Michael Hastings – “Foul Play Or Not” – Do you have a plausible theory?

Originally posted by WanDash
Oh - Oh - Oh - Mr. Cotter!!!!
I found an answer to something I think is very relevant to questions I've been asking...
Don't have all the specifics...but...
A gentleman has placed a video on YouTube attempting to prove that the water is coming from underground-ruptured pipes... (He simply didn't have miner49r to straighten him out, like I did...)
Here is the YouTube video...
That, however is not the point...
A responder to his video stated...

...Adriaen22Wordpress 3 weeks ago
You did an outstanding job on this video!!! But I ask you to rethink the concrete/water main/crater theory. There was a U shaped hard plastic pipe there. The pipe was sheared off and it traveled quite a distance at a high velocity. It ended up scarring a tree in the front yard of a home near Clinton on the north bound side. The police found it deep in the yard.  I have a photo of the pipe stump if you'd like to see...just go to my blog. adriaen22

That is absolutely relevant...concerning the possibility of whether the undercarriage could have been damaged and the fuel line ruptured by the "protruding pipe"...as...there...it seems apparent that - the pipe was already on its way down the street by the time the undercarriage &/or fuel line would have been in an appropriate position to receive such damage (or - to engage the pipe).

If you don't see the significance I do... No worries... I'll just sit on it, 'til it gels.

so as i posted earlier,,,

FACT ONE: car go fast
Fact two: car go boom.
fact three: man dead.
fact 3 and 2 now in dipute,,,


cold water on a hot engine block,,,there would be pressurized steam leaks everywhere,, enough too make sure any fuel,,,(was it Deasel?),,,,,leaks,,,combusting with enough force,,,too go BIG BOOM!,,,it aint the movies.

so only remaining indesputable fact,,,,,FACT ONE: car go fast.

back too square one.

Originally posted by WanDash

You can actually see a photo of the sheared pipe on adriaen22's blog... adriaen22 has, likewise, compiled a number of witness statements and included pertinent photos, etc... should you care to look...

I, do, though, want to explain "why" I count this information important...

A lot of people have been claiming (from very early on) that when a vehicle is travelling at the speeds first indicated (100+ mph)...the engine (or parts thereof) gets very hot...and that heat, alone, could ignite gasoline, if the two were to come into contact with each other.

The "initial" review of the security camera footage explained that the first "flash" after the Mercedes passed the camera, resulted from the car hitting the utility cover for the city water mains...and the subsequent scraping, mangling, breaking &/or tearing involved in the "no contest" between the speeding Mercedes, metal cover and water pipe...and that...during this split-second contest, the pipe "may have ruptured the fuel line".

As it turns out, however -- both the sheared-off u-shaped water pipe (which was not metal - but hard plastic) and the metal utility cover were found at about the same distance from the car's inferno as the engine/tranny.

This would not have come about...if there had been a fight between the "water pipe" (&/or metal utility cover) at the underside of the Mercedes.

And - if the "water pipe" and/or "metal utility cover" were not in the right place to have conflicted with the undercarriage (thus - the fuel line) -- the argument for...leaking fuel diminishes to almost zero.

Again - consider what is necessary to attain "fire"...

- Ignition source
- Fuel (combustible material)
- Oxygen

With the "ruptured fuel line" argument...and the "open (or high-demand) throttle position"...one can imagine that once the line was ruptured, fuel continued to pour (spray/spurt) out of the line...allowing for some accumulation on certain surfaces of the car's underbelly...
And - with the "very hot" engine (that, by the way - would only have been present long enough to ignite the fire...as it was busy embarking on another 150-200 foot solo flight), or sparks resulting from metals against metals...it isn't hard to justify "Hey! It could happen...".

But - if we have no "fuel spurting" those last few feet before impact - and the "very hot engine" is flying through the freshly-opened front grill..."what" was being ignited?

If the "fuel tank" was damaged...this "damage" (it would literally have to be ruptured), upon impact (with the tree), might have provided the fuel supply necessary to facilitate the kind of explosion-fireball-conflagration evident in video footage.

As has been shown through resources (images) located & provided by JBA2848, and is corroborated in images on the above-referenced blog (of adriaen22)...it is difficult to imagine that anything touched, much less ruptured the fuel tank, prior to the vehicle impacting the palm tree.
The undercarriage of this vehicle is substantial.

I am still having difficulty justifying the explosion/fireball/conflagratory-inferno...if you can't tell.

If you have a different take on anything stated, I would appreciate the opportunity to consider it...

Will consider the "apparent loss of electrical power" and what that might mean...later.
Thanks.

reply to post by WanDash


On the very first thread started on Michael Hasting's accident, someone indicated that he had a home within a few blocks of the accident. I never figured out if he was traveling in the direction of or away from his home.

He absolutely wouldn't be using his cellphone and surely had other more clandestine ways to communicate. I am surprised he used his email.

If he was leaving his home maybe someone did lure him out.

Was his wife in New York at the time of the accident??

I haven't followed every thread post for post.

I know this is going to sound a little crazy but after reading about his wife's background, a little flag went up. (Honeypot?)

Another person that gives me pause is Biggs. It is because of the forum he used to comment on Michael's demise.

I think that there are close friends and associates that know a lot more. But the quiet is deafening, isn't it??

I have to do some work. Will be back later.

Good job everyone.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by WanDash

 

...On the very first thread started on Michael Hasting's accident, someone indicated that he had a home within a few blocks of the accident. I never figured out if he was traveling in the direction of or away from his home.

I remember that... I've tried finding an address - to no avail.
miner49r did find an address for the L.A. office of BuzzFeed...which he posted in your "Channel 6..." thread...and, it wasn't far from where he ended, either.

He absolutely wouldn't be using his cellphone and surely had other more clandestine ways to communicate. I am surprised he used his email.

My thoughts as well... On the other hand - have you heard anymore on "a time frame" for his reported conversation with Jennifer Robinson? Would be nice to know...

If he was leaving his home maybe someone did lure him out.

miner49r's guess is that he was in a hurry to get to one of many foreign consulates located on Wilshire Blvd.
He may be right...or not... My thoughts are --- they are going to be "closed" at that time of day...and, if he had arranged with one of them to...let him in... "why" haven't they spoken up?

Was his wife in New York at the time of the accident??

I hadn't heard this... (or maybe I had...but it didn't register) ... That is where he just moved from to open the L.A. office (within the last 6 months).

...I know this is going to sound a little crazy but after reading about his wife's background, a little flag went up. (Honeypot?)

Have not looked into anything about her...except a couple of brief allusions to them getting married, and a couple of his statements.
I don't even want to consider that...at the moment.

Another person that gives me pause is Biggs. It is because of the forum he used to comment on Michael's demise.
...I think that there are close friends and associates that know a lot more. But the quiet is deafening, isn't it??

I think some people are better suited for hand to hand combat, than limelight. I have no suit for either.
I doubt I would have handled myself as well (video interviews, etc...) as he has...but...still...it seems there have been a couple/few flubs, here and there.

Thanks for dropping by. Hope something will come of the many efforts in this regard.

reply to post by WanDash


I found the post:

He had a house down Melrose Ave on Edinburg Ave. So he was only a few blocks from home.

by JBA2848

Link

Interesting that this poster knew of his LA address and has been a great contributor to these threads. Not suggesting anything nefarious by the poster but he was on this from the beginning and knew of Hastings' LA address. Who would know that except a close friend or an associate, or "someone else".

Studying the security camera footage again…there are two general points of interest, I would like to bring to your attention…and see if you’re seeing what I’m seeing…and see how my interpretation/s weigh against yours…(as well as the “review” of these frames given by Michael Krikorian)…
(…Let’s just preface the following “statements” with – “imo”…)
This is “just prior” to the driver’s front tire mounting the median curb…

ATS Big Picture
Here – the driver’s front tire has mounted the median curb… So far – everything seems in order…

ATS Big Pic-2
Here – is where it starts getting tricky, as…the “rear end” starts moving upward. At this point, said movement can easily & logically be considered normal, if the rear wheels have mounted the median-curb…

ATS Big Pic-3
It appears that the rear wheels are almost (if not) entirely “off the ground”…

ATS Big Pic-4
The rear wheels are clearly “off the ground”…

ATS Big Pic-5
The first “flash”… The rear wheels are still “off the ground”…though it appears that they are coming back down… Note that this is where the car would have hit the metal utility cover for the water main pipe.

ATS Big Pic-6
The “second flash”… Recall that ‘Krikorian said “this might be brake lights”…or something else… I don’t know that it is separate from the “first flash”… It appears to be a progression/expansion of the “first flash” to me…

ATS Big Pic-7

The first question that arises in my mind, is – why did the rear end “jump” like that?
Once the rear wheels hit the median-curb…the rear end continued rising until the car hit the metal utility cover…and may not have entirely settled back down (to earth) until the next frame (or so ----- after the lights went out).
In fact - after many reviews...it appears (to me) that at the point of the "second flash", the rear end raises slightly, once more.
I have read that this is a 3” (3 inch tall) curb, and viewing it in Google Maps Street View…I’m guessing – “that’s close enough”.
The turf/sod/grass does not present a significant rise (if any) once the actual curb has been cleared…
I do not see “what” would have cause the rear end to “rise” as dramatically, as is apparent in the above series of images…

Will address the “dark” frames, shortly – then – I would like to look at the “explosion followed immediately by a fireball”…

Looking forward to your input.
Thanks.

Originally posted by GrantedBail
...I found the post:

He had a house down Melrose Ave on Edinburg Ave. So he was only a few blocks from home.

...by JBA2848
...Link
...Interesting that this poster knew of his LA address and has been a great contributor to these threads. Not suggesting anything nefarious by the poster but he was on this from the beginning and knew of Hastings' LA address. Who would know that except a close friend or an associate, or "someone else".

JBA' is unbelievably resourceful... UNBELIEVABLY!
Possesses outstanding instinct for research (like - what might be important, that no-one else has even considered questioning...?).
Thank you so much for finding this reference.

The more I view it…the more I wonder if the rear-end had actually settled to the ground, at all, prior to impacting the tree.
Does no-one-else see this?
After the “second flash”…when the residual light from that “flash” is still coming through the Mercedes’ window/s…it appears that the rear end might still have been “rising”… …

It is amazing, how “immediately” ALL the lights (head lights & tail lights) extinguished.

The first sign that the car hit the tree…was a flash of light that was entirely relegated to the “tree-side” of the car.
Significance?
The fuel tank, at the rear of the vehicle, did not “explode” or “ignite” upon impact.

A brilliant light was emitted at the front of the car (where it met the tree)…that lit the surroundings in a vertical fashion (outlining the car)…and continued to grow in intensity…until what has been referred to as “a fireball” erupted (with explosive quality, I might add) at the epicenter…
The fireball initially grew exponentially…from this…

ATS Big Pic – Fireball Start
…to this (solar maximum)…

ATS Big Pic – Fireball Max
…then, settled down to…this…

ATS Big Pic – Raging Fire
…which is, presumably, the size of the fire as viewed in the LoudLabs video.

Okay – I’ll drop off for the night…unless something draws me back.
See you later!

reply to post by WanDash


So how did he know what Michael's LA address was?


And have you determined whether he was coming or going??



Wandash: As intimately as you have been involved with this subject matter how is it that Michael's home address wouldn't be a HUGE deal?

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by WanDash

 

...So how did he know what Michael's LA address was?
...And have you determined whether he was coming or going??
...Wandash: As intimately as you have been involved with this subject matter how is it that Michael's home address wouldn't be a HUGE deal?

I don't know how the address was found. I used to have access to certain "databases" that might give such information... Perhaps JBA' does, as well... Or - maybe...went about it another way.
You should subpoena his sources...

As to "whether he was coming or going"... I don't know how we could arrive at a conclusion based on the information currently available.
Some people have put forth the notion that...this could have been the result of a bad reaction to drugs. I don't buy that - except...what if something was slipped into his drink/s...or, someone tinkered with prescription meds... ?
Almost none of these, though, deal with the fact that - if the intent was his death...there are only two ways to be certain of that outcome - 1. Kill him outright (without the guise of "an accident), or 2. Remove his ability to resist (take all control away from him)...
This 2nd possibility would require eyes with close proximity to the car, as it travelled the last miles (at least).
I don't see another way.
(An experienced "drone operator" might have been able to control the car, if the facilities were in place...)

Everything-else is a gamble. If they take partial control away...there's a chance he'll live to tell about it - and - he was a tiger.

As you can see - I've spent a couple of posts on the security camera video of the last few seconds of the ride.
I believe the video was misinterpreted by those making the first sets of judgments and translations.
It looks to me as if the rear end of the car definitely went in the air...much further than can be explained with "jumping the curb onto the median", or "hitting the metal cage surrounding the u-shaped PVC water pipe".
And - with the electrical system shorting-out (or, otherwise failing) so immediately...with the battery located in the trunk (meaning - it didn't lose power because a battery cable was severed when hitting the metal cage)...I am growing more and more suspicious that other forces were at work.
There is NO light being emitted from the vehicle once it goes dark... No sparks or flashes or flames are evident anywhere on the vehicle...prior to hitting the tree...and are initially ONLY evident on the side of the car that is actually hitting the tree...upon impact.
So - I don't see how "gasoline fumes" could have accumulated in a volume needed to facilitate the explosion and result in that magnificent fireball.

Gonna have to give it a rest for the night.
Pleased that you're still interested enough to ask some insightful questions!

ETA: Just saw your last question...
I did spend a bit of time looking for it...and remembered that "someone" had posted something about it on one of your threads...and, likewise remembered that it was "supposed" to have been a relatively short distance from where the accident occurred ---- but --- after coming up empty on the first few tries, and getting stuck on other questions (or discussions on other aspects), the questions slipped into some dark crevice, 'til you woke it up.

reply to post by GrantedBail

I know this is going to sound a little crazy but after reading about his wife's background, a little flag went up. (Honeypot?)

It would be sloppy to not consider such a scenario! Mind you I am not saying "Oh, she totally was... " but the possibility has to be kept in mind. For some this may sound far out but consider the cases of UK police spies Mark Kennedy and Jim Boyling:

Undercover policing faces tighter regulation after Mark Kennedy scandal

undercover police routinely formed long-lasting, intimate, relationships with the activists they were sent to spy on. At least two police officers had children with activists while they worked undercover... ...seven-year deployment of the police spy Mark Kennedy, who lived among climate change campaigners and who had several relationships with women upon whom he spied, one of which lasted six years. Three senior judges later found that Kennedy might have acted as an agent provocateur.

Undercover policeman wed activist he was sent to spy on

Jim Boyling met future wife while infiltrating Reclaim The Streets
Couple had two children but later divorced
Ex wife: Undercover work wrecks lives
Boyling: Having sex with activists was 'necessary tool in maintaining cover'

Another person that gives me pause is Biggs. It is because of the forum he used to comment on Michael's demise.

Can you elaborate?

I think that there are close friends and associates that know a lot more. But the quiet is deafening, isn't it??

Those of his friends and associates who are journalists, film makers, publishers, lawyers (Glenn Greenberg is a journalist and lawyer), etc. will only come forward if they have actual proof of foul play. Else they will damage their credibility and may even get in the way of their own investigation of the matter. And I think Buzzfeed made their stance as clear as they possibly could without being declared conspiracy nuts:

$100,000 Michael Hastings National Security Reporting Fellowship - A Reward To Uncover Foul Play?

Originally posted by MindBodySpiritComplex
reply to post by GrantedBail

 

...It would be sloppy to not consider such a scenario! Mind you I am not saying "Oh, she totally was... " but the possibility has to be kept in mind. For some this may sound far out...

Maybe I'm too sentimental.
I have, of course, considered the possibility that the wife could have been duplicitous...but - where do you go from there?
We had the one member (on another thread) claiming to be a "female" member of the family of Michael Hastings stating that they don't believe foul play was involved...and that there are "private" details of Michael's life that they are aware of...and would prefer that they remain "private"...
If that ATS-member was actually who they claimed to be...and was relaying their genuine sentiments - one has to wonder if those "private details" hold some oddly shaped key that would turn this "mystery" into a still tragic but entirely understandable event.

To cover more bases, though, we also know (have read) that the family contracted the services of a private investigator early-on... And, we have the recent article by Hagmann & Hagmann revealing information that we (as un-authorized claimants) might not have been able to obtain... And - "Hagmann" said that he was convinced that Michael Hastings was murdered.
So - would that change the family's tune? (the article was published within a day or two of the "female family member's" contributions to the afore-mentioned thread)

Those of his friends and associates who are journalists, film makers, publishers, lawyers (Glenn Greenberg is a journalist and lawyer), etc. will only come forward if they have actual proof of foul play. Else they will damage their credibility and may even get in the way of their own investigation of the matter. And I think Buzzfeed made their stance as clear as they possibly could without being declared conspiracy nuts:
$100,000 Michael Hastings National Security Reporting Fellowship - A Reward To Uncover Foul Play?

I am with GrantedBail on this one...

The silence is deafening

Only one member of the list of recipients of that email...has owned-up to being a recipient -- and, he was a "bcc" recipient...
Haven't heard a "peep" from the others...
How can you get an email from a colleague/associate/friend...telling of intrepid circumstances & that they will be wearing an invisibility-cloak for "a bit"...then...wake up the following morning...hear that he died in a high-speed crash/inferno...and NOT cry FOUL!!!?

reply to post by WanDash


A small point on the ass end.

I have reviewed those frames many times and I just don't see it.
I have tried but I can't.
For me there is not enough clarity to see everything you described.

But, that doesn't mean that I don't agree that you can see it. If you can understand that at all.

Anyways, you say his ass end comes up off of the ground.

I can easily believe that and here is why.

Moving at that high rate of speed, when the car first hits the curb, naturally the car's front wheels are going to come off of the ground. When the back wheels hits the curb the front-end is slammed down and the rear-end is thrown upward.

Let's keep some things in mind. .. . .

It is going to be like a Judo move where the momentum is going to be transferred in the same way a flip is done. So basically all of the weight from the rear-end is going to be transferred to the front-end.
Although the vehicle just lost a boat load of speed by those acrobatics, it is easily made up for in the transfer of the weight.

I hope that makes some sense.

Also, I think you mentioned before that the roof hit the tree. If the rear-end was off the ground and its center of gravity transferred to the front-end then it is only logical that the roof hit the tree.

That might also help it to lend credibility to how the engine and tranny were ejected.

A note about the explosion. .. .

I have not and will not subscribe to the idea that there were explosives involved. It is just a tough cement block for me to swallow.

Demolitions 101. . ..

Heat and pressure are REQUIRED to detonate explosives. This does not include Nitro Glycerin.
If you have Just one or the other it will not work.
For example .. You can take a block of C-4 and light the corner of it and it will burn like a briquette. No explosion.
If you take a block of C-4 that is not lit and you hit it with a hammer it will Not detonate.
Now, if you light the corner of a block of C-4 and you strike that flame with a hammer it Will detonate. It works in the same fashion as the "Fire Triangle". All of the conditions Must be met.

To suggest that the vehicle had explosives in it and detonated on impact is absolutely impossible.
I also think it is also imperative to point out that explosives Do Not create a Flame.
The ignition that is shown in the video is consistent with a liquid ignition source. If in fact there had been an explosive detonation there would have been a Bright Flash that dissipated nearly as fast as the flash occurred. Also, explosive detonations will sometimes blow out flames.

So regardless of what the explosive is, weather it be C-4, Semtex, Tovex, or even Unconventional explosives manufactured from pi$$, blood, or even dirt, the properties are the same as far as heat and pressure goes.

FACT ONE: car go fast


est. speed from video,,,100mph?? easy guess,,
So is this still a undeniable fact??????

if yes,,

did the driver ever recieve any speeding ticks before??,,,such a thing should be checable.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by WanDash

 

…I have reviewed those frames many times and I just don't see it.
I have tried but I can't.
For me there is not enough clarity to see everything you described.
…
Demolitions 101. . ..
…Heat and pressure are REQUIRED to detonate explosives. This does not include Nitro Glycerin.
If you have Just one or the other it will not work.
…

Thanks for all that information on explosives… Entirely out of my realm/s of experience.

I am not coming at this from an angle of – “I believe there was an explosion, and will see if I can find a way to justify that that is what happened”… Rather…(and it was not apparent when start-stopping the video, either)…it wasn’t until I had “snap-shot” many of the start-stop frames…then stepped-through them in sequence, rapidly (in Windows Photo Viewer)…that it became apparent.

Nevertheless – I’m not really able to justify “explosion”. So – while your information is welcome & genuinely appreciated – I would really need someone with expertise to do some outstanding explaining to get me over the same hurdles you’re having a hard time swallowing.

Conversely – I do not find your explanation on the front end “jumping” when mounting the curb, or the rear end doing the same, when it mounts the curb…either unreasonable…or convincing. It was my first consideration, too…
However, it would have been one tire at a time…climbing that 3” curb…not 2 at a time.
And, the car did not meet the 3” curb at a hard angle…but more like a 15°-20° angle.
There would have been some disturbance to equilibrium…but I would not expect it to have been as dramatic as what I am seeing.
Not to say – however – that, when meeting-up with the metal utility cover/cage…with the car still (possibly) unbalanced…and allowing for the possibility that the “cage” was exceptionally-secured to the concrete pad surrounding the pipe…the sudden resistance could not have caused the nose to “dig” and the rear to “lift”… But …it appears to me, that the “lift” began before meeting the cage.
…so…
If you scroll down the page of adriaen22’s blog …to the blog dated July 18, 2013, entitled – Michael Hastings – Death by Mercedes?…then scroll a little further into said “blog”…there are three photos of interest… The first, shown below (here)…is the metal utility cage…that was found almost the same distance from the crash as the engine/tranny… It has, apparently, been moved back to (or near) its pre-crash location in this photo as of the photo-date…being June 28, 2013...

The other two photos are too large to upload to ATS…so, here’s the description…
One is of the damage done to a tree “in a front yard” on the north-bound side of North Highland Avenue…almost to Clinton St…near where the sheared-off u-shaped PVC pipe was found.
The other, is of “what remained” of the u-shaped PVC pipe…at its pre-crash location.
From the first of those two photos, it is apparent that the broken-off piece of PVC was still travelling at high velocity, when meeting the tree.
From the second of those photos…it is apparent that after meeting the front end of the car (or – the force of the dislodged cage) there was no (or – virtually no) possibility that any pipe would have been in position to stretch high enough, to meet with the car’s undercarriage – much less, the fuel line or fuel tank.

Anyway – thanks again for the help.

Originally posted by WanDash

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by WanDash

 

…I have reviewed those frames many times and I just don't see it.
I have tried but I can't.
For me there is not enough clarity to see everything you described.
…
Demolitions 101. . ..
…Heat and pressure are REQUIRED to detonate explosives. This does not include Nitro Glycerin.
If you have Just one or the other it will not work.
…

Thanks for all that information on explosives… Entirely out of my realm/s of experience.

I am not coming at this from an angle of – “I believe there was an explosion, and will see if I can find a way to justify that that is what happened”… Rather…(and it was not apparent when start-stopping the video, either)…it wasn’t until I had “snap-shot” many of the start-stop frames…then stepped-through them in sequence, rapidly (in Windows Photo Viewer)…that it became apparent.

Nevertheless – I’m not really able to justify “explosion”. So – while your information is welcome & genuinely appreciated – I would really need someone with expertise to do some outstanding explaining to get me over the same hurdles you’re having a hard time swallowing.

Conversely – I do not find your explanation on the front end “jumping” when mounting the curb, or the rear end doing the same, when it mounts the curb…either unreasonable…or convincing. It was my first consideration, too…
However, it would have been one tire at a time…climbing that 3” curb…not 2 at a time.
And, the car did not meet the 3” curb at a hard angle…but more like a 15°-20° angle.
There would have been some disturbance to equilibrium…but I would not expect it to have been as dramatic as what I am seeing.
Not to say – however – that, when meeting-up with the metal utility cover/cage…with the car still (possibly) unbalanced…and allowing for the possibility that the “cage” was exceptionally-secured to the concrete pad surrounding the pipe…the sudden resistance could not have caused the nose to “dig” and the rear to “lift”… But …it appears to me, that the “lift” began before meeting the cage.
…so…
If you scroll down the page of adriaen22’s blog …to the blog dated July 18, 2013, entitled – Michael Hastings – Death by Mercedes?…then scroll a little further into said “blog”…there are three photos of interest… The first, shown below (here)…is the metal utility cage…that was found almost the same distance from the crash as the engine/tranny… It has, apparently, been moved back to (or near) its pre-crash location in this photo as of the photo-date…being June 28, 2013...

The other two photos are too large to upload to ATS…so, here’s the description…
One is of the damage done to a tree “in a front yard” on the north-bound side of North Highland Avenue…almost to Clinton St…near where the sheared-off u-shaped PVC pipe was found.
The other, is of “what remained” of the u-shaped PVC pipe…at its pre-crash location.
From the first of those two photos, it is apparent that the broken-off piece of PVC was still travelling at high velocity, when meeting the tree.
From the second of those photos…it is apparent that after meeting the front end of the car (or – the force of the dislodged cage) there was no (or – virtually no) possibility that any pipe would have been in position to stretch high enough, to meet with the car’s undercarriage – much less, the fuel line or fuel tank.

Anyway – thanks again for the help.

so agin we have:
FACT ONE: car go fast
Fact two: car go boom.

FACT ONE: car go fast
Fact two: car go boom.
As too why car go boom or not,, is no longer relevant,,,which leaves,,,

fact 3.
man dead at scene.
first responder was "?"

Originally posted by BobAthome
FACT ONE: car go fast
...
est. speed from video,,,100mph?? easy guess,,
So is this still a undeniable fact??????
...
if yes,,
...did the driver ever recieve any speeding ticks before??,,,such a thing should be checable.

Yeah - I've asked the same question at least a couple of times.
I'm sure there are those who know where & how to get this information (speeding tickets)...but, I'm not one.
As to - "is this still...undeniable...??????" - good question.
We pretty-much-know that the car "left the ground" after the Melrose high-rise...coming down (and leaving skid marks) just past the south-side pedestrian cross-walk.
I am presuming that the accelerator remained in the "wide-open" (or thereabouts) position...
There was a bit of swerve...which would slightly affect the forward momentum (thus - speed)...
Slight impedance encountered when mounting the curb...
More impedance encountered when the tires go from asphalt to turf...
More impedance encountered when the front end meets the metal cage...
(If I am correct - that the rear end was off the ground for a number of feet - there would have been "no driving force" continuing to maintain or increase speed. If not - pretend I said nothing.)
The electrical system appears to have ceased functioning immediately after encountering the metal cage/water pipe... Does that mean that the rear wheels would have lost ALL driving force?
It seems that the last 200-or-so feet met with a number of factors that would tend to have slowed the vehicle.
Now - how much it was "slowed"...I cannot tell.

reply to post by WanDash


"The electrical system appears to have ceased functioning immediately after encountering the metal cage/water pipe..",,,the ON BOARD COMPUTER SENCERS,,dont like water,,,,,,,seems correct,,,so if there was OUTSIDE electrical failures/faults/interference,,,,pretty much,, destroyed,,,,,pertaning only too the cars,,stability.

ever drive through a puddle,,big puddle,, ,,

be right back,, lol

reply to post by WanDash


" Does that mean that the rear wheels would have lost ALL driving force? ",, does automatic/elecrical braking function during, freewheeling?.
if transmision was still in forward,,,,,,yes the tires would still be spinning at 200 mph,,once ground contact was made,,due to gravity.