It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Journalist Michael Hastings dies in L.A. car crash (Single car crash??)

page: 12
61
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
And again, as was already posted, Mercedes made an exploder. Do a little research before believing me or anyone else. It will save you a lot of heartache.


All the more reason for the perps to "explode" same.....it fits perfectly.....and its called False Flag logical reasoning."
edit on 20-6-2013 by Valenz because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valenz

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
And again, as was already posted, Mercedes made an exploder. Do a little research before believing me or anyone else. It will save you a lot of heartache.


All the more reason for the perps to "explode" same..........its called False Flag logical reasoning."
edit on 20-6-2013 by Valenz because: (no reason given)


Oh, so they just got 'lucky' that this guy picked a Mercedes to drive instead of a BMW or an Audi?

People that think that accidents like these are the most effective way to kill people watch too many movies. Why is this easier than a mugging? Poisoning? Fake suicide?

It isn't.

Operations like assassinations aren't about endangering the lives of civilians or drawing a lot of scrutiny. Simple is best. You toss the "False Flag" label on way too much, and the meaning gets lost when you do.
edit on 20-6-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I wanted to post some pictures with questions.

Did he hit a fire hydrant? The water is shooting up by the fire truck but not with very much pressure.

[img]http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1377388.1371681498!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/conspiracy20n-4-web.jpg[/im g]

What are those holes just behind the fire mans knee? And there is another strange one just behind his foot in the rocker panel. But you can't see that one in this picture.



What is this green barricade thing he ran over? They don't seem to show it in any other photos?





posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
I wanted to post some pictures with questions.

Did he hit a fire hydrant? The water is shooting up by the fire truck but not with very much pressure.

[img]http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1377388.1371681498!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/conspiracy20n-4-web.jpg[/im g]
What are those holes just behind the fire mans knee? And there is another strange one just behind his foot in the rocker panel. But you can't see that one in this picture.What is this green barricade thing he ran over? They don't seem to show it in any other photos?


I took the liberty of posting your 2 links.




Yes - he must have hit a hydrant.


edit on 20-6-2013 by Valenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
drunk driving from a party perhaps?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valenz

Originally posted by bbracken677


Because clearly they should have draped the sheet/covering over a burning, smoking car.


My point was not about the placement of a sheet on a burning car - obviously..........the point was that there was NO " attempt at the recovery of a [person] or even of a body - no apparent search for anyone, neither by the firemen, rescue squad or police officers, and no seeming awareness at all that there might even have been a person in the car."


And you can tell this from the pictures? By the video once the firetruck had arrived there was no chance of saving anyone from the inferno. It also appears that the car did not hit the tree dead on center, so it is quite possible that he is lying sideways inside the car. I cannot see how you can come to the conclusions you have from a few pictures. Have you ANY experience with auto accidents, as in: actually being close enough to see the chaos inside resulting from such a collision as this one was? The conclusions drawn based on a few pictures are, or seem to be, rather subjective. Hardly the scientific approach. With all the people there at the scene, surely if there were no body, there would be reports of such, rather than simply just wild conclusions to suit a previous bias based on no facts, but rather interpretations of a handful of pictures.



AND - why do these images of the engine look so different?



edit on 20-6-2013 by Valenz because: (no reason given)


Perhaps, just maybe, because they are taken from different angles and also, perhaps, someone manipulated the engine between shots?

What are you trying to infer? A different engine was substituted?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
If He was targeted maybe His breaks where sabatoged.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jobeycool
If He was targeted maybe His breaks where sabatoged.

You should read the Boston Brakes post.
Here.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
There's a long history of journalists and whistleblowers dying in accidents and apparent suicides, from Kilgallen to Webb to Casolaro... While no possibility should be dismissed until evidence deems it necessary, it's my opinion that this incident is just way too coincidental to have been a random and untimely accident.

TPTB, or the establishment, or whatever, are very good at killing people. Many in the establishment do this for a living. They would be experts at sabotage and making deliberate actions look like accidents.

For those who dismiss this and say it would some how not send a message to other investigative reporters and whistleblowers - I would have to strongly disagree. I double major in English and finance and some day hope to be an investigative journalist. I've worked as a journalist and been around many. In my strict personal opinion, given Hastings history and what he worked on in the past, his political opinions, and how admired he was, if I was a journalist like say, Glenn Greenwald or someone similar, this would send one hell of a clear message to me.

I cannot say what happened one way or another for certain, but my gut tells me this was absolutely a message sent to all relevant parties while our country is in the middle of scandal after scandal having been broke by journalists with access to government whistleblowers. This was a direct message sent to them. Either you shut up, or you will die in a fiery blaze deemed an 'accident'.
edit on 20-6-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I've seen old people, drunks, idiots doing 80+ and hitting trees, houses etc. Never once have I seen an explosion or a vehicle fire like this with the engine so damn far away.

So what, I guess Mercedes suddenly is not the safe choice for the family. Is that what we are to believe? If my 25G vehicle would not do this but a 50+G vehicle will….I know what I would never waste my money on. Finding this hard to swallow. Reminds me of TWA Flight 800.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Foobler
 


Go slam your car into an 18" diameter palm tree at 100 mph and let me know how that works out for you.

Already posted a pic of a car I rolled at less than 30 mph, from losing control when I dropped off a shoulder into a washout trying to avoid a semi. Motors are held in with 4 bolts less than 1/2" on dampers. They aren't designed to stay in place in that kind of impact and it's not uncommon for the bolts to snap. I can guarantee I've seen way more accident scenes than anyone here unless they are EMT or Fire or Police. Even then I may have seen more since it was all I did, investigate accidents for insurance payment.

Stop basing wild assumptions on your uninformed idea of how a car should react in an accident and go educate yourself.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bbracken677 Perhaps, just maybe, because they are taken from different angles and also, perhaps, someone manipulated the engine between shots? What are you trying to infer? A different engine was substituted?


My conclusions were not haphazardly and hastily drawn from a "handful of pics", but rather from several videos which contain hundreds of images; several still photos taken at the scene of the crime; several eyewitness statements; my own experience , coupled with an uncanny ability to make clear judgements based on common sense observations about the world around me.

BTW - There is a difference between an inference and a question. I asked the question ... ... ... "why do these images of the engine look so different?"

Speaking as a onetime professional photographer, and photography teacher, I seriously doubt that the angle from which each of the pictures was taken can account for the difference in the two engines/transmissions. So, I will ask the question again via this set of images - comparing one to the other - tell me again, if you will - are they the same engine/transmission seen in each of the photos?..........


edit on 20-6-2013 by Valenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Valenz
 


He might as well be dumping more fuel on the fire. lol



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valenz

Originally posted by bbracken677 Perhaps, just maybe, because they are taken from different angles and also, perhaps, someone manipulated the engine between shots? What are you trying to infer? A different engine was substituted?


My conclusions were not haphazardly and hastily drawn from a "handful of pics", but rather from several videos which contain hundreds of images; several still photos taken at the scene of the crime; several eyewitness statements; my own experience , coupled with an uncanny ability to make clear judgements based on common sense observations about the world around me.

BTW - There is a difference between an inference and a question. I asked the question ... ... ... "why do these images of the engine look so different?"

Speaking as a onetime professional photographer, and photography teacher, I seriously doubt that the angle from which each of the pictures was taken can account for the difference in the two engines. So, I will ask the question again via this set of images - comparing one to the other - tell me again, if you will - are they the same engine seen in each of the photos?..........


edit on 20-6-2013 by Valenz because: (no reason given)


They look different because of the way it sits. Going by the bell housing and drive line yes they match. The black drive line looks shiny in the second photo because it was wet and reflecting light. Infact you can see the transmission cover off and fluid all over. Red curb in both pictures.
edit on 20-6-2013 by sean because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sean

They look different because of the way it sits. Going by the bell housing and drive line yes they match. The black drive line looks shiny in the second photo because it was wet and reflecting light. Infact you can see the transmission cover off and fluid all over. Red curb in both pictures.


I wonder - without arguing, do you think the engine/transmission could have been blown out of the car by the force of an explosive device such as a bomb?
edit on 20-6-2013 by Valenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valenz

Originally posted by sean

They look different because of the way it sits. Going by the bell housing and drive line yes they match. The black drive line looks shiny in the second photo because it was wet and reflecting light. Infact you can see the transmission cover off and fluid all over. Red curb in both pictures.


I wonder - without arguing, do you think the engine/transmission could have been blown out of the car by the force of an explosive device such as a bomb?
edit on 20-6-2013 by Valenz because: (no reason given)


I have watched a Mythbusters (I think) where they tried to recreate a car exploding by crashing one Car into the back of another Car at various speeds... even ridiculous something like 200mph!!! And guess what it's a Myth, Can't be done!!! Cars do not explode when they crash, no matter how fast they go! Even if they did, how could the explosion be more powerful under the engine? Not where fuel tank is, engine only has tiny amount of fuel in comparison to tank!! If the tank burst the fire would be on the street under the vehicle.

Breaking youtube analysis:


edit on 20-6-2013 by Foobler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valenz


BTW - There is a difference between an inference and a question. I asked the question ... ... ... "why do these images of the engine look so different?"

Speaking as a onetime professional photographer, and photography teacher, I seriously doubt that the angle from which each of the pictures was taken can account for the difference in the two engines/transmissions. So, I will ask the question again via this set of images - comparing one to the other - tell me again, if you will - are they the same engine/transmission seen in each of the photos?..........


edit on 20-6-2013 by Valenz because: (no reason given)


Yes, there is a difference, but one also may infer something by merely asking a question. You failed to actually answer the question I asked. Were you trying to infer something? Because I see nothing wrong with the pictures.

I would seriously question your experience as a photographer if you sincerely believe those 2 pictures to "infer" that there are 2 different engines displayed.
First: both pictures were taken with different lighting.
Second: One was taken from above, looking downwards at an angle from the drive shaft end.
Third: The 2nd picture in question was taken from almost ground level 90 degrees off from the first pic.
I could take 2 different pictures of virtually any item in my house or garage and present them in such a way as to call into question, to the uninformed, whether they are of the same item.
My oldest daughter is a professional photographer, and according to her the 2 are most likely the same, given the information one can gather from the pictures. Of course, one could also take 2 pictures of similar engines from different angles and present them in such a way as to make them appear to be the same unit. The problem with 2 different engines theory are the bystanders. Do you not suppose that people standing around seeing one engine swapped with another and left at the scene wouldn't be bizarre enough to create a buzz of some kind? Add to that the news folks taking the video, or for that matter just someone with a cellphone could easily take a video of the swap....there is just no logic there.

Personally what I am seeing taking place on this forum is a great deal of justifying a belief with flimsy evidence, at best. Conclusions are drawn based on extremely subjective and questionable perceptions of the pictures and videos.

Is it possible this was a hit? Sure it is possible...to assume so with no other proof than what has been presented seems an act of folly at best. Have people been knocked off in similar manner before? I am pretty sure of it, myself. Is this such a case? I do not know, but I strongly suspect not.

1) According to witnesses and traffic video he was traveling at a high rate of speed.
2) It was 4:30 AM. Unless he was getting an early start on his day, he would not, exactly, have been at top form to be driving at those speeds under those conditions.
3) It has been stated by at least one EMT and at least one insurance investigator in this forum that what we have seen in the pics and video is not terribly unusual given the circumstances of the crash. I have had the misfortune of having seen a couple of horrible accidents and I saw nothing particularly suspicious from what little one can glean given the pictures and videos available.
4) There were lots of people standing around watching the aftermath. I am relatively sure that if no body had been present, that would have been reported....by someone, somewhere, calling into question the "official version". No such reports have surfaced.
5) If one were to clip a curb doing anywhere near 100 mph, or even 70 mph, bad things will result.
6) Trees probably kill as many people, if not more, than guns do. Should we ban trees? (sorry, couldnt resist that one).

Given the above, and given that I am one of those nasty people who tend to rely on logic as well as occam's razor, it is my OPINION that this was nothing more than an accident. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, then chances are it is a duck. Chances are there is no grand conspiracy involving geese and other water fowl to produce a duck that isnt a duck.

So unless someone can provide some kind of evidence that isn't tinged with with wild a$$ guesses I will retain this opinion. Presenting an opinion as fact when there is no solid evidence supporting the supposed fact does nothing to support your position.
Jumping out on the first page while the story is still developing and announcing that this was a "false flag" (not the person to whom I am replying with this post) operation (?) displays .... well, I just will not go there. I hope if you do not really know what a false flag operation is, then quietly look it up on the internet. When I read that and the claims that "beyond a doubt" this was a govt hit I just had to facepalm a few times.

edit on 20-6-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Here's what a automotive writer said about Hastings car:

" I’m here to state that I’ve seen dozens of cars hit walls and stuff at high speeds and the number of them that I have observed to eject their powertrains and immediately catch massive fire is, um, ah, zero. Modern cars are very good at not catching fire in accidents. The Mercedes-Benz C-Class, which is an evolutionary design from a company known for sweating the safety details over and above the Euro NCAP requirements, should be leading the pack in the not-catching-on-fire category. Nor is the C-Class known for sudden veering out of control into trees and whatnot"



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
From what I see here, a pickle is in development.

Hasting's widow will sue Mercedes for making an unsafe vehicle, Mercedes will demand to examine the evidence of the remains of the auto, and conclude a bomb was planted.

The government will have to declare terrorism, either domestic or foreign.

Hastings widow will be denied insurance/lawsuit based on terrorism.

The American public will remain in fear.

Maybe not a pickle. Maybe just the way "they" planned it.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I can understand a car being hit from the back where the gas tank is and exploding maybe. But he didn't hit the back part of his car at all did he?

Cars don't usually explode in flames without car bombs or Hollywood special effects teams. That's why we have the jaws of life to pry people from mangled vehicles, and helicopters racing them to trauma wards.
edit on 20-6-2013 by Foobler because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
61
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join