I would LOVE to see this. I am not normally one for conspiracy theories but I do think there is a very high probability that her death was not an accident.
Who needs conspiracy theories when her driver was half pissed after drinking nearly all evening in the Paris Ritz bar and not knowing he would be called on at the last minute to chauffeur her and her boyfriend, Dodi to their destination that night?
To add to that, no-one can guarantee that a person will die in a car crash. Many people have escaped worst crashes than that one. If your going to kill someone you don't leave it to chance..you make sure they're gonna be 'brown bread'.
Rocky wrote:Who needs conspiracy theories when her driver was half pissed after drinking nearly all evening in the Paris Ritz bar and not knowing he would be called on at the last minute to chauffeur her and her boyfriend, Dodi to their destination that night?
Except the video evidence is to the contrary. And as for Henri Paul's bloodsample being switched ..
To add to that, no-one can guarantee that a person will die in a car crash. Many people have escaped worst crashes than that one. If your going to kill someone you don't leave it to chance..you make sure they're gonna be 'brown bread'.
indeed, but you should ask what happened in the period of time after the crash and Diana finally arriving at a hospital, after taking the scenic route at a leisurely pace.
You can't guarantee a sure kill after a plane crash either. Maybe that's why people on the scene after the Polish Government air crash not so long ago heard several gunshots which could only surmise were survivors being 'finished off'
Come On Rocky .... Diana was about to marry a Muslim. And what's more she was likely pregnant by a Muslim. No one will convince me that the Western Establishment was ever going to allow the mother of the future King of England to be married to a Muslim and a child by him.
-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----
"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."
The film reveals a cover-up by the British Establishment culminating in a six month inquest.
Keith Allen's ground breaking documentary recreates key moments from the inquest and demonstrates how vital evidence of foul play was hidden from public scrutiny, how the Royal Family were exempted from giving evidence and how journalists, particularly those working for the BBC, systematically misreported the events and in particular, the verdict itself.
The film was financed by businessman Mohamed Al-Fayed, father of Dodi Fayed, and premiered Friday May 13th at the Cannes Film Festival. Al-Fayad himself was in Cannes for the screening.
smeggypants wrote:You can't guarantee a sure kill after a plane crash either. Maybe that's why people on the scene after the Polish Government air crash not so long ago heard several gunshots which could only surmise were survivors being 'finished off'
smeggypants wrote:You can't guarantee a sure kill after a plane crash either. Maybe that's why people on the scene after the Polish Government air crash not so long ago heard several gunshots which could only surmise were survivors being 'finished off'
And the motive was?
I'd love to know. But not knowing doesn't mean there wasn't one. I'm stll trying to find out the motives for assassinating Kennedy.
-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----
"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."
Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see My documentary about the Diana inquest will be shown everywhere but the UK. Here's why...
The internet is a global lavatory wall, a Rabelaisian mixture of truth, lies, insanity and humour. I felt its power and madness this week, when an excerpt from my new film, Unlawful Killing, was leaked on to YouTube and seized on by US conspiracy theorists, who immediately began claiming that the CIA had murdered Princess Diana, thereby allowing others to dismiss my documentary as mad.
Deriding its critics as mad is an age-old British establishment trick. My "inquest of the inquest" film contains footage of Diana recalling how the royals wanted her consigned to a mental institution, and the inquest coroner repeatedly questioning the sanity of anyone who wondered if the crash was more than an accident. His chief target was Mohamed Al Fayed, a man I once profiled for a Channel 4 documentary. Before I met him, I'd half-believed the media caricature of him as a madman, driven nuts by the death of his son, and wildly accusing the Windsors of having planned the 1997 crash. However, I found a man who was sane and funny but frustrated that Britain wouldn't hold an inquest into his son's death. Michael Mansfield QC thought it unfair too, and fought for one to be held; which was why the longest inquest in British legal history eventually began in 2007.
Unlawful Killing – the film the British won't get to see My documentary about the Diana inquest will be shown everywhere but the UK. Here's why...
The internet is a global lavatory wall, a Rabelaisian mixture of truth, lies, insanity and humour. I felt its power and madness this week, when an excerpt from my new film, Unlawful Killing, was leaked on to YouTube and seized on by US conspiracy theorists, who immediately began claiming that the CIA had murdered Princess Diana, thereby allowing others to dismiss my documentary as mad.
Deriding its critics as mad is an age-old British establishment trick. My "inquest of the inquest" film contains footage of Diana recalling how the royals wanted her consigned to a mental institution, and the inquest coroner repeatedly questioning the sanity of anyone who wondered if the crash was more than an accident. His chief target was Mohamed Al Fayed, a man I once profiled for a Channel 4 documentary. Before I met him, I'd half-believed the media caricature of him as a madman, driven nuts by the death of his son, and wildly accusing the Windsors of having planned the 1997 crash. However, I found a man who was sane and funny but frustrated that Britain wouldn't hold an inquest into his son's death. Michael Mansfield QC thought it unfair too, and fought for one to be held; which was why the longest inquest in British legal history eventually began in 2007.
This tactic filters down into ordinary society too.
It's not uncommon for people to use totally irrational attacks on anyone challenging the Establishment's explanations by callign the, paranoid or crackpots, etc,etc Even the phrase Conspiracy Theorist has become pejorative in their eyes.
It's a testament to how powerful this indoctrination is the same people know full well the Establishment has a history of lying to them. WMDs in Iraq for example. Similar with politicians. Politicians lie to us on a daily basis and we all know they do. Yet many of us still vote for them.
Keith allen certainly knows how it works ....
Keith Allen in Ghosty's article link wrote:Unlawful Killing is not about a conspiracy before the crash, but a provable conspiracy after the crash. A conspiracy organised not by a single scheming arch-fiend, but collectively by the British establishment – judges, lawyers, politicians, police chiefs, secret services, even newspaper editors – all of whom have been appointed to their positions because they are "a safe pair of hands". Just as compass needles all point north without being told to, so these people instinctively know what is expected of them when the state's interests are under threat and they act accordingly, quietly suppressing uncomfortable evidence or undermining the credibility of witnesses whose evidence contradicts the official narrative.
Keith Allen in Ghosty's article link wrote:I asked every major UK broadcaster (BBC, ITV, C4, Five, Sky) to commission a TV documentary about the inquest. But they refused even to contemplate such a suggestion
No surprises there, and it's obviously no surprise that the state propaganda machine, the BBC started pumping out the usual
Keith Allen in Ghosty's article link wrote:Strangest of all was the media coverage of the verdict. Inquest evidence showed conclusively that the crash was caused by an unidentified white Fiat Uno and several unidentified motorcycles, vehicles that were certainly not paparazzi, because uncontested police evidence confirmed that the paparazzi were nowhere near the tunnel at the time of the crash. The jury understood this, bringing in a verdict of "unlawful killing" by unidentified "following vehicles"; yet within seconds, the BBC was misreporting that the jury had blamed the paparazzi, and the rest of the media meekly followed suit. Which is why – three years on – barely anyone realises what the jury's troubling verdict really was.
It's also no surprise that the BBC has lied about this. The BBC is a proven liar.
-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----
"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."
I have no doubt that the car crash that killed Diana was 'convenient' for the powers that be but to orchestrate a car crash to kill somebody leaves far too much to chance. If Henri Paul had chose to drive slower rather than trying to outrun the press, the crash probably wouldnt have happened. If he had chosen a different route, the crash probably wouldnt have happened and if he had been looking in the rear view mirror at the time of the 'flash', the crash probably wouldnt have happened. It would have been much easier, less dubious and more likely to succeed if they had simply planted a bomb under the car and could have claimed 'assassination' as the cause.
As i say... convenient - probably... Orchestrated? - probably not.
I was bored and decided to update my signature but i couldnt think of anything to put, so i decided to just put Bollocks!
I have read nearly every book written about the Paris car crash and Diana's death and only a serial sceptic would claim that the crash was preplanned. Would Henri Paul have committed suicide by driving the car knowing that Diana was going to be taken out?...logical answer is NO. He was as much a victim as Diana.
All this nonsense about switching of blood samples with a suicide victim is beyond the pale. It's all James Bond stuff.. doesn't happen in real life unless Miss Marples wrote the script.
The biggest nonsense of all was the accusation that the Royal Family and Prince Philip were involved, or even planned the whole operation. That reduces the whole issue to farce as far as I'm concerned.
Rocky wrote:I have read nearly every book written about the Paris car crash and Diana's death and only a serial sceptic would claim that the crash was preplanned. Would Henri Paul have committed suicide by driving the car knowing that Diana was going to be taken out?...logical answer is NO. He was as much a victim as Diana.
All this nonsense about switching of blood samples with a suicide victim is beyond the pale. It's all James Bond stuff.. doesn't happen in real life unless Miss Marples wrote the script.
The biggest nonsense of all was the accusation that the Royal Family and Prince Philip were involved, or even planned the whole operation. That reduces the whole issue to farce as far as I'm concerned.
I have no reason to believe that the Royal Family, inc Prince Philip, were directly involved.
But to claim that the switching of blood samples is only something that happens in the movies is a tad naive if I may say so. Surely you don't believe the Establishment plays by some moral rules do you?
-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----
"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."
ghostgirl wrote:*sigh* Rocky, you're the only person on this thread who's mentioned anything about a conspiracy. Jump the gun much?
Ghostie , if I mentioned the word conspiracy it was in the context that it wasn't a 'conspiracy' not that it was. Another major point is; the inquest established that Diana wasn't even pregnant, so bang goes the theory that the Royals had her killed because she was made pregnant by Dodi Fayed, a Muslim.
The only person who initiated the conspiracy theory from day one of her death was Mohammed al Fayed because he had to make it clear to the public that a near drunken member of his staff, Henri Paul, wasn't responsible for her death, when in fact he was. It's what they call 'shifting the blame' to save face.
