Which conspiracy theory has more legs, 9/11 being an inside job or the US having involvement in the assassination of Princes Diana?

I think the CIA had Diana murdered because she was plotting 9/11.  All the facts speak for themselves, if you just open your minds.

Charybdis - 22 August 2007 10:22 AM

I think the CIA had Diana murdered because she was plotting 9/11.  All the facts speak for themselves, if you just open your minds.

Plus, the facts were on Wiki. Until the CIA edited it…

9/11 was MI6’s retaliation for the assassination of Princess Diana by the CIA. Al-Qaeda is related to the Al-Fayed and MI6 is behind it.

The CIA then tried to hit back, first by the Madrid bombings (because they were under the mistaken impression that since Gibraltar is British, the rest of Iberia must be too, and Madrid had a tube while Gibraltar has not), and then they corrected themselves by means of the London Tube bombings.

Next they poisoned Litvinenko in order to upset British-Russian relationships.

LaMa - 22 August 2007 01:41 PM

9/11 was MI6’s retaliation for the assassination of Princess Diana by the CIA. Al-Qaeda is related to the Al-Fayed and MI6 is behind it.

The CIA then tried to hit back, first by the Madrid bombings (because they were under the mistaken impression that since Gibraltar is British, the rest of Iberia must be too, and Madrid had a tube while Gibraltar has not), and then they corrected themselves by means of the London Tube bombings.

Next they poisoned Litvinenko in order to upset British-Russian relationships.

I suppose those failed car bombings in June were their work too?

Bastards.

clever responses guys… but seriously… the reason I ask is because I’ve noticed a lot more coverage on her death rather than 9/11… both were awhile ago.

Yeah, but isn’t it the ten year ‘anniversary’ of her death at the end of this month?
That explains a lot of it.

bingster - 23 August 2007 12:29 PM

clever responses guys… but seriously… the reason I ask is because I’ve noticed a lot more coverage on her death rather than 9/11… both were awhile ago.

Let’s see…

2,974 plain ordinary people or one beautiful princess (and her driver & bodyguard/boyfriend)... which one do you think the media would focus on bingster? 

WTC was September 11th (2001)...
Diana’s death was August 31 (1997)...

So both are timely right about now - especially if the news media needs a filler story… some fluff.

edit: Great point Boo!

Boo - 23 August 2007 12:33 PM

Yeah, but isn’t it the ten year ‘anniversary’ of her death at the end of this month?
That explains a lot of it.

That, plus the release of the new Metropolitan Police research report half a year ago.

Unaired Princess Di interview to air: http://www.worldscreen.com/newscurrent.php?filename=lifetime081607.htm

Oooh, Martin Bashir! He interviewed Michael Jackson!

With a 10 year anniversary, of course things are going to get rehashed. I would say 9/11 is bigger because it never really leaves the limelight.

New stories are constantly using the tagline “since 9/11” and it never really dies down or is gone from the media. Whereas the Princess Di debacle really dropped off quite a bit and has been brought back up.

Transfrmr - 23 August 2007 03:00 PM

Unaired Princess Di interview to air: http://www.worldscreen.com/newscurrent.php?filename=lifetime081607.htm

Oooh, Martin Bashir! He interviewed Michael Jackson!

With a 10 year anniversary, of course things are going to get rehashed. I would say 9/11 is bigger because it never really leaves the limelight.

New stories are constantly using the tagline “since 9/11” and it never really dies down or is gone from the media. Whereas the Princess Di debacle really dropped off quite a bit and has been brought back up.

This is also dependant on where in the world you are. Here in Europe 9/11 is less of a omni-present theme than in the USA.

I really, really don’t care about Princess Diana.

But I do think there’s a lot more conspiracy theories about Diana than there are about September the 11th.