Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Diana Conspiracy

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2003 @ 04:51 AM
link   
"You say that he was forced to confess. Well once again, isn't that more proof???"

1) He was forced to APOLOGIZE, which is the normal procedure when an allegation has been made that is false. Newspapers are made to do it in similar cases.

2) He was made to do this by a court of law and due trial.

Av, these guys are n`t my masters and as I said earlier,
"give me JFK or Reagan and I`ll talk conspiracy but DIANA???" come on.

I`d just like to state something here. Every single person on this thread is relying on speculation of the facts. None of us have access to first hand information on this, so everything said here is nonsense effectively.
However, lets look at the two sources of information. On the one hand we have the worlds paperazzi witnessing a road accident, we have a toxicology report, and numerous eye witnesses stating the driver was drunk, which would seem to be coroborated by the fact he was a known achololic. Stacked up against this is the man who claimed to be the son of god, claims queen Elizabeth and George Bush are reptoids and seriously beliefs it.

If one were looking at this properly with an eye to the quality of evidence, you would appreciate that there can be only one conclusion.

"Many lobbies had some interest on her death. The Royal Familly and also the Land Mines Cies are just 2 very good exemples."

Once again, there are have been and will be many people and organisations trying to get rid of land mines, Diana was no different to any of them. Richard Branson has for many years beeen trying to help with the removal of land mines. Another high profile Brit who is strangely alive, ah but of course he is n`t pregnant with dodis baby.




posted on Jun, 26 2003 @ 05:11 AM
link   
"Some people don't have the mind or the heart to handle such controversal subjects. I wouldn't be suprised if you and Cassini fit that category"

I certainly do and Gaz has shown he can time and again. You however, have showed yourself to be quite paranoid about everything. Challenge everything but don`t expect everything to topple and most important don`t make facts up. You sadly see a conspiracy in everything, and I`m quite happy to admit that they exist and operate but not under every stone and rock. When talking about something like this the purpose is ultimately useless as the evidence is out of our domain.

You should be using your energy where its really needed.



posted on Jun, 26 2003 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

I fail to see where you gave one logic in the conclusion that the lack of motive rules out any murder. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Well..........


1. I don't think it was murder, so there needn't be a motive....

2. A car crash is a pretty unsure method of assassination. It's more likely that the target would survive the crash.

3. Most murders aren't attempted in full view of the papparazzi!

4. Surely, there were more attractive moments if the goal was to kill Diana.

5. There are dozens of unsuspicious ways to commit this hit, than hoping she'd die in the ensuing crash. (plane crash, much surer chance there, and she's flying all the time).

All in all, it just doesn't seem logical that Lady Di's death in these circumstances, was a planned hit...


Answers:

1--You must not understand. You said that there is no motive and therefore their was no reason for her to be murdered. All I was asking for was your reasoning on that as a REASON for ruling out the possibility of a murder. You See?

2--Oh really? Well it sure is a clean way. The best way to kill someone is to make it look like it was an accident. That is the new fad in high scale hits. Only TRUE professional killers can pull that off. Besides it has been done countless times. Saddam used to do it all the time and he was very successful at it. Just see for yourself. Go ahead. Look it up, it is out there. Can you find it? Or should I say, "Are you willing to find it?"

3--That is where you seem to lose the truth of the facts. The facts are that no one saw the car crash. Including the papparazzi. Show me where it says anyone did witness this crash. Can you???

4--Attractive moments??? Where do you come up with this stuff??? As if there is some sort of prefered time frame for killing. The truth is that it was all symbolic. I will have to get back to you on the so-called reasons for killing her at this time as opposed to that time.(Seriously, that is a weak and invalid point. That doesn't disprove anything, and you know it.)

5--Once again, this just shows how little you really know about the ritualistic murder of Satanism. Read up on the Pont de L'Alma tunnel. Then maybe you will See.(David Icke wrote pages of info that could tear this statement in shreads. Once again, read his book. Quit wasting your time fooling yourself and trying to prove me wrong with you bias view.)

Any more????????????



posted on Jun, 26 2003 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

I fail to see where you gave one logic in the conclusion that the lack of motive rules out any murder. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Well..........


1. I don't think it was murder, so there needn't be a motive....

2. A car crash is a pretty unsure method of assassination. It's more likely that the target would survive the crash.

3. Most murders aren't attempted in full view of the papparazzi!

4. Surely, there were more attractive moments if the goal was to kill Diana.

5. There are dozens of unsuspicious ways to commit this hit, than hoping she'd die in the ensuing crash. (plane crash, much surer chance there, and she's flying all the time).

All in all, it just doesn't seem logical that Lady Di's death in these circumstances, was a planned hit...

Gaz i am with you i agree with all your points, why do ppl think she was murdered? most styff printed in newspapers are a load of old cobblers anyway.



posted on Jun, 26 2003 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Abraham Virtue

Originally posted by Gazrok

I fail to see where you gave one logic in the conclusion that the lack of motive rules out any murder. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Well..........


1. I don't think it was murder, so there needn't be a motive....

2. A car crash is a pretty unsure method of assassination. It's more likely that the target would survive the crash.

3. Most murders aren't attempted in full view of the papparazzi!

4. Surely, there were more attractive moments if the goal was to kill Diana.

5. There are dozens of unsuspicious ways to commit this hit, than hoping she'd die in the ensuing crash. (plane crash, much surer chance there, and she's flying all the time).

All in all, it just doesn't seem logical that Lady Di's death in these circumstances, was a planned hit...


Answers:

1--You must not understand. You said that there is no motive and therefore their was no reason for her to be murdered. All I was asking for was your reasoning on that as a REASON for ruling out the possibility of a murder. You See?

2--Oh really? Well it sure is a clean way. The best way to kill someone is to make it look like it was an accident. That is the new fad in high scale hits. Only TRUE professional killers can pull that off. Besides it has been done countless times. Saddam used to do it all the time and he was very successful at it. Just see for yourself. Go ahead. Look it up, it is out there. Can you find it? Or should I say, "Are you willing to find it?"

3--That is where you seem to lose the truth of the facts. The facts are that no one saw the car crash. Including the papparazzi. Show me where it says anyone did witness this crash. Can you???

4--Attractive moments??? Where do you come up with this stuff??? As if there is some sort of prefered time frame for killing. The truth is that it was all symbolic. I will have to get back to you on the so-called reasons for killing her at this time as opposed to that time.(Seriously, that is a weak and invalid point. That doesn't disprove anything, and you know it.)

5--Once again, this just shows how little you really know about the ritualistic murder of Satanism. Read up on the Pont de L'Alma tunnel. Then maybe you will See.(David Icke wrote pages of info that could tear this statement in shreads. Once again, read his book. Quit wasting your time fooling yourself and trying to prove me wrong with you bias view.)

Any more????????????


Point number 2 Only TRUE professional killers can pull that off. come on that doesnt sound professional does it

point 5. why are you calling her death ritualistic murder?
this David Icke is he a Stanist by any chance



posted on Jun, 26 2003 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by cassini
"You say that he was forced to confess. Well once again, isn't that more proof???"

1) He was forced to APOLOGIZE, which is the normal procedure when an allegation has been made that is false. Newspapers are made to do it in similar cases.

2) He was made to do this by a court of law and due trial.

Av, these guys are n`t my masters and as I said earlier,
"give me JFK or Reagan and I`ll talk conspiracy but DIANA???" come on.

I`d just like to state something here. Every single person on this thread is relying on speculation of the facts. None of us have access to first hand information on this, so everything said here is nonsense effectively.
However, lets look at the two sources of information. On the one hand we have the worlds paperazzi witnessing a road accident, we have a toxicology report, and numerous eye witnesses stating the driver was drunk, which would seem to be coroborated by the fact he was a known achololic. Stacked up against this is the man who claimed to be the son of god, claims queen Elizabeth and George Bush are reptoids and seriously beliefs it.

If one were looking at this properly with an eye to the quality of evidence, you would appreciate that there can be only one conclusion.

"Many lobbies had some interest on her death. The Royal Familly and also the Land Mines Cies are just 2 very good exemples."

Once again, there are have been and will be many people and organisations trying to get rid of land mines, Diana was no different to any of them. Richard Branson has for many years beeen trying to help with the removal of land mines. Another high profile Brit who is strangely alive, ah but of course he is n`t pregnant with dodis baby.



Cassini says>>>>>>>>>>

1) He was forced to APOLOGIZE, which is the normal procedure when an allegation has been made that is false. Newspapers are made to do it in similar cases.

Abraham Says>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well I guess you are saying it was libel. Well that maybe be true for some, but in this case it is just a matter of opinion. Opinion that is deceptive so as to brainwash the public eye. Of course that is going to happen. Once again, would Saddam allow his people to call him a murderer???? No. Either would the Queen of England or British Intelligence. (Not intentions of equating the two, just showing examples that relate to the conspiracy of conspiracies such as these.

Cassini Says>>>>>>>>>>>

Av, these guys are n`t my masters and as I said earlier,
"give me JFK or Reagan and I`ll talk conspiracy but DIANA???" come on.

Abraham Says>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That is real classic right there. "Come on."

Some defense you have there. You going to take that arguement to court in your libel case against me??? See how far that gets you in a court of law.

So I guess Diana isn't worthy or likely to have a conspiracy around her name, but JFK and Reagan are. Come on. She was more powerful then those two combined. More influential too.

As for the rest of your post:

Well it seems as if you are trying to make this personal. What does my belief in possible conspiracies have anything to do with this discussion???? What does David Icke's theory on the reptilian possession have to do with this murder???

Well I will tell you. Absolutely nothing. That is just more mumbo jumbo meant to discredit something you can't disprove. That mumbo jumbo is out of line and beside the point and you know it.



As for the rest:

Well that is UP territory. He is a big boy, I will let him handle that. (If you really, really want my opinion, well once again, that is totally off the subject and beside the point.)

Can you say, "Rebuttal"???????????????

What else you got???????



posted on Jun, 26 2003 @ 06:29 AM
link   
AV you really make me laugh



posted on Jun, 26 2003 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peace
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
www.warbaby.com...

AV read the first paragraph of the link"the victim has to be willing to be sacrificed"
And how do you know Di was willing?



posted on Jun, 26 2003 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by cassini
"Some people don't have the mind or the heart to handle such controversal subjects. I wouldn't be suprised if you and Cassini fit that category"

I certainly do and Gaz has shown he can time and again. You however, have showed yourself to be quite paranoid about everything. Challenge everything but don`t expect everything to topple and most important don`t make facts up. You sadly see a conspiracy in everything, and I`m quite happy to admit that they exist and operate but not under every stone and rock. When talking about something like this the purpose is ultimately useless as the evidence is out of our domain.

You should be using your energy where its really needed.


That is okay. I got personal with it and I guess so can you. But really though, I know for a fact that you can't hanlde the truth. You totally disregard the possession factor flat out, even while knowing and admitting that you haven't even read what Icke has written. What a shame.


You might as well just say, "Yeah right, that could never happen." (Got to love that, "Could never happen" line. That is classic brainwash jargon.) Ever hear of the term, "Never say never"????

I swear, you must think that the universe is full of air. What you can't seem to grasp is that it is full of evil. Not to mention foreign peoples with foreign agendas. How you can deny those possibilites is beyond me.

As for my 'paranoid conspiracies':

Well I would love to see you show me where everything I write consists of this nature. No Cassini, everything isn't a conspiracy of paranoid conspiracy theorists. Only the conspiracies that upset your belief systems are characteristic of that. Right?

Sometimes you just have to accpet that this world isn't a cream and butter with dandy candy to be sweeten our creature comforts. Sometimes you just have to face up to reality. Something you know not how to do.

Tell me this. Would you say that "Seeing is believing"???

Well..................


Would you?


Your Friend,
Abraham



posted on Jun, 26 2003 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by drunk

Originally posted by Peace
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
www.warbaby.com...

AV read the first paragraph of the link"the victim has to be willing to be sacrificed"
And how do you know Di was willing?



Well I don't know who thinks something like that. Whoever it is just show how little they know about Satanism. The point of killing people ritualisticaly under the guise of Satan is to install fear. Not it just the victim, but into those that are not even aware of the crime being committed. The fear is resonated through the ley lines of the world and those ley lines reach our very inner hearts and souls. As for the victim, well the whole point of killing them is to capture those souls. The fear is so intense once the victim dies, that all the life force and energy of the victim is consumed by the blood. Then that blood is consumed by the Satanists. If you think that is a joke, then you will be sorry. Cause God doesn't think these things are funny at all. Either do those that have lost their loved ones to this crime in this horrible way. Don't deny it, this stuff is real, and this stuff kills.



posted on Jun, 26 2003 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I said u make me laugh co u keep linking Satanism to her death do you really think Satanist killed her?



posted on Jun, 26 2003 @ 05:32 PM
link   
"Some defense you have there"

I`m not defending. Just stating an opinion.

"So I guess Diana isn't worthy or likely to have a conspiracy around her name, but JFK and Reagan are. Come on. She was more powerful then those two combined. More influential too."

You need go no further. ROFLMAO.

"Well it seems as if you are trying to make this personal"

Where? I`ve never made this personal. Please clarify.

[Edited on 26-6-2003 by cassini]



posted on Jun, 27 2003 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by cassini
"Some defense you have there"

I`m not defending. Just stating an opinion.

"So I guess Diana isn't worthy or likely to have a conspiracy around her name, but JFK and Reagan are. Come on. She was more powerful then those two combined. More influential too."

You need go no further. ROFLMAO.

"Well it seems as if you are trying to make this personal"

Where? I`ve never made this personal. Please clarify.

[Edited on 26-6-2003 by cassini]



If you can't see where you got personal with it then I cannot help you. I don't want to see this get any more personal than it already has. So let us please forget about it.


I would like to see this discussion continue though. So please let us get this going. Don't you have anything to say other than that????

Anyone else????



posted on Jun, 27 2003 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Abraham with one simple sentence you have demonstrated quite ably how little of this you really understand, any further discussion seems useless.

""So I guess Diana isn't worthy or likely to have a conspiracy around her name, but JFK and Reagan are. Come on. She was more powerful then those two combined. More influential too."



posted on Jun, 27 2003 @ 05:55 AM
link   
No matter how hard AV tries to convince me with his Satanism angle i still believe she was not murdered.



posted on Jun, 27 2003 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by drunk
No matter how hard AV tries to convince me with his Satanism angle i still believe she was not murdered.


Don't let me do all the work. Look and see for youself.

Read David Icke's book "The Biggest Secret".

Then maybe you will See the Light.



posted on Jun, 27 2003 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by cassini
Abraham with one simple sentence you have demonstrated quite ably how little of this you really understand, any further discussion seems useless.

""So I guess Diana isn't worthy or likely to have a conspiracy around her name, but JFK and Reagan are. Come on. She was more powerful then those two combined. More influential too."






I fail to see what your getting at. What makes that statement of mine you quoted above a factor in the finalization of this discussion???

To me it seems as if this discussion is just getting going.

Why quit now???



posted on Jun, 27 2003 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Check out this link, it is full of info and ideas. I've been reading it a bit, and there are some things that don't add up, but I've yet to draw a conclusion.

www.senderberl.com...

"Diana was left to die in her one hour trip to the hospital, where her ambulance crawled, where two police motorcycle escorts lost the ambulance, and where high government officials, waiting with a team of trauma specialists, were mystified at the whereabouts of the ambulance, but failed to pick up a phone to find out what had happened to it."



posted on Jun, 28 2003 @ 05:23 AM
link   
You can not see that you are vesting more power in her than she had. Your theories are based (not just AVs but anyone advocating this) on the fact that she had more power and influence than she did and in one case that she was killed because she was carrying Dodi`s child.

The fact that you think she had soo much power shows that you do not, and those who have told you so, understand her status. When the first premise is wrong whats the point of carrying on as all that follows is useless.

I have had the "pleasure" of being alive for these years and following Diana`s career, with her being in the limelight all the time, seeing what she did and who she was but if you are going to tell me she was more influential than people like Reagan and Kennedy then I will laugh at you. She may have been more of a celebrity than these two, more glamorous than the first lady but then again what European Princess is n`t? But more powerful, chuckles....

And to whoever thought that having Dodi`s child was a reason to kill her, you should have a proper look at the history of the royal family. Did you for instance know Queen Victoria had an Indian lover, scandalous!


[Edited on 28-6-2003 by cassini]



posted on Jun, 28 2003 @ 03:19 PM
link   
It is obvious that you are avoiding the topic here. You just keep on going with this power issue. That is not the issue you here. You want to avoid the topic because it is obvious you have no arguement that can dispute mine or any other for that matter. So please give up and let everyone else do the talking. You are only getting in the way when you say ignorant things like, "She had no power."

Does Jack Nicholson have power???

You better bet your a$$ he does. I bet you would say he doesn't. That would just prove how blind you really are. People who have influence hold way more power than those who actually have power. Power can be undermined and spited. Influence can't. Don't you see the difference between the two???





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def