Debunked: Michael Hastings Crash Engine Found North of Crash going South?

[Mick West]

This reporter makes a rather startling claim about how the engine in the Hasting car crash "broke the laws of physics" by ending up behind the direction of travel.

Michael Hastings Crash Investigation Heats Up, Police and Fire Told Not to comment!
San Diego 6 -- Kimberly Dvorak's Investigative Report On Michael Hastings "Crash"
Crash scene defies laws of physics as engine block found behind the car

2:00 Dvorak:"also the placement of the engine and the drive train, as we are see here, they are completely, between 150 and 250 feet from the accident. However the car was going south and the engine and drive train were behind it. After I spoke with a couple of university physics professors, they said, in an accident like this, the engines and whatnot would go with the forward velocity of the ...."

http://www.sandiego6.com/story/details-of-reporter-hastings-death-remain-elusive-20130708

Except she got it wrong. The engine was found to the south, on the corner of Highland and Clinton. This is quite clear from the photos.

And here's a close up of the corner of Highland and Clinton.

Source: http://goo.gl/maps/94mOs

And just to be absolutely clear:

While the engine going the wrong way would break the physical laws of momentum, it would also break the physical laws of explosives. An explosion powerful enough to throw the engine block 200 feet backwards would have shredded the car into little pieces and broken every window on the block.

Forward momentum (impacting a tree at high speed) is the only way this could have happened.

The fact that she got this so wrong as to go consult some "physics professors" without actually checking if her basic facts were right, calls into question her investigation. She seems somewhat predisposed to go with the conspiracy angle.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions. You just need to start with a factual foundation.

 

[lee h oswald]

So she got it wrong. What's the big hoo-ha?

The factual foundation remains that Hastings was persona non grata - certainly to one Gen McChrystal - a consummate thug and murderer, recently compromised by Hastings' work as an investigative journalist. The fact remains that Hastings had contacted Wikileaks' lawyer just a few hours before he died, saying that he was under FBI surveillance and that he was going to lay low for a while, until things calmed down. The fact remains that there is a crackdown by the regime on whistleblowers and investigative journalists (the Emperor doesn't like it too well when someone points out he's stark bollock naked). The fact remains, USAmerican establishment public figures openly called for the assassination of a journalist, Julian Assange - let's not forget (isn't that a crime? incitement to murder or some such - but no-one speaks out?). The fact remains that the road is straight. The fact remains that the engine of the car (a Mercedes) ended some 60 metres from the rest of the vehicle (did the mounts just turn to jelly?). I think it's fair to say that it's a fact that the details of the 'accident' are minimal.

So this story is based on a false premise - a basic, stupid mistake that could be dismissed in a sentence - but all the other facts remain, aren't they more important? And yes, she may well have been more inclined towards 'the conspiracy angle', but then again she might work for the FBI spreading information that will be suckled on by certain people, to prove a point, or something (They would never do such a thing!). Who could know? Going with the 'more inclined towards conspiracy' (bad use of language - but I'm quoting) type thing, then ofcourse there's always others about to counterbalance that wrongness by doing their equivalent in reverse, sort of. Then still others who are both skeptical and open-minded in equal measure....and then ofcourse the vast majority - who wouldn't have the faintest what's being said here. Or why it really matters at all.

 

[Mick West]

Debunking is something you do one bit of bunk at a time. It's about proposed evidence, not conclusions.

Removing one piece of evidence does not automatically invalidate the overall theory. It's just one less piece of bunk. It should be exposed and removed. That's all.

I've seen people using the claim about the engine as absolute proof. But it's not. Example:
http://www.dailypaul.com/291752/mic...ld-not-to-comment-police-report-not-available

Another botched government assassination. Way too much fluoride ingestion by our government agents. Are these agents not capable of understanding basic Physics 101? Looks like they used 400% more C4 than needed. The engine lands 200' behind forward momentum of 100+MPH speed? Did the Earth suddenly start spinning in reverse at time of impact? What will bother science minded people way into the future is having their understanding of Physics twisted into impossible contortions. This issue is not going away.

 

[Mick West]

The fact remains that the road is straight. The fact remains that the engine of the car (a Mercedes) ended some 60 metres from the rest of the vehicle (did the mounts just turn to jelly?). I think it's fair to say that it's a fact that the details of the 'accident' are minimal.

Check out this video, as listen to the guy at 3:15, he describes what happened. The guy was going incredibly fast, hit a bump, lost control, hit the tree.

 

[Pete Tar]

Holy crap that is a huge amount of momentum, he must have been really flying.

 

[lee h oswald]

Now I'm being introduced to some anecdotal evidence? Isn't that irony in motion? So Hastings died just like Danny Jowenko. Mostly coincidence, ofcourse.
In MB world, none of the real, remaining prescient points are referred to - that would be 'aiding and abetting' the 'enemy', or something like that.

Not engaging with the actual evidence - ignoring it, in fact - isn't much use really.

 

[Pete Tar]

Did the car engine end up behind the car or not? That is the point of this thread, that's all.
Whether he was taken out or not will be discussed as evidence is brought forward that checks out. It's impossible to say anything constructive about it at this point, except, yes he did send that email shortly before his death. That doesn't mean he was assassinated yet. Maybe, but it would be extraordinary abuse of power if he was.

 

[MikeC]

Now I'm being introduced to some anecdotal evidence? Isn't that irony in motion? So Hastings died just like Danny Jowenko. Mostly coincidence, ofcourse.
In MB world, none of the real, remaining prescient points are referred to - that would be 'aiding and abetting' the 'enemy', or something like that.

Not engaging with the actual evidence - ignoring it, in fact - isn't much use really.

who are you replying to?

I'm pretty sure Mick "engaged" with the actual evidence that the engine ended up "behind" the car - there's a few large pictures in the thread covering that - if you didn't notice them then perhaps you could "engage with the evidence" a little more?

If it's something else could you make it clearer what it is you mean please?

 

[lee h oswald]

...you ....

....you ...you....

....you ...you ...

Not really a good sign, that.

I think I said what I wanted to in my first two posts. Plenty of evidence remains, circumstantial it may be, but evidence it is. Quite a bit of context on current situation on regime vs whistleblowers. If people want to focus on one obviously wrong angle, and sensationalise it, then that's their bag, good luck. My reckoning is based on evidence that is still alive, not the easy to kill claims of bad information artists - being a skeptic isn't synonymous with being naive, not in my dictionary. To have a hope of understanding, one needs to properly examine all possibilities, insofar as abilities allow.

I see people with ready made advocate positions (lawyers!) thinking inside a self-built box. And it all appears as the opposite of what it purports to be, which is quite Orwellian.

 

[Mick West]

All this thread was supposed to do was point out a mistake, and suggest it might be indicative of a lack of rigor on the part of the reporter. It has nothing to do with if Hastings was assassinated or not (except for being one less piece of evidence you could use to make a case).

It's debunking. I saw some bunk, so I debunked it.

 

[MikeC]

Not really a good sign, that.

I think I said what I wanted to in my first two posts.

not that I can see - you ramble and make no specific claims at all.

Plenty of evidence remains, circumstantial it may be, but evidence it is.

OF WHAT??????

And what is the evidence - you say it remains?? OK - well identify it

Quite a bit of context on current situation on regime vs whistleblowers. If people want to focus on one obviously wrong angle, and sensationalise it, then that's their bag, good luck. My reckoning is based on evidence that is still alive, not the easy to kill claims of bad information artists - being a skeptic isn't synonymous with being naive, not in my dictionary. To have a hope of understanding, one needs to properly examine all possibilities, insofar as abilities allow.

I see people with ready made advocate positions (lawyers!) thinking inside a self-built box. And it all appears as the opposite of what it purports to be, which is quite Orwellian.

And in all that you STILL don't actually make any claim of anything specific at all!![/quote]

 

[Pete Tar]

How can the purpose and methodology of this site not be clear to you by now Lee?
Are you deliberately misunderstanding in order to create the controversial dialogue that you seem to thrive on?

 

[Mick West]

I suspect lee thinks I have broader agenda to discredit theories by whatever means possible.

But I'm just debunking here.

 

[Pete Tar]

....

I see people with ready made advocate positions (lawyers!) thinking inside a self-built box. ...

Ha, thought that might sting a little. You do have the gift of semantic and rhetorical wizardry.

This may get me a politeness breach, but....

I've often thought you would make a really good politician.
(Sorry.)

You would be entertaining, you would eviscerate your opponents, and you would manage to artfully avoid answering any real questions and turn any question back onto the questioner.
I'd vote for you.

 

[Joe]

Posted on the BLAZEthey did a story today with the same newscast .

Im wondering what type of freon they used in that Mercedes ? I heard that mecedes wasnt going to use the New freon which is flammable HFO-1234yf http://blog.caranddriver.com/daimle...loped-refrigerant-flammable-gm-continues-use/

 

[lee h oswald]

I suspect lee thinks I have broader agenda to discredit theories by whatever means possible.

But I'm just debunking here.

There's only one thing worse than being talked about, and that's not being talked about.

 

[lee h oswald]

Ha, thought that might sting a little. You do have the gift of semantic and rhetorical wizardry.

This may get me a politeness breach, but....

I've often thought you would make a really good politician.
(Sorry.)

You would be entertaining, you would eviscerate your opponents, and you would manage to artfully avoid answering any real questions and turn any question back onto the questioner.
I'd vote for you.

First 'lawyer', and now this?!! Have you no mercy!! Cod give me strength! That's gotta be worth a week in Metanamo Bay! In solitary and a personal visit from Zorp thrown in for good measure!! Is there no decency?

Funny though, I may have just tripped over the theme for my next book, The Anarchist Permaculture Farmer Builder's Crowd Resourced/Funded Design-Engineer-Build Guide to Seizing Political Power - Snappy title, eh? Bit like something Graham Greene wouldn't have come up with. I'll try for something even snappier if I can fit in as many paradoxes.
Seriously though, P. There's one thing that stands out for me - and that's that politicians are professional middle-men/liars - intermediates between the commons and the faceless 'elite' (the real boss) - they've been made capi, etc. I'm further from it than you could likely imagine. And if we're talking like that, then I could say that Pete Tar is one of the more thoughtful, cogent and good humoured of the bunch (don't get carried away, mate - remember where you are) - and annoying sometimes, etc., and good humour makes a hell of a difference, P - but can't help thinking P's in a box right here.

Cheers

 

[MikeC]

First 'lawyer', and now this?!! Have you no mercy!! Cod give me strength!

I refuse to resist the urge to point out that not all your posts are this fishy!

 

[Henchman]

So sick of these conspiracy theorists who see a big cosmoorscy in everything.
Hasitngs was driving like a maniac, and lost control.

The end.


And if anybody tries to spend even two minutes on Google, they will learn that this isn't the first Mercedes to blow up.
But that would end their fantasy.

 

[jvnk08]

I think it would be prudent to hold off on the conclusion that this is a nefarious plot to silence journalists until the numerous other journalists making all sorts of "non grata" noise about "TPTB" start dropping like flies.

 

[xenon]

So sick of these conspiracy theorists who see a big cosmoorscy in everything.

Yet, you took the time to click on a specific thread inside of a forum titled "Conspiracy theories". Would you prefer that there be no discussion of this case? Is there a list somewhere of topics that you would find acceptable, and ones that are not?

Hasitngs was driving like a maniac, and lost control.
The end.

Not for some of us. You're assuming facts not in evidence, at least yet. We'll keep on asking questions, until there aren't any left to ask. You won't mind, will you? After all, the thread doesn't open itself.

This man, Michael Hastings, deserves it. Anyone that watches his interviews, particularly in the last few months, can see that he was trying to do some actual journalism, which is new (and disturbing) to lots of people. Well that's just too bad. They can deal with it, or not.

Michael Hastings RIP

Cenk interviews Hastings (skip to 3:00 if you're in a hurry)


Hastings on Obama's Drone Speech


http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings
His last column: Why Democrats Love To Spy On Americans


Maybe it was just a case of Hastings getting drunk, or popping the wrong combination of pills, or an anxiety attack and driving his car 70 mph into a tree and that is all.

And maybe not. Time will tell.

 

[JRBids]

Yet, you took the time to click on a specific thread inside of a forum titled "Conspiracy theories". Would you prefer that there be no discussion of this case? Is there a list somewhere of topics that you would find acceptable, and ones that are not?



Not for some of us. You're assuming facts not in evidence, at least yet. We'll keep on asking questions, until there aren't any left to ask. You won't mind, will you? After all, the thread doesn't open itself.

This man, Michael Hastings, deserves it. Anyone that watches his interviews, particularly in the last few months, can see that he was trying to do some actual journalism, which is new (and disturbing) to lots of people. Well that's just too bad. They can deal with it, or not.

Michael Hastings RIP

Cenk interviews Hastings (skip to 3:00 if you're in a hurry)


Hastings on Obama's Drone Speech


http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings
His last column: Why Democrats Love To Spy On Americans


Maybe it was just a case of Hastings getting drunk, or popping the wrong combination of pills, or an anxiety attack and driving his car 70 mph into a tree and that is all.

And maybe not. Time will tell.

Perhaps you'd make a better case if you explained how his car could have been remote controlled into a tree.

 

[Mick West]

This thread is getting off topic. New topics in new threads. Focussed topics only.

 

[mossystone]

Back to the physics: Rebound.
At that speed, and with the heavy mass of the engine hitting the immovable object, why not? This would not rule out cyber-carjacking.
(BTW, the explanatory directional arrows superimposed on the live street map must be wrong. Red arrow showing direction of driving should be pointing up, not down, to go with position of crash site with engine behind. As it is, the engine is in front of the car travelling in red-arrow direction.)

 

[Pete Tar]

...
(BTW, the explanatory directional arrows superimposed on the live street map must be wrong. Red arrow showing direction of driving should be pointing up, not down, to go with position of crash site with engine behind. As it is, the engine is in front of the car travelling in red-arrow direction.)

I thought that was correct - the engine proceeded ahead of the car in the direction of travel.

 

[Mick West]

Yeah, the engine did end up in front of the car. That's the whole point. The "behind the car" claims was a mistake, and has been debunked.

 

[xenon]

newly released video from surveillance camera on Highland/Melrose

Looks like some sort of flash before impact



Remember that in the first KTLA report a witness said "sounded like a bomb" and it shook her house

 

[Rafterman]

newly released video from surveillance camera on Highland/Melrose

Looks like some sort of flash before impact



Remember that in the first KTLA report a witness said "sounded like a bomb" and it shook her house

I disagree. I think what we see in the video is entirely consistent with a high speed car accident.

Car traveling at a high rate of speed - check.

Brake lights flash for an instant in the distance - check.

Large explosion a split-second later - check

Photo of car wrapped around pole/tree engulfed in flames - check

And NOTE, at no time do we see a several hundred pound engine hurtling back at the camera.

 

[solrey]

newly released video from surveillance camera on Highland/Melrose

Looks like some sort of flash before impact



Remember that in the first KTLA report a witness said "sounded like a bomb" and it shook her house

At the 00:12 mark a reflection of the headlights off the bus stop on the right can be seen. The reflection jumps up and down erratically off the bus stop and the overpass in the distance, as well as side to side. That would corroborate a witness who said the car bounced through an uneven intersection then that caused the driver to lose control. At the 00:14 mark the car is clearly skidding toward the left with the headlights shining directly in to the median. The flash at 00:15 looks like hitting the brakes at the last second, which go out upon impact. I'd be interested to see a professional analysis of the speed, I'm guessing somewhere around 100 mph? Anyway, it's obvious he was haulin' ass and lost control.

 

[jvnk08]

Looks like some sort of flash before impact

It's hard to say if that is before impact. This is an interesting piece from Jalopnik:

http://jalopnik.com/why-cars-explode-into-fireballs-and-why-they-usually-do-560552028

Basically, a car bursting into flames on impact is not a previously unheard of phenomenon.

Also, Daimler is issuing a recall of some Mercedes Benz vehicles that have a new type of A/C refrigerant that has been shown to be explosive in high speed head-on collisions. Granted, the particular chemical in question appears to only be in the 2013 SL models, but it just goes to show that there are numerous(sometimes very flammable) chemicals in a car besides gasoline:

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/28/daimler-sounds-alarm-on-new-ac-refrigerant-may-be-flammable/

 

[Mick West]

The distance from the start of the alleyway (where the Valet stand, the two guys above, is) to the impact tree is 220 feet.

You can't really determine what the speed was without knowing if the footage is in real time. But if you assume it is, then the time from passing that point to the big explosion is from frame 216

To 249

The movie downloaded says 15 fps. so that would be 33/15 seconds, which would make the speed 68 mph.

However, the explosion probably did not come at the moment of impact, which is more likely the first flash, at fame 238. Making the speed 102 mph.

Assuming the video is at real time, then the speed was between 70 and 100 mph.

 

[Rafterman]

Probably a bit faster than what's posted on that street.

 

[Mick West]

Probably a bit faster than what's posted on that street.

Which is 35, as seen in the photo above.

 

[Pete Tar]

That makes me think that in the engineering of a road designed for a higher speed limit, attention will have been paid to the surfacing to ensure it is smooth and level, as opposed to one designed for lower speed where no attention needs to be paid to bumps and dips in the surface as a car isn't reasonably expected to be travelling fast enough for that to be a problem.
Therefore a car speeding on a slow street is more likely to lose control than one travelling on a highway.

 

[Mick West]

That makes me think that in the engineering of a road designed for a higher speed limit, attention will have been paid to the surfacing to ensure it is smooth and level, as opposed to one designed for lower speed where no attention needs to be paid to bumps and dips in the surface as a car isn't reasonably expected to be travelling fast enough for that to be a problem.
Therefore a car speeding on a slow street is more likely to lose control than one travelling on a highway.

Yes, it sounds like he crossed Melrose at about 100mph, and the crown and dip of the road there was still enough to make him lose control.

 

[Joe]

Mick that was just the most recent story . Said their was three explosions ?

 

[Mick West]

Sorry forgot the redirect link.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-michael-hastings-crash-cars-dont-just-explode.2148/

 

[kawika]

I think the flashes seen just before the fireball could be the undercarriage scraping the curb as it climbed the median strip. It also hit some kind of water device that doesn't spew like a fire hydrant. Probably irrigation plumbing. Perhaps a sprinkler controller. These things need to be investigated.

Something else that could be studied is what effect excessive speed would have at the Melrose intersection. A simple road test with video camera documenting different speeds would serve well.

I would really like to know the details of the car's condition after the fire. Did the front impact the tree, or was it one side? If the car hit the tree broadside, I could envision the engine being ejected.

Thank you for clearing up the backwards engine flight BS.

 

[Mick West]

I think the flashes seen just before the fireball could be the undercarriage scraping the curb as it climbed the median strip. It also hit some kind of water device that doesn't spew like a fire hydrant. Probably irrigation plumbing. Perhaps a sprinkler controller. These things need to be investigated.

Something else that could be studied is what effect excessive speed would have at the Melrose intersection. A simple road test with video camera documenting different speeds would serve well.

I would really like to know the details of the car's condition after the fire. Did the front impact the tree, or was it one side? If the car hit the tree broadside, I could envision the engine being ejected.

Thank you for clearing up the backwards engine flight BS.

Have a look at this thread, regarding the flashes:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-michael-hastings-crash-cars-dont-just-explode.2148/

The car appears to have hit the tree straight, but on the front driver's side (left), so the car turned counter-clockwise a bit to end up sideways. The engine is centered, and just kept going, ripping free. Along with the gearbox, and a bit of the drive shaft.

 

[Ashley]

Check out this video, as listen to the guy at 3:15, he describes what happened. The guy was going incredibly fast, hit a bump, lost control, hit the tree.

that's fast holy shit