TooTall

The inquest found no evidence that it was deliberate

EricPWJohnson on March 31, 2008 at 11:31 AM

Which of course means that Mohammed has no evidence.

with all due respect – she’s the wealthiest person probably on the earth and most certainly in England

And the prime minister has to seek her official approval every week

She is the only one who can declare

War, treaties, too may other functions to mention and of course:

Elections

Powerless my hiney

The mother of the Powerless Future King of England perhaps giving him an anti English Muslim Step Brother

Yep thats a biggie

EricPWJohnson on March 31, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Beside the fact that the British Royals hold a largely figure-head role, said potential half-brother would not be in line for the throne, since the line comes through Charles anyway.

The mother of the Future King of England perhaps giving him an anti English Muslim Step Brother

Yep thats a biggie

The inquest found no evidence that it was deliberate

His statement was thus

“Random series of events – with a cause and effect solely for the benefit of your opponent – are neither random nor believable”

EricPWJohnson on March 31, 2008 at 10:48 AM

I’m not here to argue this woman’s death, as I have little interest in it, and thus, have not really studied the information that is available to the public. However, I have to ask, just as a layman, who was Diana’s “opponent?” She carried little weight even inside the impotent royal family after the divorce. Was her opponent the press? They benefited the most from her death as far as I can see, in that they sold a lot of papers.

Sometimes an event that seems to be caused by a series of incredible coincidences is, in fact, caused by a series of incredible coincidences. In 1862, General Robert E. Lee was marching north to take the war to northern soil. One of Gen. Jackson’s underlings accidentally left the battle plan under a tree. Later, a Union soldier found it, and thus the Federal army was able to meet Lee’s army at Antietam Creek and fight him to a draw, effectively ending Lee’s first invasion of the north and perhaps preserving the Union. Sometimes history swings on a lucky break, or a terrible coincidence.

except for what made him decide to kill himself – most people I know don’t ram a column especially a highly trained fighter pilot and expert car driver

except for that

Drive along any major highway in any Podunk burg in the United States, and look for things that you could hit straight on with your car, at speed, if you really, really tried. You will not find many. These direct impact collisions have been largely engineered out of US roadways, and have been for decades.

Contrast this to this high speed tunnel right through the middle of Paris, with concrete barriers, completely unguarded, right off the roadway in the median. Simple aluminum barriers bolted post-to-post could have bounced this car back into the roadway and completely eliminated the direct, deadly impact. Any first-year traffic student would have been flunked out of an American university for coming up with this design.

To me the questions still lingers – who benefits?, Why?

My first and still initial assessment is that it was a tragic accident

However my old German Statistics Professor at Tulane still has me wondering

His statement was thus

“Random series of events – with a cause and effect solely for the benefit of your opponent – are neither random nor believable”

And having a Muslim step brother would have affected the Monarchy is a positive or negative way in the eyes of many intolerant Englanders?

In effect, the French roadway regulations allowed her death.

A pity.

Has it changed?

The odds that a Princess, the mother of the future king of England in the company of a very anti English muslim family died so “accidentally” – its convienent, tidy and believable – thats the hallmark of either a random tragic accident or a job well done

We will never ever know

Yes, we know. It was an accident. She was hardly worth assassinating…highly visible, well known and mostly harmless. The odds that a hit would succeed so well, leaving basically no evidence behind to the contrary are astronomical. The best assassinations are done with the intent to hide the assailant, not the fact that the target was assassinated.

There was no reward in her death, and little risk in her life.

EricPWJohnson on March 31, 2008 at 9:04 AM

There is no question that there was government and personal incompetence in each of the cases, but there is little reliable evidence that there is some big, bad conspirators in the background planning these events.

Of course, 9/11 was a conspiracy in that it was planned by a bigger organization; Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy in that it was planned and carried out by the government of Japan; but the truthers and people who say the US government planned these two events are grasping at straws.

As for Diana, Kennedy, etc. I think there will always be strange and intriguing irregularities, but that is true in any major event. Surely, some people benefit and may take advantage of these things to advance a cause, but the kind of conspiracies people float are often self-contradictory (mob, CIA, Castro can’t all kill Kennedy).

I guess the question is, when presented with the best evidence at hand, do you say, “ok, from what we see now, it must have been an accident (Diana’s death)” or do you say, “they must be lying (because then my theory would be disproven).” Therein lies the answer to whether you are a conspiracy nut or not.

Pearl Harbor was a surprize but a war with Japan was not

19 hijackers was a surprize the fact that a muslim terrorist organization was responsible was not

That a lone gunman shot a president (how many times has it been done Lincoln, Teddy R, McKinley, Ford, Reagan, Kennedy) is not a surprize to most people the fact that thye were successful in getting so close was not

The odds that a Princess, the mother of the future king of England in the company of a very anti English muslim family died so “accidentally” – its convienent, tidy and believable – thats the hallmark of either a random tragic accident or a job well done

We will never ever know

It is hard to accept that the Japanese actually surprised us, that one lone communist with a grudge actually shot the president, that one (or two) nuts blew up a building, that a drunk driver actually caused the death of Princess Di, or that 19 Muslims could hijack airplanes and actually knock buildings down with them. However, sometimes it is just that way.

It is horrible, and sad, and there are lots of things that happen in a tragedy that are extraordinary coinidences, and some that are unexplainable.

Many people feel that it can’t be so simple, so they grasp at one or two unexplainable thing, and link them into a big, dark conspiracy, no matter how absurd or without base it is.

It makes it harder to discover a true conspiracy if one really happens. If there really is a conspiracy, all these baseless conspiracy theories would make it harder to actually discover them.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_199711/ai_n8760145

To ignore the enormous loss of face for the Royal family and to reject out of hand any conspiracy will never ever get this even close to being resolved.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that it was indeed – not mechanical failure – not a assassination attempt by direct means – and really really looks like an accident

But to preclude that MI-6 did not have the capacity to engineer this incident is presumptous – in fact – the drunk driver, the photogs, the tunnel etc – all the elements existed for the perfect storm to do whatever was done and get away with it

To make assumptions about a secretive monarchy is ludicrous

For Example

Tony Blair has mentioned quite openly that his whole education about the monarchy and its role changed about 30 seconds into his first meeting with the queen.

So did Churchill

However after 911,that all changed,
Muslims decided to show the world
just how dangerous they are,but maybe
someone in Diana’s circle,or the Royals
knew something the rest of us didn’t
know in 1997!

I like you, I’m not a conspiracy nut, (I’m a normal garden variety nut) however – the queen is far from being removed and is a subsidy only in the minds of those who still reject her rule and role in England – yes the government pays a stipend or she can charge all of them the trillions it would take to operate the government on her deeded lands which comprise most of England

Also according to her website – she is the LEGAL head of state additionally her father certainly ruled the country – nothing got done without his approval and apparently the current Queen took up that with Thatcher at times as well

Note to wingnuts

I’m not English, nor do I care to be – just reciting some facts – and if Prince Phillip ever called the head of MI-6 the chief would not only answer the phone but he/she would definitely entertain any request Prince Phillip had.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4683.asp