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

page: 18
29
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by LEL01
 


Does that mean then that you believe that the cause of the crash was this mysterious microchip, you know the one that can drive cars.


I'm just saying what's in the video, I said " I don't understand how this works"
so until I understand it I will stick to what I said earlier " 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."

Did you get the link?




posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoorKnobEddie
reply to post by LEL01
 


I did see the photo and it is the type of injury passengers who do not wear a seat belt in the back get.


I was asking if you saw the picture in the video, in that picture she's sitting up and she hasn't got the sort of injury that the other picture appears to show. The video is still there on page 5 and the picture can be seen at 29:55 in that video. It helps to see the one in the video so you can judge for yourself.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 


I see. She looks her normal self in the black and white photo but in the colour stills her face is swollen and badly damaged. Very odd indeed.
edit on 6-1-2013 by DoorKnobEddie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
According to Jon King a few facts can be agreed upon:

1. The autopsy on Henri Paul was carried out by a doctor who had a history of participation where the French government had an interest in silencing notions of assassination.

2. The conclusions stated in the autopsy lacked internal coherence and consistency and were criticized by medical experts for that lack at the inquest in 2007.

3. Henri Paul's blood sample was labelled "unknown man" and had alcohol levels and carbon monoxide levels that were not consistent with his demeanor and activities on the night in question.

www.dailymail.co.uk...


Blood samples taken from dead chauffeur Henri Paul showed "mysteriously" high levels of carbon monoxide, the Diana inquest heard.

The percentage of toxins in his system was so abnormally excessive that the Frenchman should have been suffering symptoms including severe headaches and nausea, the High Court was told.

Yet hours before his death, Mr Paul was captured on CCTV at the Ritz Hotel parking his car, walking around and even tying his shoelaces in apparent good health.


(This press account should read minutes before his death, not hours, minutes.)

Here are remarks, on the carbon monoxide concentration, made by the toxicologist, from the same press report.


Toxicologist Professor Robert Forrest, who has already suggested that Mr Paul may have drunk up to eight glasses of strong spirits in the hours before the crash, leaving him twice the UK legal drink drive limit, 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.

"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.


Personally, I think it is both conspiracy and cock-up. It might be more accurate to say "conspiracy, cock-up, conspiracy". The first conspiracy being the one to assassinate Princess Diana. The cock-up being the decision to carry it out in Paris with the cooperation of the French. The second conspiracy being the French effort to expose the first conspiracy in which they were unwilling participants.

The story of James Andanson, is the element that convinces me of the scenario set out in the previous paragraph.

His story is very simple and self contradictory.

He was not in Paris that night and can prove it. His car was up on blocks and not involved at all in the events of the evening. He was in the tunnel after the accident and has the photographs to prove it.

The two most important elements of his contradictory story are that he was not in the tunnel and can prove it and that he was in the tunnel and has the photographs to prove it.

Andanson was a well known papparazzo. His white Fiat Uno would have been known by other papparazzi. If a white Fiat Uno had been connected to the scene of an accident involving papparazzi, someone would have named Andanson to the police. It might have been possible to fix blame for the accident on him, circumstantially.

Of course, if his car were up on blocks elsewhere and he were not even in Paris at the time, and he could prove it, as he said, that would be a problem for anyone trying to make him a patsy.

Suppose he could not prove it. Suppose there were people who would testify that he was in Paris that night. Suppose these people could give strong testimony putting him on the scene.

One way of getting around that eventuality would be to change one's story, acknowledge being at the scene in the tunnel and having the photographs to prove it. In that way he would be able to demonstrate that he could not possibly have been the driver of the white Fiat Uno involved in a collision with the Princess's car. That driver fled and has never been found, nor has the car ever been found.

Andanson was an operator. In this scenario he was being positioned as a patsy, but managed to wiggle out of it.

Patsies are generally put into position by people for whom they work. They are betrayed by their own employers.

It is said that Andanson worked for MI6. To my knowledge they have not confirmed this. Just for the sake of discussion, let's say that Andanson indeed worked for MI6 as an asset. In the normal course of things an attempt to make him a patsy would have been done by MI6. This would put MI6 behind the successful attempt on the life of Princess Diana.

Did the French intelligence service give Andanson the photographs to frustrate MI6? Did they deliberately plant the impossible blood samples into the mix to express displeasure at MI6's temerity in carrying out such a high profile "wet" operation on their turf? Did they have a doctor in the inner circle of intelligence confidence do the post mortum examination of Henri Paul and do it in a way that was farcical to further "rub it in" to MI6 to do this kind of operation elsewhere and not to involve them in British domestic "housekeeping" murders?

Who knows? It's just a theory.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 


Just to be clear, this is what's being said in the video on page 15.

MI6 is the Royall intelligence agency , Prince Philip is very close to MI6 his personal friend the Bilderberg founder, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands is a known MI6 agent.

He seems to be saying that CIA's involvement was because of Diana's anti landmine stand.

10 cctv cameras were not turned off, they were turned inwards filming the brick walls they were mounted on. Or they just don't want anyone to see the evidence. A motorbike was blocking the road so they were forced to go through the tunnel.

The guy who owns the white Fiat Uno was paparazzi and an MI6 agent but he doesn't think he would be driving his own car to do that. I have to agree, you would have to be mad to do that.

Now he's saying the owner of the Fiat Uno was in the tunnel at that time because he took pictures which then disappeared.
I'm only half way through this video and I'm getting confused now, I need time to think about this.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


"In that way he would be able to demonstrate that he could not possibly have been the driver of the white Fiat Uno involved in a collision with the Princess's car. That driver fled and has never been found, nor has the car ever been found."

this part is what made think it was a hit. its just to perfect , a tunnel, a car chase paprazi and a car that "might" lead to the killer gets away and is never seen again gtfo its princess diana, why wasnt every freakin white car in 70 miles stripped down and with photos, they have registry no? plus many have said there was a really white bright light before the crash. cameras are bright but in a lighted tunnel, wouldnt be that bright, not like say going from dark to bright light. but super high intensity light discharge is....hrm plus with a tunnel if they "cock" it up as you say ^^ they can seal off both sides say official business and they are there securing crash scene block off both entrances and whack them. anybody asks why they were there so fast. we guard the princess of course, great cover story.

if it was anywhere else but a tunnel i wouldnt probably question it.

high profile couple. very sturdy car (not indestructable i understand) but you can probably bet it wasnt the kinda car you buy off a showroom floor. a professional driver used to dealing with this kind of driving , probably has had every emergency driving course in the world lol and he is supposedly drinking . yah riiiight.

not to mention that family has no hard time killing its own, just read the history books heh.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ~widowmaker~
 

I agree. Another thing is the "cover up" in the aftermath. The way the media have reported is not conclusive, but the opposition to the showing of the movie Unlawful Killing, which is really about a cover up more than a killing.

The familiar earmarks of conspiracy are there.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
its princess diana, why wasnt every freakin white car in 70 miles stripped down and with photos, they have registry no?


So what it was a "princess"? Is their some law that a "princess" cannot get killed in a car accident? Especially when speed, no seat belts being worn and a drunk driver are involved. Well over 1 million people die every year due to car accidents, but a "princess" is not allowed to die that way......



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
but the opposition to the showing of the movie Unlawful Killing,


The only opposition to the showing of that movie came from the movie makers own lawyers!



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


um no, lol anyone can die, but before she was dead she was one of the most hyped up people in the world. the way everyone acted on about her as if she was a goddess. i would have thought they would have stripped search grandmas walking by let alone a white car that may have killed them?. heh diana this diana that, tv special this tv special that. the marriage, the break up, the kids how wonderful she is ect ect. i dont even live over there and i heard enough to get sick of her heh.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce
The only opposition to the showing of that movie came from the movie makers own lawyers!


That could be true, but one ought to put this opposition into the context in which lawyers work. Their advice would be based on anticipated libel actions. The threat of a libel action, if it were made by a confident opponent of assertions made in the movie could be seen, very reasonably, as opposition to the showing of the movie.
edit on 6-1-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
its princess diana, why wasnt every freakin white car in 70 miles stripped down and with photos, they have registry no?


So what it was a "princess"? Is their some law that a "princess" cannot get killed in a car accident? Especially when speed, no seat belts being worn and a drunk driver are involved. Well over 1 million people die every year due to car accidents, but a "princess" is not allowed to die that way......


Diana wasn't wearing her seatbelt because it was found, on examination, to be defective.

In fact, none of the passengers were wearing their seatbelts.

So...right.....

They all pile into a car being driven by an unfamiliar driver - who just happens to be pissed as a fart - tanking along city streets at 80 or 90 mph, they approach a narrow dark tunnel, still going same speed......

And NO ONE is wearing their seatbelt.

Go figure.....



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 





They all pile into a car being driven by an unfamiliar driver - who just happens to be pissed as a fart - tanking along city streets at 80 or 90 mph, they approach a narrow dark tunnel, still going same speed......


Yes!!!!

It happens all the time I personally know of 3 people who died in a car in these exact circumstances and we see crash’s like this all drunk, speeding and no seatbelt.

Just because someone is a public figure does not make them immortal.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


actually - one person was wearing his belt - the body guard - the only survivor - seat belts save lives



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


No, that's a myth.

People just assumed, because he survived, he must have worn his seatbelt.

Operation Paget revealed he wasn't.

None of them were.

Strange, no?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CJCrawley
Diana wasn't wearing her seatbelt because it was found, on examination, to be defective.


It was? care to provide a valid source for that claim.... but I dont think you can, for the same reason you cannot provide a valid source for your other silly claim,

"The Royal coroner removed all of her reproductive organs soon after her demise"
edit on 7-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Link
You might like to know (or not) that a movie will be released this year about the last 2 years of Dianas life.
Something tells me they won't go into the truth about her death though.
I'm waiting for you all to say "we know already"



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LEL01
Link
You might like to know (or not) that a movie will be released this year about the last 2 years of Dianas life.
Something tells me they won't go into the truth about her death though.
I'm waiting for you all to say "we know already"


What is your link to?

Thanks



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DoorKnobEddie
 


The link is just to a story in the Express about the film, please tell me the link works for you even if you don't want to read it.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by LEL01
 


Does that mean then that you believe that the cause of the crash was this mysterious microchip, you know the one that can drive cars.


I've solved the mystery: Doc Brown took the Delorean time machine from 1985 to 2013 and stole the technology for the Google car, but MI-6 got tipped off about Doc Brown by the Libyans who were still upset that he stole their plutonium and wanted revenge, as part of a secret oil deal between the Queen and Colonel Gaddafi MI-6 promised to deal with Libya's Doc Brown problem. When MI-6 captured Doc Brown in late-1985 they discovered the Google Car technology and in exchange for his silence and the technology they would allow him to live. MI-6 knew they could only use this technology for something critically important ordered by the Queen herself. They waited almost 12 years but in August 1997 the Queen finally determined an event that would show the world ...the full power of this battle station... oops, I mean the full power of the monarchy and used the secret Google Car technology stolen from Doc Brown in 1985 on 31 August 1997.

Case closed.

You're welcome.





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join