Phew.
Yes, she was.
1 Like
I thought we were supposed to get back on topic but as you have brought up the subjects, yes I have a neighbour who was a colonel in the military intelligence. I mentioned his comments because it was relevant. I know other people surprisingly and on occasion, if they have said anything pertinent to a conversation we are having I mention it. If you chose not to believe me that is down to you.
As for her not wearing a seat belt, I didnât say that she always did. I said that if she had worn one on this occasion it probablyy would(according to official reports) have saved her life.
There is a timeline online somewhere which shows exactly what was done medically and why and debunk the conspiracy theories. You might recall that it also took a while to cut her out of the car.
Regarding the parenthood of Harry, if you look at any official account Diana hadnât met James Hewitt until well after Harryâs birth.
If people want to believe that she was professionally killed that is down to them. Again I would say what has she done that warranted being killed and if that was the case, why would a professional killing unit try and kill her in such a way that was not guaranteed to cause her death. Again, she would probably have lived if she had worn a seat belt. Seriously, why would they Royal family sanction the killing of the mother of a future King of England just because her marriage failed and she talked about it? Plenty of people have bad mouthed the RF or caused them embarrassment and guess what, they are still alive.
Sorry Phil. I appreciate your efforts to move the thread back to where it was meant to be.
1 Like
Seriously Pap? Full conspiracy nut? I mentioned the conspiracy theory that is hardly going full nut. Barry sent me a load of PMs on the Ugly last week which I discounted but I can see what he means now.
Do you think her death was caused by the entire âcircusâ that her life had become?
Diana was anther one that used, and rebuffed, the press as suited her.
1 Like
The Beef Thread (in honour of Barry)Because it had to look like an accident?
One in the chest and two in the head may not have done.
1 Like
Ah theories. There are more theories than the general population can poke a stick at. Whether said population want to investigate past the official story in places that donât invole the official story is up to them. To blanket people with the term Conspiricy Theorist doesnât debunk their investigations but merely shows those calling people it lazy and only interested in the safety of the official story
4 Likes
It wouldnât have done but think about the variables involved in staging a fatal car accident and the lack of certainty about the outcome. As said before, there was no guarantee that the crash would cause her death and if she had worn the seatbelt she probably would not have been killed. If the crash had happened in a slightly different spot at a slightly different speed the outcome could have been less fatal for those who died. If you are going to the trouble of arranging a falls accident you wouldnât leave so much to chance would you? Given that she had already said what she wanted to say and it was well and truly Iâm the public domain, it seems a bit late in the day to kill her in order to shut her up. There are reasons that these things are called conspiracy theories and that is precisely just what they are. From what I have read, the claims made that are supposed to support the fact that she was deliberately killed have been debunked. It is entirely possible that she was killed deliberately, but the circumstances have been examined and pored over many times and there is still no hard evidence to prove that was the case.
Absolutely. Which is a completely different situation to the Monarchy arranging a hit on a young woman whose only crime is to have married unwisely.
1 Like
I have a real problem with the use of âdebunkedâ.
Who fact checks the fact checkers? Itâs also like a maths problem. I wanna see their working please. They rarely do. Often based upon confirmation bias and selective use of facts. Sorry, âfactsâ.
Building 7 anyone? Not mentioned once in the 9/11 commission report which was the âofficialâ account of that fateful day which was to precede to the Iraq war. Which our officials told us was because they had WMDs. That was a fact at the time and anybody who questioned their motives was labelled a conspiracy theorist for questioning the authority. We all now know how that ended up. Well you do if youâre willing to look under the carpet, where it was swept.
As for the conspiracy theory term - it was conjured up by the intelligence community as a derogatory means of labelling, embarrassing and ultimately discrediting people who dare question the âofficialâ narrative of any story. Usually the one perpetuated by the State.
It is a highly successful tool in lumping beliefs and ideologies together that rarely hold any actual association.
It lumps together people who believe the earth is flat/hollow, inhabited by lizard people etc with people who just have a hard time swallowing certain presentations of âfactsâ and those open enough to see and accept the possibility of corrupt behaviour in our officials and institutions. Especially when money and self preservation are knocking around as tangible incentive/motive.
3 Likes
Maybe thatâs why she was âtreatedâ at the scene for 90 minutes, to ensure she was in a âno chance of survivalâ state before she left to go to hospital.
I canât be arsed to go through the medical treatment history but if you are that interested go and look it up. I doubt if you will though because you seem determined to believe that she was murdered (despite there being no evidence to support that claim).
Re the RF knowing about the interview, what difference does it make? She did the interview and the information was out there (most it known already re Charles shagging Camilla). Are you saying that the Queen then had her killed out of spite and revenge?
I agree, you probably canât prove your point.
I have pointed to the reasons that I think her death was dodgy above. You donât seem to have addressed any of them - including not being arsed to prove what Iâm saying is incorrect. But thatâs fine, that seems to be your raison dâetre when trying to prove something tricky.
As an FYI, I quit SW because you and Hypo seemed to infest every thread with bickering, both looking like complete numpties.
You said why didnât they kill her before the interview - I said because they didnât know she was going to do that.
And my point was that what was the point of killing her once she had put the information out there?
If you want me to believe that she was murdered, show the evidence I read a shit load of information about the case in the last lockdown and if you are that bothered you will do the same.
If you were that bothered about me and hypo on TSW why do isnât you just put us on ignore and be done with it? Also it doesnât give you the right to behave like hypo over here. You effectively called me a liar and I have given you the chance to prove it. You chose not to so do us both a favour and stop making yourself look silly.
2 Likes
Its OK there was a judicial review. Lord Stevenâs no less.
We all know they never find any truth in conspiracies.
Dr Kelly
WMD
Iraq War
PPE shortly.
2 Likes
Can you 2 please give it a rest, thank youâŠ
1 Like
Iâm tempted, believe meâŠ
2 Likes