From here:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fatal-...7568330046.html



A tremendous stuff-up, and one that could have had fatal consequences.

Now let's change the story a little bit. Let's say some persons were killed. A pressurisation seal on a bizjet fails. The crew and pax go onto emergency O2 - only it is nitrogen. They pass out, the aircraft crashes. Someone says it was the deliberate killing of one of the pax. The accident report shows an inspection was missed on the seal, and how N was mistakenly put into the O2 tanks. Some people would say "Impossible! The tanks are coloured differently, they use different fittings, etc. Impossible - it could never happen. It was foul play."

The thing is, we now have a situation where a potentially fatal accident occurred.

Now, apply the same thing to "evidence" regarding other 'conspiracies'. There are probably at least 2 or 3 that have mundane explanations... if you were to accept that accidents do happen.

Something to think about.

I cannot think of a single conspiracy theory which can be the result
of an "accident"...unless you consider Chapaquiddik an "accident".
If you do, you have not studied the evidence.

I suppose you think Lee Harvey Oswald ACCIDENTALLY fired three
shots from the TSBD, killing JFK. Even if you deny the truth of
911, how can you consider it an accident. Was the OKCity bombing
an accident?

Please give specific examples of "accidental" conspiracy theories.

Jack

Evan,

Please enjoy the following homage to your all-too-common brand of logic.

A flea trainer had trained a flea to fly upon command.

"Fly, flea," he'd say, and the flea would fly.

Then one day he cut off the flea's wings.

"Fly, flea," he said, but the flea did not fly.

That night, the flea trainer made the following entry in his journal:

"When one cuts the wings off a flea, the flea becomes deaf."

Charles

Certainly.

Your associate, and fellow Forum member, Dr (or is it Prof? please excuse if I mistake the correct title) James Fetzer, claims that the aircraft crash - in which Sen. Wellstone was a passenger - was brought about by some NAVAID-interrupting beam, possibly a 'death ray' of some description, or sabotage to the aircraft systems. He disregards the numerous examples of CFIT that preceded the accident. There is a thread on this debate:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;hl=wellstone

That's one.

I see your point, Charles, but I think that perhaps you are failing to recognise mine:

Not ALL accidents are conspiracies. If you have further supporting evidence, then indeed the 'accident' may be anything but... yet you have to demonstrate there is sufficient reason to hold this view.

There's something disturbing about the example you have given, Evan. (looking back on CAA history et.c.). How could 'trained' staff not question fittings? It's like a page out of 'the manual' of protocol has been torn out and a problem exists that may be systemic. IOW not as singularly (150+ tmes) 'accidental' as Quantas would like it to be thought of. Perhaps more a matter of significant neglect due to relaxed standards, and therefore other arenas are implicated and consequently it is in a sense a result of a 'conspiracy', but one that is removed from this particular event? What has happened to the 'whistle blower' in this case? Where today? Doing what?

There is also Quantas record to comsider re safety, add to that the opening up of the domestic/international competition. Sabotage? Staged event to arouse the 'war on terror'? Terrorism? Laxity or ignorance as a result of systemic problems?

That's an excellent question, John, and one which I ask myself often when reading Air Safety Occurrence Reports (ASORs). I see mistakes that simply should not happen - but they do. We can try to educate people, we put checks and double checks into place, we charge people who make deliberate violations of rules.... but it still happens.

There are manuals which tell you how to carry out a procedure (many in the Navy field are my personal responsibility). Sometimes there are mistakes; people lodge forms to alert us to those mistakes. Yet sometimes people disregard the procedures... because they "know better" or have been taught a "short cut".

Is it systemic? Probably. Are the organisations (ADF, civil airlines, etc) working to fix it? Yep. The RAN has a programme in place trying to get people to stop if they think something is amiss, providing avenues for people to alert command of they think shortcuts are being taken. Some may think this is just window dressing, and I don't blame them - but as a member of the team who tries to combat this, let me tell you: we want people to work smart but work to standards; not take shortcuts which appear okay but endanger lives. The loss of experienced crews (forget the PR aspect) is unacceptable.

Sorry for the rant but it is an area which I have personal involvement.

But Evan, with the greatest respect in the world, you're the one here who is theoretically trying to conflate all accidents with conspiracies.

Not all conspiraciy theories are conspiracy facts. Not all accidents and incidents are innocent accidents or incidents.

There's no accounting for the mad *ssholes (and fame seekers) of the world, but the interest of intelligent people are triggered on a case by case basis and then they seek underlying reasons, motives and tell-tale anomalies.

Jack must have been joking other cases include

American flight 587
TWA 800
United 553 (the one Howard Hunt’s wife was on)
The JFK jr. crash (odd that Jack would have forgotten this one since he posted a link to an article saying it wasn’t an accident)
The Cory Lidle (NY Yankee pitcher) crash
The disappearance and presumed crash of the plane Hale Boggs and Nick Begich were on.
The (car) crash that killed Karen Silkwood (even I’m suspicious of this one).
The (car) crash that killed the west coast editor of Aviation Week
The microbiologist who supposedly fell off a bridge in Tennessee (and the death of several other scientists)
The recent incident in which nuclear warheads were transported ‘unsecured’ by the USAF

Those a re just a few I cite off the top of my head presumablly there are many more

Perhaps a litmus test in this instance is answers to : What has happened to the 'whistle blower' (or 'doing the right thing'er) in this case? Where today? Doing what?

One could argue this person should have a promotion in the right direction, ie., for example, broad supervisory role re safety regualtion enforcement. Has he been sacked, resigned, shifted, shuffled or what?

The bridge collapse in Minnesota last year. There was a thread on here postulating some theories, when in fact it was an accident brought on by crumbling infrastructure- an accident which may become more and more common as the years go on.

The explosion of "Apollo 1" the problems with "Apollo 13", the explosion of the Challenger, and the crashes that killed John Heinz, Mel Carnahan, Jerry Litton, Trujillo (sp?), Ron Brown, and John Tower. It's been claimed that KAL 007 didn't accidentally fly into Soviet airspace etc etc.

They have been literally dozens of incidents that are classified as accidents about which conspiracy theories exist, Jack's inability to remember any is a bit bizarre.

The death of Senator John Tower remains of interest:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...art=#entry22809

Probably the wrong thread to go into this, but I heard some interesting talk about background events that Tower was involved with just prior to his death that was said to relate to his desire to get even with Bush for not supporting his nomination to SecDef.

Some of these other cases are quite interesting, but I'd just like to iterate my point: sometimes unusual events happen without there being any nefarious cause. Just because an unusual event happens - in any field, be it aviation, production, etc - it does not automatically mean that there are suspicious circumstances regarding that event. There may well be, and it may warrant further investigation, but the event itself is not a priori evidence of subterfuge. That's because sometimes mistakes DO happen.

Of course.

But conspiracies happen, too.

So we are obliged by the nobility inferred upon us by all we have learned (at hideous costs) about deep political structures, goals, and methods to evaluate a wide range of "unusual events" with the specialist's tools we've mastered.

It is just as valid to investigate, say, the crash of JFK Jr.'s plane by utilizing deep political analyses as it is to conduct scientific investigations of possible mechanical or "innocent" causes.

Why, in my example, the death of Mr. Kennedy the younger? Because the natures of his politics, interests, and family affiliation clearly were inimical to forces that have the demonstrated means, motives, and willingness to eliminate their enemies by, among other means, staging "accidents."

In our world, under certain circumstances it must be "guilty until proven otherwise."

I don't know why or how JFK Jr.'s plane was lost. I strongly suspect foul play, and there exists disturbing circumstantial, eyewitness, earwitness, and material evidence (some publicly available, some, alas, not) to support my suspicions.

But I am not prepared to state that, to the degree of metaphysical certitude, John Kennedy, Jr., his wife, and his sister-in-law were murdered.

Although it sure looks that way.

Charles

Exactly, Charles. I did not include many other "official accidents" because having
studied the facts, I believe NONE OF THEM COULD POSSIBLY BE ACCIDENTS. I might
concede a few suspicious "accidents" when there is zero evidence to the contrary.
It is a given to me that virtually all official stories of accidents are suspect until
proved otherwise. I know of no prominent case where an accidental cause has
been proved, just declared. A few are suspicious, but nothing can be proved either way.
For instance I have no proof that some highly suspicious plane crashes are not accidents,
so I have to concede some such as Tower, Heinz, and Boggs may be accidents, in the absence
of evidence.

Jack

That poses a problem because some people will simply disregard the proof! It might be proof that stands up in a court of law, proof that is agreed upon by all the experts in the world, proof that nothing else could possibly have happened.... but there are in some cases who simply will not accept ANY proof, no matter the standard. They have their opinion, and they are sticking to it no matter what.

Of course.

But intelligence operations, by their very nature, provide "proof" for alternative, innocent scenarios that is supported only by that classic fallacy, the argument from false authority.

Example: The "government" has provided "proof" that JFK was the victim of a lone nut. And so it must be true.

That "argument" was unsustainable from literally day one because its officially manufactured "proof" was and is demonstrably (through rigorous, unbiased applications of the scientific method) invalid, and because evidence for conspiracy in the death of JFK was and is demonstrably (through rigorous, unbiased applications of the scientific method) valid.

Which poses a problem, because some people will simply accept any officially sanctioned "proof." It might be "proof" that cannot stand up in a court of law, "proof" that is decried by all the unbiased experts in the world.

Yes, there are in some cases people who will accept ANY "proof" that is manufactured and presented by the parent state, no matter the standard. They have their blind allegiance to false authority, and they will maintain it no matter what.

Charles

Charles...I admire the clarity of your thinking and your ability to
state your thoughts succinctly and cogently. Yours should be the
textbook answer for those who promote "official myths". This is
a far superior tactic to simply calling them xxxholes*.

Jack

*I may have spelled this wrong. I hope it is not a forbidden word.