Manchester Arena bomb site

[Roch]

I presume it was out of respect to the victims' families.

So when the contactors went in to repair the damage, where are the images of the foyer then?

[Steve_uk]

So when the contactors went in to repair the damage, where are the images of the foyer then?

Well the Manchester Arena is an ugly concrete structure, though successful for its purpose of entertainment. I suppose it withstood the bomb blast, then out of respect for the victims and their families any photographs of that charnel house are not for public consumption. https://files.manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk/live/uploads/2020/10/01183625/INQ033897.pdf

[Roch]

Well the Manchester Arena is an ugly concrete structure, though successful for its purpose of entertainment. I suppose it withstood the bomb blast, then out of respect for the victims and their families any photographs of that charnel house are not for public consumption. https://files.manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk/live/uploads/2020/10/01183625/INQ033897.pdf

The incident was in the foyer, with the rucksack being placed against a wall which would have partially shielded the foyer from any blast. With 22 people allegedly killed and more with either serious or minor injuries, the foyer should have literally been a bombsite. It should have been wrecked, damaged. like other major bombsites.  The fact that no images exist of the extent of damage before it was repaired, is because there was no damage.

[Roch]

Auditioning for a part in Coronation Street...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3671647/harrowing-footage-shot-by-dad-searching-for-teen-daughter-in-manchester-arena-moments-after-bomb-blast/

[Steve_uk]

The incident was in the foyer, with the rucksack being placed against a wall which would have partially shielded the foyer from any blast. With 22 people allegedly killed and more with either serious or minor injuries, the foyer should have literally been a bombsite. It should have been wrecked, damaged. like other major bombsites.  The fact that no images exist of the extent of damage before it was repaired, is because there was no damage.

But it's not the Odeon Cinema of the 1980s. It's built partially over the top of Victoria Station and resembles a multi-storey car park. It's quite possible the concrete walls withstood the explosion, with human flesh and bone blocking some of the impact.

[Roch]

22 people killed, by a 22 year old, on the 22nd day of the month, at 22:31

[Roch]

Ruth Murrell's leg injury...

[Roch]

Looks like your hero might be in a bit of trouble this time.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12263775/Conspiracy-theorist-sued-Manchester-Arena-bombing-victims-claims-attack-staged.html

Here is Hall's defence..

[Steve_uk]

Here is Hall's defence..

Had I survived the attack though sustained serious injuries I don't see why the onus would be upon me to provide the Press with a photograph of myself in a wheelchair. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/22/teenage-girl-made-miracle-recovery-after-manchester-arena-bombing

[gringo]

Had I survived the attack though sustained serious injuries I don't see why the onus would be upon me to provide the Press with a photograph of myself in a wheelchair. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/22/teenage-girl-made-miracle-recovery-after-manchester-arena-bombing

Was this fabricated? There are no images of any damage caused by the bomb. At least I'm not aware of any.

    It seems an oversight, from a reporting point of view, that the BBC, Daily Mail and all other media organisations that spoke to the Hibberts failed to also demonstrate the unequivocal evidence that Hall is a "conspiracy theorist". The tools used to go after Hall indicate that that they cannot show his reporting is "conspiracy theory". From paragaraph 1 of RDH defence below;

      "...The claimants purport they have claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Data Protection Act 2018 and for misuse of what they claim to be "private information". The claim is denied."

     I find it odd that none of the media orgs calling RDH a conspiracy theorist have bothered to "easily" debunk his "conspiracy theory". The legislation being used to sue him appears to criminalise "journalism". Why didn't the Hibberts when speaking to friendly media orgs not show pictures which prove the obsessive RDH was inventing conspiracies. That would have shut him down for good, forever proven to be discredited. The media that spoke to the Hibberts apparently didn't ask for evidence. It would be the perfect riposte and would end RDH's career.
    No instead they use the conspiracy theorist slur at every opportunity despite the fact that the legal proceedings don't even address this. It seems an odd route to take to "debunk" a conspiracy especially when much easier routes are available if it is indeed a "conspiracy theory". It appears that RDH's CT cannot be debunked.

[Roch]

    It seems an oversight, from a reporting point of view, that the BBC, Daily Mail and all other media organisations that spoke to the Hibberts failed to also demonstrate the unequivocal evidence that Hall is a "conspiracy theorist". The tools used to go after Hall indicate that that they cannot show his reporting is "conspiracy theory". From paragaraph 1 of RDH defence below;

      "...The claimants purport they have claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Data Protection Act 2018 and for misuse of what they claim to be "private information". The claim is denied."

     I find it odd that none of the media orgs calling RDH a conspiracy theorist have bothered to "easily" debunk his "conspiracy theory". The legislation being used to sue him appears to criminalise "journalism". Why didn't the Hibberts when speaking to friendly media orgs not show pictures which prove the obsessive RDH was inventing conspiracies. That would have shut him down for good, forever proven to be discredited. The media that spoke to the Hibberts apparently didn't ask for evidence. It would be the perfect riposte and would end RDH's career.
    No instead they use the conspiracy theorist slur at every opportunity despite the fact that the legal proceedings don't even address this. It seems an odd route to take to "debunk" a conspiracy especially when much easier routes are available if it is indeed a "conspiracy theory". It appears that RDH's CT cannot be debunked.

I knew from the outset it was bullshit; but had to pipe down, because two of the deceased were from my hometown.

[gringo]

I knew from the outset it was bullshit; but had to pipe down, because two of the deceased were from my hometown.

   The aim is obviously is to silence RDH, rather than "debunk" RDH's "conspiracy theory"- I wonder why?    Why not just prove that RDH is what they say he is. If he is what they say (conspiracy theorist) then it would be easy to prove in this case. Once this is proven RDH would have to concede the case. Instead they are using Harassment legislation and Data Protection Act.
     It seems apparent to me from these facts and "odd" choice of legal remedy that there is no appetite to attempt to "debunk" RDH's reporting and no confidence of success in doing so.

[Roch]

Ruth Murrell's leg injury...

Where is the entry hole in Ruth Murrell's jeans?  What is she doing casually trotting along the floor, after a sizeable piece of nuts and bolts shrapnel has passed through her leg?

[Roch]

    It seems an oversight, from a reporting point of view, that the BBC, Daily Mail and all other media organisations that spoke to the Hibberts failed to also demonstrate the unequivocal evidence that Hall is a "conspiracy theorist". The tools used to go after Hall indicate that that they cannot show his reporting is "conspiracy theory". From paragaraph 1 of RDH defence below;

      "...The claimants purport they have claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Data Protection Act 2018 and for misuse of what they claim to be "private information". The claim is denied."

     I find it odd that none of the media orgs calling RDH a conspiracy theorist have bothered to "easily" debunk his "conspiracy theory". The legislation being used to sue him appears to criminalise "journalism". Why didn't the Hibberts when speaking to friendly media orgs not show pictures which prove the obsessive RDH was inventing conspiracies. That would have shut him down for good, forever proven to be discredited. The media that spoke to the Hibberts apparently didn't ask for evidence. It would be the perfect riposte and would end RDH's career.
    No instead they use the conspiracy theorist slur at every opportunity despite the fact that the legal proceedings don't even address this. It seems an odd route to take to "debunk" a conspiracy especially when much easier routes are available if it is indeed a "conspiracy theory". It appears that RDH's CT cannot be debunked.

If the Bickerstaff video is fake, then the whole event is fake...

We know from a roadie that there was pandemonium in the arena after the bang, which resulted in the tannoy instructing people to leave in orderly manner. In Bickerstaff's video, people are filing past the arena concourse seemingly without a care....

If the Bickerstaff video is fake, then the whole incident is fake.

[Roch]

Only an anonymous source but interesting.