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.

 

Channel 6 Investigative Reporter On Michael Hastings. Police and Fire told NOT to comment

page: 9
57
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 04:46 AM
link   
If you watch the crash test videos, you see the cars fold up in the crumple zone. That's what they are engineered and designed to do.

On the other hand, if you look at IEDs and devices planted on cars, you notice there are large debris fields as cars were not meant to take that kind of beating. Armoured trucks yes, but not everyday drivers.



I don't think it would take a large device to blow an engine and tranny clear from the car. If it's moving, it could send the dislocation parts long behind the car as it travelled forward, or even ahead because of inertia, depending how the device was set and how big of a charge it was etc.




posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I'm sorry - are we still debating this event?

Even as a casual observer, this is very clearly an explosive device, and successful assassination.

Can we move on from the how, what and when and focus more on the why, please.
edit on 7/10/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by miner49r
 


Yes but she didn't say she saw it....she was in her house. The guy indicated problems and fire before impact.....and speed...he saw the whole thing.

He also indicated that the car spun around the tree on impact....that its resting place is about 1/2 a turn from the impact point.

So when the guy was filming the burning car from the rear, the car had actually hit the tree on the other side, in the opposite lane and spun around by centrifugal force. That's what the witness indicates, as well as the debris field and the location of the motor.


edit on 9-7-2013 by Logarock because: n


This is what I was thinking (possibility of anyway.)

So far the only evidence of what direction he was travelling in has not convinced me. I was wondering myself if the engine dropped out from the car. I posted a video of partial collisions in another thread. I will post below. Luckily, they even show a Benz 250, and you will notice on all the crashes the front ends crumple as they are designed to on impact.

Even on partial impacts it seems an engine flying from the car is extremely unlikely. Does it launch forward, through the bumper? Or does it launch upward, as up is nearly the only direction to go without an obstruction?



It looks like the engine came out and tore through the front of the car on impact. This was made possible by the fact that the car did not strike the tree in the center but on the very drivers side area. This allowed the engine unimpeded to tear through the car.

In fact if you look at the car while its burning.....it looks like you can see the radiator or the grill opened up like a door on hinges from the engine passing through. Also it would be no problem for the engine to slide, at those speeds and weight, down the blacktop until it hit the curb and the grass where it stopped right away.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
...It looks like the engine came out and tore through the front of the car on impact. This was made possible by the fact that the car did not strike the tree in the center but on the very drivers side area. This allowed the engine unimpeded to tear through the car.

In fact if you look at the car while its burning.....it looks like you can see the radiator or the grill opened up like a door on hinges from the engine passing through. Also it would be no problem for the engine to slide, at those speeds and weight, down the blacktop until it hit the curb and the grass where it stopped right away.

I agree with your calls, here.
This still leaves the question/s regarding (a) "what caused the bolts/etc to break in such a fashion as to allow the engine to continue moving in a relatively forward direction?", and (b) "does the position of the the engine's resting place, and the fact that it cleared the tree, at all, suggest that the angle of impact was askew to the street/curb?".
I'm also still not settled on "when" (as in 'sequence') the engine tore through the front of the car, as it seems to me that the rear end left the ground, slamming the roof/top against the tree.
It would seem that it could only have been ejected with enough velocity to travel as far as it did, if it tore through the grill immediately upon impact (so - I'm guessing the chain-reaction of bolts breaking/sheering was nearly simultaneous)...which implies that the rear-end leaving the ground may have been near the same time...but not before.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
I'm sorry - are we still debating this event?
...Even as a casual observer, this is very clearly an explosive device, and successful assassination.
...Can we move on from the how, what and when and focus more on the why, please.

I find your remarks highly entertaining.
Obviously - "you" are not still debating this event...so, if we extract "you" from "we", we might be onto something, here.
As a casual observer that can determine from casual observation that this was "clearly an explosive device, and successful assassination", would you care to step down from your casual observatory, and share with less fortunate observers a satisfactory explanation for the events?
You see - if we could all come to agreement on the most basic set/s of facts regarding this tragedy, we might be able to move on to "why" (as you suggest).
If this request falls on deaf ears, however - then, please be sure to return every once in a while and grace us ("us" = "we" - "you") with your wit, wisdom and criticisms.
Thanks!



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by miner49r
...I found evidence that the Bing street view shot is from around August 2012.
...As to the design on the utility cover I enlarged it and it turns out to be nothing more than badly paint chipped surface.
...If I am correct, the crash happened on June 18, 2013 roughly 10 months after this Bing photo was taken in Aug. of 2012

Who knows (probably someone) - maybe they installed a fire hydrant (beneath the utility cover), or some other water-outlet... ?
If that's what it is - it would suggest that we (I) can go back to where I started on this (thinking it was a hydrant that the vehicle hit before involvement with the tree)... If he hopped the curb that far before the tree, I can see "fishtailing" as someone's interpretation...but, he would probably have had to return to the street once more, before a final swerve into the tree (just my estimations) ---- and I just haven't seen enough disturbance in the median's turf to justify such a conclusion.
What about you?
Do you see anything that would explain him hitting that "utility cover"...then motivating in a manner consistent with the kind of angle he would need to have hit the tree...to allow for a clear exit-path (from the vehicle) of the engine/tranny?
So far - I'm thinking the resting place of the engine/tranny would be close to a near-straight-line with the angle of impact. I know it's possible that it could be otherwise, but, this would be the "simplest" answer (and it can be modified if other information is obtained to the contrary).
edit on 7/10/2013 by WanDash because: subtractions



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 



Ooh... what a witty retort (at least in your mind, I'm sure)

But, continuing... Yeah... "we" as in the ATS community, snapperhead. Just because it's my first post here, doesn't mean I haven't been following.

I have seen enough evidence presented here, and elsewhere to 'buy into' the likelihood of the 'this was no accident' theory - no need to rehash it here. But, even if YOU don't accept that position, yet, it still might be helpful to examine the reasons he might have been targeted in the first place in order to help draw a conclusion on why such a position might be suggested in the first place.

That good enough, Mr. Debate Expert? Or, would you like to keep throwing out ad hominem attacks?
edit on 7/10/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


I must say I don't see or hear any evidence of the bomb theory.

Witness testimony does not support it. Reviewing the accident scene does not support it. News reports do not support it.

We each see things in somewhat of a different manner and interpret things differently as well. Those who feel there was a bomb involved are free to hold their opinions. In the same manner those of us who believe it was a combination of high speed and loss control leading the collision have the right to conclude as we will

In the end slapping each other around does not and will not change points of view.

We are all waiting for an "Official Report" of the accident. I personally believe it will be lack luster and detail only the pertinent information of the collision it's self without lending any detail as to WHY he was speeding/running/evading/ect.

The truth could be we may never have complete satisfaction of all the details.
edit on 10-7-2013 by miner49r because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
reply to post by WanDash
 

...Ooh... what a witty retort (at least in your mind, I'm sure)
...But, continuing... Yeah... "we" as in the ATS community, snapperhead. Just because it's my first post here, doesn't mean I haven't been following.
...I have seen enough evidence presented here, and elsewhere to 'buy into' the likelihood of the 'this was no accident' theory - no need to rehash it here. But, even if YOU don't accept that position, yet, it still might be helpful to examine the reasons he might have been targeted in the first place in order to help draw a conclusion on why such a position might be suggested in the first place.
...That good enough, Mr. Debate Expert? Or, would you like to keep throwing out ad hominem attacks?

Tell you what - I'll just bow-out of further white hominy attacks in deference to your deliberatory prowess, and move back to what I was doing before enlightenment (thank You very much
), and attempt to respond to your statements, herein.

On the other hand - in light of the fact that I've never been called "snapperhead" before...I almost need to just take pause - a break, if you will...to gloat for a while, as I'm sure an honor has just been bestowed upon me...even if I don't know what it means (I can't even fathom what a casual observer's perspective might be on such matters).

It may be evident to you (as it is to others) that foul play is behind this tragedy. I am not convinced of foul play - though I probably lean more in that direction than the "no foul play" alternatives that have been put forth.

We have access to little more than what has been published...as to "why" anyone else would put such an effort into killing the victim.
One such possibility, would be "revenge"...
Another such possibility would be "preventive maintenance"...
Others that could be considered (though they seem less likely) are - envy, jealousy, greed or desperation...and maybe a few more that I'm missing.

There are hurdles that must be cleared for any of the explanations (including "no foul play") to fit all of the facts (that we're aware of).
The more facts you know - the better you can determine if a/any theory works.
When examining any mystery with other examiners - if you cannot agree on at least a minimum set of facts - there is virtually no chance of progress (meaning - it was a waste of time and effort because you're all pulling in different directions). AND - it is better to work with a cross-hatch of perspectives, so bias doesn't blind you to what might have been obvious otherwise.

Appreciated your humor.

If you want to participate in the discussion we (the non-casual observers) have been having...or just continue your own discussion around us -- PLEASE DO SO.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by miner49r
 

I see something in a series of images of the burning car...taken from the east side of the street...just prior to the driver's-side front tire or shock blowing out (about 2:06 to 2:10 in the 5+ minute LoudLabs video).
The 'hood' is lodged between the tree and grillwork (I'm guessing)...
The first image (below) is untouched... In the second I have highlighted (brightness & contrast in PaintShop Pro X4) the portion that interests me...
I'll post my question after the images to give you free reign to come to your own conclusion regarding the area of interest...



Bigger Pic - files.abovetopsecret.com...



Bigger Pic - files.abovetopsecret.com...

Hopefully, the highlighted portion was obvious enough that you didn't have to search around for it...
In any case -- Can you tell, by looking at this "hood", if what we're looking at, is the "top" (or, outside)?
It looks like that, to me.
If it is...what do you suppose caused the discoloration of the portion I highlighted?
Was something-else attached...and it didn't have the same paint job?
Did this portion somehow receive a higher & more intense dose of fire than the rest of what we're seeing?
Or - what-else would your experience suggest?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 



That looks to me to be the left front corner of the hood in the battery compartment area. I am not sure if Mercedes has a right or left battery though.

Compare the blue circles in the two photos.



ATS Large



ATS Large



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 


Look at the contour of the edge on the hood.

What it appears to look like is that the back edge of the hood is what it closest to the ground. With the interior of the hood facing the tree.
Which does not make a whole lot of since.
Kind of like it was pulled off and with the interior of the hood facing the tree, the car mashed up against it.

That is just what it looks like.

Are there any daylight pics that show the hood?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by miner49r
reply to post by WanDash
 



That looks to me to be the left front corner of the hood in the battery compartment area. I am not sure if Mercedes has a right or left battery though.

Compare the blue circles in the two photos.



ATS Large



ATS Large



I need to edit to add:

I was wrong about that being the battery area of the front compartment.

Mercedes C class vehicles have the battery in the trunk along with the fuse box

My bad.....it's European!



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by WanDash
 

...Look at the contour of the edge on the hood.
...What it appears to look like is that the back edge of the hood is what it closest to the ground. With the interior of the hood facing the tree.
Which does not make a whole lot of since.
Kind of like it was pulled off and with the interior of the hood facing the tree, the car mashed up against it.
...That is just what it looks like.
...Are there any daylight pics that show the hood?

I'm looking for some, now (even if just of the 2013 model).
Will get back when I have "something".



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I'll take a guess at the hood.

My guesses are

A. The slight curl on the tip of the hood may indicate the hood popped open on impact and laid back against the windshield.

B. The hood was open before impact and laid back against the windshield

Either case the interior of the hood would face the tree. Interesting that I have seen no daylight shots with hood in place. I noticed that earlier but didn't make anything of it.


edit on 10-7-2013 by miner49r because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Rabbit.. I find myself in agreement with you often, and very much respect your threads and opinions, but I find myself disappointed in some of your responses regarding the death of Michael Hastings.

"Why look so hard for the fantastic when the mundane is often the obvious cause?"

This type of thinking seems unimaginable to me. What a dull and bland life one would lead if they shut themselves out to all the fantastic and hardly believable characteristics that make up this world and our physical reality. People themselves are capable of some pretty fantastic things, things that 50 years ago were the stuff of science fiction movies.

Now, I would think we are all in agreement that a conclusion cannot be made one way or another without the necessary FACTS. So to rule out the fantastical because 9 times out of 10 it's not fantastic means that 10th time you get caught with your pants down.

And as far as the LAPD being compromised to some degree in order to cover up and/or fabricate elements of the crash/investigation... I agree Rabbit that to believe all first responders and LEO involved have been "bought and paid for" in order to insure their silence or facilitate active participation is incredulous, however, the LAPD is notorious for their relationship to certain "intelligence" agencies and in a bureaucratic, top-down, compartmentalized setting such as a police station things tend to be controlled - although I'm not ruling out any and all chaos in such scenarios.

I'm reading L. Fletcher Prouty's book at the moment on the CIA, Vietnam, and the murder of JFK and it is absolutely enlightening to read the words of a highly intelligent and highly connected military man, such as Prouty, describe in detail the strategies of our premiere "intelligence" organization at the beginning of the Cold War to cause mayhem, terror, sabotage and techniques used to gain the compliance of people who may have thought twice about getting involved with such a shady group. I'm not saying this is what's happened with the LAPD in the Hastings case though I do think it's possible on a small scale, but Prouty describes how the CIA would essentially blackmail, not pay off, native unwilling participants in early Vietnam by going after their families. They told 'em, keep shooting, keep looting and you'll be able to take care of your family. What they really meant of course was keep playing along or you and the misses and the kids will find yourself in a hole in the ground or at the bottom of the Mekong Delta.

In my personal opinion it's quite easy for people in positions of power to manipulate those under them using any means necessary. Again, I'm not saying this happened or is the case here, simply speculation. But I could see the orders coming down from the top that if you talk about anything strange you saw at the crash, you will lose your job, you will lose your pension, you'll lose everything. It happens.

I'm reminded of a documentary I saw, where this British man comes to the USA and finds himself fascinated with the 9/11 Truth movement. So he decides to make a movie about it. He interviews protestors in Times Square and other activists and "Truthers" arguing with skeptics on sidewalks and it's all well and good. The second half of the documentary, however, is the real gold. Our filmmaker gets permission to interview and talk with first responders to the World Trade Center that harrowing day. Police officers, firemen, EMTs - many former military. And each of them has a story to tell about that day. One pulverized his foot when a massive slab of concrete fell on it. Many of them have now developed sicknesses and conditions from the air they breathed in that day. And you can see it, feel it how angry they are about what happened to them and to their country. Angry about how their government lied to them about how safe Ground Zero was. Angry that we weren't protected.

And yet, when it comes time to talk of conspiracy, they shut up. Not because they disagree with the premise, on the contrary, but because they've either got too much to lose to be flapping their gums, or because they feel helpless to do anything about it so screw it, or they've got children and want to be around to take care of them, or they just don't want to confront the truth themselves and come face to face with it.

People can be malleable because we have weaknesses. We have things we care about. Things that can be used against us.

Long live the Truth. You have to fight for it, it will not be given to you.
edit on 10-7-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-7-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by miner49r
I'll take a guess at the hood.
...My guesses are
...A. The slight curl on the tip of the hood may indicate the hood popped open on impact and laid back against the windshield.
...B. The hood was open before impact and laid back against the windshield
...Either case the interior of the hood would face the tree. Interesting that I have seen no daylight shots with hood in place. I noticed that earlier but didn't make anything of it.
...

So - I'm kinda taking either (or both) of your postulations forward a bit...
Upon impact...
the hood-latch releases
the grill & front frame tear and separate
the engine continues moving forward
the hood starts crumpling & "going up/back" toward the windshield
the rear-end lifts off the ground, transferring some of the remaining momentum into the tree
the hood is caught in the crossfire (*) causing its braces (?) to fail
the rear-end falls back to the ground
the hood (now a free agent) remains against the tree, but moved and held upright by the grill-and-frontend works...
Would like to know if you (or anyone-else) see it differently.
If that is in the neighborhood of what happened...then, I am drawn back to the question that started this - what is that particular area of discoloration?
Is it evidence of "where" the initial collision with the tree occurred?
If so - that makes the "engine exit" a little more difficult to understand --- because it looks pretty close to "center" of the hood.

ETA: Also - if that "discoloration" is the point of impact - why doesn't it appear crumpled?
edit on 7/10/2013 by WanDash because: Another question



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 


To be honest I can't speculate as to what caused the discoloration on that corner of the hood. Normally it could possibly indicate where the battery may have blown up. Since the battery is in the truck we can rule that out.

What we can assume is that it is heat related discoloration. It may be a simple as that portion of the hood is visibly in the fire and the paint is charring. If you look at the rest of the hood it still looks somewhat reflective as if the paint is still intact at that that moment. I just don't know whats under the hood of a Mercedes and where it's at.

I think it was more of a drivers side offset impact. If you look at the Live Labs video of the right and left you can see the left front wheel, wheel well and fender is completely destroyed with either the wheel being pushed back into/underneath the firewall and missing completely. Right side clip show the wheel still intact. Given It wasn't a direct frontal assult but rather an offset impact the engine may have had enough room to eject.

Drivers side view at 3:03




new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join