Why have Iain Davis and David A. Hughes distanced themselves from Nick Kollerstrom's latest article on the Manchester Arena bombing?

Here are the comments that made me question if the families of those killed in the Manchester Arena bombing are bringing legal action against Iain Davis and David A. Hughes for claiming the event was staged. Why else would they use such stiff legal terms in the comments section of an article that supports their stance on the Manchester Arena bombing (or non bombing in their case) ? You’d think they’d be thrilled with yet another expert corroboration of their findings. The article under which these comments appeared is titled: The Maddest court case ever by Nick Kollerstrom, published May 22, 2026. It churns out the usual conspiratainment non-evidence on the bombing, dismissing the victims as crisis actors while priming the way for yet another fundraiser for poor, persecuted Richard D Hall who was only trying to get the troof out with his ‘no bomb, no victims’ conclusion.Kollerstrom repeats the lie that wheelchair bound victim of the blast Martin Hibbert is an actor despite my series of articles and videos exposing the misdirection with the furore that followed including a string of writings attempting to disprove my stance that the victims are genuine. Despite the reams and reams of analysis, nothing could prove they were faking their injuries or that the dead weren’t actually dead or even that they didn’t die in a bomb blast in the Manchester Arena on May 22, 2017. Here’s David A. Hughes flashing devil horns during an interview with Iain Davis and Maryann Gebauer on April 17, 2025. Inverted commas, allegedly. The borefest goes on for more than three hours. Lots of blah, blah, blah but no concrete evidence as per usual. It’s also odd that Iain Davis would choose a blood spattered smiley face as the symbol for his website. Not exactly appropriate in this dark climate of evildoing, is it? Plain weird. It seems to be critically important for the secret societies running the intelligence agencies that conspiracy theorists believe there was no bomb and no victims on the night. It’s already worked exceptionally well as a means to undermine critical thinkers publicly. The only reason Richard D Hall’s court case was widely covered in the mainstream media is because his conclusion is wrong. If he was right, it would have been ignored. The spotlight would have steered clear. All of those who agreed with Richard D Hall’s ‘no bomb, no victims’ stance now look stupid and untrustworthy in front of their peers. They’re also picking on a father in a wheelchair and his daughter who’s also in a wheelchair. Not great. Most feel perfectly entitled to mock Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve and the other victims of the blast because they’ve been emboldened by this apparent investigative journalism, engineered by an easily identifiable network all backing each other up. Iain Davis is usually not shy about coming forward but he’s gone quiet on this subject despite being active on X. And again.Iain Davis wrote a book The Manchester Attck: An Independent Investigation ignoring the victims, something unheard of in journalistic terms, a stunning omission. He dismissed my concerns that his approach could lead to the wrong conclusion during our interview, September 10, 2024. The audience seemed to think leaving out the victims was perfectly fine too, which was troubling to say the least. It would be good to get some clarification on what’s going on considering we’ve been so public about this debate over the years. Iain’s book is currently unavailable on Amazon. It appears to be still available to buy on his website but the sale won’t go through on Paypal. Has his book been removed from circulation or is it just out of stock?If it is the case that the families of the deceased have been in touch to put a halt to the book’s distribution, this puts Iain Davis in a bit of a predicament. He ignored the victims because he deemed them irrelevant to the story. A terrible idea as I tried to warn him in September 2024 but he followed in the footsteps of Richard D Hall’s unreliable evidence. Madness! It didn’t make any sense and still doesn’t to this day. All those pushing the ‘no bomb, no victims’ line on the Manchester Arena bombing must be looked at with suspicion. Either they’ve believed the worst kind of evidence through naivety and groupthink or they’ve actively been trying to hoodwink people into a false conclusion for nefarious purposes. Yes it’s that stark.This is where David A. Hughes and Iain Davis’ ‘no bomb, no victims’ theory falls to pieces. They can’t explain the deaths or injuries from the night. If there was no bomb, what killed and injured all the people? Also none of the families have backed up their claims. Why do people insist on believing absurdities? Is it because it comes out of the mouths of people they deem to be experts?I first thought Iain Davis might have just been naive, that he considered Richard D Hall to be a real investigative journalist and blindly bought into his ‘no bomb, no victims’ nonsense but I’m beginning to reassess that presumption. There’s more to it than that. Intellectual dishonesty. He’s playing dumb. Just like David A. Hughes. The whole thing stinks. We need an update from these two. Clarification required.As for the others who’ve promoted the ‘no bomb, no victims’ line, they need to explain themselves. It’s all looking very dodgy. That’s why the Manchester Arena bombing story remains an excellent filter to figure out who’s who on the Resistance side. If you’ve been conned into believing there was no bomb and no victims that night or if you’ve thrown money into one of Richard D Hall’s black holes, maybe it’s time to reassess or at least pause for thought. Last month marked the ninth anniversary of the attack on concert goers to the Manchester Arena. Even the victims’ families are still asking questions about what happened that night. Many of them don’t buy the official version of events either. They say MI5 are lying. There’s always room for further investigation when treated honestly. It’s the dishonest methods you have to watch out for lest you fall for a misleading conclusion and end up picking on the wrong people. Perhaps Iain Davis is finally figuring out why it was a terrible idea to ignore the victims. Related articles: Evil: Richard D Hall and Genevieve Lewis Accuse Grieving Mother of Lying and of Covering Up the Death of her ChildSuspicious behaviour: James Delingpole pretends he’s unaware of RDH’s Saffie Roussos theoryThe Iain Davis Interview on the Manchester Arena Bombing Get full access to Aisling O'Loughlin at aislingoloughlin.substack.com/subscribe