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

reply to post by miner49r


What do you make of the engine being out of the car at a point before impact? Maybe a mistake?

WanDash and I hashed the dynamics last night and we I believe we pretty well came to a consensus that the engine was ejected upon impact with the tree. (Correct me if I am wrong Wan)

In a similar demonstration of the crash test video submitted by JBA2848 it looks to have been a drivers side front quarter impact. The engine was ejected into the on coming lane while the vehicle nosed down and tail up caving the roof.

From there the vehicle spun around the tree and came to rest in the opposing lane giving the initial appearance that the engine was behind the vehicle.

reply to post by miner49r


The reporter said 150 to 200ft away from the car. I know that must be confirmed but if its anywhere near a close number.....then we have a problem Houston. She said the engine was down the road in the direction that the car had been coming from. There may have been some sort of mix up because there is simply know way nthis impact is going to toss the drive train backwards.

As well and although 150ft sounds like a long way it is well within distance of an explosion and the point that the out of control car made impact. The car may have lifted....the explosion pushing the car up and the engine down with one factor being back pressure from the engine compartment....the lift to clear the engine would have to be only 3 feet....150ft is no distance at all to cover without rolling if the car had been airborne if only a few feet for about 50 to say 100 feet of that distance.

Just looking at it.

Originally posted by miner49r
WanDash and I hashed the dynamics last night and we I believe we pretty well came to a consensus that the engine was ejected upon impact with the tree. (Correct me if I am wrong Wan)

In a similar demonstration of the crash test video submitted by JBA2848 it looks to have been a drivers side front quarter impact. The engine was ejected into the on coming lane while the vehicle nosed down and tail up caving the roof.

From there the vehicle spun around the tree and came to rest in the opposing lane giving the initial appearance that the engine was behind the vehicle.

Interestingly - one of the photos you posted (with the officers viewing the burned vehicle in daylight...and a long row of palm trees stretching endlessly into the horizon) is one of the first that was published (from the LA Times)...and it was massively photo-shopped... There is no such string of palms on that block of North Highland Avenue... You may find an adequate grouping of them another block or more, south...but, again - why did they "change the location of the accident" in that photo?

I cannot give a sure answer on the angle of impact... By where the engine/tranny came to rest, I'm thinking there the angle to have been between 15 and 40 degrees...and that the nose of the car did not hit the tree dead-center, but rather off-center, in favor of the driver's side.
In the crash test video, during the 50 mph collision, you can see some buckling of the driver's side panels (perhaps all the way to the rear quarter-panel)...but they do not show the passenger's side in the same detail, and I could not determine if any such buckling occurred as a result, there.

As to the resting (burning) position of the car... It remained on the same side of the road as it had been travelling. There was not a lot of "swing". If it hit the tree at 30 degrees, it swung no more than 60 degrees, as it remained on the same side of the street (evident from the video as the "Jewish" gentleman is attempting to calm the blaze).
The palm tree stands in the median in front of the house belonging to the neighbor of the "Jewish" gentleman...and they both reside on the West side of North Highlands'.

The article you posted (from yesterday) appears to have been taken directly from the aired report that started this thread...and...she removed any mention of the engine/tranny ending up "behind" the vehicle...and anything related to that part of the story (such as what the Professor had said in relation to such an "odd' fact).

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by GrantedBail

 

She mentioned that they were told Not to comment about the investigation and that is probably because they want to make sure all of the facts are in before they do so. It is not that they are hiding something but rather want to be certain on the facts. The "Extremely Hot Fire": that she mentioned could have been attributed to the fact that the tires were burning. It takes a 400 degree ignition source to get rubber tires to burn, but when they do they burn hot. Watch the video and look at the tires. If you notice the brightest orange areas are around the tires. Like she said about the engine and tranny according to the physics professors the engine typically would go forward with the momentum. Which it did Until it was acted on by the tree and then due to a ricochet was Launched to behind the car. Make note that when something ricochets it accelerates. It is interesting the First possibility she mentions is that he could have been drinking and driving because he was near the clubs on Sunset Boulevard. The second thing she mentioned was that the car could have malfunctioned and then follows that up with something could have been on the car that Triggered the explosion. AND, most certainly Mercedes is going to say that their cars just don't blow up because that would then be a liability issue. Also that report came out from Washington University NOT San Diego. Plus the fact that the report she mentions was the first report saying that they had to be physically connected to it to have control and she never mentioned that part. In her closing statement she said that the LAPD has ruled foul play out of the equation.

If you did or didn't notice she was very careful about what she said. At frame 2:36 she caught herself and corrected about possibilities Not possibility. Kind of like she was going to say something and then changed her mind.

I do think it is fair to mention that she did indicate 2 possible factors: Drinking and Mechanical Failure but as she mentioned it is still to early to know until they release the official reports

lol, copying and pasting stuff you said to me in another thread?

wow....

i answered this exact post here...

reply to post by WanDash


I think at this point that "Sweet Spot" theory we talked about seems a little more attractive.

I had also calculated the least believable figure when I calculated the force. So instead of 60mph at the impact it could have been maybe 80mph after bottoming out and jumping the curb.

If that was the case it might come out to over 700tons of force. Couple that with the loss of force to break the engine and tranny loose and the difference would be what was left to actually eject it.

After looking at the pictures several different times it does appear that the car did wrap around to the right side of the tree. But, the engine would have had to eject on the initial impact.

I was trying to run that through my mind. As far as the car wrapping around the tree in that direction and the engine ejecting at the same time. It is maybe a little bit of a reach but mathematically possible.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by miner49r

 

The reporter said 150 to 200ft away from the car. I know that must be confirmed but if its anywhere near a close number.....then we have a problem Houston. She said the engine was down the road in the direction that the car had been coming from. There may have been some sort of mix up because there is simply know way nthis impact is going to toss the drive train backwards.

As well and although 150ft sounds like a long way it is well within distance of an explosion and the point that the out of control car made impact. The car may have lifted....the explosion pushing the car up and the engine down with one factor being back pressure from the engine compartment....the lift to clear the engine would have to be only 3 feet....150ft is no distance at all to cover without rolling if the car had been airborne if only a few feet for about 50 to say 100 feet of that distance.

Just looking at it.

Hi Logarock -
The reporter was in error about the location of the engine/tranny.
You can verify that the engine transmission came to rest on the west side of the street almost at the end of this block (just short of where Clinton Street intersects with North Highland'). On one of the two previous pages, I posted pictures that might help in seeing the same.
The pic' below, is from Google Maps (Street View)... This is taken on the south-bound side (or - the west side) of North Highland Avenue.
Red arrow and lines = the fateful palm
Bluish arrow and lines = where the man was standing, watering the burning car
Yellow arrow & rectangle = where the engine came to rest



Bigger picture - files.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Daedalus

perhaps you would like to read the rest of, and then weigh in further on this thread

 

Why would I? You two have absolutely destroyed that thread. The OP claims to care about "facts" but riddled the entire thread with subjective opinions.

It might be a fact, that the person in question had substance problems years back, but that means nothing related to this case. Unless a tox report comes back saying he was seeing purple elephants at the time of the crash. (and even that, doesn't entirely explain everything) In fact, that poster and how he brings it up has nothing to do with fact, it's all subjective opinion.

The substance use is a fact. If you think it made him crash a car, that's opinion. And not necessarily backed by fact, 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5.

He got a DUI in the past? Fine. Did it cause an accident? Lets say yes.
He got an accident and a DUI? Okay.
Is he still consuming ______ , was he before he was driving? Dont know?

Doesn't mean anything

-

You have to be able to answer all those questions before making an opinion based on fact. The rest is just a subjective attempt at drawing your own feelings for other people.

In other words, let's take another example,

you could have someone who got 20 DUIs before, no accidents? No, none. That would show they are more inclined not to get in accidents when they drink and drive compared to someone who got in 5 but never had a DUI.. etc, etc.





You're only making it worse because you keep entertaining the OP in that thread. I lost interest ages ago when you all start arguing the same stupid points over and over.


OP Titled "Let's discuss the facts" > All facts thrown out window. -facepalm-

edit on 8-7-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

hahahaha, yeah, you're kinda right....i see it as an intellectual exercise...it is getting boring though...

and a simple facepalm is absolutely not good enough...you need one of these, my friend..

reply to post by WanDash


Are you still able to produce the picture with the scrape marks?

I might just go ahead and try to calculate that.

reply to post by WanDash


Awesome representation and diagram

But, ... there is one fact that still remains that bothers the heck out of me. The severed erroneous hydrant or water main or whatever it is in the video.

It is clearly out of the line of travel yet it was severed. it can be seen a few times in the raw video.

reply to post by miner49r



EDIT:

I had not noticed the water shooting up from the ground before.

I had seen that video many times.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by WanDash

 

Are you still able to produce the picture with the scrape marks?

I might just go ahead and try to calculate that.

Here's the smaller version...



Here's the larger version.
I haven't touched it up...so you can make your own determination/s on the length. I'm hoping the inscriptions don't interfere too much - but they may.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by miner49r


Didn't that witness say the car was bouncing before impact? It looks to me like he also said the car was on fire before impact.

I looked on......there is also a debris field before the impact, looks like at least 100 ft and that motor is way back of the car! This is going to have to be explained.

reply to post by Logarock


The lady who declined to give her statement or name said it blew up on impact

Originally posted by miner49r
reply to post by WanDash

 

...But, ... there is one fact that still remains that bothers the heck out of me. The severed erroneous hydrant or water main or whatever it is in the video.

It is clearly out of the line of travel yet it was severed. it can be seen a few times in the raw video.
...

I agree. That has bothered me since realizing it wasn't a hydrant.
It seems that it could be (a) evidence of some kind of impact (with the car) prior to the car striking the tree (though, I don't think that is the most likely explanation), (b) the result of the car's shrapnel, or (c) another explanation.
Interesting that the local residents (or - some of them) believed they heard "explosions".
I do not believe there was a missile strike...but have not ruled-out the possibility of something on-board that would ensure the fiery fiasco.

Originally posted by WanDash

Hi Logarock -
The reporter was in error about the location of the engine/tranny.
You can verify that the engine transmission came to rest on the west side of the street almost at the end of this block (just short of where Clinton Street intersects with North Highland'). On one of the two previous pages, I posted pictures that might help in seeing the same.
The pic' below, is from Google Maps (Street View)... This is taken on the south-bound side (or - the west side) of North Highland Avenue.
Red arrow and lines = the fateful palm
Bluish arrow and lines = where the man was standing, watering the burning car
Yellow arrow & rectangle = where the engine came to rest



Bigger picture - files.abovetopsecret.com...


I am going to disagree based on the location of the witness to the car and the direction he was pointing to indicate the driver was having some problems. According to the witness location the yellow mark marks the spot the motor came out and that the driver was coming from that direction. Same with the debris field. The debris field follows the direction that the car was coming from and not parts tossed forward by impact.

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.

reply to post by WanDash


I agree... no missiles. Possibly something on board...maybe.

I am going back to street view and see if I can make sense out of the water plume and directions. I don't mean to doubt your layouts, but something still does not add up.

Reaching here, ....but was he on the wrong side of the road, crossed the median hit the tree and spun? This may be a good topic for an investigative thread of it's own.

reply to post by WanDash


2 Problems I just discovered.

1. there shoukd be 2 sets if scrape marks,
2. My reference that I was going to use for the measurement is Gone. IE. . I went out to the reod to measure the center line.. . and. .. . there are no lines period. Since I live out in the middle of no where there is no need for one I guess.

Boy. . how have I never noticed that in the last 15 years.

If we can get both sets of scrapes I might try to make a Scientific Wild Ass Guess.

reply to post by miner49r

I was stopped at the light at Santa Monica [Boulevard], headed south on Highland [Avenue]. I looked down to turn my radio down, and this car just blasted past me through the red light—it shook my car. No telling how fast the driver was going. A taxi driver was in the far right lane and we looked at each other, both saying, "What the hell was that?"... By the time the light changed, I could only see the tail lights of the white Mercedes—it was probably past Willoughby by then which was the next red light that I got stopped at.

The Mercedes was flying down Highland. The same cab driver pulled up to the light at Willoughby [Avenue] and I looked over at him again in disbelief. Right as I did, the cab driver said something to the effect of, "He didn't make it." The [Mercedes] was all the way south of Melrose [Avenue] at this point. I looked down Highland and saw a giant fireball at the base of one of the palms that line the medians on Highland. It was surreal. Even from as far away as I was, I could see how violent an impact it had been. I live in the area so parked near my place and sprinted over the the scene of the accident. As I was running, a couple of workers from the service station at the corner of Melrose and Highland were also running over.

In broken English, one of them and I traded stories of what we saw as we ran. From what I could understand, he saw the car come off the ground at some point—maybe when [it] crossed Melrose.

A Hancock Park resident was already spraying the car with his water hose when we got to it, but wasn't making any progress. The car was engulfed. I couldn't see inside it. Fire trucks and police cars were at the scene almost immediately, it seemed.

I stayed and watched firefighters extinguish the the blaze. Bummed a cigarette from a guy named Jeremy and traded stories about what we saw. He was right around Melrose and Highland when it happened. I gave a statement to police and walked home.

Witness Account

This is the statement of the witness that setting at the light about a 1/4 mile from the crash. It might shed some light.