bee Posted June 20, 2013 #76 Share Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) He was not the only one with a seatbelt. He was the only one who fastened it. He was the only one who at the moment of impact had his fastened And they all had functioning air-bags. Or do you claim 3 of them were disabled? there is a...'puzzle' regarding the airbags....here's the link I can't be bothered to pick out quotes http://news.bbc.co.u...hi/uk/53752.stm And the impact was pretty much in the middle. go back and have a look at the pic Rafterman posted Besides, in your sort of scenario, there is no way he could possibly control where exactly the impact was. I beg to differ.....IMO...he could (in theory) control where the impact was...although at 65 ish MPH (if that was the speed) it would have been a bit of a precision thing. But lets say for a minute, if it wasn't an accident...and the possibility I'm putting forward is correct....then it would have all been planned meticulously...and he might have practiced in a car-driving-simulator beforehand. In short: No banana, and not even much of a try. there's no pleasing some people..... Hope you have better success in your backyard. I don't have a backyard . Edited June 20, 2013 by bee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted June 20, 2013 #77 Share Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) I'm sure someone who..... http://en.wikipedia....nes_(bodyguard) wouldn't have had too much trouble doing it. . Even if one had served in the parachute Regiment, that would still not enable one to reach between the front seats, reach as far as the rear seat, and unfasten their seat belts, all while remaining seated and with your own seatbelt fastened (and all the time while the people sitting there didn't notice). I think this particular aspect of the theory will have to be abandoned as implausible. Edited June 20, 2013 by Colonel Rhuairidh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted June 20, 2013 #78 Share Posted June 20, 2013 But lets say for a minute, if it wasn't an accident...and the possibility I'm putting forward is correct....then it would have all been planned meticulously.... I can see the Illuminati coming into this before long. I expect probably that particular pillar was chosen because it has great Numerolological significance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted June 20, 2013 #79 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Even if one had served in the parachute Regiment, that would still not enable one to reach between the front seats, reach as far as the rear seat, and unfasten their seat belts, all while remaining seated and with your own seatbelt fastened (and all the time while the people sitting there didn't notice). I think this particular aspect of the theory will have to be abandoned as implausible. That made me laugh...then someone in the room wondered why I was laughing and I tried to explain... and that made me laugh even more.. OK...perhaps you would like to peruse #70 for the dramatic possibilities,... that you must have missed. And no he wouldn't have had his seatbelt on at that point. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted June 21, 2013 #80 Share Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) He was in the passenger seat.... and it's not hard to imagine how it was possible to do. He could have got them panicked by pointing out of the back window...shouting about something.. He might even have shouted that there was someone with a gun in pursuit (something like that)...leaned right through to the back and released the seatbelts, ordering them to get down. He was the bodyguard after all. Resumed his seat..clicked on his seatbelt....clicked the drivers off....then yanked the steering wheel to crash the car. Means, motive and opportunity....the bodyguard had all three. And was the only one that could ensure 100% that... The other three weren't wearing seatbelts...and that the car crashed. To be honest....none of it really matters now...and the above is, of course, pure speculation. If it was just an accident...so be it...but if it wasn't I'm sure Diana would want people to try and get to the bottom of it. Seriously, did you even read that? It sounds like a story my 4-year-old might come up with. Edited June 21, 2013 by Rafterman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted June 21, 2013 #81 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Seriously, did you even read that? It sounds like a story my 4-year-old might come up with. Smart kid... ... out of the mouths of babes and all that..... It's Prince William's birthday today. Diana's death is all in the past now anyway and the 'how and why' and the conspiracy has faded. I think that's a good thing because you can't turn the clock back.... To be honest I wish I hadn't bothered to post in this thread, but the title got me going.... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antilles Posted June 22, 2013 #82 Share Posted June 22, 2013 OK, so now we have posters putting forward the idea that Trevor Rees-Jones steered the car towards the pillar then managed to put his seat belt back on before impact. H'm. Considering the extent of his injuries, if this is true, either he was incredibly inept or he wasn't paid enough. Or both. Do we just ignore the toxicology reports on Henri Paul that proved he was drunk? Unqualified to drive that Merc? Drunk and unqualified. Being urged on by a playboy loser to get away from the paps. You know, Diana drove around the streets of London before she married Charlie with paps trailing her. She managed to lose them. The idea that Rees-Jones would willingly risk his own life to kill Diana is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted June 24, 2013 #83 Share Posted June 24, 2013 It seems really clear that there were and are no clean lines or breaks. The mother of a future king could never be totally removed from the circle or ousted from the family much less fade away whether in life, death, or the space existing between the two. Diana will be forever remembered and whether she is honored by many or desired to be forgotten by a few not does not depend on public ceremony or memorial. Consider that in times past the desire to forget one could have materialized in public execution as ceremony. That of course might be why many pursue the conspiracy theory because our collective memory remembers that. In their minds the events are an execution. It does seem plausible that many should be grateful that each continued to pursue love in their own way. Since your view differs with the conspiracy theory but could include that possibility, that each continued to pursue love in their own way, and as the conspiracy theory can also include that view, I cannot totally agree or disagree with either in the end but only consign them to the public imagination because that is where those views originated from and that is who owns them: they are public domain. The Royals might still feel otherwise than how we imagine them to, expect them to, or want them to feel. I agree a mother can never be totally removed from her family, but I was not proposing that, socially, Diana would not longer be a problem. I do not feel this has any parallels with the conspiracy theory at all, it is merely a reason why the conspiracy theory lacks logic. The Theory states that the Royals wanted Diana removed for their own reasons, such as race religion and the very fact that the Queens first born Charlie, is not quite the lady killer a king is expected to be. Yet I would propose that is false logic because these "problems" would just go away of the marriage actually did go ahead. Diana also said she needed another marriage like a rash on the face, but that is beside the point, which is that the conspiracy theory is poorly evidenced. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted June 26, 2013 #84 Share Posted June 26, 2013 Not only that psyche101 The Facts are the Facts ! Diana was indeed Killed by a really bad mistake ! You Hit the Wall ANd things go bad really fast ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted June 26, 2013 #85 Share Posted June 26, 2013 Not only that psyche101 The Facts are the Facts ! Diana was indeed Killed by a really bad mistake ! You Hit the Wall ANd things go bad really fast ! Same problem with falling from heights. That sudden stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted June 26, 2013 #86 Share Posted June 26, 2013 Right. No-one "killed" her. It was a tragic, high-speed accident. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted June 27, 2013 #87 Share Posted June 27, 2013 SID ! Sudden Impact Death ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted June 27, 2013 #88 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) SID ! Sudden Impact Death ! Unfortunately for her, her death was not immediate. From what I understand, the impact was of such force as to tear away a vital vascular connection to her heart. Her heart was still able to beat, but it pumped blood through that torn connection. She effectively bled to death internally. Thus, she was still concious for a short while before the event caused irreversable internal bleeding. I think at least one paramedic that arrived at the scene reported her saying(with increasing loss of conciousness) something like "tell my children I love them" From that, if true, I presume she was still alive for 3-10 minutes after impact, depending on however long it took for the paramedics to get there. The medical community said, I think, that her aorta(?) was torn from her heart, whether wholly(no longer connected at all) or split(only partially connected) They also said that this event is not uncommon with sudden, high speed impact stopping, but lethality is more common in women than men, and emergency medical intervention to save the life of the patient is nearly impossible. That's all I remember about it. Edited June 27, 2013 by pallidin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet Posted June 27, 2013 #89 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Right. No-one "killed" her. It was a tragic, high-speed accident. the verdict from the jury was that she was unlawfully killed ,keith Allan made a documentary with the same name (unlawfully killing) which has been censored here in the uk , it was very enlightening,but good luck trying to watch it as i know of one forum that was nearly shut down just for linking to the film..............go figure ! http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/04/keith-allen-unlawful-killing-princess-diana_n_1649194.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antilles Posted June 27, 2013 #90 Share Posted June 27, 2013 It took the ambulance 1 hour and 43 minutes to get her to the hospital. I don't need to be a heart surgeon to know that her chances of surviving bled away with every minute shewas in that ambulance. Maybe surgery couldn't have saved her but we'll never know will we, because she never got the treatment she needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted June 27, 2013 #91 Share Posted June 27, 2013 It took the ambulance 1 hour and 43 minutes to get her to the hospital. I don't need to be a heart surgeon to know that her chances of surviving bled away with every minute shewas in that ambulance. Maybe surgery couldn't have saved her but we'll never know will we, because she never got the treatment she needed. Yeah her chances were slim to none. More like none. The type of heart injury that actually caused her death is quite lethal. She had other traumatic injuries as well(they all had to be extracted from a very crumbled vehicle, which took some time), that the paramedics were attending to, not knowing what was happening to her heart; not that they could have done anything about it anyway. The accident could have been 2-seconds away from a hospital, and I seriously doubt she would have survived. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted June 27, 2013 #92 Share Posted June 27, 2013 OK, so now we have posters putting forward the idea that Trevor Rees-Jones steered the car towards the pillar then managed to put his seat belt back on before impact. H'm. Considering the extent of his injuries, if this is true, either he was incredibly inept or he wasn't paid enough. Or both. Do we just ignore the toxicology reports on Henri Paul that proved he was drunk? Unqualified to drive that Merc? Drunk and unqualified. Being urged on by a playboy loser to get away from the paps. You know, Diana drove around the streets of London before she married Charlie with paps trailing her. She managed to lose them. The idea that Rees-Jones would willingly risk his own life to kill Diana is ridiculous. Consider also that there are a hell of a lot easier and more dependable ways to off someone. Hell, pay a thug a couple hundred Euro to shoot them "John Lennon style" as they went from the hotel to the car. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted June 27, 2013 #93 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) Consider also that there are a hell of a lot easier and more dependable ways to off someone. Hell, pay a thug a couple hundred Euro to shoot them "John Lennon style" as they went from the hotel to the car. ... Maybe it was arranged by one of those Bond villains who always devise some incredibly complicated plot, probably involving sharks and circular saws, rather than just shooting him there & then. Edited June 27, 2013 by Colonel Rhuairidh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted June 28, 2013 #94 Share Posted June 28, 2013 GOD ! What part Of Car crash did you miss ? THere was no conspiracies ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now