It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Diana Conspiracy

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 06:28 AM
An interesting article, although i am extremely sceptical, i don't believe Princess Diana's death was an accident or the fault of the media. This article must be quite old and it makes crazy allegations (eg. Diana was supposed to marry Bill Clinton)

Anywayz, here's the link

posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 06:41 PM
I couldn't help when reading this, that the article was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

But it opened my eyes to this:

"Even though Bill Clinton has bastard roots in the Rockefeller clan, he is rejected by them and is aligned with the Rothschilds. Bill Clinton was the designated future husband for Lady Diana, with Hillary Clinton to be eliminated through divorce or even murder."

I know that Clinton changed his name to be a better cowboy-statesman figure, but can someone point me in the direction of his bastard heritage?

Is there anything more reliable than this....

posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 06:38 AM
"The person using the name "Clinton" should rightfully be called William ROCKEFELLER Clinton."

"While in England, Clinton, a sexual predator, suffering from having his flag up too often, priapism, raped a British woman. He was forced to terminate his studies at Oxford and abruptly leave Great Britain, with the proviso that he would not be criminally prosecuted as long as he never returned. "

^i hope that isn't true. any info anyone?

posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 06:42 AM
Well they did say that the driver of Diana's car was tanked up on red wine, i reckon it was a 2 things.

The paparazzi following them caused the driver to speed up to evade the paparazzi and the second was the driver was pissed at the wheel.

posted on Jun, 20 2003 @ 01:59 AM
I have read two good books relating to this subject. One was "Gideon's Spies" by Gordon Thomas, and "The Biggest Secret" by David Icke. Both have several different theories on the murder/accident and both supply convincing arguements. The only problem is that one soon finds that it is hard to believe any one those arguements due to the fact that no one has the same story and the facts start to lose their ground because nothing is conclusive and the stories are so simular yet so different.

Personally I think a lot of the so-called facts lead to prove that this was a murder carried out by really powerful people. It will make you think twice about so-called accidents, that is for sure. Rememer John Kennedy Jr???? Remember Sonny Bono????

You See?

posted on Jun, 20 2003 @ 04:13 AM
Its sad that people can`t accept that she died becuase her car was being driven by someone who was well and truly drunk.

Ask yourselves a simple question, why would anyone wish to kill a celebrity figure? Was she about to marry dodi fayed? Why would that merit killing her? Was she about to reveal the secrets of Area 51? I think not.

There is relatively little to be gained by anyone from Dianas death (and if anyone says the british monarchy did please go straight to the doctor and explain your problems to him) just a poor woman and man who got in a car with a drunk man and paid the price as so many others do each and every year.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing to be gained by her death (sorry I know this is repition but its winding me up) Why the ***king hell would anyone want to kill this lady. She was n`t powerful, she worked for charity and her children.

What do we get out of her death? A campaign on the evils of drinking and driving? A lasting testiment to the many thousands who die each year in the same manner.
No, what we get are allegations from weak minded fools who, everytime someone famous dies bring out the text book of conspiracy theories see which one or many fit and apply liberally with

Sad that she died, even sadder that people want to make something out of it. Fayed was made to eat his words when saying this was a conspiracy.

And before anyone jumps down my throat I`m quite willing to admit that when certain people have died that the circumstances, manner and evidence lead me to believe that people have conspired to kill that person but in this case its all a load of hokey.

posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 12:47 PM
its been proved the driver was not drunk,if he was drunk how did he bend down and tie his shoelace (in the ritz)without wobbling ,swaying or falling over
.The autopsy proved he wasnt drunk even the body guard that survived the crash said john paul was sober

posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 03:44 PM
You are just trying to rule out anything that Icke has to say. It is obvious. You dispute everything that comes out of his mouth. You do this while disputing all the facts and overlooking what information can be given. When it comes down to it you can't say anything until you read up on it without that never ending bias of your's. What do you have to hide from???

You mention that those that suggest the Royal Family killed her need mental help. That right there proves your blatant and ignorant bias. What is your motive in this???

Do you work for the Family???

Or are they your masters???

What is it Cassini???

I really want to know. What is it that makes them so innocent????

Are you just trying to get cookie points with the Monarchy???

You know that King and Queen jargon died hundreds of years ago. Get with the program. If you can't even try and search for the truth then why even claim stuff you have no knowledge of???

Why don't you read Gideon's Spies and then come back and tell me why it is BS.

Can you do that???

Are you willing???

Or would that go against your Royal code of conduct???

Personally I think that the Queen of England is a pig, and so are the people in that family who treated Diana so. Everyone knows the horrors that woman faced by the likes of them. It is no mystery that Diana was hated by the Royal family. Only an ignorant would dispute that fact.

posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 07:08 PM
Well Icke was n`t the main thrust but give me JFK or Reagan and I`ll talk conspiracy but DIANA??? what that all about. Innocent lady, theres no gain in her death.

posted on Jun, 21 2003 @ 07:34 PM
Why Diana???

Well to know the full extent of the reasons then one must read "The Biggest Secret". I know I say that like I was his publisher but I only mention it because that is where you will find the answers. There is a vast amount of info about her death in that book. I could try and explain it to you but it amounts to two things:

One being that she was against war and especially landmines. People who make those wars and those landmines were going to lose business if some powerful lady such as Diana preached to the world about the dangers of these weapons. She was a crusader against these horrible things, and unlike many crusaders she had a lot of influence over the world opinions and the world leaders. Basically she took away the power and the money that the manufacturers of these weapons had or have.

The second reason being some what more complex and at the same time really simple. That simplicity amounts to this:

Some people are evil.

God Bless her soul. She was the most beautiful woman who ever lived.

posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 09:15 AM

Originally posted by codes
its been proved the driver was not drunk,if he was drunk how did he bend down and tie his shoelace (in the ritz)without wobbling ,swaying or falling over
.The autopsy proved he wasnt drunk even the body guard that survived the crash said john paul was sober

Yes, and don't forget that she had a .22 LR bullet on her head.
Unfortunately, I think that the french police report is not available anymore.

Diana , Dodi and their driver have been murdered. But why ?

posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 09:31 AM
I believe Cassini got this one right.

It just isn't logical that Diana was killed because she was a threat.
The disadvantages of such action far outweigh the advantages.

I believe that this was just an accident. Most of the evidence points to it being so.

posted on Jun, 23 2003 @ 03:55 AM
Fiat Uno & Missing Motorbike

The French inquiry confirmed that there had been a collision, near the entrance to the Alma Tunnel, between the Mercedes S280 and a white Fiat Uno. Despite the biggest search for a car in French history, according to the French police the Fiat Uno has never been found. Nevertheless, Judge Stephan felt able to conclude that the vehicle played no more than a 'passive' part in the tragedy.
His conclusion defies logic. If the Mercedes was travelling at high speed as it approached the Alma Tunnel, any manoeuvre to avoid another car could have been the cause of the eventual crash, even if there was only glancing contact between the two vehicles. Since at least one eyewitness suggested that the white Fiat Uno was "waiting" for the Mercedes, there is also the sinister possibility that, at the mouth of the tunnel, the Fiat deliberately collided with the Mercedes to force it off course.
Perhaps, the greatest mystery surrounding the Fiat has been the attitude of the French police. In the course of their investigations, they did unearth a white Fiat Uno which seemed to meet all the criteria. It had body damage exactly matching the marks on the Mercedes and had even been hurriedly re-sprayed (in red lead in preparation for a full re-spray) in unusual and mysterious circumstances within a few hours of the crash. Tests showed that its original white paint was identical to the traces of paint found on the wreck of the Mercedes, as were bumper samples. In eventually ruling out the vehicle the French police first claimed that the paint did not match. However, a forensic report carried out for the French police confirms that the paint and bumper samples were identical. The French police claimed also that the car's owner and his vehicle had a watertight alibi. Our own inquiries have revealed, however, that the Vietnamese owner's alibi was never checked. Eyewitnesses to the crash also report seeing a large dog in the back of the Fiat Uno. Given that their description of the animal matches that of the dog belonging to the car's owner, the lack of interest on the part of the police is even harder to explain or understand.
Many possible reasons have been put forward for the disappearance of the Fiat Uno and its driver. Some, of course, are perfectly plausible. But assuming that the role of the Fiat was entirely innocent, it is surprising that whoever was driving - and clearly had the best view of events leading to up the crash - has not since found some way to pass on his evidence.
Similarly, the French inquiry appears to have made little attempt to track down the motorcyclist seen close to the Mercedes as it crashed. The importance of this motorcycle was highlighted by an ITV documentary presented by Anthony Scrivener QC and broadcast on 3 September 1999, the day the findings of the French inquiry were published. Some witnesses have claimed that a flash or stun-light set off by the bike's pillion passenger blinded Henri Paul and caused him to lose control of the car. But even if the motorcycle was merely impeding the Mercedes, its presence is crucial. Unfortunately the machine and its rider(s) have never been found - the bike was last seen leaving the tunnel immediately after the crash. Anthony Scrivener QC, a former Chairman of the Bar Council, concluded his personal inquiry into the crash by stating that, under French law, there is certainly enough evidence to charge that missing motorcyclist with manslaughter.

posted on Jun, 23 2003 @ 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Leveller
I believe Cassini got this one right.

It just isn't logical that Diana was killed because she was a threat.
The disadvantages of such action far outweigh the advantages.

I believe that this was just an accident. Most of the evidence points to it being so.

Let us observe this one. She was hated by the royal family and she was hated by all the land mine manufactures. That isn't enough of a reason for you???

That isn't a motive???

Think Mcfly, think.

Not to mention some people don't care about motives. Some people kill because they are evil. What makes Diana an exception to this unreasonable action???

If anything she would be even more of a target for those with evil intentions. Would she not???

I mean she was only the most peaceful, harmless, and beautiful being that ever lived.

You See???

[Edited on 23-6-2003 by Abraham Virtue]

posted on Jun, 23 2003 @ 04:12 AM
I think its rather sick that some ppl think she was assasinated, personally i think she was killed cos here driver was tanked up on wine as i said in my earlier post.

posted on Jun, 23 2003 @ 04:55 AM
AV, I think in your assumption that "She was hated by the royal family and she was hated by all the land mine manufactures. That isn't enough of a reason for you???"
you have really misunderstood who this Lady was. She is only one of many individuals and organisations campaigning against landmines. Given the way in which governments conduct war it was never likely that she was that much of a threat to them. As for the Royal Family I don`t see why they would kill her, hate can be a powerful motivator and who knows the way in which evil can strike. However, the contention that they are evil or would do this is a step too far. I don`t think that you or Mr Icke really understand the Royal Family.

There is one simple thing in all of this which I and others have said, it remains the case that the driver was blotto, Ipso facto, absolutely drunk as a skunk, as bad as me last night when I stumbled in at 2.00 in the morning. If I`d have been driving last night the term dead as a dodo would probably fit around now.

No conspiracy, no reptoids royal family having her killed just one drunk driver, two unfortunate passengers.

posted on Jun, 23 2003 @ 06:26 AM
Ok, it was an accident and not a murder. That's why she had a bullet on the head.

I did many cars crash ( bha...I was young
), but I don't remember that I've been hit by a bullet when I did these crash.

Another " magic bullet " probably....

posted on Jun, 23 2003 @ 06:39 AM
U_P there was n`t a bullet. I`m not sure why you think there was. Try and remember she was being chased by the worlds press at the time, and if any such thing had happened it would have been reported.

It is unfortunate that Mohammed Al Fayed opened his fat gob but he did and now everyone thinks this was an assasination.

Diana was NOT a powerful lady, she exerted NO real influence and was a Glamour figure not a powermonger. People should not be wasting time with this a simple review of the facts, the real ones not those made up by sources unknown, should tell you theres no smoke and no fire.

posted on Jun, 23 2003 @ 06:57 AM
The white Fiat Uno theory always makes me laugh.

Scene - Parisian Motor Dealership.

Assassin: Hmmm. I'm looking for a car to help me carry out my work.

Salesman: Well how much money have you got to spend?

Assassin: Loads. I'm working for dark forces.

Salesman: And what sort of work would you be carrying out with this vehicle?

Assassin: I'm looking to chase a Mercedes and ram it off the road.

Salesman: Well here you go then. I've got a tiny vehicle with a hair dryer for an engine that gets from 0 to 60 mph in half an hour. It also falls apart quite easily.
But hell!!! I'll do you a good deal. And it's one of the cheapest cars you can buy. Your "leaders" will be pleased that you shop so economically.

Assassin: Any James Bond style extras?

Salesman: Sure. There's a cigar lighter up front.

Assassin: Great. I'll take it. Oh tell you what. Why don't we go for a white one? That's always a colour that never stands out.

Salesman: Ok then. Here we go then. One small, slow, flimsy, cheap, white car.
Before you go though, what makes you think you can take out a Mercedes with this thing?

Assassin: Well it was European Car of The Year!!!

posted on Jun, 23 2003 @ 07:14 AM
Motive - She was going to marry an arab and was pregnant with his child, this child would be blood, and brother of the future King William.

Drunk, why does it sicken you that people think there is more to the story than meets the eye? Dodi Fayed's father doesn't agree with you so why should anyone else?

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in