Michael Hastings: Unlikely coincidence or conspiracy?

[rorymac]

Your sig is harming your credibility. (The fact that it's misspelled is gold)

Actually your posts are managing that on their own.

[7forever]

Yes, that certainly seems to be "most likely".

Show us how any body was pinned in the car. The dummie is all the way back, head straight up and nothing pinning it in. NO REAL EXTRACTION TOOK PLACE. IT WAS STAGED. And the body of Hastings was only burned from the shoulders up?

After the ferocity of the fire, the witness expected to see a body charred beyond recognition. “What I saw was the full body,” she told Infowars Nightly News, “with a completely burned face, up to say the shoulders. From the shoulders down I saw the whole body, completely intact, not burned in any way.”
She identified the body as a “white guy about 25 to 30… a white young guy… I saw full, white arms.”



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3jrSU0DdU

[7forever]

No, most wackaloons who spend their days yelling at clouds and drinkinf distilled filters agree that it looks a little suspicious.



That looks a little suspicious. THEREFORE MURDER!

How did the engine get down the street?

Was it a bomb, or simply placed there...130 feet southeast of the Mercedes' resting spot? There are few things in this case more absurd than the engine fly-out myth. What a complete farce.

[Canelo Phresh]

MIT proved car hacking has been around. How are the statists stiok arguing against this?

[7forever]

The extreme damage to the car was fabricated (4:38) toward the end of the video. This capture here appears at 4:15, only 24 seconds prior to the fake carnage. The fake damage was produced visually for the video only. The fire is clearly out at this point, which refutes any unfounded excuses for the blown out door just 24 seconds later.

[squealpiggy]

I'm not reading any posts by 7forever.

[squealpiggy]

MIT proved car hacking has been around. How are the statists stiok arguing against this?

Alright, let's just say that this guy really was about to break some embarrassing news about government spying and they really did want to silence him. Why hack his car? Why would you choose that method? There are hundreds of ways of getting rid of the guy much more efficiently and reliably than hacking his car and making it speed. For example stealing his car. That would be a much better way of making sure he was dead. Killed in a carjacking. Or a home invasion. Or a street robbery. That way you could use actual weapons to actually kill him, rather than relying on a car that is designed mainly for keeping the occupants as safe as possible.

Instead of using reliable weapons like shotguns or knives they go with a method that is completely unreliable and very very public. They staged a big crash scene? There was a dummy in the car? They pretended to extract a body? Why would they add all these layers of complication?

It's the same deal as those guys who say a missile hit the Pentagon, not a plane. Why? Why would you bother using a missile? You already had a plane! Or those guys that are saying that the evil west is planning to murder Africans by pretending they are giving an Ebola vaccine. Considering that Ebola has a very high death rate why not just... you know, not use the vaccine at all?

In real life if you want someone whacked and you have unlimited resources to do it then you're putting a bullet in their head, because it's quick and efficient and reliable. The only people who concoct these elaborate schemes are conspiracy fantasists and Batman villains.

[rorymac]

Alright, let's just say that this guy really was about to break some embarrassing news about government spying and they really did want to silence him. Why hack his car? Why would you choose that method? There are hundreds of ways of getting rid of the guy much more efficiently and reliably than hacking his car and making it speed. For example stealing his car. That would be a much better way of making sure he was dead. Killed in a carjacking. Or a home invasion. Or a street robbery. That way you could use actual weapons to actually kill him, rather than relying on a car that is designed mainly for keeping the occupants as safe as possible.

Instead of using reliable weapons like shotguns or knives they go with a method that is completely unreliable and very very public. They staged a big crash scene? There was a dummy in the car? They pretended to extract a body? Why would they add all these layers of complication?

It's the same deal as those guys who say a missile hit the Pentagon, not a plane. Why? Why would you bother using a missile? You already had a plane! Or those guys that are saying that the evil west is planning to murder Africans by pretending they are giving an Ebola vaccine. Considering that Ebola has a very high death rate why not just... you know, not use the vaccine at all?

In real life if you want someone whacked and you have unlimited resources to do it then you're putting a bullet in their head, because it's quick and efficient and reliable. The only people who concoct these elaborate schemes are conspiracy fantasists and Batman villains.

"That's what they want you to think"

[squealpiggy]

"That's what they want you to think"

yes.

There is a CIA department devoted to killing people who are just about to reveal something damning.

Here is a picture:

[squealpiggy]

Ever noticed in these sorts of conspiracy fantasies that the victim is always just about to reveal something? It's always "I have important information that I'm totes giving you tomorrow but I'm being followed and I think I might get murdered" and never "Hi, hope you are well, attached is a file containing lots of evidence the government wants covered up, and in case I'm killed tonight I've also sent it to a hundred major news organisations in a dozen countries"?

Have they never seen a spy thriller?