1. There is no impact damage to this car. The only damage there is BLOWN OUT in the back, not smashed in the front and it obviously missed the tree as it rolled to a stop. The front bumper is obscured by the tree, all the way to the tire, OOPS! .
2. This was a Mercedes, not a Pinto, which means it did not burst into flames on its own. One (seldom quoted) eyewitness said the car "exploded". Interesting stuff.
3. Here is where it starts to get REALLY damning - LOOK AT THE FRONT PASSENGER DOOR. The paint is PERFECT yet the entire car is ablaze. This means that whoever photographed this was on scene right away, with a camera ready to film this in the wee hours of the morning, and nail it before the fire scorched the paint. HMMMMMM . . . . . .
4. Unlike what the so called single "eyewitness" report says about a high speed crash, the car did not impact a tree. The car did not impact ANYTHING. Look at where the car stopped. The car went off the road at a few miles an hour and missed the tree as it rolled to a stop.
5. There is no damage to the front of the car, it has no frontal impact damage AT ALL, it is blown out in the back and not crunched in from the front. HOW ON EARTH DID THAT BLOWN OUT BACK END HAPPEN?
Here we have a car FULLY, and I mean FULLY in flames, from front to back, with NO SCORCHED PAINT because the flame is too new, which means the flame went from the back of the car to the front of the car instantaneously, at the same time it breached the floor and engulfed the passenger compartment before it had a chance to scorch anything, which means ONE THING - A BOMB ON THE GAS TANK, and a PHOTOGRAPHER READY TO SNAP THE PHOTO VERY EARLY ON. Even rapid car fires take time to progress through the car, and totally scorch the paint as they progress. Only a bomb could have blown gas through the floor to the inside of the passenger compartment and under the car all the way to the front of the engine compartment and lit the whole thing up at once. That's the only explanation for the shiny paint while it sits completely engulfed in flames. That flame did not progress through that car, it was blown through it with force and the photographer was on the scene the moment it happened and bagged a perfect shot. I'd like to know how that happened - early morning walk?
"For all 3 of those normal reasons, which account for virtually all car fires in modern cars, the fire would have started in the engine compartment, progressed slowly, and scorched the hell out of the paint before ever reaching the gas tank. That clean paint is the be all tell all, Michael Hastings was murdered, and the rest is detail."
UPDATE: Accident scenes switched. They swapped cars and locations to hide explosive damage, PROOF IS BELOW
UPDATE: It seems to me that Hastings may have been dead, his car parked there, and then blown up with him in it. This is because the flames are way too fresh for the car to have been there long, there is no impact damage where the car "struck the tree" to cause a gas tank explosion, and there are no flames on the road behind the car to indicate it was blown up while it was moving.
This appears to be a classic mafia hit, where you are killed and then burned in a car to hide the evidence. In this case, they obviously used a bomb to blow the gas tank as evidenced by the fact that the rear portion of the car is blown open and shredded with the rest of the car nicely intact, read the initial analysis below. And obviously, there was no high speed crash as reported by the lie factory. I will be working on this throughout the day.
It was perfect to have this happen on a late late Tuesday night, the quietest night of the week, one so quiet that many restaurants will not open. This would have helped ensure a proper setup with few witnesses.
Luther Blissett » Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:29 am wrote:Some of the big hits on Rigorous Intuition for Hastings:
CIA's Hollywood Coup
from the Petraeus thread, linked by seemslikeadream.
American Auschwitz in Kabul
Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban
And of course myriad McChrystal sources.
My girlfriend seems to think this is a warning shot, and possibly could be meant to chill Scahill since they were just physically in the same space just before the accident. I think that the atmosphere in America is kinetic if enough people were to be exposed to just the right combination of information post-PRISM. I just watched "Dirty Wars" last night right before finding out about Hastings' death and feel quite angry.
justdrew » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:15 pm wrote:
He announced an ambitious new plan for serious national service. The plan—the Franklin Project
Jerky » Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:33 pm wrote:What's the Greenwald hint?
divideandconquer » 19 Jun 2013 18:58 wrote:This guy has an interesting take. http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/hastingsmurdered.html
8bitagent wrote:My girlfriend seems to think this is a warning shot, and possibly could be meant to chill Scahill since they were just physically in the same space just before the accident. I think that the atmosphere in America is kinetic if enough people were to be exposed to just the right combination of information post-PRISM. I just watched "Dirty Wars" last night right before finding out about Hastings' death and feel quite angry.
JackRiddler » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:20 pm wrote:8bitagent wrote:My girlfriend seems to think this is a warning shot, and possibly could be meant to chill Scahill since they were just physically in the same space just before the accident. I think that the atmosphere in America is kinetic if enough people were to be exposed to just the right combination of information post-PRISM. I just watched "Dirty Wars" last night right before finding out about Hastings' death and feel quite angry.
Chill Scahill? If they wanted to, they could have killed Scahill, right? I'd think, and again I suppose accident isn't ruled out, that the idea is to chill Hastings. Or get revenge for something pretty fucking obvious he put over on Commander Deathsquad himself.
JackRiddler » Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:16 am wrote:divideandconquer, Stone's piece reads almost like he wants to muddy the waters with exaggerations (INTACT I TELL YOU!), fake incredulity (how could someone immediately be on the scene with a camera in 2013?!), laughable remote forensics of low-res images, unreal hypotheses and - a real red flag - immediately casting suspicion on an eyewitness. Moved the accident?! Whether it's a know-it-all's compulsion or intentional disinfo: it's a poison pill worthy of a 9/11 no-plane or "vicsim" scenario. (To play for a moment by the same rules: How could someone immediately publish this?! He must be pre-placed controlled opposition!)
This is a highly suspicious death with no need for fanciful garnish.
I don't know enough to know how farfetched this claim really is, but it certainly sounds a little strange."all the supercomputers that have been purchased by various intelligence agencies are likely not for snooping. They are for faking a completely alternate internet universe, to cause people to not see the world as it really is."
KeenInsight » Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:38 am wrote:Well, its not like its impossible.
I talk about JFK, a lot, but seriously even back 40+ years ago if someone had to be snuffed out, its what they did. Getting away with such a thing is mere child play's in this day and age.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests