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

page: 16
29
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


If you have a link or two I will happily comment on that.

What I would say for now however is this,

Sir Robert Fellows is married to Diana’s sister, Lady Jane, I find it difficult to believe that he would be complicit in his sister in laws murder.
edit on 6-1-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-1-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Guys you really think it is abnormal to have SIS officers in the closest capital city to us? Heck I would be surprised If we didn't have SIS officers in every capital city in Europe even the world.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by micpsi
 


If you have a link or two I will happily comment on that.

What I would say for now however is this,

Sir Robert Fellows is married to Diana’s sister, Lady Jane, I find it difficult to believe that he would be complicit in her murder.
edit on 6-1-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)


Maybe his job depended upon it? He was, after all, VERY loyal, by all accounts. Anyway, who says he knew what his orders entailed? Perhaps he was just a pawn in something he discovered only later and now has to keep secret.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Guys you really think it is abnormal to have SIS officers in the closest capital city to us? Heck I would be surprised If we didn't have SIS officers in every capital city in Europe even the world.


You miss the crucial point. The two SIS officers arrived in Paris a FEWS DAYS BEFORE DIANA DIED. Now, either that is just a coincidence or else it was part of the conspiracy. I have proof that the crash was the result of a conspiracy, and so I believe that it was part of the preparations for what happened.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Prove it then.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   


reply to post by Logarock




Well it’s obvious that there were SIS officers present in Paris that night,


Why is it obvious that MI6 (SIS) agents were in Paris?

You see, the difference between you and I is that I have read the official story of Diana and Dodi's death and investigated the allegations made by Mohamed al Fayed and formed my opinions accordingly. You appear to be singularly dedicated to attacking Mohamed al Fayed's claims and me by extension.

I also know of how the security services behave in the UK because I am aware what they did to the striking minors under Thatcher, what they did to the Republicans, how they tormented the Greenham Common women of consciences (many have died from very strange cancers), what they the are doing to ordinary Muslims and their gangstalking activities to drive innocent Somalis into despair. All this can be googled on the internet.



One of my contentions however is that the OP has not explained the significant of this and furthermore it does not prove that SIS had any role in assassinating Diana.


You however make no arguments and simply manufacture claims from an appeal to authority - you. Everybody knows what MI5 and MI6 are, yet you turn up banding about the term SIS in you inimically obscurantist manner.

The article on this thread is about MI6 and I discuss it accordingly.

However your argument goes thusly:

>>>OP does not know that SIS is a collective term for MI5, MI6 therefore the OP cannot comprehend the article.

>>>The OP admitted he does not know the internal demarcations of the security services so he does not know what he is talking about.

>>>You use fallacy to appeal to authority.



The Bottom Line

By attacking me as you have you are attempting to derail the thread.

The article that started this thread is specifically about MI6 being in Paris on the day Diana died. It is not an invention by me but claims made by Russians. Attacking my credibility is not going to help you or your "contentions".

My opinions are my own and I have as much right as any other commenter on this thread to make them. You will have to come to terms with this and redirect your focus onto to the article on this thread.

My opinions are based on my life experiences, living through the Thatcher era, the War on Terrorism, books and news articles I have read, my education, etc. it is not oriented around the SIS issue you are peddling.
edit on 6-1-2013 by DoorKnobEddie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi


You miss the crucial point. The two SIS officers arrived in Paris a FEWS DAYS BEFORE DIANA DIED. Now, either that is just a coincidence or else it was part of the conspiracy. I have proof that the crash was the result of a conspiracy, and so I believe that it was part of the preparations for what happened.


I watched the video and it looks to me fiat uno is a very small unstable car car to cause
thr merc to wobble and crash



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by micpsi


You miss the crucial point. The two SIS officers arrived in Paris a FEWS DAYS BEFORE DIANA DIED. Now, either that is just a coincidence or else it was part of the conspiracy. I have proof that the crash was the result of a conspiracy, and so I believe that it was part of the preparations for what happened.


I watched the video and it looks to me fiat uno is a very small unstable car car to cause
thr merc to wobble and crash


You are a pilot so you have an understanding of momentum, the pivot point on an axis, deflection.

A small car can swerve or flip a larger car by striking the pivot point on the rear or front tyre. Traffic cops use a version of this technique to stop vehicles.

The danger point is around the axles of the car so you will be aiming at the centre of the tyre of the target vehicle to cause a spin. A smaller car may in fact be more dexterous at spinning a larger vehicle using this technique since brute force is not needed.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoorKnobEddie
You are a pilot so you have an understanding of momentum, the pivot point on an axis, deflection.

A small car can swerve or flip a larger car by striking the pivot point on the rear or front tyre. Traffic cops use a version of this technique to stop vehicles.

The danger point is around the axles of the car so you will be aiming at the centre of the tyre of the target vehicle to cause a spin. A smaller car may in fact be more dexterous at spinning a larger vehicle using this technique since brute force is not needed.


Well thats another angle but what about the uno going into a tailspin itself and crashing



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DoorKnobEddie
 


Ok very fair comments let’s start form the top please read this very carefully because I think you have misunderstood several points I have made.


Why is it obvious that MI6 (SIS) agents were in Paris?

Now let’s be very clear on something I am not saying that there were not SIS officers in Paris that night, I am not even saying that your source is wrong to say that three senior SIS officers turned up just before Diana’s death. I agree with you, SIS officers where present that night in Paris.

What I would like to know is why you think this has any significant to Diana’s death?

Please that is the question I am asking you and you are as yet to answer it it.



Everybody knows what MI5 and MI6 are

Well then why are you still getting it wrong, I don’t know if your just skimming over what I have to say but you go on in that post to say this.



However your argument goes thusly:

>>>OP does not know that SIS is a collective term for MI5, MI6 therefore the OP cannot comprehend the article.

Note what I have put in bold, you are now showing that you have clearly misunderstood this very simple point I was raising. You make it sound here as if you believe that SIS is a collective term for both MI5 and MI6 this is wrong, to be clear you are the one who first said you did not know what SIS was so I am going to explain it very clearly.

The Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) = Military Intelligence, Section 6 (MI6)

The Security Service= Military Intelligence, Section 5 (MI5)

Therefore you are again wrong, SIS is not a “collective term for MI5, MI6” they are two different organisations.

To be clear, when I point out you are wrong about something it’s not a personal attack and it is not derailing the thread. You have created a thread about SIS being in Paris on the night of Diana’s death so discussing SIS is pertinent to your thread. When you can’t seem to understand the most basic facts about SIS (such as their name) it does become difficult to have a conversation.

Again, I will ask you,

what significance do you see in SIS being present in Paris on the night Diana died.

If there is anything I have said that you would like me to explain further I will happily oblige all you have to do is ask, my friend



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by micpsi


You miss the crucial point. The two SIS officers arrived in Paris a FEWS DAYS BEFORE DIANA DIED. Now, either that is just a coincidence or else it was part of the conspiracy. I have proof that the crash was the result of a conspiracy, and so I believe that it was part of the preparations for what happened.


I watched the video and it looks to me fiat uno is a very small unstable car car to cause
thr merc to wobble and crash


That the Fiat Uno was used to CAUSE the Mercedes to swerve is a fallacy and not essential to the argument. One view is that someone was inside it operating a strobe light that blinded Henri Paul, as the former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson alleged:
news.bbc.co.uk...
The undeniable fact remains (you can see for yourself the video showing the car found by Al-Fayed's private detectives) that plenty of forensic evidence recovered by the French police, as well as the testimonies of witnesses at the scene, indicate that such a car touched the Mercedes moments before the latter crashed. It is a non sequitur to claim that it CAUSED the crash, and I do not make this error.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 





One view is that someone was inside it operating a strobe light that blinded Henri Paul, as the former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson alleged:

Richard Tomlinson is unreliable, he was sacked by SIS then tried to sue for unfair dismissal so when that didn’t work out he then broke the official secrets act with his book they sent him to prison and then when he got out fled to Russia and published a book “the big breach” in which he spent a lot of time bad mouthing his former employer. As well as publishing that particular book he also went and published a list of SIS offers names.


In the book he does discuss this “strobe light plan” it’s been a while since I have read the book but it was a plan he alleges to assassinate Milosevic, using a strobe light under a plan developed by the SBS for the Increment if my memory serves. SIS does not deny that this plan was discussed however point out that a number of his allegations made regarding the plan are wrong, for example the target was not Milosevic and in any case the plan was shelved.


All in all this guy hates his former employer and making accusations implicating them in Diana’s death is only to further his own agenda against his former employer. Just because he once saw a proposed plan written down in 1992 does not mean that they then used the same method to kill Diana.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
The white Fiat Uno that hit Dodi's Mercedes:
img.dailymail.co.uk...
James Andanson was later found in a burnt-out car with a bullet in his head.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by micpsi
 





One view is that someone was inside it operating a strobe light that blinded Henri Paul, as the former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson alleged:

Richard Tomlinson is unreliable, he was sacked by SIS then tried to sue for unfair dismissal so when that didn’t work out he then broke the official secrets act with his book they sent him to prison and then when he got out fled to Russia and published a book “the big breach” in which he spent a lot of time bad mouthing his former employer. As well as publishing that particular book he also went and published a list of SIS offers names.


In the book he does discuss this “strobe light plan” it’s been a while since I have read the book but it was a plan he alleges to assassinate Milosevic, using a strobe light under a plan developed by the SBS for the Increment if my memory serves. SIS does not deny that this plan was discussed however point out that a number of his allegations made regarding the plan are wrong, for example the target was not Milosevic and in any case the plan was shelved.


All in all this guy hates his former employer and making accusations implicating them in Diana’s death is only to further his own agenda against his former employer. Just because he once saw a proposed plan written down in 1992 does not mean that they then used the same method to kill Diana.


Of course not. But your suggestion that he INVENTED the idea in the context of Diana's death merely as spite against his former employer is plain preposterous. A number of witnesses INDEPENDENTLY refer to a bright flash of light an instant before the car crashed. Just how many circumstantial "coincidences" are you willing to entertain before your complacency is broken and you admit that there are truly suspicious anomalies that the official story cannot explain? There does exist a case for conspiracy that needs to be answered, despite all the nit-picking denials that satisfy only either the brain-dead or those in plain denial. Whether Tomlinson's theory is right or not is irrelevant, as is his reliability. It is the huge list of unexplained anomalies that matter.
edit on 6-1-2013 by micpsi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 





Of course not. But your suggestion that he INVENTED the idea in the context of Diana's death merely as spite against his former employer is plain preposterous. A number of witnesses INDEPENDENTLY refer to a bright flash of light an instant before the car crashed.


Let me tell you something…..

7 members of the paparazzi where arrested at the scene of the crash under suspicion of manslaughter. That is what these bright flashes where, cameras.

And yes is it perfectly logical to say that Tomlinson deliberately connected the strobe light plan to Diana’s death to connect her death to SIS, he hated his old employer.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


I would put the two things together, the Fiat Uno hitting the Mercedes to change the direction the Mercedes was moving in so when the driver was blinded by the light he didn't have time and couldn't see to correct the direction of the car he was driving.

According to the Unlawful Killing video the driver of the white car shot himself in the head twice before setting fire to his car.
Two shots to the head, don't they call that a double tap or something, the second shot is to make sure the person they shot is dead.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by micpsi
 


Prove it then.


How about your writing to Tomlinson instead of asking just for its rhetorical effect a question you suspect I cannot answer? He said he saw the MI6 documents giving the names of the two agents (see no 4):
www.fantompowa.net...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 





According to the Unlawful Killing video the driver of the white car shot himself in the head twice before setting fire to his car.

Unlawful killing is full of inaccuracies and it does not actually say that he shot himself twice in the head; it says a fire-fighter commented that it looked like he had been shot in the head.


It was later discovered that this was caused by the intense heat of the burning car.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by LEL01
 





According to the Unlawful Killing video the driver of the white car shot himself in the head twice before setting fire to his car.

Unlawful killing is full of inaccuracies and it does not actually say that he shot himself twice in the head; it says a fire-fighter commented that it looked like he had been shot in the head.


It was later discovered that this was caused by the intense heat of the burning car.

Nonsense. The sensational story was reported in British mainstream papers such as the Express:
www.express.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


You do know right that the Daily express and the Daily mail have been going with the conspiracy from day one, because conspiracies sell newspapers


Again the article you linked us to their talks about a fireman’s interpretation of what he saw, the pathologist later said that this was the result of the intense heat in the car.


Also Mr Anderson was almost 200 miles away that night with his wife, his care was essentially un-roadworthy for such a trip and he has never been connected to SIS.


He was also extremely depressed and told those close to him how he was going to kill himself which is consistent with how he eventually died.





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join