Jump to content


Spartacus

Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone


341 replies to this topic

#331 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 13 February 2012 - 09:10 PM

Multiple unanswered posts often a sign of denial.


Of course if Fetzer had made “Multiple unanswered posts” your interpretation would have been the opposite, that he’s ‘opponents’ were unable to refute his claims. Evan’s posts were in response to Fetzer’s various fatuous claims in previous posts. Fetzer’s principle claims have all been shown to be false or unconfirmed.

For example he said communications were suddenly cut off as if the radio cut out in the middle of a call but the fact is all expected communications were made except the post flight call to Duluth. Fetzer clarified he meant there was no distress call but they have been several crashes due to stalls with two or more pilots without distress calls and the only person at the Eveleth airport was not in the office at the time.

He claimed it is all but impossible for two “highly qualified” pilots to allow their plane to stall but the truth is both pilots were known for their incompetence and the lead pilot said he had difficulty controlling the type of plane involved in the crash. In any case aviation history is filled with 2 -3 man aircrews far more experienced and qualified than Conry, let alone Guess making similar blunders, (and not making distress calls). I suspect you didn’t even have the patience to read through the thread, I mean why bother, you’d already made up your mind!

Let’s try the following select 1, 2 or 3 of Fetzer’s claims that you think are valid and I’ll show how they’re wrong (normally by pointing previous posts on this thread).

Twisting words and repeating dogma unsubstantiated by fact or reality. Its an addiction for them.


What a perfect description of Fetzer’s behavior

#332 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,981 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 14 February 2012 - 07:42 AM

Lee,

I've shown that Jim's assertions in many aspects of this incident are just plain wrong:

- Weather was not fine
- GPS would have alerted if it was being interfered with
- Safe flight could have still been possible even with a total electrical failure
- There have been numerous instances of experienced crews losing SA during instrument approaches
- One of the most dangerous phases of flight is during the landing, especially in poor to marginal weather conditions

Note that I have not said that his main assertion - that it was an assassination - is wrong, just that the facts do not support that conclusion.

If you can refute any of my posts, please do so.

#333 Mark Wengler

Mark Wengler

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:missouri
  • Interests:Here is a small list to many to list in full
    History's Mysteries
    Paranormal
    Political Assassinations
    Clive Cussler
    Elvis Presley
    Enjoyed being part of the Nuclear Freeze Movement

Posted 14 February 2012 - 08:44 PM

Wellstone's death comes almost two years to the day after a similar plane crash killed another Democratic Senate hopeful,Missouri Govenor, Mel Carnahan. He had defeated John Ashcroft in the contest for Govenor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



might add; Carnahan defeated Ashcroft when he, Carnahan, was DEAD!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Ah yes, thanks david for that reminder, the good people of Missouri ,when faced with the choise, A dead man, or Ashcroft, made the correct call, dead man every time ;) :lol: Pity shrub did'nt get the message,God must have been out that day.

Being from Missouri i can say the people knew who to vote for .

#334 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,981 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 18 February 2012 - 12:51 PM

Lee,

I've shown that Jim's assertions in many aspects of this incident are just plain wrong:

- Weather was not fine
- GPS would have alerted if it was being interfered with
- Safe flight could have still been possible even with a total electrical failure
- There have been numerous instances of experienced crews losing SA during instrument approaches
- One of the most dangerous phases of flight is during the landing, especially in poor to marginal weather conditions

Note that I have not said that his main assertion - that it was an assassination - is wrong, just that the facts do not support that conclusion.

If you can refute any of my posts, please do so.


As I expected, no attempt to refute my facts. Quite typical.

#335 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 18 February 2012 - 01:56 PM

Lee seems to be a pigeon poster

#336 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:21 PM

Today is the 10 anniversary of his death, RIP Paul Wellstone. Some one like him is perhaps more necessary in 2012 than back then. Obama is a faux progressive, he was the real deal. many interesting articles on him and his legacy can be found via Google and Google News

#337 James H. Fetzer

James H. Fetzer

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus,
    University of Minnesota Duluth;
    web site, http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/,
    Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth;
    web site, http://911scholars.org;
    Co-editor (with John Costella), Assassination Research.com, an on-line journal;
    web site, http://assassinationresearch.com;
    Editor, public issues web site: http://assassinationscience.com;
    new blog, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com;
    "The Real Deal",
    archive, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:35 AM

There is a lot of bad data from familiar sources here.

(1) The weather was fine:

Other planes landed there with no problems;

I have photos taken within an hour of the crash;

I was there and the weather was fine for flying;

(2) The pilots were well-qualified:

The principal pilot has an Air Transport license;

He had passed his FAA flight check two days earlier;

The plane only required one pilot and there were two.

(3) The plane was exceptional:

The King Air A-100 is the Rolls Royce of small aircraft;

There were no maintenance problems with the plane;

The NTSB was unable to bring it down in simulations.

For those who care about truth, consider:

"The Sen. Wellstone Assassination"


"The NTSB Failed Wellstone" (with John P. Costella, Ph.D.)
http://www.fromthewi...wellstone.shtml

"WELLSTONE: THEY KILLED HIM" (snowshoefilms)
http://www.wellstonetheykilledhim.com/

#338 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,981 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:30 AM

There is a lot of bad data from familiar sources here.

(1) The weather was fine:

Other planes landed there with no problems;

I have photos taken within an hour of the crash;

I was there and the weather was fine for flying;

No Jim, that is not correct. Let's look at the factual data. From the accident report:

According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records, the pilot called the Princeton Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS) for an abbreviated weather briefing about 0716. The AFSS specialist informed the pilot that AIRMETs [airmens meteorological information] for IFR and icing conditions were current over the entire route. He added that IFR conditions were reported throughout central and northern Minnesota and that cloud conditions near STP were reported as broken between 800 and 1,000 feet and overcast between 1,300 and 1,600 feet. He also stated that cloud conditions at EVM were reported as scattered at 1,000 feet and overcast at 2,000 feet and that visibility was reported as 4 statute miles in light snow. He added that between STP and EVM the cloud ceilings were reported between 300 and 600 feet and visibility was reported as between 1 to 4 statute miles in light snow and mist. The pilot then asked for freezing level information and weather information for DLH in case he had to land there as an alternate to EVM. The AFSS specialist indicated that at that time, DLH was reporting an overcast cloud ceiling of 500 feet and visibility of 2 statute miles in light snow and mist. He added that the terminal forecast indicated an overcast cloud ceiling of 500 to 900 feet and visibility of 1 to 3 statute miles in rain or snow. About 0719, the pilot stated, "you know what[,] I don.t think I.m going to take this flight".

Why would he ask about an alternate if the weather conditions were "fine"? What else was said about the weather?

The other King Air pilot, who had just arrived at STP from the DLH area, indicated that the accident pilot asked him about the weather conditions he had encountered on his flight and then asked him if he would mind sharing this information with the Senator. The other King Air pilot indicated that he told the Senator that the weather was at minimums, but he was sure the pilots could handle the flight.
(emphasis mine)

What about during the flight?

About 1004, the copilot contacted the DLH approach control south radar controller indicating that he had the current EVM weather and that he would like the VOR runway 27 approach. The controller advised, .expect vectors for the approach. The copilot acknowledged the transmission. About 1006, the controller asked the flight crew what they intended to do in the event of a missed approach. The pilot responded, "Well let.s hope we don't have that; if we do have a missed approach we'll go up and circle and figure this out[;] I'll hold at the VOR..."

A lot of concern shown by both controllers and flight crew when you claim the weather was "fine". Now lets look at the instrument approach plate for the VOR:

Attached File  approach plate.jpg   83.7KB   0 downloads

That tells us that the minima for the approach was 1840 feet AMSL, or 471 feet AGL. If they were not visual by that time, a missed approach is mandatory. What were the actual conditions?

The 0954 weather observation from the automated weather observing system (AWOS)-3, which is located at EVM about 2 miles northwest from the accident site, included a reported visibility of 2 1/2 statute miles in light snow and a sky condition of 400 feet scattered, 700 feet overcast. Visibility of 1 statute mile was required to execute the VOR runway 27 approach.

So they were breaking out from OVERCAST at 700 feet AGL, giving them just 229 feet to visually aquire the runway and make a decision to land. At a recorded descent rate of 1400 feet per minute, that is just 10 seconds. And remember it was SCATTERED at 400 feet AGL so there was a good chance they may not have been visual at 700 feet nor at the MDA of 471 feet. Thatb is quite probable considering that at 1034, just over 10 mins after the accident the AWOS was reporting overcast at 400 feet AGL!

No Jim, the facts show that the weather was FAR from fine.

Edited by Evan Burton, 08 December 2012 - 10:57 AM.


#339 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,981 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:47 AM

(2) The pilots were well-qualified:

The principal pilot has an Air Transport license;

He had passed his FAA flight check two days earlier;

The plane only required one pilot and there were two.


Well, there was some doubt regarding his competence regarding instrument flight however you are correct: they were qualified and current for the flight.

That being said, numerous other qualified, current and experienced crews have made fatal errors.

#340 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,981 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 08 December 2012 - 11:22 AM

(3) The plane was exceptional:

The King Air A-100 is the Rolls Royce of small aircraft;

There were no maintenance problems with the plane;


I disagree with what I consider to be your overly generous praise for the aircraft, but I don't disagree that the King Airs are a good aircraft with a good reputation.

But so what? Is it your contention that if I was driving a Rolls Royce and was involved in a car accident, I could not possibly be at fault because I was driving a Rolls? Is it your contention that it is impossible to mishandle a good aircraft?


The NTSB was unable to bring it down in simulations.


No. Again that is just plain wrong and quite misleading. Once more from the accident report:

Safety Board investigators also planned and executed flight simulations at Flight Safety International (FSI) using a King Air C90B simulator.

These simulator tests were conducted to determine whether the airplane's flightpath and time histories, as shown by the radar data during the final approach, could be matched or approximated with and without simulated airframe icing and which configurations and control inputs were required to match the data. To conduct the test, the accident airplane.s weight and CG values (about 10,500 pounds and 184 inches, respectively) were scaled to equivalent values for the C90B.

Several tests were performed starting at 3,500 feet and descending to 1,800 feet to try to match the final approach descent of the accident airplane as shown by the radar data. An additional test was conducted starting at 13,000 feet and descending to 3,500 feet as the airplane was vectored onto the approach course. For simulation purposes, the airplane.s descent from 3,500 feet was broken down into three time periods, each with linear approximations of vertical speed and airspeed decay based on the radar data. During the tests, the landing gear was extended just after the airspeed decreased below the maximum gear extension speed of 156 KCAS, which occurred as the accident airplane was descending through 2,200 feet. Various engine power and pitch control inputs and simulated icing effects were used to try to match the radar data.

The tests conducted without simulated airframe icing showed that the flightpath and speed of the accident airplane, as indicated by the radar data, could be reasonably matched making minor pitch control inputs and engine power reductions. The stall warning occurred during these tests between 81 and 84 KCAS. During the tests, increasing the power quickly resulted in an increase in airspeed and no further stall warnings.

The tests conducted with light to moderate simulated airframe icing showed that the flightpath and speed of the airplane, as indicated by the radar data, could also be reasonably matched.

However, occasional use of the deicer boots was required, and the engine power settings were significantly higher between the boot cycles than they were during the tests conducted without simulated airframe icing. Tests conducted with heavy icing required frequent cycling of the deicer boots, and the engine power settings often exceeded the power limits shown on the cockpit gauges.


(Emphasis mine)

#341 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:10 PM

There is a lot of bad data from familiar sources here.

(1) The weather was fine:

Other planes landed there with no problems;

I have photos taken within an hour of the crash;



I assume northern Minnesota is like most parts of the world and the weather can change fairly quickly and IIRC the photo was taken a few miles away and at ground level, i.e. not the altitude the plane was at. The weather was bad enough to have reduced visibility. The fact that one of the pilots clicked on the runway lights indicates they were having difficulty locating the airport.


I was there and the weather was fine for flying;



No you were over 40 miles away in Duluth which is right on Lake Superior, while Eveleth is about 40 miles inland, you do know the weather tends to be milder near large bodies of water don’t you? In any case your recollections 10 years after the fact are trumped by contemporaneous weather reports. You're not even a pilot.


(2) The pilots were well-qualified:

The principal pilot has an Air Transport license;


No they held the minimum requirements for their positions. Though not required by the FAA in the real world an ATP certificate is necessary to work as a pilot-in-command (PIC) and the FAA requires at least a Commercial certificate for all paid pilots.

http://www.curtisaviationservices.com/Airline-Transport-Pilot.html


The pilot-in-command of the plane that carried Sen. Paul Wellstone to his death exaggerated his flying experience by telling managers at Executive Aviation that he had 400 to 500 hours of prime experience at a major commuter airline, American Eagle.


An aviation official with knowledge of Richard Conry's history at American Eagle told the Star Tribune on Friday that Conry only trained there. Conry never was named a first officer or co-pilot at the airline and never flew a passenger flight at American Eagle, the official said.


http://www.startribu...ry?sid=11577931

“The pilot’s logbook also indicated that he had flown four revenue service flights as a first officer [co-pilot] for Simmons [American Eagle] on January 29 and 30, 1990 (a total of 4.5 hours).” But he was know to have doctored his logs.

He also told the FAA and Executive Aviation he had “4,518 total [flight] hours.” When in reality he had at most 3058 hours, it is impossible to tell how many he had because the convicted conman doctored his logbooks then falsely claimed in a notarized statement he had lost them. All this indicates he felt he was not sufficiently qualified to get hired by the company. He was right “Executive Aviation owner Roger Wikner said in an interview that…he never would have hired Conry if he knew the pilot had a felony conviction and less flying experience than he claimed.”

http://www.ntsb.gov/...003/AAR0303.pdf pg. 12
http://www.startribu...ry?sid=11577931


Adapted from Wikipedia, with citations:

Other pilots at the charter company told NTSB that pilot Richard Conry and first officer (co-pilot) Michael Guess both displayed below average flying skills. Conry had a well-known tendency to allow co-pilots to take over all functions of the aircraft as if they were the sole pilot during flights; though he operated the radios he let the co-pilots fly all six of his flight legs in the 72 hours preceding the crash. After the crash, three copilots told of occasions in which they had to take control of the aircraft away from Conry. After one of those incidents, only three days before the crash, the co-pilot (not Guess) had urged Conry to retire. In a post-accident interview Timothy Cooney, Conroy's longtime friend and fellow aviator who last spoke to him in June said that Conroy expressed concerns about flying King Airs as late as April of that year, eighteen months before the accident. Significant discrepancies were also found in the captain's flight logs in the course of the post-accident investigation indicating he had probably greatly exaggerated his flying experience, most of which had been accrued before a 11 year hiatus from flying due to a fraud conviction and poor eyesight. In 2001, he had Lasik surgery but it only improved his vision to 20/50, 20/30 and he was required by FAA regulations to wear corrective lenses; however, the pilot's wife and Timothy Cooney said he did not wear lenses after the surgery. The coroner who examined his badly burned body was unable to determine if he was wearing contacts at the time of the crash.


Guess was cited by co-workers as having to be consistently reminded to keep his hand on the throttle and maintain airspeed during approaches. He had two previous piloting jobs: one with Skydive Hutchinson as a pilot (1988–1989), and another with Northwest Airlines as a trainee instructor (1999). However, he was dismissed from both jobs for lack of ability. Conry's widow told the NTSB that her husband told her “the other pilots thought Guess was not a good pilot.”


http://en.wikipedia....Wellstone#Death

I’ve mentioned several crashes on this thread were flight crews far more qualified than Conry and Guess crashed due to gross blunders. Just a few:

http://www.check-six...Shiga-SFBay.htm
http://en.wikipedia....se_of_the_crash
http://en.wikipedia....d_investigation
http://en.wikipedia....7#Investigation



He had passed his FAA flight check two days earlier;



During the flight check "The chief pilot stated that after the simulated engine failure, he told the pilot to pick up the pace and to feather the engine .a couple of seconds faster for comfort." pg 11 (23) i.e. that he was not flying fast enough out of a situation similar to a stall!!” And all professional pilots who crashed did so within 6 months of a flight check.


The plane only required one pilot and there were two.





Not especially helpful if both were incompetent. The charter company’s insurance company required this after a previous crash in which a King Air stalled and crashed in poor weather because the pilot could not find the airport.



(3) The plane was exceptional:

The King Air A-100 is the Rolls Royce of small aircraft;





Not relevant as Evan pointed out especially since Conry had trouble flying them.

There were no maintenance problems with the plane;

Strawman, no one said there were.


The NTSB was unable to bring it down in simulations.

Not true, as Evan pointed out they were not trying to.

#342 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 29 May 2013 - 05:46 PM

Herr Fetzer is now an out and out, loud and proud Holocaust denier:

 

http://educationforu...showtopic=20229





Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users