered. Examining the internal foyer images of the alleged aftermath, there is no building damage or broken glass. A local from Manchester contacted me and commented, the Manchester arena event was fake. I have visited the arena numerous times and still no blast damage to be seen, no tradesmen and skips on site, naturally and the council cannot tell us who won the contract to repair a blast damaged building, physical evidence is missing. For comparison, here is an image of the 1998 Omar bombing in Northern Ireland, which killed a similar number, 29. This photograph shows a typical view of the foyer before an evening concert. We note the prime advertising board against the far wall and matching prime advertising covering the window on the left hand wall. We note also the ceiling lights are usually on. If we compare this image with a still from John Barr's video, we note that the prime advertising, which usually covers the window, has been covered with something else. The ceiling lights are off and there are blinds covering some of the windows. Was somebody trying to adjust the lighting conditions in the foyer to make it seem like night time in order to take pre-arranged photographs of an event they had planned for 1031pm. If we now compare the John Barr video with the still image, it looks like the still image might have been photoshopped. Look at the windows and the far left, there appears to be something brown covering the windows in John Barr's video. But in the still image, those windows look black. I think it is possible also that the windows which do not have blinds over them are covered with blackout material, preventing daylight entering the foyer. As we have seen, the images and video so far released showing the alleged foyer aftermath were taken shortly after 70% of the time. As we have seen, the images and video so far released showing the alleged foyer aftermath were taken shortly after 7am on the 22nd of May 2017, not at 2231 when the bang happened. This means there has been no video or images released showing the foyer after 2231. Considering there were over 100 people alleged to be inside the foyer, this is an incredible fact and suggests that those inside the foyer were following instructions not to record or release images. We therefore have no record or evidence of who was present and of what happened at 2231. The only thing we have is what those in the foyer have said. I refer to these people as participants and in order to explore their testimonies, I said about creating a database of participants containing the names of all the people who claimed they were inside the foyer or very near the foyer. All the people shown here are named in the book and they themselves or the media have claimed they were in the foyer at the time of the bang. I created a second database containing the names of all the people who claimed to have entered the foyer to help sometime after the bang, known as responders. I have split the first database into four sections. They are the alleged deceased, the seriously injured, not here I am defining serious as their injuries prevented them from fleeing the scene. Then we have non-seriously injured or those with minor injuries who fled the scene and finally the unharmed which included five SMC staff. These people are all named in the book apart from the five SMC staff. There may be more participants that I have been unable to find but I believe this database represents the vast majority of people who claim they were inside the foyer when the bang occurred. The database gives us an indication of the approximate number of foyer participants and now that we have established the numbers we can compare them with what first responders said they saw in terms of quantity of casualties. From the database we have 22 dead, 59 injured, 28 un-enged and 5 un-enged staff. That's a total of 109 participants and 5 staff. We know that some of the people listed in the database ran out of the foyer as soon as the bang occurred. Participants who had worse injuries stayed inside the foyer and waited for help. Based on the severity of their alleged injuries and their testimonies those who stayed in the foyer and waited for help were likely to include Paul Price, Ruth Morel, Emily Morel, Caroline Davis, Charlotte Fowell, Lisa Rousseau, Samantha Lex Kowski, Pauline Healey, Claire Booth, Holly Booth, Laura McIntyre, Freya Lewis, Adam Lawler, Bradley Hurley, Jorcy Howarth, Janet Senior, Millie Mitchell, Evie Mills, Martin Hibbit, Eve Hibbit, Robby Potter, Leonardo Agario, Ella McGuvern, Gary Walker, Marie Warwick, Peter Chaluska, Julie Thomas, Joanne McSawley, Paul Greenin and Phil Hassel. That's at least 30 people with injuries serious enough that they had to remain on the floor in the foyer for help to arrive. I've not included Lisa Bridget, Amelia Tomlinson, Lucy Jarvis or Ashley Bromwich in that list, despite all four claiming to have received broken ankles. Note that in addition to the 30 casualties we should have had 22 dead or dying on the floor mixed in with the 30 injured. That makes about 52 casualties in total. Here is a section of the police radio comms when Inspector Mike Smith first arrives in the arena foyer and assesses the number of casualties. The next section is for the police radio comms. Here is another quote from Paramedic Lee Vaughn from the ITV documentary Manchester 100 days. The most patients I've ever dealt with in my career is free, free at once. So being faced with 26 patients to deal with. 22 dead or dying plus 30 injured equals 52 casualties. I would expect Mike Smith and Lee Vaughn's assessment to be nearer 50. These are professional people who are trained to make accurate assessment of a situation. Another quote on the number of people in the foyer before the ban came from Nick Bickerstaff. He is quoted on the Sun website. I arrived in the foyer at 1020. There were about 60 to 80 people hanging around mainly parents collecting children. The correct number according to the database is 109. That's 292 few. How can these discrepancies be explained? Let's see. Statements from witnesses commenting on those who were dead or dying is severely lacking. Our analysis suggests that there is no reliable testimony describing the dead or the dying victims in the foyer. Did the deceased victims only take part in the morning exercise? When I say deceased, I mean those who were reported as deceased. If we assume that none of those who it was claimed had died were present in the foyer during the evening event, then the numbers make a lot more sense. Was the purpose of the morning drill to take photographs of those that had allegedly died in position on the floor and then only work with the injured during the actual event? This would give deceased victims time to catch a flight out of the country before the concert started if the plan was for them to start a new life. There is a complete lack of reliable photographs showing deceased victims inside the foyer or up the arena either before or after their alleged death. I don't believe any of the deceased were present in the foyer. Not only is there no evidence that I am aware of that any of the dead were ever in the foyer, there's also no evidence that I am aware of, apart from with Safi Rousseau's, which suggests that any of the 22 even died. That sounds like a strange statement to make, but it is absolutely true. What about funerals? Funerals do not provide evidence of a death. Running mock funerals would not be difficult to arrange, and they are a very effective way of jipping people that a real death has occurred. Based on the evidence available to date, it is more likely that most of the 22 have merely been relocated. I say most because I think it is possible that a small number of the 22 died earlier than the 22nd of May 2017 in accidents or from other causes. In my book I go into detail on every group of participants identified in the database. I found that many of the alleged deceased victims have links to other countries. These links are all explained in the book, but just to give you a summary, I have found links to foreign countries with two thirds of the 22 alleged deceased victims listed here. After researching all of the alleged deceased, I have theorised about how it was possible for their families to accept or consent to them, starting new lives in other countries, undergraying to having their deaths fabricated. The following is a list of possible explanations. The previously deceased victim is a participant who it has been claimed died at the Manchester Arena, but in fact died sometime before the concert in an accident or other scenario, probably very shortly before the 22nd of May. The apprentice child is a participant who is approaching school leaving age and expressed a wish to carry out some ambition, education or goal. Their dream has been granted and the child or young adult has been sent somewhere away from their parents home to achieve their ambition. The parents have received money to keep silent about where their child is now living. The no ties victim is a participant with no strong family ties and has agreed to start a new life with a new identity, probably in another country. This could be a young adult, a young couple with no children or a middle-aged adult whose children have grown up. The surrogate victim is a child or young adult who has been placed in the care of another family in a different part of the world. It is not uncommon for foster children to be reassigned new parents to look after them. I have assigned one of these hypothetical scenarios to each of the 22 victims. As well as relocation to foreign countries, victims would probably have changed their names and appearances. It's been suggested that such a strategy would be risky. What if one of the fake dead started to talk? If one of them started to talk, firstly, it's unlikely they'd be given any significant media platform to express their view so people would probably not find out. Secondly, it is likely they are being monitored and that any time can be reminded of the contract they agreed to, which could include penalties. Others argue why not just kill the victims and create real deaths. Creating real deaths creates protest from real relatives. If the event is a surrogred, relatives don't protest because their loved ones have not been harmed. They take their money and keep quiet. So in some ways, fabricated terror using fabricated victims is easier to manage. I have collected photographs showing serious injuries that are alleged to have resulted from the bang in the foyer. As I mentioned earlier, not one of these images is taken inside the foyer or near the arena. They are taken in hospitals or in the participants' own homes. All of the injuries in these images could have occurred at a different time and place. You might be thinking that you've seen photographs of injuries at the arena in the media, but you haven't. You've seen photographs of people with their trousers cut, wearing bandages and with the odd bit of red stuff which could easily be fake blood. No mainstream media photograph or personal photographs taken up the arena that I'm aware of shows a genuine injury. I go into each injury in more detail in the book, but let's just look at a few now in the film. These leg injuries are alleged to belong to Ruth Morell, reported by ITV. In a conversation with the Queen, Morell stated, it's nuts and bolts that everybody seems to be having, minds gone through 15 centimetres out the other side. In the John Bar video, a woman who I believe is Ruth Morell walks past the camera in platform shoes. Her walk exhibits no evidence of a limp and she appears to put her full weight on each foot. As we see, there is a stain in the place where her leg was alleged to have been injured. There is no sign that anything has ended or exited her leg. Her jeans would have been torn if this was the case. It would be impossible for somebody to walk calmly as she is seen doing just after such a damaging injury. You'd be right to point out that the video of Ruth Morell was filmed 15 hours before the bang, but here is a photograph taken shortly after the bang outside the train station showing the same stain on her jeans. Notice how the stain has dried out somewhat, presumably due to the 15 hour gap. We can conclude that the close-up photograph does not show an injury which belongs to Ruth Morell. The Ruth Morell evidence is significant because it suggests that the media have been placing false images of victims' injuries in their publications. I think we ought to consider that if they've done this with one fake victim, they could have done it with others. Genevieve Lewis is an English teacher and has been studying the techniques of statement analysis for over three years. She has analysed the language of many of the Manchester participants. Here she analyses Ruth Morell's conversation with the Queen. Thank you. My daughter's, she's just gone down to the plate so she's gone out now. My, my daughter, she's holding on the pro now and my, but I can imagine she's very nervous speaking to the Queen. I think everyone would be. She's just gone down to theatre. Well, come out now. Which is it? This confused me. There's the element of time. How can she have just gone down to theatre and come out? It doesn't make any sense here. So she's changing a story to begin with. I'm not sure why the reason. It may be nerves speaking to the Queen. Just 12 years old. She was with a friend and she'd gone to the concert. Okay, she self-edits with we and changes it to she, but we don't know what she was going to say here. She was with a friend and she'd gone to the concert. That doesn't make sense. It should be there to go to the concert. The, the, the, the,dero with pronouns here and pronouns are instinctive, they are intuitive. They are some of the first words we speak from children. Pronouns are never wrong. With statement analysis, that's one of the main principles is follow the pronouns. That will tell you an awful lot. There's a mistake here. It should have been there to go to the concert. So this tells us that her daughter went to the concert alone. Her daughter's friend, Millie Kiss, was found outside the arena. So we think that that may have been all orchestrated. So that would explain why she's on her own because Millie was, was predetermined to be outside, not in the foyer after the event. Tomorrow, for myself and your daughter's friend and the way to, and the daughter's friends and all of them, she don't need. Right, yes. Well, she starts a sentence here with but which minimises what preceded it. So she'd gone to the concert, she's minimising that now. Myself and my daughter's friend were waiting. That is a strong sentence. Then she changes a mind. She hears, which is a pause, which is a sensitively indicator. It's time to think. My daughter's friend's mum. So, okay, she's with a daughter's friend's mum now. I believe she was with a daughter's friend. At this point, I think she's telling the truth, but she changes a mind. Her daughter's friend's mum. That's very distancing. You couldn't sort of explain any further aware who that was. It's very cold. My daughter's friend's mum, what's her name? Isn't she her friend? And she allegedly died as well, the friend's mum. Yes, yes. This is further down in the analysis. But yes, it's very cold and she can't even say she's my friend. So you think that in the fire was Ruth and the friend's daughter? That's what she tells us. So you don't believe that Michelle Kiss was in the fire. You think? I don't think so. Right. And I don't think that they were friends, judging by the language. She was one of the ones that got her. She got her, she died in the fire. She was one of the ones. One of those ones that's in that group over there, almost. The God, she got what? What is it that she can't say here? Is it killed? I'm just sort of taking a guess here. We don't know what she was going to say, but she is self-editing, which means there's missing information. She got lucky. She died in the blast. So, you know, would you say that about your friend that had been killed in a bomb attack? You would say my friend Michelle was killed. She doesn't know. She's already said she's died as well. I think it's a need to persuade that she's already said it once. Unless the Queen asked her to repeat herself. Then it will be okay in context. And I told her she's got a couple of things to do. It's just been such a lot that you've come today. Okay, but minimizes what preceded it, what follows is more important. So to her in her mind, the operations are minimized. What's more important is that you're here. Again, would that really be the case? Your daughter has gone into surgery to have whatever removed. Yeah, and she's making more of a fuss of the Queen. And what happened to you? I had a... Yes. I had... Yeah, yeah, is a verbal pause. It gives you time to think about what you're going to say. Which shouldn't be necessary if you're telling the truth. The truth is you're just a flaw. One of those wounds as well. She is stressed at this sentence. Those wounds, those wounds, not this wound. It's distancing language using those. It's not very reliable at all. I had as well. I was puzzled about this. I had one of these wounds. One of those wounds. Does she still have it if she's in hospital waiting for surgery? Maybe she had one on the evening. All right, okay. Can't know when you're so ready to take it. Is that everybody's... You've got a good mind. It's been 15 centimeters out. We were the same. So I'm doing surgery later on this afternoon. Yeah, but feeling okay about it because when you see these children, you just think, you have to go through this. You need to get a grip here in the slotted bottle on. They just inspire you. Yes, and she's rendered. This is a very sensitive paragraph. She has a lot to explain here. She has needs to explain. And what was interesting about this section as well is she talks about not some bolts that everyone seems to be having, not the expected people have been injured by, injured by nuts and bolts. A lot of us have these wounds or these injuries. It's people seem to be having them like, I don't know, tea or something. You've concluded that deception is indicated there? Yes, yeah. We know now that her daughter was alone when she went to the concert. The pronouns tell us this and they are always reliable. Right? So she's lying about that. I think she was waiting with her daughter's friend, Millie kisses that right. And I think it's quite doubtful whether the daughter had gone down a surgery or just come out. It doesn't make any sense. It could be nerves, but it doesn't seem very plausible to me. Let's look at wheelchair victim, Martin Hibbert. Hibbert is usually seen sitting in a wheelchair and has featured in many TV programmes. UK critical thinker found a quote from Martin Hibbert himself on a physiotherapy website, Jim Mason Sport Massage Therapist dated May 2014. It reads, I have suffered with lower back pain for over 15 years, seen several so-called specialists and been referred to numerous recommended individuals. Jim was recommended to me by a client and I first booked in with him back in March. Because of the years of back pain and tension in my back, Jim had to apply a lot of pressure and I won't lie, it was painful. But that night and the day's later I felt like I had a new back and I had the best night's sleep ever. I have now had three one hour sessions and the back pain has more or less gone and I no longer wake up with the pain which allows me to start the day with a smile on my face. I have since recommended Jim to friends and clients and suggest anyone with sports injuries under aches and pains to say Jim. From this we know Hibbert has had long-term back problems and pain. In his interviews he states that the bomb caused a T10 injury in his back. One very common condition that can cause severe back pain is a herniated disc T10 is in the thoracic area of the back and can lead to paralysis from the waist down. Is it the case that Hibbert does have problems with the use of his legs but they are due to his long-term spinal issues and not from injuries sustained in a bomb blast? Here is a picture of one of Hibbert's scars. The straight line scar on the right looks like an incision from back surgery near the T10 region. Did Martin Hibbert have a back operation to correct a T10 herniated disc which made his back worse? There are a number of what look like scars on Hibbert's body but again we cannot conclude how these marks were created without more evidence. The Bolton News reported on 1 July 2017 he is paralyzed from the belly button down and will be dependent on a wheelchair. An X-ray picture shows a metal item embedded in his spinal cord. His X-rays are unconvincing. Compare them with this X-ray showing a man that swallowed a ring. The nuts in Hibbert's X-ray look to me like they may have been cut and pasted into the image. Unlike other parts of your body the spinal cord does not have the ability to repair. If Hibbert was paralyzed from the belly button down due to his spinal cord injury he would have been paralyzed for life. Hibbert announced in December 2019 that he will be walking the great North Run a half marathon. Are we to believe that a miracle has occurred or should we suspect that Hibbert never lost the use of his legs? He may have already had a spinal problem before the concert. The two more serious were one that hit me in the side of the neck and severed two of my men arteries. I think there was a guardian angel standing over because... He doesn't use the possessive pronoun my with neck which is unusual. He has a need to explain why there was a guardian angel standing over. Not standing over him, just standing over. We were told that all the bolts and shrapnel were travelling at 90 mph. We were saying that that literally should have gone straight through. The surgeons were there to find the bolt in my stomach so it had gone through my neck and I'd swallowed it. Yes, we were told he is not telling us who told them it's passive language which conceals identity. All the bolts and shrapnel. All is unnecessary. It might be persuasive language here. All the bolts and shrapnel were travelling at 90 mph. So he has a need to explain this which means it's highly sensitive to him. In fact the whole section is highly sensitive to him as he has to explain it. He uses the pronoun my here with neck. Just to make a comment about the speed, a bullet would typically travel at around 700 mph. A lot faster than that. A bullet is designed to penetrate with a ship. Where a bolt and not a bolt isn't designed to penetrate a bolt or what have you. If you watch a tennis match you'll often see how fast the service goes. Typical male tennis player will serve at 130 mph. Even in amateur will serve the tennis ball at 90 mph. So if I hit a ball with a tennis racket at someone's head I don't think it would go all the way through. Can we practice? Can we try? We could set up some experiment. Oh my gosh. And the other one. And the other one hit me and severed my spinal cord. Yes, there is some sensitivity here but it's reduced due to his repeating what the journalist said. I've got a T10 complete spinal injury which in layman's terms means I'm paralyzed from the belly button down. He's got a need to explain here why he's got the T10 complete spinal cord because it's severed his spinal cord. It's sensitive to him. It's highly sensitive to him. It could be that the back problems that he'd been having earlier was his T10 vertebrae. You do find that people with slip discs will refer to which vertebrae the mines in L5 for example. I know which mine is. So it's yeah. Would you use that terminology if you'd been hit with shrapnel from a terrorist attack maybe you would. But I didn't realize that at the time. But I could obviously I was losing a lot of blood. I got my main thing really because I didn't think I was going to make it. So I spent an hour basically making peace with myself and just thinking you know this is it. But I was determined to stay alive just to make sure my daughter you've got out. How is he? Yes, I mean he holds over, still alive just to make sure he has a need to explain why he was determined to stay alive. But also he uses just which is the dependent word. So the question is what is the other reason he's thinking of apart from making sure his daughter you've got out. He's thinking of something else here. She's doing better. She suffered a really bad head injury. Hmm. He's got a lot of anxiety here. He's holding over words. It's very sensitive to him. Right. And perhaps just add in here that Eve has been absent in media coverage. Yeah. She lives with her mother and her mother has been absent from media coverage. And her mother is just have a Facebook account but unlike many of the parents of the victims, there's no mention of Manchester on there. And I did go out of there straight and I couldn't find anyone in the street who knew she'd been involved. I was originally I was skeptical over whether the daughter had any injuries. Now I did manage to see them coming out the house with a wheelchair. So I suspect that she may have some sort of injury but from my research there's no evidence that any injury was obtained in the foyer. Yes. So it's quite perplexing the whole the Hibbit story because he's been one of the most prominent media people. He has, yes. So she suffered one bolt got through. Yeah, he's got a need to explain why she suffered one bolt got through because she's got a head injury. In the video he gestures with his hand that it came out the other side. He doesn't say this, it's not in his language. But to go through, you know, it's... Yeah. The physics seem unlikely. An unfortunate hitter in the head. Well, he's already told us that she has a head injury, so to tell us that it hit her in the head is completely unnecessary. And he's also gestured with his hands that it's come out the other side. He's holding over it to need to think about his words. And it went straight through. So she suffered, you know, a catastrophic brain injury. Yeah, again, another need to explain why she suffered a catastrophic brain injury because it went straight through. This is very highly sensitive to him. And he's pausing and choosing his words. You know, is an awareness of the audience. We treat it as a habit of speech. We see where it arises and what topics produce it. At this point, it's her head injuries that's made him say, you know. Right, so again, she's a little miracle herself. But it's minimizing what came before it, so what's more important to him is that she's a little miracle. With the talk, with belief that she's the only person to survive that injury. Yeah, he's self-edits here. He is using passive with talks, that's to conceal the identity. But he changed his mind. We believe it's stronger. We believe. Oh, my gosh. So they extend where they've actually written a paper on her? That is distancing. He's distancing the injury. They've actually written a paper on her, actually comparison of two or more things. So he's thinking of something else that they've done. Right. Or not done. So that if anyone else suffers that type of injury, then they know how to care and look after them. So we're both little miracles, really. This is highly sensitive to him again. He's got needs to explain. Any distance is the injury, that type of injury. And my question here is, these people are neurosurgeons. They know how to care for and look after people who have brain injuries. They don't need to write a paper on them. Yeah. Maybe if someone can find that paper. Yes, yeah. So with Herbert, you think he's deceptive? I think he's deceptive here about the speed of the shrapnel. Yeah. And the paper being written on the daughter, the sensitivity to the injuries that they've received. And in some of his other interviews, his sentences were reliable. As he gets to the more sensitive parts, IE describe in the explosion, he pauses a lot more. He pauses a lot compared to when he's not speaking about what happened in the foyer. He uses relentlessly when he's talking about him. But after the erm, the deceptive language doesn't appear. So it's as if he's learning lines. You think? That's potentially, he's remembering his lines and thinking back to say them. Right. Which would tie in with him having some acting experience perhaps. So he's a little bit more difficult, the spot deception, and you think. Yes. In his other interviews. Yes. Because this one was a more recent interview that we've looked at today. This is very recent, yeah. In one of his other interviews with John Snow, Herbert is complaining that the Kurzlake report doesn't tell us what happened. He's saying that it's an accurate. And then John Snow says, well, what did happen? Mm-hmm. Mr. Herbert. And he's completely thrown off course then. Yes. And we'll take a look at that. Do you feel lessons have been learnt or not? Or do you feel there's still a lot of work to be done? Oh, yeah. You know, I was promised the truth in the Kurzlake report. You know, and you know, to read that, it was hard. Because you think in the thoughts that I've got and the visions that I've got, I'm making them up. You know, are they make believe? Because this didn't happen. This is this stuff that I'm reading. It's like it's a different episode. It's not what happened that night. What did happen? Well, you know, obviously we know the terrorist detonated a bolt bomb. You know, 22 of them hit me. So do you want to make some comments on that? You really didn't know what to say to them? Well, you know, he's aware of his audience at this point. Obviously, we know he's not alone with this. He wants to be in a crowd. He can't say I know. That a terrorist detonated a bolt bomb. He has a lot of stress here. He cannot bring himself to say that a suicide bomb, bomber detonated a bomb. Or that he was... In another interview, I think he has used the word bullet. Yes. It was one of the press articles he has used. And there are other things in his language which suggest firearms, I think. Yes. Now we think that there may have been a plan originally for this to be a mass shooting incident. Bullets, and that comes up a lot in the language and the interviews of the participants here. So we think it's possible that that's what Hibit means when he says, oh, the cursing report isn't what I expected. He was possibly told he was going to be a hero who haven't been shot. Yes, yeah, possibly. And he's not happy with the narrative that they've come up with. And because John Snorcer's, well, what did happen? And he's got to go along with the original narrative. Yes, and he's struggling to say that. Right. And let's hope that when the truth comes out, the lock Phillips score filled up for a long time. With every injury that mainstream media have reported on, I have been able to show that some are not real or are being exaggerated and others which seem genuine were probably not obtained in the arena foyer. Because no CCTV of the foyer has been released, we only have the witnesses' words to help us establish what actually happened. This means careful analysis of their words is a critical part of our investigation. In the database, I have identified 53 groups of participants who claimed to have been in the foyer when the bang occurred and five groups of responders who went in afterwards to provide help. In addition to the participant database, I created a video archive containing over 80 mainstream media interviews and films. You can access all of these videos from this link on the Rich Planet website. After compiling the database and analysing the videos in the archive, I visited Manchester and other areas several times and managed to speak to some of the people involved and others who know people who were involved. The first group of members of the group was the one who was the most popular among the group. The first group of members of the group was the one who was the most popular among the group. The first group of members of the group was the one who was the most popular among the group. The first group of members of the group was the one who was the most popular among the group. The first group of members of the group was the one who was the most popular among the group. The first group of members of the group was the one who was the most popular among the group. Today, I have started off on my journey to go around all of these places on my investigation map. 20 odd separate addresses that I need to go to. I am writing the tip of Northwest Wales now. I am writing the tip of Northwest Wales now. I will be heading to North Wales place called Rill. After that, I will be heading to Liverpool and then Preston and then down in Manchester itself. I will be heading to Mansfield and then up to Barnsley, Leeds, York, Hull and Newcastle upon time. Right, I am just at a pub called the White Boor, which is round the corner from where Charlotte Campbell and husband used to live. So I believe they have gone to live in Lanzarote. I managed to speak to somebody who, let's just say, would communicate with a lot of people in that community. And when I suggested that Olivia Campbell Hardy might still be alive, her eyes nearly popped out ahead. She really, she said, so I said, you have not heard any rumours along those lines in North. She said, people believe, in that community, people believe the official story. But what they are obsessed about is the alleged collecting of money and then pocketing it. So allegedly, Charlotte Campbell is all for herself. She told me a story of when she went into a car, a service and place or something. She broke down in tears and then they gave her some collection pot that was on the counter, £1000 or something. I don't think that they were particularly close. Olivia and Charlotte. I have sharpened a spike onto the end so I can just stick that in the ground in order to surveil our subjects. Okay, so I've made a slightly improvement to the surveillance device. Okay, now bear in mind that's going to go inside a bush. Left at there for two hours, returned at 10 o'clock and shoe enough. The car's gone off the drive so I've got to review the footage and see who comes out the house. It'll be interesting to see if the door is in that footage. I have written up my investigative activities in the book, which includes a report on each of the 53 groups who were in the foyer and each of the five groups of responders. Also contained in the book is a significant amount of statement analysis carried out by Genevieve Lewis. She has analysed 33 witness statements which represents a sample of over 25% of the participants. It would take many hours to present all the analysis in this film. Let's have a look at a high profile group, The Rousseau's, the youngest victim, Safi Rousseau's. The mother and the two daughters go to the concert. One of the daughters is an adult, Ashley, with the eight-year-old sister. The father, Andrew and his son, they turn up afterwards and they photographed outside. They were not in the foyer, Andrew and his son. The two women and the daughter are in the foyer, and then the mother ends up in a coma allegedly for some period and there's some doubt about that period. The daughter allegedly dies in hospital, which I think could be a clue to perhaps the daughter already have been killed some time before the concert in another situation. You couldn't be always Safi without having fun, but a dream was to be famous. It was everything, and we bought the tickets for Christmas. It was just count the days, the seconds. I ran a grand day till 9, 10 o'clock at night and she would sing and dance every single song. It seems like a high need to persuade that she was an Ariana fan. Well, yes, and she was eight. I would have thought she would have been into dolls and prams and that kind of thing, but I don't know maybe these days. I think these little girls want to be famous at that age. We don't know about this video. I think it's quite, it's, I think it was a baby, say one so it's probably very heavily edited. We bought her the tickets for Christmas. How many tickets I wonder did they buy? We bought her the tickets for Christmas, but wasn't the mother and the other daughter at the concert? Yes. Didn't they buy the other daughter at the ticket? That's the question. It's possible that it's a need to persuade here that she really was into Ariana Grande. And a need to persuade that they bought a ticket? Yes. There seems to be a great deal of the people had the tickets for Christmas. Christmas or birthdays that were around Christmas time. So we don't know if this is his priority because it's baby, say editing. But is to minimize or defeat what went before it? So you couldn't be out with Safi. He minimises her dream to be famous. There's more important to him in his language and we bought her the tickets for Christmas. She just counting the days. There's nothing here to tell us whether she is or was. There's no verb to be. So she just counting the days is a little bit unreliable. Then it moves to Ashley. She was Ariana Grande obsessed. So to see how happy she was, it was just obviously a hard to go with her. Okay, she has a need to explain why Safi was so happy to see her so happy because she was Ariana Grande obsessed. It's a little bit sensitive but again we can't sort of take anything from this one sensitivity indicator. It's been edited. She might have had a whole paragraph before that. We don't know what she said. She does edit though. She changes her mind here. It was just obviously I had to go with her. Again obviously means the subject wants us to accept what they say without question. You were watching her watching Ariana. Pretty much. Yeah, yeah. She kept going, come on Ashley, you promised me to he