• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Does anyone here believe that Princess Diana's car crash was suspicious?

Jack by the hedge said:
Which is why I asked the question. The required logic is 'MI5' AND no seatbelt, as you suggested.

So, how would 'MI5' make the car crash in the manner that it did AND simultaneously make sure Diana did not wear her seatbelt?
Click to expand...

The logic is: 'Diana was a loose cannon and Phil/Charles/MI5 wanted her shall we say, tamed'. Reasoning: her close link to the heir apparent and the future heir apparent, central to UK constitution. Mohammed 'Al'-Fayed refused British citizenship and being knighted as he desperately wanted [are we seeing MI5 intervention here advising against him and his like?]. Diana consorting with his 'playboy' son.

The fact Diana was not wearing a seatbelt when she died does not disprove that she was under speculated close surveillance.

Are you seeing the lapse in logic yet in saying, 'She died because she did not have her seatbelt on, therefore she was not under surveillance by MI5'?
 
Vixen said:
The logic is: 'Diana was a loose cannon and Phil/Charles/MI5 wanted her shall we say, tamed'. Reasoning: her close link to the heir apparent and the future heir apparent, central to UK constitution. Mohammed 'Al'-Fayed refused British citizenship and being knighted as he desperately wanted [are we seeing MI5 intervention here advising against him and his like?]. Diana consorting with his 'playboy' son.

The fact Diana was not wearing a seatbelt when she died does not disprove that she was under speculated close surveillance.

Are you seeing the lapse in logic yet in saying, 'She died because she did not have her seatbelt on, therefore she was not under surveillance by MI5'?
Click to expand...
You're changing the subject. My logic question is about method. i.e. How did 'they' do it? You are now talking about motive instead.
 
So you leaned in to argue against something no one was saying?

Yea that tracks actually.
 
Darat said:
Drunk driver has an accident. Sadly, nothing at all unusual.
Click to expand...
What, exactly, do you think this is saying and how did you get to that conclusion.

For example, it neither mentions a seatbelt, nor whether Diana was being watched by MI5.
 
Vixen said:
I was simply correcting an annoying lack of logical reasoning rather than offering any opinion as to Diana's accident. However, her younger son, Harry, seems to believe she was topped.
Click to expand...
I'm curious as to where you found him saying this. Note I'm not saying I don't believe you, but that I haven't seen it myself and I'd like to see the quote or quotes from him indicating this.
 
BartholomewWest said:
Who died in a different incident in which "all of the cameras failed."
Click to expand...
You haven't shown that any cameras failed.
Infact it has already been pointed out in the thread that the cameras involved were private security cameras that are pointing at the buildings and doorways they are installed to cover, not the road. One camera that belonged to the traffic monitoring authority isn't manned after 11pm, there's not enough traffic to bother monitoring outside working hours.

And yet you repeat the unevidenced claim that there were 'failed' cameras.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Which is why I asked the question. The required logic is 'MI5' AND no seatbelt, as you suggested.

So, how would 'MI5' make the car crash in the manner that it did AND simultaneously make sure Diana did not wear her seatbelt?
Click to expand...
Obviously, the seatbelt was in on it. Notice how it's airbag cousin was deported to Germany.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom