• 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?

Vixen said:
Henri Paul was found with a cocktail of drugs in his bloodstream, not just alcohol. I think these were antidepressants and stuff. In addition, Henri Paul notified the paparazzi milling around outside that Princess Diana was about to leave the hotel. In effect, he encouraged a high-speed chase and he wasn't as good a driver as he thought he was. He should have slowed down entering the tunnel but didn't bother.
Click to expand...
How did M15 arrange that?
 
Vixen said:
Henri Paul was found with a cocktail of drugs in his bloodstream, not just alcohol. I think these were antidepressants and stuff. In addition, Henri Paul notified the paparazzi milling around outside that Princess Diana was about to leave the hotel. In effect, he encouraged a high-speed chase and he wasn't as good a driver as he thought he was. He should have slowed down entering the tunnel but didn't bother.
Click to expand...

Again, though, that's just the accepted story.

Paul's parents and brother and friends disputed that.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Yep. All occupants not wearing seatbelts died. One wearing their seatbelt survived. Not at all a guaranteed result, but unsuspicious.

But let's imagine it was some sort of assassination: How did it work? The car was being driven by the Paris Ritz hotel's security guy. He'd had a drink and was speeding. He didn't put on his seatbelt, which might have saved him.

How did 'they' cause him to crash in the manner and place where he did?
Click to expand...

This part is disputed as well. Later, they said ALL FOUR of them had no seatbelt. Including the surviving bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones.

Here is where the plot really thickens. A spy who worked for Mi6 or mi5 came forward to say you CAN stage a car crash. By shining a bright light at the driver. He even said they had considered doing it to Slobodan Milosevic.

Afterwards, a bunch of really bad things happened to him.
 
Last edited:
@BartholomewWest ? If you could take a look at post #108, we start delivering fatal blows to the conspiracy. It's very representative of why "stuff we hear" shouldn't be taken seriously.
 
BartholomewWest said:
This part is disputed as well. Later, they said ALL FOUR of them had no seatbelt. Including the surviving bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones.

Here is where the plot really thickens. A spy who worked for Mi6 or mi5 came forward to say you CAN stage a car crash. By shining a bright light at the driver. He even said they had considered doing it to Slobodan Milosevic.

Afterwards, a bunch of really bad things happened to him.
Click to expand...
Name this spy. Point out where he said this and the "really bad things" that happened to him.
 
I Am The Scum said:
What plot?
Click to expand...
Here, I got one:

Thermal staggers out in the street and gets hit by a car. His wife says he is a leader in the community and an upstanding citizen. His friends say he is a violent loose cannon. Posters on an internet board say he uses an alias and appears not to have a functional command of English, so is likely a Russian spy.

That's where we're at with Lady Di. It's a bunch of telephone games and overanylized conjecture surrounding a tragic accident, micro-scrutinizing every hearsay detail till it all looks strange.
 
Vixen said:
Let's play devil's advocate re your theory that MI5 (or any of the French operatives) can't possibly have been involved, as an armoured S-class Mercedes is so unlikely to be struck by a little fiat, especially as it is an enormous Mercedes saloon.

Do the maths and physics. A car travelling at even 40mph but in this case, up to 100mph, or maybe slightly less in entering the tunnel.

Tell me: what happens when a car driving at that velocity comes into contact with a solid object such as a tree or, in this case, a concrete pillar?

Hmmm?
Click to expand...
We know what happens when a Merc like that runs straight into a concrete pillar like that at a speed like that, because that's what happened.

The problem is when you try to figure out how it would be possible for some agency to plan to cause that to happen.

Doesn't matter whether M15 secret agents were following their every move. The outcome does not look like that of any plausible assassination plot.

Unless of course you can think of a way to make it work.
 
BartholomewWest said:
This part is disputed as well. Later, they said ALL FOUR of them had no seatbelt. Including the surviving bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones.

Here is where the plot really thickens. A spy who worked for Mi6 or mi5 came forward to say you CAN stage a car crash. By shining a bright light at the driver. He even said they had considered doing it to Slobodan Milosevic.

Afterwards, a bunch of really bad things happened to him.
Click to expand...
It's possible he didn't wear his belt either. He had the passenger airbag to protect him but he was still pretty messed up.

The problem with trying to figure how this crash could be some kind of deliberate act is there's no obvious way for anyone to cause the car to crash in that exact way. If it hadn't had the bad luck to go head on into that pillar, the occupants would probably have been fine. It's a big safe car. Nobody is going to come up with a plan that's as dumb as "we'll try to cause a crash and fingers crossed maybe they'll get really unlucky and all just die".
 
An Agent is a civilian paid to provide information or perform specific tasks by an Officer.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Well Vixen?
Click to expand...


It is an example of the type of poor logic I was pointing out. The logically erroneous conclusion that because Henri Paul had X amount of alcohol in his bloodstream and thus, judged to be driving whilst substance-impaired, and that had Diana worn a seatbelt, she might have lived.

Think about these two sentences:

  1. "The driver was drunk and Diana was not wearing a seatbelt"
  2. "MI5 was behind it" (or other secret services)".

Accepting proposition no.1 does not logically follow ipso facto that proposition no.2 is cannot be true..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom