What Was MI6 Team Doing In Paris The Night Princess Diana Died?

page: 11
29
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Really? have you really dug into Dodi's background? I heard many storys about him and his Dad from someone who worked at Harrods and it was common knowledge at the time the stuff they were both into.
If it was a hitman job I would put more money on the target being Dodi than Diana.



Can you prove your assertions or do you expect us to accept your hearsay?




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Unlawful Killing by Simon Tomlin

Highly recommended.

A number of things cost Diana her life, but I believe it was the French medical system that killed her. That ambulance should have gone to the hospital immediately. Instead, the dawdled.

Admittedly, she had a grave injury, but she might have been saved with immediate surgery.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Just a point the CO2 levels in HP's blood could have been caused by the Merc which had been smashed up and CO2 released was breathed in in his final moments.

BTW anyone seen the photos of her in the car? only a leg wound? didn't look like it.
edit on 3-1-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)


There were very high levels of carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide, in Henry Paul's blood. It should have caused nausea and severe headaches. There was no natural source that could have caused this, as several medical experts testified. Toxicologist Professor Robert Forrest admitted that he could not find any logical explanation for the findings.

"One is left with either analytical error or a mystery," he told the jury at the Diana inquest.

"It's either conspiracy or cock-up."

According to tests carried out by two French medical experts hours after the Paris crash, the levels of carbon monoxide in Mr Paul's blood ranged between 12 and 21 per cent.

This compares to a normal reading of around two to four percent. Several possibilities were explored including the suggestion that the driver inhaled gas from the airbag of the Mercedes after impact. This was discounted by Prof Forrest, however.

The best suggestion that he could come up with was that the reading could have been connected to his heavy smoking.

He also pointed out that the machine used to measure blood gas was a "good piece of kit" but not one designed for post mortem analysis.

But Prof Forrest admitted that it was "very, very unlikely" Mr Paul could have realistically had such a high level of Carboxyhaemoglobin concentration in his blood and said there was no rational explanation for the result.

"I would say still that this is the one thing that worries me most about this investigation," he said.

"I still have not managed to achieve an intellectual resolution which totally satisfies me."

Here is an expert who cannot understand how such a high concentration of carbon monoxide could exist in Henri Paul's blood. Therefore, any conjecture about it by non-professionals seeking to defend the official explanation must be rejected as inadequate.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


I agree but why isn't everyone saying it was the French emergency services fault? Everything is hearsay in this, I watched the vid and it didn't change my mind.
Oh and OP nah I'm not going to tell you the storys of MaF and dodi because it is hear say BUT if you would like to back up your claims (Many have asked) with links go ahead.
Oh and the Co2 or CM like you said the machine wasn't the right one so of course it could be wrong.
edit on 4-1-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


I'm interested in seeing the photo you provided to LEL01. It doesn't sound anything like the photo I saw.
I'm trying to find it in the video that analyzed the film from the show CinePolitics. I believe it was in the fifth or sixth part of the show, but got too tired last night while watching the segments so I could post the vid and the corresponding time. I'll try looking again today. When the panel was discussing the fact that Unlawful Killing showed the photo, they certainly didn't discuss that she looked as badly as the photo you're passing off. All they said was that it was disrespectful to show it. Like I said earlier, you could see her left side only, which corresponds to the vehicle's damage because the roof of the car was not caved in on this side. Her head was positioned as though she were looking down and her eyes appeared to be closed. They showed the photo for about 5 seconds, but I didn't pause it to examine it further.

I'm also interested in what you know about Dodi and his father. Seems that if it were true, one wouldn't have any problems posting the info. On the other hand, if it's a lie, one would certainly be held accountable for committing slander. I've honestly never seen an article where someone states that someone did something, but they cannot discuss it like I saw in the Beast's article. Usually, the MSM doesn't care what they print and runs damage control later just like what we saw with the Sandy Hook shootings. They're just happy to be reporting something even if it isn't true.

I highly doubt Dodi and his father were involved in worse activities than the Royals. The Beast's article mentioned Thatcher. Was this Margaret Thatcher because I didn't see a first name mentioned? If so, we already know how close she was to Jimmy SoVILE. I hardly believe that Dodi and his dad committed crimes as dispicable as we are seeing with the paedo rings being investigated in the UK right now that most likely lead right up to the steps of the Royal Palace and 10 Downing Street.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Those pictures don't fit with anything I've heard, did you listen to the video the OP posted on page 9 ?
Witnesses only talked about a thigh wound, you would think they would have said more than that if she looked that bad.
I haven't had time to check for the picture in Unlawful killing video yet, have you any idea where it is to save me time. I didn't even notice it when I watched the video, I just wanted to watch it before You Tube took it down but it's still there now.
Yes, Thatcher will be Margaret Thatcher.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 


Yes, things certainly don't smell right here with the photos. Thanks for verifying that the Thatcher in question is in fact Margaret. There is something seriously wrong with that woman.
Here is the video I was speaking about where the photo was displayed and discussed. Although this is the first part, I believe the photo was in part 5 or 6. Still looking and if I find the spot, I'll post the video part and the corresponding time so it's easy to find.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
This video here shows the rear leftside door very clearly. You can easily see that the glass is intact and the door is the best condition in regards to the rest of the vehicle.

Although the above video doesn't discuss the details of the photo, it's still worth a look.

Then, there's this video:

In regards to Diana's injuries, the BBC was reporting a concussion, a broken arm, and lacerations to the legs.

One way we may be able to discern which photo is real is how the others are dressed in it. In the photo showing Diana with significant facial injuries, the people milling around are wearing black and neon yellow vests. Is this how the paramedic uniforms look in Paris? In the second video I posted above, I see nobody dressed in black with yellow vests. Maybe the accident clean up crew doesn't have to wear reflective vests and just the paramedics do? I'll see what else I can find while still searching for the pic I saw.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 





OP nah I'm not going to tell you the storys of MaF and dodi because it is hear say BUT if you would like to back up your claims (Many have asked) with links go ahead.


So here you are challenging everyone whom you disagree with to prove their every utterance with "links" no less and when you make dark suggestions about Dodi and al Fayad, you refuse to provide evidence.

And about your "(Many have asked)" claim; who are these many? You?
Pathetic efforts.
edit on 4-1-2013 by DoorKnobEddie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DoorKnobEddie
 


I said it was hear say so I will not write it down on ATS, you state everything as fact but provide no proof go back and look for others asking for the links saying her bits were removed.
Like I said I do not believe that there is any conspiracy at all but If we want to play "conspiracy" I can say that Dodi would have been a more valid target than Diana.
None of this BS is fact and we can all go on saying one thing or another but really we will never know.
It is all just opinion.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by DoorKnobEddie
 


I said it was hear say so I will not write it down on ATS, you state everything as fact but provide no proof go back and look for others asking for the links saying her bits were removed.
Like I said I do not believe that there is any conspiracy at all but If we want to play "conspiracy" I can say that Dodi would have been a more valid target than Diana.
None of this BS is fact and we can all go on saying one thing or another but really we will never know.
It is all just opinion.


Yes, you have written just an opinion but a faulty one. It was another you asked to prove the uterus removal issue and then accused me of not responding with proof.

You tied yourself into a knot and you are too embarrassed to admit it; many have noted this.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DoorKnobEddie
 


I am going to ask you a few questions based on your OP to try to get us back on topic, if you cannot answer them then this thread is meaningless.

Firstly can you please expand on why you see the presence of 3 SIS officers in Paris that night and further more can you prove that they had anything to do with Diana’s death.

Secondly can you please provide evidence that SIS is as a institution “raciest scumbags and murders”.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by DoorKnobEddie
 


I do not believe that there is any conspiracy at all but If we want to play "conspiracy" I can say that Dodi would have been a more valid target than Diana.

Can I ask you a question?

Let's suppose Diana had given birth to Dodi's child; do you think that would have been acceptable to the Royal Family?

Please give a reason.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 




Let's suppose Diana had given birth to Dodi's child; do you think that would have been acceptable to the Royal Family?

Yes.

Why, well primarily because there wouldn’t be very much they could do about it but at the same time it wouldn’t be a big deal a “step-brother” of the king would not have any weight in the royal family so it wouldn’t really matter. The Queen for example is married to a guy whose family are member of the Greek and Danish Royal Family, her husband being a Greek does not make any difference so I don’t see how a Muslim step brother to the future King would.

There is however another reason, they would use it to their advantage the King having a Muslim Step-Brother would be spun to show the Royal Family as “modern” and reflecting the multi-cultural society that is Brittan. They would use it as a means to show how the royal family is in keeping with 21st century Brittan.

Bet of all any Step-Brother to the King would have no right to any future succession to the throne nor would his blood line allow for any of his future children or grandchildren to make a claim, they would not be considered as part of the “British Royal Family”, they would just be distant relatives of which there are many.

I can’t see how the King having a Muslim step-brother or sister would be a problem, I really don’t see how it would be a threat to the Royal Family.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoorKnobEddie
Can you prove your assertions or do you expect us to accept your hearsay?


We are all still waiting for you to prove your silly claims, but it looks like you are unable to, no surprises there!



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 





We are all still waiting for you to prove your silly claims, but it looks like you are unable to, no surprises there!

Let me clear this up, Diana’s uterus was not removed post-mortem, they OP cannot provide any solid evidence to the contrary so will not provide us with a link.

I think we should just ignore the whole point about her uterus because it’s a lie, it was not removed.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Still haven't located the photo I was speaking about. Aside from watching Unlawful Killing and the film's analysis I also posted, I watched a couple of other videos, so I may have gotten them confused. I've watched the analysis again and could've sworn that there was parts five and six, but now I can't locate them. This is really frustrating, but I did manage to find these photos on the following webpage. Notice what they're wearing. The photo boymonkey linked to that I saw has people wearing different clothes than we're seeing in the following photos. Even the official one showing the car more damaged, the people are not wearing bright yellow vests on black clothes. Something is certainly strange here.
Scroll practically to the bottom of the webpage to see the two photos I'm speaking about and read the part I've quoted below that appears to verify the photo I saw in the film and in the video anaysis.
dianaunlawfullkilling.blogspot.com...

Erik Petel, first witness on the scene moments after the crash was not asked to give evidence at the inquest for the simple fact the lie told to the world would have been exposed. The delay in removing Diana from the car (the official story we have been told) was that she was trapped inside. Petel, when he rushed over to the Mercedes saw a woman draped over the front seat of the car ( the impact of the crash had thrown Diana forward from the back seat ) he tried to help her sit up and noticed blood oozing from her nose, at this point he had no idea who she was.......If Petel managed to pull Diana into a sitting position then she was not trapped inside the car and the cutting open of the vehicle along with the images flashed around the world were mere theatrics for us to understand how no one could possibly survive such an impact .



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


FOR THE LAST TIME, the film "Unlawful Killing" states that her uterus was removed! The Op doesn't have to prove anything because he's just discussing what was mentioned in the documentary!
Just watch the film for Pete's sake and stop beating up the messenger!
The film has been shelved, so do you really think there's going to be any evidence out there about her uterus being removed? NO! It's probably been redacted, too.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


It's not so much about the idea that the Princes, and later King, would've had a Arab/Muslim half brother or sister. What probably bothered them most is that the Prince/King would have a Muslim mother since she most likely would've become Muslim after marrying Dodi and having his child.

Do you really think it would look good the the UK if the Prince/King went to war with a country his mother sympathized with and that he had indirect relations with?





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join