'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[William of Walworth]

If Aaronovitch makes you vomit in your mouth try CounterKnowledge by Damien Thompson. or How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World by Francis Whelan.

Counterknowledge directly confronts, loose change, MMR bullshit etc. How mumbo jumbo (etc) goes into the same area but with greater sweep. They both challenge post modernism and other bullshit.

Got the Francis Wheen book, it's very good

Will look into the other one, ta.

 

[Diamond]

I think the official story of 9/11 is full of holes but there's no way I'm going to believe something else that's even more full of holes.

This is the central idea of that article that I recommended above and the author posits in the context of trying to explain why conspiracy theories proliferate in the modern 'age of anxiety'.

It seems to me that the desire to find explanations, to theorize events, the 'will to connect' is centrally implicated in a culture that must explain everything.

I think it's quite relevant to the generalised suspicion that you express and that is the common point of departure for most people who start wandering towards 9/11 conspiracy theories.

 

[claphamboy]

just started the chapter about Diana and contrary to popular belief (media)regarding the inquiry, the option "It was an accident" was NOT the one chose by the jury.

Everyone knew that, well apart from you it appears, it was widely reported across TV, radio, newspapers and the web at the time - it was fucking everywhere, how the hell did you miss it?

 

[trevhagl]

Everyone knew that, well apart from you it appears, it was widely reported across TV, radio, newspapers and the web at the time - it was fucking everywhere, how the hell did you miss it?

I rarely read the papers but the general view from the ones that did was that A Fayed was proved wrong!!!

 

[trevhagl]

Page and book title please fucko.

Cause;



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7328754.stm

p314 - 335 Michael Mansfield - Radical Lawyer (you need to read the whole lot incl the bits about her phone being tapped, telling people she was in fear of her life, and even the non-Royal stuff where she was about to expose top people involved in selling landmines to Angola....)

 

[claphamboy]

I rarely read the papers but the general view from the ones that did was that A Fayed was proved wrong!!!

He was proved wrong.

 

[trevhagl]

He was proved wrong.

so the book is LYING about the jury not chosing the "Accident" option?

 

[8den]

p314 - 335 Michael Mansfield - Radical Lawyer (you need to read the whole lot incl the bits about her phone being tapped, telling people she was in fear of her life, and even the non-Royal stuff where she was about to expose top people involved in selling landmines to Angola....)

Spoilt paranoid woman makes shit up. The jury specifically said that the fact that she wasn't wearing a seatbelt and her driver was drunk, and they were being chased by paparazzi as the major reasons for the crash.

So to be clear. Your claims that Jones was paid off by the security services have been shown to be unsubstantiated. The claim that the cameras were off has been shown to be a lie.

Essentially if the royal family were going to kill her in a car crash they were relying on the driver being pissed and Diana not wearing a seatbelt, which is a pretty shit way to try kill someone.

 

[trevhagl]

Spoilt paranoid woman makes shit up. The jury specifically said that the fact that she wasn't wearing a seatbelt and her driver was drunk, and they were being chased by paparazzi as the major reasons for the crash.

So to be clear. Your claims that Jones was paid off by the security services have been shown to be unsubstantiated. The claim that the cameras were off has been shown to be a lie.

Essentially if the royal family were going to kill her in a car crash they were relying on the driver being pissed and Diana not wearing a seatbelt, which is a pretty shit way to try kill someone.

read the book, you're way out.
The cameras were pointing the WRONG WAY (not off)
It was Henri Paul who had mystery large deposits in the account (poor value for money as it turns out but i guess he wasn't to know that at the time)
As for paranoid woman, i'm sure you'll think David Kelly was paranoid too when he told people he would be found dead in the woods or something?

 

[trevhagl]

your logic re the seat belt is like saying if a 4 x 4 ran over a motorcyclist , it was the motorcyclists fault he's deed if he wasn't wearing a helmet

 

[claphamboy]

so the book is LYING about the jury not chosing the "Accident" option?

No.

 

[trevhagl]

Well i'm off oot on the lash now , you'll have to start on Clapham Boy now for saying "No"

 

[8den]

read the book, you're way out.
The cameras were pointing the WRONG WAY (not off)
It was Henri Paul who had mystery large deposits in the account (poor value for money as it turns out but i guess he wasn't to know that at the time)

if Paul Henri was in on the plan to stage a car crash, why the fuck did he not take the basic precaution of wearing a seatbelt?

Idiot.

As for paranoid woman, i'm sure you'll think David Kelly was paranoid too when he told people he would be found dead in the woods or something?

Complete Non sequitur.

So the security services told him well beforehand how exactly they were planning on faking his suicide? That was helpful of them.

 

[claphamboy]

r
The cameras were pointing the WRONG WAY (not off)

Not this horse shit again.

Most of the CCTV cameras on the route were security cameras pointing at buildings, and the traffic-monitoring camera above the underpass wasn't normally monitored at that time of night due to the lack of fucking traffic.

It was Henri Paul who had mystery large deposits in the account (poor value for money as it turns out but i guess he wasn't to know that at the time)

He was a single man, with no dependants, who worked all his life, received massive tips (sometimes in the region of £500-£1000) from wealthy guests and a rental income from property - there was NO evidence of payments from any spooks.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well i'm off oot on the lash now , you'll have to start on Clapham Boy now for saying "No"

you'll be passed out by 4 and nicked for drunk and incapable by 5

 

[claphamboy]

Well i'm off oot on the lash now , you'll have to start on Clapham Boy now for saying "No"

There’s a big different between outright accident, accident caused by pissed-up driver & the paparazzi chase (unlawful killing verdict) and A Fayed’s government/royal/security services conspiracy theory.

If you’re too thick to work that out, no wonder you have come to the conclusion that you have and left yourself looking stupid on here.

 

[claphamboy]

So, trev, have you got to the bit in the book that confirms A Fayed was proved wrong?

 

[trevhagl]

So, trev, have you got to the bit in the book that confirms A Fayed was proved wrong?

nah must've been edited out

 

[trevhagl]

There’s a big different between outright accident, accident caused by pissed-up driver & the paparazzi chase (unlawful killing verdict) and A Fayed’s government/royal/security services conspiracy theory.

If you’re too thick to work that out, no wonder you have come to the conclusion that you have and left yourself looking stupid on here.

the actual verdict was (I forget the actual words) it was either the vehicle they were travelling in, or a following vehicle to blame . A very vague judgement that could also include foul play

 

[claphamboy]

the actual verdict was (I forget the actual words) it was either the vehicle they were travelling in, or a following vehicle to blame . A very vague judgement that could also include foul play

Bollocks it was, the option Al Fayed and Mansfield wanted considered was "that the crash was deliberately staged, with the intention of killing, harming or scaring? Deliberately causing the crash with the intention of killing the occupants of the car or causing them serious injury would support a verdict of unlawful killing by murder."

There was no evidence whatsoever to support that option, the jury went with "Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the paparazzi and grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes)" - that leaves no scope for foul play.

CORONER’S INQUESTS INTO THE DEATHS OF DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES AND MR DODI AL FAYED

It has taken more than 90 days, 270 witnesses and a bill of £10 million to slay the obsessive conspiracy theories of one man. And in the end yesterday, a jury discarded the soft option of accidental death and placed much of the blame for the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed on the shoulders of one of Mohamed Al Fayed’s own employees.

The Princess and Dodi were unlawfully killed by a combination of their drunk driver, Henri Paul, and the paparazzi who were chasing their car, the jury at their inquests decided.

It was a disastrous outcome for the owner of Harrods, whose allegations of a murder plot masterminded by the Duke of Edinburgh were rejected decisively by the coroner for complete lack of evidence. It was a damning indictment, too, of the pursuing photographers who must accept an equal share of the blame. Even the dead do not escape censure. The couple might have been alive today, the jury decided unanimously, had they been wearing their seatbelts.

The Times report

 

[greenman]

Full page advert from 9-11 Troofers in the Indie today, sponsored by some Coffee Shop company

 

[trevhagl]

Bollocks it was, the option Al Fayed and Mansfield wanted considered was "that the crash was deliberately staged, with the intention of killing, harming or scaring? Deliberately causing the crash with the intention of killing the occupants of the car or causing them serious injury would support a verdict of unlawful killing by murder."

There was no evidence whatsoever to support that option, the jury went with "Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the paparazzi and grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes)" - that leaves no scope for foul play.

CORONER’S INQUESTS INTO THE DEATHS OF DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES AND MR DODI AL FAYED





The Times report

The book says that the wording 'paparazzi' was changed to 'following vehicles' which could mean the motorbike that never got traced (funnily enough)

 

[Superdupastupor]

The book says that the wording 'paparazzi' was changed to 'following vehicles' which could mean the motorbike that never got traced (funnily enough)

You know you are in a corner with the Express don't you ? why do you care

 

[claphamboy]

The book says that the wording 'paparazzi' was changed to 'following vehicles' which could mean the motorbike that never got traced (funnily enough)

Go read the Coroner's Inquest link I provided above - any 'plot' was totally ruled out because there was no evidence whatsoever to support.

If the jury had any doubt they could have returned an open verdict, they did not.

 

[trevhagl]

Go read the Coroner's Inquest link I provided above - any 'plot' was totally ruled out because there was no evidence whatsoever to support.

If the jury had any doubt they could have returned an open verdict, they did not.

care to speculate as to why the 2 vehicles in the tunnel that were spotted by the 2 witnesses were never traced? And how fishy it looks that the witnesses said there was a car in front and motorbike behind (which wasn't paparzazzi)

mind you the above poster is right - why do i care?

 

[claphamboy]

FFS - go read the Inquest evidence, everything is there, everything was covered and considered by a JURY, their descision was that there was no plot.

Even after Mansfield changed his position, the jury still decided there was no plot.

In the light of the evidence, Mr Mansfield QC has, quite properly, accepted that there is no direct evidence that the Duke played any part in the deaths and has accepted that there is no direct evidence of any involvement of the SIS. Mr Mansfield now submits that the jury should consider an alternative scenario, which he terms the ‘troublesome priest thesis’: a plan by unknown individuals (perhaps rogue SIS operatives) to stage the crash in order to serve the perceived interests or wishes of the Royal Family or ‘the Establishment’, as he and Mr Al Fayed term it. He also now submits that the aim of the plot may have been to scare the Princess. That submission may rest in part on a realistic acceptance that there could have been no certainty that the Princess and Mr Al Fayed would die or be seriously harmed. The lethal forces that resulted in the deaths of Diana, Dodi and Henri Paul resulted from the high speed of the Mercedes (about 65 mph at the moment of the collision) and the fact that it impacted with the corner of a pillar. Had the Mercedes hit the side of the pillar or gone out of control and hit the wall on the other side of its carriageway, it would probably have been deflected and the outcome may well have been different. Additionally, the occupants were not wearing seatbelts. The expert evidence was that wearing a seatbelt would either have prevented or at the very least diminished the prospect of a fatal injury.

 

[trevhagl]

FFS - go read the Inquest evidence, everything is there, everything was covered and considered by a JURY, their descision was that there was no plot.

Even after Mansfield changed his position, the jury still decided there was no plot.

still looks fishy to me!!

 

[trevhagl]

care to speculate as to why the 2 vehicles in the tunnel that were spotted by the 2 witnesses were never traced? And how fishy it looks that the witnesses said there was a car in front and motorbike behind (which wasn't paparzazzi)


Theres my post above again for anyone to explain how that doesn't look fishy

 

[claphamboy]

still looks fishy to me!!

Well, go read the fucking inquest evidence!

Just sticking to a pre-existing position whilst refusing to look at the evidence is a clear sign of a conspiraloon.

ETA: To make it easy for you, read from item 15 here

 

[trevhagl]

Well, go read the fucking inquest evidence!

Just sticking to a pre-existing position whilst refusing to look at the evidence is a clear sign of a conspiraloon.

ETA: To make it easy for you, read from item 15 here

even your own chosen document has fishy stuff in it, see 17e. The programme on Ch4 also covered this. You couldn't get more fishy in you owned a fish factory.

a bright light, strange signals to each other...

(if no one saw the Ch4 docu it basically said a motorcyclist shone a bright light at the driver in the tunnel)