Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone

Pat Speer · September 15, 2005

- 9:48 transcript starts
-8:50 the flight crew notice the problem with the light and try to fix it

- 7:52 Uh, Bob, it might be the light. Could you jiggle tha, the light?

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 6:08 Put the ... on autopilot here

All three continue trying to fix the light - at some point the pilot accidentally disengages the autopilot but due to a miscalibrated switch the autopilot light remains lit

- 4:40 This won't come out, Bob. If I had a pair of pliers, I could cushion it with that Kleenex

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 2:02 Naw that's right, we're about to cross Krome Avenue right now

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 1:34 [sound of altitude alert horn]

No reaction to altitude alert horn the next thing said is

- 1:31 We can tell if that # # # # is down by looking down at our indices

All three continue trying to fix the light

-0:32 APP Eastern, ah 401 how are things comin' along out there? The plane is at 900 feet but the oblivious crew thinks they are at 2000

- 0:30 pilot talks to tower changes heading doesn't notice that he is a less than half the altitude he should be

- 0:23 Huh?

- 0:21 One eighty

- 0:07 We did something to the altitude

-0:06 What?

- 0:05 We're still at two thousand right?

-0:03 Hey, what's happening here?

[sound of click]

- 0:02 [sound of six beeps similar to radio altimeter increasing in rate]

0:00 [sound of impact]

This in spite of the fact that they were well-qualified (regardless of his drivel about the extra flight-log, which his wife had never seen,

Len

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Len, this incident doesn't actually support your argument. By your own analysis, this accident occurred as the result of not only pilot error, but TWO electrical glitches which distracted and confused the pilots. Is there any evidence that similar glitches distracted and confused the pilots of Wellstone's plane? If so, is there any evidence to demonstrate that these glitches occurred purely by accident, and were not helped along by someone with a screwdriver or a remote control device? If not, then we're back at square one, with Fetzer's argument that it would be highly unusual for two pilots to just sit there while their plane goes down.

No matter how bad the pilots were, and how many mistakes they made in the past, is there any known reason why they both would make the biggest aviation mistake of their life at the exact same time? I don't think you or anyone else can answer this, and, as a result, the cause of thiis crash will justifiably remain open to speculation.

Edited September 16, 2005 by Pat Speer

Len Colby · September 15, 2005

I no longer think we had everything right in the book...
I concede that we did not get everything "exactly right" the first time...

The only things you go right are not in dispute: Bush didn't like Wellstone, he died in a crash Oct. 25 2002, the US gov't has been developing EM weapons for decades, the FBI got to the site around noon etc. etc.

The fire burned bluish-white, as I have confirmed with first responders, which is indicative of an electrical fire. It did not burn coarsely-black, as would have been the case for a kerosene-based fire.

Jim it's impossible for the fire to have been an electrical fire! Why don't you try and figure out why with that PhD in Physics grammar school science teacher friend of yours? Hint there is a message about it on the Yahoo forum. I'll give you till Sat. to figure it out!! ROTFLMHO!!

The wings were broken off during the crash and did not burn, yet the fire was so intense that the firemen could not put it out. This was very odd and not explained by the NTSB.

I'll explain that to you too! LOL

And Leonard Colby's insistence that they would have been at a greater altitude by our original analysis than the use of an EM weapon would seem to accommodate. It is almost as if they knew the actual cause of the crash and were well-positioned to point out weaknesses in accounts that were not exactly right!

Jim did you see "Spinal Tap"? You remind me of when the guitar player looked blankly at Rob Reiner and said "these go up to eleven"

The question at hand is not merely if EM's have a range of 1000 or 2000 feet. It that all you comprehended from that post Jim? I know you have problems with reading comprehension but even so this is a little much.

The question still remains very much open as to whether or not working EM beam weapons exist. The author of the Time article written in 2002 says that some EM weapons might have been ready for use in the 2nd Gulf War. He got his information from Rumsfeld and other DoD 'sources'. You can't argue that the US government is trying to keep EM weapons secret if Rumsfeld and his flunkies are talking about them!!!

These are the same people who told us that Saddam had WMDs and that Iraq would be a cake walk, the same people who told us "Star Wars" and anti-ballistic missile technology was just around the corner. Since there aren't any reliable reports of EM weapons being used the most logical conclusion is that these weapons are not ready for use.

Rumsfeld and the others could have give this false info to journalists for the following reasons:

1] To intimidate Saddam and the Iraqi military. In the software business they call this 'vaporware'

2] To con the US public into thinking victory would be easy

3] To con Congress into approving funding for additional research for EM weapons

4] Due to wishful thinking

Jim you have yet to come up with one link RELIABLE link [Hustler magazine, UFO sites rumormillnews.com, the tin foil hat crowd and canabis.com etc. don't count!!!] that says that working EM beam weapons exist [not ones that say that the US is DEVELOPING them or that they are ALMOST ready or that they MIGHT be ready]

Try this find one or two articles from reliable sources that say that working models of such weapons exist. Cut and paste the appropriate passages into a message here and provide links.

It is almost as if they knew the actual cause of the crash and were well-positioned to point out weaknesses in accounts that were not exactly right!

They? I know I can dance circles around you arguementwise but I'm just one guy!!

So you still think I'm a spy

If you insist on implying this I will call you collect from Brazil to confirm my location. The work day in Brazil starts at 8am I get up at 7. 7 here is 4 in Duluth! I hope you like your wake up call!!!

September 15, 2005

If you aren't a spook, you are obsessive and probably somewhat demented.

I invite anyone to analyze your behavior on this forum and arrive at another

conclusion. Pat Speer, by the way, has made a key point about the crash,

which is the utter implausiblity of the NTSB's account. It cannot withstand

inspection and is contradicted by the NTSB's own evidence, which means

the NTSB did not explain the crash, as Richard Healing conceded. I think

this is the crucial point, together with the realization that the NTSB never

considered non-accident alternatives and therefore never concluded whe-

ther or not non-accident alternatives might be more likely than accident.

Here are some additional comments after consulting with John Costella:

>1] The plane would not have made an easy target. It was at 3400 feet and

>travelling at 165 KCAS [knots = 190 mph]*. Cloud cover was at 700 feet so

>the plane would have been invisible to anyone on the ground.

Only according to the military radar data, which is contradicted by the

NTSB's own witnesses. This discrepancy has yet to be resolved. The plane

passed over the trailer and the trees at low altitude according to

witnesses.

>2] None of the witnesses who saw the plane before it crashed said anything

>about the plane being on fire.

This may be correct. If an EM weapon caused the electrical systems to catch

fire, it was probably not obvious from the ground at this stage. Jim believes

at least one witness reported something like smoke or fire from the plane.

However, IF THE WITNESSES SAW THE PLANE, THEN IT WAS NOT ABOVE

THE CLOUD COVER. Catch 22 for the disbelievers! Either the military radar

data is wrong, or the plane may have been on fire.

>3] None of the reports that I read about EM weapons mention the ability to

>set something on fire.

Short-circuited electrical equipment can start an electrical fire. There are

plenty of examples of this in air crash history. John has watched one case

that has been played on National Geographic in Australia at least three times.

If you check the EM weapons references you probably will find examples where

fires begun. And, of course, we suppose you are not implying that short circuits

never cause fires! They are fequently the cause of home and garage fires.

>4] The plane only crashed about 2 minutes after being hit. Fetzer believes

>atleast one of the wings caught fire before the crash. Most of the plane's

>fuel is in the wings [the tanks were close to full] why didn't the plane explode

>in a fireball?

We have not claimed that the wings, which broke off during the crash, caught

fire before the crash. We are talking short-circuited / fused electrical circuitry

in the fuselage, not a fireball and not the wings.

>5] Only a few of the victims had smoke in their lung's which is a sign they

>were alive after fire broke out. If the plane was burning before it crashed all

>of the victims should of had smoke in their lungs.

Jim has already explained this point. But bear in mind that the fire is not the

crucial point -- it is the disabling of electrical and electrical systems. The fire

was a by-product.

We also don't know why the fire could not be put out. One possibility is that

the plane could have been carrying something in its luggage compartment

that exacerbated the fire. Or that it might have been coated with a film of

white phosphorous, which burns intensely and cannot be put out with water.

>He believes that the plane was hit just after the last communication with

>the control tower in Duluth at 10:19:30, because this almost corresponds with

>the time of John Ogano's strange cell phone call at 10:18 [i.e. it was before

>the last radio communication]. "Just a few minutes prior to reaching the Hwy

>#53 and #37 intersection"

>http://www.assassinationscience.com/FuturisticWeaponry.pdf

Wrong. The cell phone interference indicates that there was an electromagnetic

disturbance in the area at that time. It does not mean that the plane was hit at

that precise time. There is nothing preventing the weapon from being turned on

before the plane gets into the target zone. That's rather what we would expect.

>The intersection is about 7 or 8 miles from where the plane was at the time

>of the "attack". You can see Hwy 53 on the NTSB map the Hwy 37 intersection

>is about a mile south of the airport**. If he was travelling at 60 MPH he

>would have been a "just a few miles" further away so the beam [or was that a

>lightning bolt?] hit plane at 3400 feet and then bounced back to affect Ogano's

>cellphone when he must have been about 10 miles away. Strangely no one

>else in the area reported anything strange except perhaps some malfunctioning

>garage doors.

Wrong. The signal does not "bounce" off the plane into the phone, any more

than the sound of a rifle shot from the grassy knoll "bounced off" JFK's skull

into the ears of the bystanders. The cell phone, like the human ear, is a

sensitive "listener" -- to EM waves, rather than sound waves. It "heard"

EM activity in the area, just as the bystanders in Dealey Plaza heard the

rifle shots.

>

>Fetzer claims that an unnamed doctor told him that an undisclosed number of

>nameless patients told him their garage door acted strangely at "about the

>time of the crash"

Jim has talked with the physician, who practices in Duluth but has patients

from the area. A cell phone is a very sensitive EM receiver that listens for

very weak radio waves. A garage door opener listens for the EM (radio) wave

corresponding to its remote control. You would have to be within a few houses,

typically, for it to work, because it is nowhere near as sensitive as a cellphone

for "listening". For a garage door to open, there has to be a fairly strong signal

at the right frequency with (accidentally) the right pattern in it to trigger the

recognition in the receiver.

All other electrical devices would only be affected / zapped / disabled if

they bore the full brunt of an EM weapon.

>If you insist on implying this I will call you collect from Brazil to confirm my location.

>The work day in Brazil starts at 8am I get up at 7. 7 here is 4 in Duluth! I hope you

>like your wake up call!!!

Further evidence that you are not in your right mind, as if any more were needed.

And of course we expect you to post again and again and again and again . . . .

Edited September 15, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

September 16, 2005

This is fascinating! I only wonder if it's true. A government that would send its young

to die in a war for phony reasons and that would jeopardize the welfare of the people

of the United States by hiring hacks to head its emergency agencies is not one that

would hesitate to kill a single Senator who threated its political agenda. Anyone who

doubts the power of the motives of this administration should read the book. A few

words in an obscure paragraph like this one suggest to me that they may have been

planted to create "plausible deniability" as a cover if anyone figured out how it was

done. We strongly believe that the GPS was manipulated to bring the plane into the

"kill zone", which is a vastly more plausible hypothesis than the NTSB ever advanced.

Who knows whether such a storm occurred, the time of its occurrence, the points of

impact or difference it would make in different parts of the globe, and so forth. The

Waukengan pilot's report is genuine. This weather report may very well be specious.

It is incredibly vague and non-specific. I am extremely skeptical that it's even real.

Just think how easy it would be to plant some story like this by government agencies!

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?d...efid=ency_botpm

US NEWS SPACEWEATHER KRT

KRT US NEWS STORY SLUGGED: SPACEWEATHER KRT PHOTOGRAPH VIA NATIONAL

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (January 14) This powerful

solar flare on Oct. 25, 2002, sent a storm of high-energy particles

(proton and electrons) racing toward Earth at a million or more

miles per hour. Such flares can garble terrestrial communications

links, black out power grids, cause navigation errors, even confuse

homing pigeons. Astronauts and satellites in orbit are at special

risk. (lde) 2003

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 16, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

Craig Lamson · September 16, 2005

This is fascinating! I only wonder if it's true. A government that would send its young

to die in a war for phony reasons and that would jeopardize the welfare of the people

of the United States by hiring hacks to head its emergency agencies is not one that

would hesitate to kill a single Senator who threated its political agenda. Anyone who

doubts the power of the motives of this administration should read the book. A few

words in an obscure paragraph like this one suggest to me that they may have been

planted to create "plausible deniability" as a cover if anyone figured out how it was

done. We strongly believe that the GPS was manipulated to bring the plane into the

"kill zone", which is a vastly more plausible hypothesis than the NTSB ever advanced.

Who knows whether such a storm occurred, the time of its occurrence, the points of

impact or difference it would make in different parts of the globe, and so forth. The

Waukengan pilot's report is genuine. This weather report may very well be specious.

It is incredibly vague and non-specific. I am extremely skeptical that it's even real.

Just think how easy it would be to plant some story like this by government agencies!

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?d...efid=ency_botpm

US NEWS SPACEWEATHER KRT

KRT US NEWS STORY SLUGGED: SPACEWEATHER KRT PHOTOGRAPH VIA NATIONAL

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (January 14) This powerful

solar flare on Oct. 25, 2002, sent a storm of high-energy particles

(proton and electrons) racing toward Earth at a million or more

miles per hour. Such flares can garble terrestrial communications

links, black out power grids, cause navigation errors, even confuse

homing pigeons. Astronauts and satellites in orbit are at special

risk. (lde) 2003

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

.

<sigh> Jim...Space weather is well recorded. Solar activity is measured and photographed by pros and novices alike. The month of Oct 2002 was a very active month for solar activity and in fact a HUGE flare hit just a few days later on the 29th.

I find it amazing that someone like you who places a lot of store in research makes a post like this one. Its a crock Jim and if its any indication of your research skills you are in a world of hurt. Never mind your desire to look first for the CT in everything...thats a sickness.

In any case you made your silly comment about the gps and it clicked...so I did a SIMPLE google on solar flares on the 25th of Oct and low and behold there it was.

I suggest you actually do some research before you spout off again with some high and mighty anti Bush spin that has no context in the discussion of cell phones and gps.

I have no idea if the solar flares of late Oct 2002 had any play in crash of Wellstones plane or the incident in Il. It does however offer a different theory of why a cell phone might malfunction or a GPS display to be in error. Its widely known to cause just such problems. In fact a Japanese sattellite was taken out by the solar flare on the same day as the Wellstone crash. If you decide to persure the GPS theory you will have to find a way to dismiss the solar flares completely and you are going to have to offer a theory on how the GPS was altered other than you normal ...its was a secret government operation....

Now how about that bluish white smorke being from an electrical fire? So far the only links I can find are one that quote YOU!

Edited September 16, 2005 by Craig Lamson

Craig Lamson · September 16, 2005

- 9:48 transcript starts
-8:50 the flight crew notice the problem with the light and try to fix it

- 7:52 Uh, Bob, it might be the light. Could you jiggle tha, the light?

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 6:08 Put the ... on autopilot here

All three continue trying to fix the light - at some point the pilot accidentally disengages the autopilot but due to a miscalibrated switch the autopilot light remains lit

- 4:40 This won't come out, Bob. If I had a pair of pliers, I could cushion it with that Kleenex

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 2:02 Naw that's right, we're about to cross Krome Avenue right now

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 1:34 [sound of altitude alert horn]

No reaction to altitude alert horn the next thing said is

- 1:31 We can tell if that # # # # is down by looking down at our indices

All three continue trying to fix the light

-0:32 APP Eastern, ah 401 how are things comin' along out there? The plane is at 900 feet but the oblivious crew thinks they are at 2000

- 0:30 pilot talks to tower changes heading doesn't notice that he is a less than half the altitude he should be

- 0:23 Huh?

- 0:21 One eighty

- 0:07 We did something to the altitude

-0:06 What?

- 0:05 We're still at two thousand right?

-0:03 Hey, what's happening here?

[sound of click]

- 0:02 [sound of six beeps similar to radio altimeter increasing in rate]

0:00 [sound of impact]

This in spite of the fact that they were well-qualified (regardless of his drivel about the extra flight-log, which his wife had never seen,

Len

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Len, this incident doesn't actually support your argument. By your own analysis, this accident occurred as the result of not only pilot error, but TWO electrical glitches which distracted and confused the pilots. Is there any evidence that similar glitches distracted and confused the pilots of Wellstone's plane? If so, is there any evidence to demonstrate that these glitches occurred purely by accident, and were not helped along by someone with a screwdriver or a remote control device? If not, then we're back at square one, with Fetzer's argument that it would be highly unusual for two pilots to just sit there while their plane goes down.

No matter how bad the pilots were, and how many mistakes they made in the past, is there any known reason why they both would make the biggest aviation mistake of their life at the exact same time? I don't think you or anyone else can answer this, and, as a result, the cause of thiis crash will justifiably remain open to speculation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The similar "glitch" was that they broke through the clouds at a very low altitude and expected to find the runway dead ahead. It was not there. Thats the glitch and its a major one.

They had just decended through light ice and the windscreen was likely iced at the corners...the exact areas they were looking through to find the missing runway. They we low, slow and behind the aircraft, and now were nowhere near the runway they thought was to be right in fornt of them....I'm guessing they were plenty distracted.

September 16, 2005

The fact of the matter is that the NTSB conducted its own simulations using

a weaker engine and flying at abnormally slow speeds and could not bring

the plane down! You and Colby simply ignore that the NTSB's own evidence

contradicted its conclusion. The pilots were always able to "power up" and

save the plane from a stall. When you consider that it was equipped with a

loud stall-warning alarm, the case becomes even more problematical for the

NTSB's pseudo-explanation, which you endorse. What is the probability that

one pilot would ignore his air speed and altitude and simply allow the plane

to crash, much less two? And why did they not respond to the stall-warning

alarm? And why were they flying on an azmuth of 268 instead of 276? After

all, if their CDI was working properly, they should have been on track for a

proper landing, not miles away to the south of the airport. If the plane was

under their control, this is very difficult to imagine. Surely the probability of

a crash would be much greater if they were being mislead by phony GPS

data and the plane's electronic systems were overwhelmed by some kind

of directed energy weapon. Think about it. The NTSB explained nothing.

They were also below the altitude where icing would occur. Even the NTSB

conceded that the weather had nothing to do with the crash. So if you are

going to continue to rely upon THE NTSB REPORT for your "explanation", I

suggest you pay attention to the factors that it discounted, which include

both the plane and the weather. As photographs I was sent by a pilot on

the ground in the vicinity of the airport not long before the crash display,

not only was there no snow or freezing rain, there wasn't even any rain!

And remember that the NTSB did nothing to refute non-accident hypoth-

eses, since it was restricted to the consideration of accident hypotheses

by the Attorney General's decision not to declare the crash scene a crime

scene. And none of this even reaches to the FBI's announcement that

there were no indications of terrorist involvement, when no determination

of the cause of the crash would be made for more than a year; the NTSB

had the responsibility to determine the cause of the crash; and there was

a link to an alleged terrorist, Zacharias Moussaoui, who had associations

with Michael Guess. So not only was the FBI making a claim it could not

possibly know was true--since without knowing the cause of the crash, it

certainly could not know who caused it--but what it said was literally false.

Thank you for admitting you "have no idea if the solar flares of late Oct 2002

had any play in crash of Wellstones plane or the incident in Il. It does however

offer a different theory of why a cell phone might malfunction or a GPS display

to be in error. Its widely known to cause just such problems." I doubt this very

much. The Waukegan pilot, in fact, was emphatic that neither he or any other

pilot he knew had ever experienced any problems with the GPS, including the

degrade light irregularity they observed. If you were right, this should instead

be a familiar occurrence. The cell phone anomaly, moreover, involved a wail-

ing and screeching noise that was periodic and repeating in character, indicat-

ing a man-made source. You and Colby seem to believe that, for my account

to be acceptable, it must be certain in eliminating any possibility that it could be

wrong. That is an excessively demanding standard, since inductive reasoning,

which is our guide in life, depends on probabilities, not certainties. And when

we consider the probabilities on both sides, the available evidence is far more

probable on the assassination hypothesis than it is on the accident hypothesis.

- 9:48 transcript starts
-8:50 the flight crew notice the problem with the light and try to fix it

- 7:52 Uh, Bob, it might be the light. Could you jiggle tha, the light?

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 6:08 Put the ... on autopilot here

All three continue trying to fix the light - at some point the pilot accidentally disengages the autopilot but due to a miscalibrated switch the autopilot light remains lit

- 4:40 This won't come out, Bob. If I had a pair of pliers, I could cushion it with that Kleenex

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 2:02 Naw that's right, we're about to cross Krome Avenue right now

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 1:34 [sound of altitude alert horn]

No reaction to altitude alert horn the next thing said is

- 1:31 We can tell if that # # # # is down by looking down at our indices

All three continue trying to fix the light

-0:32 APP Eastern, ah 401 how are things comin' along out there? The plane is at 900 feet but the oblivious crew thinks they are at 2000

- 0:30 pilot talks to tower changes heading doesn't notice that he is a less than half the altitude he should be

- 0:23 Huh?

- 0:21 One eighty

- 0:07 We did something to the altitude

-0:06 What?

- 0:05 We're still at two thousand right?

-0:03 Hey, what's happening here?

[sound of click]

- 0:02 [sound of six beeps similar to radio altimeter increasing in rate]

0:00 [sound of impact]

This in spite of the fact that they were well-qualified (regardless of his drivel about the extra flight-log, which his wife had never seen,

Len

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Len, this incident doesn't actually support your argument. By your own analysis, this accident occurred as the result of not only pilot error, but TWO electrical glitches which distracted and confused the pilots. Is there any evidence that similar glitches distracted and confused the pilots of Wellstone's plane? If so, is there any evidence to demonstrate that these glitches occurred purely by accident, and were not helped along by someone with a screwdriver or a remote control device? If not, then we're back at square one, with Fetzer's argument that it would be highly unusual for two pilots to just sit there while their plane goes down.

No matter how bad the pilots were, and how many mistakes they made in the past, is there any known reason why they both would make the biggest aviation mistake of their life at the exact same time? I don't think you or anyone else can answer this, and, as a result, the cause of thiis crash will justifiably remain open to speculation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The similar "glitch" was that they broke through the clouds at a very low altitude and expected to find the runway dead ahead. It was not there. Thats the glitch and its a major one.

They had just decended through light ice and the windscreen was likely iced at the corners...the exact areas they were looking through to find the missing runway. They we low, slow and behind the aircraft, and now were nowhere near the runway they thought was to be right in fornt of them....I'm guessing they were plenty distracted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 16, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

Len Colby · September 16, 2005

Len, this incident doesn't actually support your argument. By your own analysis, this accident occurred as the result of not only pilot error, but TWO electrical glitches which distracted and confused the pilots.

I disagree I think it does. There actually were 4 crew members in the cockpit because an Eastern Maintenance specialist who was in one of the "jump-seats" came in. With four highly trained crew members in the cockpit some one should have notice that the plane was loosing altitude. The pilots were being distracted by only one light the landing gear indicator. Fixing such glitches is the responsibility of the flight engineer but all three of them became fixed by the landing gear light. .

The NTSB speculated that the problem with the autopilot is why they remained oblivious to their decent. The question is why none of the three airline pilots who were far more experienced and qualified than Conry and Guess noticed what was going on.

The lead pilot had been flying for Eastern for 30 years and had nearly 30,000 hours almost 9x as many as Conry [about 3400]. Conry never would have gotten hired by and airline. He had to lie to get a part-time job a Aviation Charter the only company that would hire him. Aviation charter was cited for numerous violations of FAA regulations. Guess got fired from both of his previous piloting jobs.

With 4:48 to go the plane began to loose altitude. There were three other crew members looking into it but the captain was so distracted by it that he failed to notice, none of them did, he commented on his heading several times so must have been looking at the control panel but still no one noticed. The light was also on the control panel. 1:34 before the crash AN ALTITUDE DEVIATION ALARM went off but still none of the crew members noticed. With 32 seconds to go the plane was at 900 and no one noticed. The pilot asked for permission to make a turn and was granted it. seven second later [25 seconds to go] he began turning, he must have been looking at the control panel but still failed to notice. Only when the plane was 300 off the ground did the co-pilot notice and said "We did something to the altitude" this was seven seconds before impact. But the pilot still didn't get it, five seconds before crashing, when plane was probably at about 220 - 250 feet he asked "We're still at two thousand right?" The co-pilot had seven second to make a distress call - but did not

So to summarize only 4:41 after the plane began loosing altitude and had fallen from 2000 - 300 did any of the flight crew notice. Even though they were trying to fix a light on the control panel none of them noticed the altimeter on the same control panel. The pilot who was far more experience that Conry even though he had three other crew members to look into was so distracted by the light that he literally flew the plane into the ground.

The NTSB final report of that crash can be found at http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR73-14.pdf

That 401 had two glitches in a certain way strengthens my case. I read several accident reports. Several had some similar glitches cited as contributing factors, these problems only became apparent during the fatal flights. Some of the Wellstone's plane could had some defect that could have contributed to the crash, was the stall alarm working properly? Was the VOR working properly? There is no was to tell because the plane was to badly damaged.

Also 401 was not the only one see some of my earlier posts for descriptions of other crashes. In one case the Detroit control tower asked a plane to reduce its speed and the pilot complied. Unfortunately the speed he slowed down was below the minimum speed for that model aircraft during icing conditions.

Is there any evidence that similar glitches distracted and confused the pilots of Wellstone's plane? If so, is there any evidence to demonstrate that these glitches occurred purely by accident, and were not helped along by someone with a screwdriver or a remote control device? If not, then we're back at square one, with Fetzer's argument that it would be highly unusual for two pilots to just sit there while their plane goes down.

The crew could have been distracted by a few things namely being lost!

Also who ever was flying had not properly "set up" the approach which increased workload and thus the ability to be distracted."As previously discussed, simulations performed by the Safety Board indicated that the later stages of the approach flown by the accident flight crew were more difficult in terms of mental and physical demand and time pressure than it would have been if they had not overshot the approach course and had not delayed their descent and landing gear extension"

The approach they had set up would have difficult for good pilots unfortunately both were prone to distraction. Conry had accumulated a few serious screw ups during very little flying time but was saved by his co-pilot. This time his co-pilot was one who had difficulty maintaining power during landings. Conry has complained of having difficulty landing A 100s only a few months before.

If this was a hit the culprits were lucky because the two pilots were very much sub par and they started screwing up before the last radio communication. They went off course in the same direction as the FAA test pilots. The hit men got very lucky indeed.

No matter how bad the pilots were, and how many mistakes they made in the past, is there any known reason why they both would make the biggest aviation mistake of their life at the exact same time? I don't think you or anyone else can answer this, and, as a result, this crash will justifiably remain open for speculation.

I'll try to answer that one later

Len

Craig Lamson · September 16, 2005

The fact of the matter is that the NTSB conducted its own simulations using
a weaker engine and flying at abnormally slow speeds and could not bring

the plane down! You and Colby simply ignore that the NTSB's own evidence

contradicted its conclusion. The pilots were always able to "power up" and

save the plane from a stall. When you consider that it was equipped with a

loud stall-warning alarm, the case becomes even more problematical for the

NTSB's pseudo-explanation, which you endorse. What is the probability that

one pilot would ignore his air speed and altitude and simply allow the plane

to crash, much less two? And why did they not respond to the stall-warning

alarm? And why were they flying on an azmuth of 268 instead of 276? After

all, if their CDI was working properly, they should have been on track for a

proper landing, not miles away to the south of the airport. If the plane was

under their control, this is very difficult to imagine. Surely the probability of

a crash would be much greater if they were being mislead by phony GPS

data and the plane's electronic systems were overwhelmed by some kind

of directed energy weapon. Think about it. The NTSB explained nothing.

They were also below the altitude where icing would occur. Even the NTSB

conceded that the weather had nothing to do with the crash. So if you are

going to continue to rely upon THE NTSB REPORT for your "explanation", I

suggest you pay attention to the factors that it discounted, which include

both the plane and the weather. As photographs I was sent by a pilot on

the ground in the vicinity of the airport not long before the crash display,

not only was there no snow or freezing rain, there wasn't even any rain!

And remember that the NTSB did nothing to refute non-accident hypoth-

eses, since it was restricted to the consideration of accident hypotheses

by the Attorney General's decision not to declare the crash scene a crime

scene. And none of this even reaches to the FBI's announcement that

there were no indications of terrorist involvement, when no determination

of the cause of the crash would be made for more than a year; the NTSB

had the responsibility to determine the cause of the crash; and there was

a link to an alleged terrorist, Zacharias Moussaoui, who had associations

with Michael Guess. So not only was the FBI making a claim it could not

possibly know was true--since without knowing the cause of the crash, it

certainly could not know who caused it--but what it said was literally false.

Thank you for admitting you "have no idea if the solar flares of late Oct 2002

had any play in crash of Wellstones plane or the incident in Il. It does however

offer a different theory of why a cell phone might malfunction or a GPS display

to be in error. Its widely known to cause just such problems." I doubt this very

much. The Waukegan pilot, in fact, was emphatic that neither he or any other

pilot he knew had ever experienced any problems with the GPS, including the

degrade light irregularity they observed. If you were right, this should instead

be a familiar occurrence. The cell phone anomaly, moreover, involved a wail-

ing and screeching noise that was periodic and repeating in character, indicat-

ing a man-made source. You and Colby seem to believe that, for my account

to be acceptable, it must be certain in eliminating any possibility that it could be

wrong. That is an excessively demanding standard, since inductive reasoning,

which is our guide in life, depends on probabilities, not certainties. And when

we consider the probabilities on both sides, the available evidence is far more

probable on the assassination hypothesis than it is on the accident hypothesis.

- 9:48 transcript starts
-8:50 the flight crew notice the problem with the light and try to fix it

- 7:52 Uh, Bob, it might be the light. Could you jiggle tha, the light?

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 6:08 Put the ... on autopilot here

All three continue trying to fix the light - at some point the pilot accidentally disengages the autopilot but due to a miscalibrated switch the autopilot light remains lit

- 4:40 This won't come out, Bob. If I had a pair of pliers, I could cushion it with that Kleenex

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 2:02 Naw that's right, we're about to cross Krome Avenue right now

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 1:34 [sound of altitude alert horn]

No reaction to altitude alert horn the next thing said is

- 1:31 We can tell if that # # # # is down by looking down at our indices

All three continue trying to fix the light

-0:32 APP Eastern, ah 401 how are things comin' along out there? The plane is at 900 feet but the oblivious crew thinks they are at 2000

- 0:30 pilot talks to tower changes heading doesn't notice that he is a less than half the altitude he should be

- 0:23 Huh?

- 0:21 One eighty

- 0:07 We did something to the altitude

-0:06 What?

- 0:05 We're still at two thousand right?

-0:03 Hey, what's happening here?

[sound of click]

- 0:02 [sound of six beeps similar to radio altimeter increasing in rate]

0:00 [sound of impact]

This in spite of the fact that they were well-qualified (regardless of his drivel about the extra flight-log, which his wife had never seen,

Len

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Len, this incident doesn't actually support your argument. By your own analysis, this accident occurred as the result of not only pilot error, but TWO electrical glitches which distracted and confused the pilots. Is there any evidence that similar glitches distracted and confused the pilots of Wellstone's plane? If so, is there any evidence to demonstrate that these glitches occurred purely by accident, and were not helped along by someone with a screwdriver or a remote control device? If not, then we're back at square one, with Fetzer's argument that it would be highly unusual for two pilots to just sit there while their plane goes down.

No matter how bad the pilots were, and how many mistakes they made in the past, is there any known reason why they both would make the biggest aviation mistake of their life at the exact same time? I don't think you or anyone else can answer this, and, as a result, the cause of thiis crash will justifiably remain open to speculation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The similar "glitch" was that they broke through the clouds at a very low altitude and expected to find the runway dead ahead. It was not there. Thats the glitch and its a major one.

They had just decended through light ice and the windscreen was likely iced at the corners...the exact areas they were looking through to find the missing runway. They we low, slow and behind the aircraft, and now were nowhere near the runway they thought was to be right in fornt of them....I'm guessing they were plenty distracted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim we have been over and over and over this stuff on the Yahoo forum and yet you continue to behave that the evidence that trashes your "theory" just does not exist. You act like a little kid who sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts...NA NA NA NA....in fact you and White appeare to be clones in that regard. Failure to admit you are wrong does not mean you still are not wrong.

You wrote:

"I doubt this very much. The Waukegan pilot, in fact, was emphatic that neither he or any other pilot he knew had ever experienced any problems with the GPS, including the