Dodi 'real target' in Diana tragedy

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Dodi 'real target' in Diana tragedy

Postby greencrow0 » Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:03 am

This is a prime example of what the elite and MSM do when cornered....lie their way out....

this is from, sorry to some who don't like this site....thetruthseeker.co.uk.



Peter Allen – Sunday Express November 26, 2006

With former Metropolitan Chief of Police, John Stevens expected to deliver his inquiries findings soon and with mounting public scepticism over the official explanation for Diana's death, the powers that be have been forced to change their story a little. In the latest version it has finally been acknowledged that her death was not the result of a simple road accident but an assassination. However, the ‘real target’ was not Diana but Dodi al Fayed, which conveniently shifts the burden of guilt to “mercenaries working for Arab arms dealers”.

Will the public buy this line? Your guess is as good as mine but certainly the correspondent who sent this in wasn’t buying it and we don’t think many others will either. What's more it's also an indication that the powers that be are getting worried about the public waking up to the fact Diana's death was not an "accident". As next year a 'Diana concert' will be held where no doubt crocodile tears will be shed for public consumption. Ed.

Dodi 'real target' in Diana tragedy
Peter Allen – Sunday Express November 26, 2006

Princess Diana may have been led to her death at the hands of assassins who wanted to murder Dodi Fayed.

The killers were believed to be mercenaries working for Arab arms dealers.
They wanted her boyfriend Dodi to attend a meeting in a Paris office block.

Diana had agreed to travel to the late-night rendezvous alongside Dodi. She would protect him against business enemies who might want to harm him.

Instead, their saloon veered into an underpass pillar at high speed, killing them and their driver, Henri Paul.


The well-sourced revelations have been described as being of “major interest” by those investigating the tragedy in August 1997.

Until now nobody has been able to explain why the Mercedes the couple were travelling in took such a circuitous route from the Ritz Hotel to their presumed destination, Dodi’s apartment next to the Arc de Triomphe.

When the car crashed in the Alma tunnel, on the banks of the River Seine, it was heading in a different direction.

Francis Gillery, one of France’s most respected investigative journalists, has laid out details of the plot in a new book, Diana: The Ghost Of The Alma Tunnel, to be published in the UK in the spring.

Mr Gillery said the Mercedes was heading for Passy Kennedy, a nondescript Eighties building in Avenue du President Kennedy.

He said American satellites had picked up details of the plot through mobile phone interceptions. These are currently being studied by British officers working on Operation Paget, the £4million inquiry into Diana’s death.

“The French intelligence services knew there was a plot being mounted against Dodi Fayed thanks to their agents in Paris, but most of all thanks to the telephone bugging of Nasa passed on to them by the CIA,” said Mr Gillery.

The records show that Dodi, nominally a film producer but with a string of other commercial interests to his name, had been discussing his business dealings constantly.

While Diana had hoped to return to London following a yachting holiday in the South of France, it was Dodi who insisted they spend the weekend in Paris “to negotiate a business deal”.

On leaving the Ritz, Dodi was heard to shout: “I’m going to the Kennedy building, join me there.”

Dodi was in contact with a number of people on the night, including arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi. The tycoon, now 71 and living in the tax haven of Monaco, was one of the first business partners of Dodi’s father, Harrods boss Mohamed Al Fayed.

Mr Gillery believes Dodi was taking instructions on the night from a Saudi businessman.

Mr Gillery said: “The aim of the meeting remains a mystery to this day, but I believe nonetheless that it was linked to transactions in the spheres of arms and petrol.”

Mr Gillery also concedes that there is every possibility that the meeting was never due to take place, and it was solely a pretext to lure Dodi into a trap.

A reference to the murdered President Kennedy was a sinister flourish adopted by the assassins.

At the time of his death Dodi, 41, had built up a reputation for being a bad creditor, and was taking his personal security extremely seriously.

Until now conspiracy theories concerning Diana’s death have always concentrated on the Princess herself.

But the part Dodi’s enemies may have played in the deaths has been completely overlooked.

Mr Gillery also thinks that the Mercedes electronics could have been interfered with so that it accelerated independently as it approached the tunnel, leaving Paul unable to brake.

“The technology to a create a kamikaze car has always been there,” said Mr Gillery.

But former Metropolitan Police Commissioner John Stevens, who is leading the British inquiry, has stressed the need to explore every new theory. His officers are expected to deliver their report shortly. An inquest into the tragedy will follow
http://dailyexpress.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=773


======================

Such BS!

But I guess when you're cornered and the truth is starting to leak out...you have to do a major PR job to cover it up.

gc
greencrow

History: A race between knowledge and catastrophe
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby antiaristo » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:26 am

Hi greencrow,
Glad to see you keeping this in the public eye.

This is the story that has been airbrushed from history.


Tue 6 Jan 2004

printer friendly
12:25pm (UK)
Butler Condemns Naming of Prince

By PA News Reporters

Former royal butler Paul Burrell today distanced himself from a decision to identify Prince Charles as the senior member of the Royal family who the Princess of Wales believed was plotting to kill her in a car crash.

As an inquest into the Princess’s death was opened and adjourned in London, Mr Burrell said he did not “support or endorse” the move by the Daily Mirror.

A statement released through his agent Ali Gunn read: “As the editor of the Daily Mirror will confirm, Mr Burrell never wanted any new information to be published following the serialisation of his book.

“Today’s publication was solely a decision taken by the newspaper without Mr Burrell’s knowledge or consent.

“He was only informed late on Monday evening and he does not support or endorse its publication.

“The Daily Mirror only became aware during the photographing of the letter for its book serialisation last October of certain sensitive information.

“Mr Burrell could not have made it clearer that he did not want any new information to be published then or in the future.

“Mr Burrell would also like to make clear that quotes attributed to him in today’s newspaper were made in relation to the inquest opening and not in relation to the publication of new material.”

Speaking to Sky News outside his home in Farndon, Cheshire, Mr Burrell said: “I’m not happy about it. I only learned about it late last night and it was always my intention never to publish that name. I never ever wanted it to be published.”

The princess’s allegation was made in a letter written 10 months before she died.

The letter was included in Mr Burrell’s book A Royal Duty by her last year, but was previously blanked out by the publishers Penguin and the Daily Mirror, which serialised the work.

But today the Mirror revealed that the relevant passage read: “This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous – my husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry.”

Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan defended his decision to publish Prince Charles’s name.

He said he was made aware in the last 24 hours by Mr Burrell that the coroner had formally approached him twice for the letter.

He said the letter was not going to be censored and therefore the information was going to be in the public domain at the inquest.

“At that point I think any newspaper that was aware of this kind of information has a duty to publish it and the situation changed.

He added: “This morning Paul Burrell was not aware of what we were doing. I knew he would not be very happy about it because he has always tried to keep this information suppressed.

“But I am afraid if a letter goes to a coroner for an inquest containing this kind of information it will come out.”

He said the letter was “utterly sensational”.

“Is it preposterous? Probably. I just don’t know.

“What I do know is that thankfully we finally have an inquest where perhaps we can finally lay to rest all these conspiracy theories.”

Within royal circles, the allegation is said to be viewed as merely another untrue and unfounded conspiracy theory.

Sources pointed to the conclusion of the French investigation which ruled that the deaths of Diana and Dodi were accidental.

It is understood that the matter was being looked at in legal terms, but it was not thought it would be taken further at present.


http://Scotsman_com%20News%20-%20Latest ... Prince.htm

She put it all in the letter.

- modus operandi - "'an accident' in my car"
- outcome - "serious head injury"
- perpetrator - "my husband"
- motive - "in order to make the path clear for him to marry"


And of course she was correct, wasn't she?

There WAS 'an accident' in her car
There WAS a serious head injury
He HAS married

So it's pretty reasonable to assume she knew what she was talking about.

Prince Charles and the Treason Felony Act

From Data Dump (Second Batch 2002-2004)

Sir John Stevens Metropolitan Police Commissioner
(Correos certificado 05291ES)
12 January 2004

Diana Spencer Inquest

Dear Sir,
Further to my copy letter to Sir Michael Peat of 16 November 2002.

I understand you have been charged by royal coroner Michael Burgess to look into the possibility that Diana’s death was other than a simple traffic accident. I have information that may be of assistance when making your enquiries.

My information concerns motive. Why would anyone want to murder the princess? And my answer is, the Treason Felony Act of 1848, as re-affirmed on 26 June 2003 by the High Court of England and Wales, viz:

3. Offences herein mentioned declared to be felonies
...If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, ...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty's dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, ...within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her... to change her... measures of counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon her or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty's dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty... and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, ...or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ...to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life.


As you can see, this law grants unlimited powers to our Most Gracious Lady the Queen. So long as Diana was alive Charles was not free to marry. If Charles wanted these dictatorial powers for himself he had first to be rid of his wife once and for all. I’m afraid it has all happened before (in 1936 and 1952) and not only with Henry VIII.
Yours faithfully,



John Cleary BScMAMBA

cc Mrs E. Windsor (ref. your Coronation Oath sworn 2 June 1953)
Michael Burgess


If the reader still does not see the logical reason she HAD TO die, look at this thread

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=8572
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:16 am

Wow, this is interesting! Do you know who he is???

Dodi was in contact with a number of people on the night, including arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi.


Here you go:

link one

http://www.daanspeak.com/Esquire01Eng.html


http://www.slate.com/id/2058706/


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/102706.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ffair.html
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:43 am

Oh, yes, forgot BCCI:

http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/stories/2599143/

Ok, 9/11, Iran/contra, October Surprise, BCCI. Which major conspiracy scandal have I forgotten to google?
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:49 am

Check out this footnote:

5) Ibid. Today, Khashoggi has interests in some 1500 companies, and indirect involvement in others. The second largest shareholder in Ruppert Murdoch's News Corp., for instance, is Prince Walid bin Talal bin Abdulaziz as Saud (Prince Alwaleed), a Khashoggi colleague.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby tal » Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:37 am

This is the story that has been airbrushed from history.



So, anti, is the British public as clueless about the murder of Diana as the American public is about 911?
tal
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:45 am

I wonder what kind of "contact" Dodi had with Adnan Khashoggi that night. Was it just a "Hi, how are you" or was it business? I mean this guy is a BIG player in most of the bigger American conspiracies of the last thirty years, and that probably goes for Europe, too.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby greencrow0 » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:53 am

I doubt that Dodi had anything to do with Adnan Kashoggi...that's just a very late lie to cover up mossad involvement in the crash.

gc
greencrow

History: A race between knowledge and catastrophe
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:04 am

And are you aware how much Mossad and Khashoggi have "worked" together? His is an interesting history. You really should read up on him.

Ok, I'm trying to think how to describe this guy. He's a conspiracist's merchant. He doesn't come up with the conspiracy himself. Most of the biggest conspiracists, those planning a big conspiracy, go to Adnan Khashoggi as a middleman, a merchant. You want missles? He gets you missles. He also mediates for you, if you're wanting the other side to do something. He's the nuts and bolts guy that the conspiracy makers use. In a way, he's like a "fence"--he doesn't steal the jewelry, but he buys the stolen jewelry and sells it.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AlanStrangis » Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:42 am

Seeing Khashoggi's name in the article seems very deliberate, in that anyone interested (and not already aware of who he is) will end up going on tangents... definitely interesting ones (but will they be remembered), but still a distraction from what I see as the most obvious...

...that Diana was the target...

As chiggerbit sais, Khashoggi is a middleman, and using a late night meeting as a reason for not going directly home is a great setup AND plausible deniability...

Kinda reminds me of those who think that LHO was the lone gunman, until a book blaming Castro and the Soviets was published, and suddenly their tune changes...
AlanStrangis
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby tal » Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:18 pm

Dodi was Adnan Khashoggi's (favorite)nephew which seems to be pretty common knowledge in Britain. Don't you think that if there was anything in that particular vein it would have been mined long ago? I agree with greencrow: this is a strawman...
tal
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:25 pm

I had never heard of that relationship. Very interesting.

HOLY COW! VERY interesting dynamics between the Fayed family and the stuffy British royalty. A link I found in your link, tal. (Several pages of dynamics). Sorry, I don't follow the Royal family stories. This is all new to me.


http://www.time.com/time/reports/diana/fayeds.html
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Dodi the Nephew?

Postby JD » Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:18 pm

I had no idea that Dodi was Khashoggi's nephew! Cripes he turns up in darned near every weird event going.

But the dashing Dodi was royalty of a different sort. He was the only son of Mohamed al Fayed and his late first wife Samira Khashoggi, sister of Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi. The elder Al Fayed is a self-made billionaire whose wealth is greater than the Queen's


"self-made billionaire" my ass. Makes it all sound like Horatio Algar. I wonder where the $$ really come from?

In the day and age where powerful Western governments assassinate and arrest anyone in the world without impunity, the fact that Khashoggi is still alive tells us who's team he's on.
JD
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby antiaristo » Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:01 pm

tal,
It's really hard to know; I don't think they are clueless, it's just that nobody is alowed to say anything.

By law (Treason Felony Act).

When the Queen dies, well, I suppose we will get the answer to your question.

Here's a few examples of what happens when anybody tries to write the truth about the Windsors.

Diana named 'Prince' Charles as murder crash planner (views: 587)
Banana -- Tuesday, 6 January 2004, 7:07 a.m.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... read=42477


'Le Monde' gives details on pulping of Tuesday issue (views: 144)
Banana -- Wednesday, 12 November 2003, 8:46 a.m.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... read=39622

FIRST THE GLOBE WAS PULLED NOW LE MONDE PULPED 16 OTHERS BANNED (views: 356)
Banana -- Tuesday, 11 November 2003, 9:40 p.m.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... read=39602

UK 'royal' scandal -Le Monde pulped, 16 papers 'banned' (views: 140)
Banana -- Tuesday, 11 November 2003, 9:31 p.m.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... read=39600

Latest news on 'royal' press-gagging efforts, UK (views: 702)
Banana -- Wednesday, 5 November 2003, 12:26 p.m.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... read=39225

Al-Fayed was Khasshogi's partner in gun-running, which is the source of his wealth. He was a friend of the Windsors, until the infamous battle for House of Fraser. Al-Fayed double-crossed Tiny Rowland's Lonrho (a Windsor front company) and was never forgiven. Which is why he never got a British passport, irrespective of how much money he threw at it.

Dodi was just unlucky.
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

FABULOUS search function!!!

Postby antiaristo » Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:13 pm

Anybody following those links will find these to be informative.

(i) THIS is what happens when you open your mouth about Windsor family business.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... orge+smith

(ii) THIS was the last effort at obfuscation. When it failed they let Michael Burgess stand down ("pressure of work"), and brought in the redoubtable Dame Elizabeth Butler-Schloss (Privy Counsellor).

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... th&start=0
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 152 guests