andygardener Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Come on Loncol, an idiot can see there are very suspicious circumstances surrounding her death, stop acting dumb. Maybe you should watch the film. From the link above- "Senior accident investigator Anthony Read said he could "almost guarantee" that the couple would have survived had they been strapped in and travelling at THE SPEED LIMIT when their Mercedes crashed in Paris's Alma tunnel." ...No sh@t Sherlock. Where did you get 65mph from, that's hardly a high speed. Yes the driver would no doubt have a better chance of survival if wearing a seatbelt. Its another matter for a rear seat passenger though, being thrown against the seat would likely cause less injury than a seatbelt, it's the person in front most at danger. Remember the advert? Struggling to see what you're getting at here? You seem to be saying she was fine in the staged accident but then mysteriously was killed later? Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Come on Loncol, an idiot can see there are very suspicious circumstances surrounding her death, stop acting dumb. Maybe you should watch the film. Where did you get 65mph from, that's hardly a high speed. What film - the one Al-Fayed paid for :hihi: The speed - try any of these links; https://www.google.co.uk/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=d1d2800168a9543b&q=diana+death+speed 65 mph not a high speed if you're not wearing a seat belt???? Remind me which planet we're on......................... ---------- Post added 19-08-2013 at 01:13 ---------- Struggling to see what you're getting at here? You seem to be saying she was fine in the staged accident but then mysteriously was killed later? Yes? Prince Philip in a French ambulance with a candlestick / lead pipe/ rope / dagger / revolver / HAARP / nano-thermite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Come on Loncol, an idiot can see there are very suspicious circumstances surrounding her death, stop acting dumb. Maybe you should watch the film. From the link above- "Senior accident investigator Anthony Read said he could "almost guarantee" that the couple would have survived had they been strapped in and travelling at THE SPEED LIMIT when their Mercedes crashed in Paris's Alma tunnel." ...No sh@t Sherlock. Where did you get 65mph from, that's hardly a high speed. Yes the driver would no doubt have a better chance of survival if wearing a seatbelt. Its another matter for a rear seat passenger though, being thrown against the seat would likely cause less injury than a seatbelt, it's the person in front most at danger. Remember the advert? Being as wrong as this about what happens to an unrestrained rear-seat passenger ("I have the back of the front seats to hold me in/break my propulsion forward") probably explains the lower percentage compliance in the back. The highest impact speed than an adult can comfortably brace themselves for us said to be around 4mph. Imagine walking at a very brisk pace towards a lamppost (the car's a-frame) and handing-off the lamppost. Now try jogging at 6, 7, 8mph towards the same lamppost. 18-inches from the post, try handing-off the lamppost in order to avoid injury. Now try doing it blindfolded (i.e. replicate real-life situations where you don't have full knowledge of what's coming next, where or when) and being given the instruction to hand-off the lamppost by a trusted friend. ---------- Post added 19-08-2013 at 09:44 ---------- It seems the theories of conspiracy will carry on, such was the romance and glitter around Diana. The latest suggestion that the SAS had some involvement rings really true to me. After all, they specialise in killing by means that are drawn out and can have lots of alternative endings; they avoid any hint of precision and love making a fuss. If only there were a grassy knoll ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Come on Loncol, an idiot can see there are very suspicious circumstances surrounding her death I wouldn't go as far as to call you an idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 What film - the one Al-Fayed paid for :hihi: The speed - try any of these links; https://www.google.co.uk/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=d1d2800168a9543b&q=diana+death+speed 65 mph not a high speed if you're not wearing a seat belt???? Remind me which planet we're on......................... ---------- Post added 19-08-2013 at 01:13 ---------- Prince Philip in a French ambulance with a candlestick / lead pipe/ rope / dagger / revolver / HAARP / nano-thermite? Its not ,the problem starts when you go from 65 to 0 in a split second Its usually not the speed that kills you its the object that has caused the sudden de acceleration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 She died because the car she was in was traveling at a high rate of speed, fleeing from the papparazi and driven by a man who wasnt supposed to have been the driver on call that night and he was drunk. Diana's seat belt was also unfastened I know a lot of Royals haters would love to see her death connected in some way with the Queen or Prince Charles but tough luck it wont happen. The investigation will come to the same logical conclusion as before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 What film - the one Al-Fayed paid for :hihi: The speed - try any of these links; https://www.google.co.uk/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=d1d2800168a9543b&q=diana+death+speed 65 mph not a high speed if you're not wearing a seat belt???? Remind me which planet we're on......................... I didn't say 65mph isn't a high speed if not wearing a seatbelt, it's not that high a speed to be trying to outrun the pap's, hardly the reckless speed we were led to believe, or a speed I believe they would be travelling at. My point is you seem to be suggesting her death was reliant on her not having her seatbelt on, I'm saying it was just as likely to kill her if she was wearing it. Still being quite an uncertain method of assassination, they would no doubt have a back up plan, like delaying treatment perhaps, or even helping her on her way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 I didn't say 65mph isn't a high speed if not wearing a seatbelt, it's not that high a speed to be trying to outrun the pap's, hardly the reckless speed we were led to believe, or a speed I believe they would be travelling at. My point is you seem to be suggesting her death was reliant on her not having her seatbelt on, I'm saying it was just as likely to kill her if she was wearing it. Still being quite an uncertain method of assassination, they would no doubt have a back up plan, like delaying treatment perhaps, or even helping her on her way. So no proof but that is your proof because they then did killing. Silly little tit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 There's so much fakery and cover ups now, we can't trust anything they say. ---------- Post added 18-08-2013 at 13:45 ---------- Yes, but not the only reason, that she had spoken out against the royal family won't have helped matters. Remember she'd said that she was expecting to be killed in a car crash not long before she was. If she truly believed that, why didn't she wear a seat belt? ---------- Post added 20-08-2013 at 01:58 ---------- Accidents happen, but in Diana's case it was just so convenient. And she even took the trouble to write a letter predicting it would happen as a kind of insurance policy. A more effective insurance policy would have been to wear a seat belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 So no proof but that is your proof because they then did killing. Silly little tit. What are you on about? Where have I claimed to have proof? Can't I have a debate here without being insulted? Knobhead. ---------- Post added 20-08-2013 at 02:23 ---------- If she truly believed that, why didn't she wear a seat belt? ---------- Post added 20-08-2013 at 01:58 ---------- A more effective insurance policy would have been to wear a seat belt. She did state that she was worried, that's well known, so yes you have to wonder why she wasn't wearing it. Apparently the first inspection found it to be operational but one years later found it to be jammed. So you might wonder was it really working at the first inspection? Longcol made a fair point though in that the other seatbelt was working and they couldnt be sure which side she would choose to sit, so the seatbelt being tampered with I admit is unlikely. But the plan wouldn't be reliant on her not wearing her seatbelt anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.