It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:06 AM

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by EViLKoNCEPTz

Look, I am no engineer nor do I have a degree in physics. So the scenario and it's effects that you just described are not discernible to me. But what I gathered from your paragraph was that you made several assumptions in your calculations, that I don't believe are derived from the facts that are known at this point.

Secondly, we really need to find out if Mr. Hastings was blazing down Santa Monica and made a left onto Highland or was he on Highland the whole time. I think that is real important.

But less fantastical than assuming a bomb, drone strike or whatever? I have seen zero actual evidence of a conspiracy.
Someone infers that the engine was swapped out, in direct view of bystanders...that inference is not absurd in and of itself? To what end? Why swap an engine out in full view of bystanders? Why not do it after the collision debris is collected?
Fantastical absurdness to even suggest that a drone strike happened...pieces of that car would have been everywhere and the remains would not have been recognizable. I suppose he was driving at 100mph to try and outrun the hellfire missile? There would be a freaking hole in the street....

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Snsoc

Mercedes will demand to examine the evidence of the remains of the auto, and conclude a bomb was planted.

You really think Mercedes is going to be allowed to examine those remains?

Of course! There will be an insurance claim. And, there's no way that they can do a drug or alcohol test on that burned up body, so Hastings' widow will have a good case in a lawsuit against Mercedes.

edit on 21-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:46 AM
To those who attach some significance to the fact that the engine, transmission and drive shaft are in one piece my only response is this:

You do realize that all the power generated by the engine to move the car is channeled from the engine to the transmission and then to the drive shaft, right? You do realize that the torque involved is huge, right? You do realize that there is significant engineering done to prevent that torque from ripping the engine, transmission and drive shaft apart, right? You do realize that, evidently, you have zero practical experience with engines, transmissions and drive shafts, given your stance, which results in statements made that a common auto mechanic would blow out of the water, right? Why do people take something they know absolutely nothing about and then make grand pronouncements regarding said subject, all the while attaching conclusions which are based on nothing more than ignorance?

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:56 AM
reply to post by Starling

You do realize that with upper end vehicles it really does not take long to achieve high speeds, right? Back in the 90s I had a Mazda RX7, which would not exactly be considered high end, but it was very fast. I could easily hit 80 in 3rd long do you take to reach 4th gear when you are pushing your foot to the floor? Not long. One decent city block and I was almost there. I was younger back then and more reckless...I was in my 40s. I survived though to reach the next decade in my life.
I plan on living forever, so far so good.

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:08 AM

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by Starling

Then there was the supposed cop car video-cam, showing a car supposedly 'speeding' past him....
That wasn't a cop car video-cam...That was a set-up by the ones who targetted Michael Hastings.
That, to me, is evident.


Screw that. I am on to the sock-puppets, trolls, and disinfo agents. You could have 50 people gang up on me in a thread, I WILL still think for myself. I hope all of us will.

I guess I am a disinfo agent! I have a complaint in that case.....I have not been paid!

More like there are people who will not swallow whole hog some shadowy substance cloaking itself as a fact, when it is, in fact, a product of ignorance. Such as the idea that the engine, transmission and part of the drive shaft being in one piece is suspicious. See my previous post. It's ignorance such as that that fuels my BS meter. Show me something real to be suspicious of and I will scream as loud as anyone, but give me nothing but BS and I will call it what it is.
I will reiterate: I do not put anything past our current administration. I loathe the current state of our govt, country and political landscape. I am all for scrapping the lot and starting over from scratch. I firmly believe that the federal govt should not be involved in ANYTHING that isnt described in the Constitution.

Given that, I still believe this accident was just that based on what I have seen and what I interpret. This is my opinion with no claims of fact other than those I have pointed out in my posts.

The engine being ejected is not suspicious. Use physics, calculate the kinetic energies involved... The engine, transmission and drive shaft in one piece? Also not suspicious...I have rebuilt an engine and I know what is there to keep it all surprising in the least. Ask a mechanic and then post his comments here. the truth, not wild guessing based on lack of knowledge.

Think for yourself...I encourage it!! Ask an accident investigator if there is anything suspicious in the pictures/videos...ask a mechanic about the engine. Ask a fireman about the video and their response.

Consider what they tell you and then come back and post your opinion. Once you do that my BS meter will settle down considerably.

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:29 AM

Originally posted by darkstar57
In the pics of the crashed car, the rear end containing the gas tank is the left rear tire is not burned.
now all cars require an automatic fuel pump shutoff when a shock is the battery seems blasted in the front end. so the fire at the crash site seems unlikely to be explained by gasoline from the tank being pumped into the flames in the front, without intentional override of the pump circuits...
for what its worth.

You make an excellent point, however the assumption that the gas tank is undamaged is just a guess based on the condition of the rear. Given the forward momentum that would have affected everything in the car, including fuel, if there was a rupture the fuel would have flown forward .... well, you get the picture.

Without an actual photo of the condition of the fuel tank, there is no way to come to any conclusion. The options remain the tank was compromised, or it wasnt. If it wasnt then your point is valid and something funny is going on. If it was compromised then, once again, nothing suspicious unless it was tampered with and there is no way to tell from the evidence presented in this forum.

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:49 AM
I wonder - Is there a some kind of a symbolic Zionist (in our face) meaning behind all of this? Doesn't it seem rather unusual to behold an obviously observant orthodox Jew in partial regalia "out front" (literally and figuratively) at 4 a.m. helping the 'authorities' put out a blaze that's actually none of his business. I mean - this image has been seen around the world by many millions.

I had pointed to this earlier on in the thread by sardonically referring to the uselessly "water spraying rabbi," because it occurs that he's actually feeding the fire rather than helping to extinguish it. So I'll ask it again. Why is the yarmulke wearing "Frum" (Goggle it) feeding a gasoline fire with water? Even though he might not realize the absolute stupidity of his actions, why is he even acting as though he's making a contribution by pretending to be a fireman? Is he not even aware that he's interfering with an accident investigation at the very least? Furthermore, why is no one else at the scene making any effort at stopping him?

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 09:09 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 09:56 AM
reply to post by Valenz

The orthodox jew guy stood out to me as well. The whole thing is like a staged confirmation method with symbolism that TPTB who ordered it could so easily log on to the internet to verify it was completed.

Proof of death. Not like old days when they used to say "bring me back his head" or "take a picture of the body"

Now it's like "we'll have our fake tmz rush to the scene and confirm it's been done along with the whole world to see".

Throw in the symbolic rabbi to appease the dancing zionists and nobody is the wiser.
edit on 21-6-2013 by Foobler because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2013 by Foobler because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 10:08 AM
reply to post by Valenz

I can understand this looking strange, until you live in Hollywood. There are large areas all over hollywood, or Los Angeles as it's technically called, that are very hasidic. You can drive down many streets in this exact area and everyone has a yamica(sp?) and the traditional beard and garments. Knowing this area, that pic did not shock me at all.

Obviously we are all speculating, so one person's opinion is just as valid an another's since we don't have good working photos, or hard facts.

Funny thing, I asked a client yesterday if she heard about the journalist that was in the car crash weds.(She's LAPD, and so is her husband) She said "Oh yeah, that was a hit if I ever saw one" Not that her opinion means anymore than any of ours, just sharing.

ETA: She also commented that she didn't think a body had been identified yet.
edit on 21-6-2013 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 10:35 AM
So he is racing down the road... Dude whose job it is to stalk the streets for a news scoop is sitting around with dash cam on... Captures speeding car on video... BUT the only release video cuts from seeing car speed by to 2ish minutes later. Were there other cars speeding past in the original footage? How would we know, we have never seen it. Not relevant, right?
Okay let's say he just lost control, as many do... His car hits that mangled green metal object, slams into a hydrant, swings left, or as the witness stated, he "jack-knifed"into the side of the tree with the left front side of his car...without enough momentum to pull the back wheels over the curb... But enough energy to eject the entire engine assembly way down the road...? So how did the damage to the top of the car occur? There is a downward and open hole and roof looks like its been in a rollover? If you watch the car burning you can see fire damage doesn't explain it away... It is evident from beginning of on the scene video. A careful viewing of the video from front of burning car shows braces and framing bars bend outward and hanging out next to an identifiable piece of exterior panel that isn't damaged enough by fire yet. How did all that type of damage occur on the right side, in the official scenario? It doesn't jive with the physical evidence that we can see.

They sheeted the right/ drivers side of the car not because the body was there? Perhaps. It is the side with the most telling evidence... Critical even, to the truth of the matter. It was pointed out that the left drivers side was not sheeted and was photographed. the photograph was suggested to reveal the charred remains...some see a bent left leg in the photo, and I see what they are seeing but I don't know if it is... But if it was a single car accident he had to hit the objects that would slow him down...
The body of available evidence is obscured and the trusty LA "burn it" PD says nothing to see here, just an accident... Move along.
So if it was such a violent and explosive crash into that tree... Why at the make-shift memorial site, at the tree, do the pictures show a tree that is not damaged, mangled, or missing hunks?
Settled in the media... Not in the minds of citizens interested in pulling back veils and letting the whole truth speak for itself.

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 10:59 AM
reply to post by NunyaBidnez

It looks as though the sheet is only covering the right passenger side and the engine bay. Note as well that a body would have been visible through the right side passenger window(s). This leads me to believe that the sheet was only intended to cover the engine bay from prying eyes.

edit on 21-6-2013 by Valenz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by Valenz

I absolutely agree. This isn't to hide a charred body that has been tossed into the engine area. It is to hide our eyes from examining the remains of the car and prevent the general population from applying our own critical thinking skills.

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by GrantedBail
Crash scene photo

That doesn't look like an accident.

Looks more like a controlled demolition using nano-thermite.

Rofl, one of the most absurd things I have read in this thread. Please explain what nano termite is and how it could be used to "demo" a car. Oh wait, you can't, cause nano termite doesn't exist and you have no idea what even regular termite is capable of. lol

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by TheCrimsonGhost

Maybe he/she was being sarcastic - was a sort of a put down on all truthers - 9/11 one's per se.

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 01:51 PM
Well I hope I can help put a few things to rest. He was driving a Mercedes. The transmission on the side of the road is a 7 Speed Mercedes transmission.

He hit a fire hydrant and a green barricade before landing next to the tree.

See the water shooting out of the ground by the fire truck. That is the place the fire hydrant was.

< br />
Here is a picture of the green barricade.

The accident happened across the street from the Psychic place.

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 01:57 PM
Now for a problem with the story.

If you just went to that google map link. The tree was already damaged.

And if you go ahead and pan around. There is no fire hydrant or any pipes for that water to be gushing up from the ground. And you will notice that there is no green barricade any where around. So where did all those objects come from?

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 02:05 PM
Now what about loudlabs news that posted the video? They were riding around with a mobile police scanner. It is illegal to ride around in California with a mobile police scanner without permission from the sheriff department, police department or fire department.

So who gave them permission to use a mobile police scanner? If you said one of the cops then why would they ignore the obvious breaking of the law by doing graffiti all over?

Do they all ways let people tag bridges? Or are they trying to push this loudlabs as group to go to with information? Are they a honeypot for information acting like they break the law and release what others will not?
edit on 21-6-2013 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:06 PM
reply to post by JBA2848

Their "graffiti" isn't really graffiti. If you notice it's a removable sign/placard and not painted directly on the wall. As far as I'm aware it's not illegal to post removable signage on public property it will just be pulled down if someone doesn't like it. And in California press and PIs are allowed to use mobile scanners, not to mention the vast number of free scanner apps for smartphones available. I have several on my mobile device's.

posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Valenz
reply to post by NunyaBidnez

It looks as though the sheet is only covering the right passenger side and the engine bay[color=hotpink]*. Note as well that a body would have been visible through the right side passenger window(s)[color=hotpink]*. This leads me to believe that the sheet was only intended to cover the engine bay from prying eyes.

edit on 21-6-2013 by Valenz because: (no reason given)

[color=hotpink]* Denotes my emphasis

(I'd like to note, before I offer my opinion on this quoted post, that I do realize the member I am replying to has been banned. I am offering this opinion in hope others may read this and learn a different way to examine the wreckage and realize what to expect when a severe accident as violent as this one occurs)

Accidents like this are incredibly destructive. All of the things bending, breaking, and meshing could leave any victim inside the vehicle with an unrecognizeable appearance. In a high percentage of catastrophic traffic accidents, the driver and passengers are almost never in the same seat they occupied before the crash.

Also, in opposition to what many people believe, collisions of such magnitude do not simply cause the victim to hit their head hard, break a few bones, and/or have severe, but treatable, lacerations.

The crash scene and the victim are generally mangled beyond recognition. In some cases, it can be hard to even identify what part of the body you're looking at.

Children travelling by could see this and become traumatized. Adults who do not realize how shocking and traumatizing the site of a mangled corpse can be.

This is why first responders try to secure and privatize the scene.

edit on 21-6-2013 by esteay812 because: tyops

new topics

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in