Guest James H. Fetzer Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr21.html The Center for an Informed America NEWSLETTER #21 Special Edition: Was Wellstone Whacked? November 5, 2002 Greetings, once again, to all subscribers! Two years ago, I wrote the following words: "October 16th is not, as it turns out, a good day to travel by air if you happen to be a politician who has become, shall we say, troublesome." October 16, 2000 was, for those suffering from that peculiarly American malady known as "lack of historical memory," the day that populist (relatively speaking) Senatorial candidate Mel Carnahan's chartered plane allegedly crashed due to inclement weather. (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/regressive.htm) Now it seems that October 25 is also not a good day to travel by air if you happen to be a democratically-minded Senatorial candidate, as the Wellstone family has just learned the hard way. Widely regarded, accurately or not, as the most progressive voice in the U.S. Senate, Wellstone has just succumbed to "small chartered plane carrying left-leaning politician meets inclement weather" syndrome. And there will be no repeat of the "Corpse Beats John Ashcroft and Gains Senate Seat for Widow" scenario, since Wellstone's wife and daughter were killed along with the Minnesota Senator in what the media would like us to believe was a tragic accident that was not, of course, in any way suspicious. At the time of his demise, Mr. Wellstone was uniquely poised to reveal the lies and fraudulence of the Washington establishment and their media cohorts, by virtue of the fact that he was the only Senator in a contested race to vote against the Congressional resolution that unconstitutionally transferred war-making power to the executive office. By casting a dissenting vote, Wellstone had committed political suicide -- or so said all the Washington spinmeisters. As George Bush likes to say, "America speaks with one voice" on the issue of waging genocidal war against the Iraqi people. And the media, of course, don't really bother to challenge such specious claims. Paul Wellstone though opted to speak with a different voice, thereby allegedly guaranteeing his political demise. To hasten that demise, his opponent was reportedly hand-picked and enthusiastically endorsed by Boy George himself, and was supplied with truck loads of campaign money. (http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/3382739.html) But a strange thing appeared to be happening: Wellstone seemed to be on his way to electoral victory. Contrary to Washington spin, Wellstone had gotten a large boost in his poll numbers as a direct result of his vote on the Iraqi resolution. But how could that be? How could a maverick Senator who had chosen to voice such an 'unpopular' opinion actually gain support? The vast majority of Wellstone's allegedly 'Democratic' colleagues chose to give a thumbs-up to transferring war-making power to the White House, despite being inundated with correspondence from constituents who strongly opposed the measure. (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021003-851543.htm) It has been almost universally proclaimed by pols and pundits that these 'Democrats' lined up behind Bush on the war resolution (as they had on the Patriot Act, and the resolution authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan, and various other reactionary measures) because it was the "politically expedient" thing to do. Wellstone's reelection would have revealed this 'conventional wisdom' to be a craven lie. As the hopelessly compromised Nation put it in a posting from May of 2002, "If [Wellstone] wins, a blow will be struck not just against the Bush machine but against those in the Democratic Party who argue for tepid moderation." (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020527&s=nichols) In truth, the blow would have been struck against the entire, and entirely fraudulent, Democratic Party -- which doesn't argue for "tepid moderation," but is in fact wholly complicit in advancing the increasingly fascistic agenda of Team Bush. As Michael I. Niman argued, in a posting on AlterNet, a Wellstone victory "would both be an embarrassment to the Bush administration and to Democratic Quislings such as Hillary Clinton who voted to support 'the president.'" (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14399) Even without a Wellstone victory, the Democratic Party has largely revealed itself for the fraud that it is by failing to follow up on what it claimed was one of the "politically expedient" reasons for green-lighting an attack on Iraq and beyond: to enable the party to shift the focus of the campaign onto domestic issues, where Bush is said to be vulnerable. Now maybe I've been in a coma or something, but I don't recall any Democratic candidates challenging their Republican rivals on the current state of the economy, or on the massive tax cuts handed out to corporate America, or on the direct connections of various members of the Bush mob to massive corporate scandals, or on the rollbacks of environmental safeguards, or on the decidedly anti-labor stance of the White House, or on the repeated attacks on civil liberties, or on the erosion of the separation between church and state, or on the blocking of any meaningful inquiry into what happened on September 11, or on the failure to investigate the anthrax attacks, or on the failure to capture bin Laden despite laying waste to the nation of Afghanistan, or .... It is clearly not the case, as The Nation claimed, that "most Democrats are still trying to figure out how to challenge a popular President" -- but rather that most Democrats are trying to figure out how to continue to masquerade as some sort of legitimate opposition party even while signing off on every police-state measure and every imperialistic military venture that has been proposed by the administration. So while there may be some truth to The Nation's contention that "getting rid of Wellstone is a passion for Rove, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the special-interest lobbies that fund the most sophisticated political operation ever assembled by a presidential administration," it is arguable whether it was not the 'Democrats' who had the most to gain from Wellstone's death. The reality is that Wellstone did nothing to slow down the Bush juggernaut, and wasn't exactly the principled leftist that he is made out to be. He had no problem signing off on the Patriot Act or the resolution authorizing the brutal assault upon the nation of Afghanistan, and had little or nothing to say about the brazen theft of the presidential election or the evidence indicating that the official story of what happened on September 11 is almost entirely a work of fiction. And even on those issues where Wellstone did take a stand in opposition to the White House, the effects of his actions were negligible. Since Bush took office, and certainly since September 11, 2001, there has not been a vote in Congress on any resolution of any significance that has not gone overwhelmingly in the Bush administration's favor. So it seems to me that the 'Democrats' had as much or more to gain as did the 'Republicans' by terminating Wellstone's political career -- though that of course assumes that 'Democrats' refers to an identifiable group that is separate and distinct from the 'Republican' Party, and that there is more than one political orientation represented in Washington. And that, of course, really isn't the case. But it is of supreme importance to maintain the illusion that that is the case. And Paul Wellstone was threatening to partially shatter that illusion by stripping away some of the lies that the 'Democrats' have been hiding behind. It would probably be more accurate then to say that the Washington establishment, as a whole, had a motive for eliminating Paul Wellstone. So ... was he whacked? It seems a fair question to ask, though the conspiracy bashers on the fake left have been working overtime to launch what is essentially a pre-emptive strike against anyone who dares to pose such questions. (http://twincities.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=7814&group=webcast and http://www.salon.com/news/col/sullivan/200...0/wellstone/?x) The speed with which the debunkers have issued their missives, and the vehemence with which they have insisted that only those on the lunatic fringe would speculate that Wellstone's demise was due to anything other than a tragic accident, is enough to make a skeptic wonder if there isn't something to hide. Postulating that foul play was involved does not, it should be noted, necessarily imply the guilt of the Bush administration, or of any other players in Washington. As was seen during the DC sniper case, and during the anthrax mailings (to name just two examples), Washington and the media are quick these days to blame almost any tragedy or act of violence on 'terrorism.' And yet, as USA Today was quick to report, "FBI spokesman Paul McCabe said there was no indication the crash was related to terrorism." This proclamation was made, of course, before any sort of an investigation had even begun, and while we were being told that it would take months to determine the cause of the crash. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-25-plane-down-minnesota_x.htm) With the wreckage still smoldering, the Star Tribune reported that Acting NTSB Chairman Carol Carmody "refused to speculate on what happened in the crash, but said NTSB specialists would be looking at all aspects of the accident, including weather, the engines, human performance, the plane's structure and airworthiness of the aircraft." (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1752/3390667.html) Conspicuously missing from that list, and apparently ruled out before the investigation even began, was sabotage. So much for "looking at all aspects of the accident." But then again, why would you look at that possibility when you are "looking at all aspects of the accident"? You would only look for that if you were looking at all aspects of the crash, to determine if it was in fact an accident. And Carmody, of course, isn't doing that. Carmody, by the way, who is now serving as the spokeswoman for what has been referred to as the NTSB's "Go Team," has a rather interesting history. Her official NTSB biography proudly proclaims that her career has included "serving at the Central Intelligence Agency." (http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/bios/carmody.htm) That should set everyone's mind at ease -- as should the fact that she "has been [an] on-scene member at several accidents, including the aircraft accident which killed Governor Carnahan in October 2000." Joining Carmody, as the lead investigator on the case, is Robert Benzon, whose previous claim to fame was leading the cover-up ... ooops, that must have been some kind of Freudian slip, because what I meant to say is that he led the investigation into the cause of the November 12, 2001 crash of American Airlines flight 587 into a neighborhood in Belle Harbor, New York. (http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/default.htm) Benzon began his aviation career in the jungles of Vietnam, where he served on a secretive Tactical Electronics Warfare Squadron, according to his own account: "I served as a 2nd Lt, then 1st Lt copilot in the 362 TEWS at DaNang AB during 1972 and 1973. We closed the unit down several months after the spring of 1973 cease fire agreement. Interestingly, we continued to fly missions from DaNang after the cease fire with South Vietnamese markings on the airplanes. I never did fully understand that little maneuver. I went on to fly as a copilot and aircraft commander in KC-135s, shot through the ranks to Captain, and went off active duty in 1980 or so. I'm now an aircraft accident investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board." (http://www.ec47.com/returns3.htm) It's interesting to note here that Benzon writes that he went off active duty "in 1980 or so." Does he not know when he went off active duty? Perhaps Benzon operates in that murky world where the lines between 'active duty' and 'plausible deniability' are a little fuzzy. Ooops ... I guess that by speculating about such things I have qualified myself for a fitting for a "tin foil hat." Or did I already qualify myself for membership in that club simply by questioning whether the crash of Wellstone's plane might have been due to something other than an accident, rather than boldly insisting, absent any corroborating evidence, that it definitely was an accident -- which is apparently considered intelligent political discourse? So what does the evidence suggest in the Wellstone crash? Details are sketchy at best at this point. There are, of course, the usual glaring contradictions in the early reports that we have all grown accustomed to. All avenues of the media, for example, are in agreement that there were no voice or flight recorders on the plane, thus denying investigators a key piece of evidence. Early reports, however, claimed that there was indeed a voice recorder on the aircraft, and that it was actively being searched for. The Star Tribune, for instance, reported that Carmody had "said investigators would be searching for the cockpit voice recorder as they sought to determine what happened." The recorder was said to be "key to learning more about the crash." USA Today concurred, noting that "Carmody said the first priority was finding the cockpit voice recorder." (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1752/3390667.html and http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-1...innesota_x.htm) It is possible that Carmody was mistaken about the existence of a cockpit voice recorder, though one would think that the Acting Chairman of the NTSB, with "more than 20 years experience with the aviation community," including "11 years at the FAA," would know about such things. (http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/bios/carmody.htm) You've got to wonder why they even bother with those 'black boxes.' They either aren't on board when you need them to be, or they manage to get destroyed in the crash, despite being virtually indestructible. Go figure. There is also some question as to where exactly the plane crashed. The Washington Post, for one, claimed that the "FAA said the plane crashed in trees about two miles short of the runway. Wreckage was spread over a wide area, indicating that it did not nose into the ground but crashed at a relatively flat angle." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17030-2002Oct25.html) Such reports strongly implied that the plane simply came up short on its landing, hitting trees rather than a runway. Was the FAA simply mistaken, or did it deliberately try to misrepresent the crash? Later reports, such as this one from CNN.com, place the location of the wreckage elsewhere: "tree damage around the crash site indicated the plane, which should have been landing from the east on an east-west runway, was actually turning away from the airport, traveling from northwest to southeast about 2 miles south of the runway, when it crashed." (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Midwest/10/26/wellstone.investigation/index.html;'>http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Midwest/10/26/wellstone.investigation/index.html; see also http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/4372594.htm) The CNN report also holds that the "angle of tree damage showed a descent much steeper than would be expected with a controlled landing," while a posting on the WSWS website mentions that there were eyewitness accounts of "a near vertical plunge." (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/well-o29.shtml) The WSWS report also noted that "none of the typical causes of a small plane accident - engine failure, icing, pilot error - appear to be involved." These are largely the same causes that Carmody claimed to be looking at: "weather, the engines, human performance, the plane's structure and airworthiness of the aircraft." The media has for the most part pointed to the weather as the most likely culprit. Several reports though dispute the notion that the weather was to blame for the crash. The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported that the airport's manager "said the weather was overcast with light snow and a temperature of 31 but was well within the landing limits at the airport." (http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/4372594.htm) USA Today talked to a pilot, Don Sipola, who told them that "visibility in the area at the time of the crash was 2.50 miles, well above the one-mile minimum for a standard instrument landing." (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-25-plane-down-minnesota_x.htm) A newsletter sent out by Mike Ruppert quotes the following exchange, between correspondent Wolf Blitzer and a local reporter, that was aired on CNN: Reporter: There is no evidence that weather had anything to do with the crash. Blitzer: But the plane was flying into some sort of ice storm, was it not? Reporter: There is no evidence that the weather had anything to do with the crash. According to Ruppert, CNN quickly cut away from this reporter, who was never heard from again. As further indication that the weather at the time of the crash wasn't nearly as bad as the media would have us believe, and wasn't likely the cause of the crash, it has been reported that "two smaller Beech Queen Air planes had landed at Eveleth without incident two hours before the crash, when temperatures were colder." (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/well-o29.shtml and http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress...al/4371837.htm) There was certainly no indication from the plane's crew that they were having trouble with the weather -- or any trouble of any kind, for that matter. The Pioneer Press reported that "there was no distress call or any indication of trouble before the plane went down about 10:20 a.m." (http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/4372594.htm) This was in spite of the fact that the aircraft had been in radio contact just two minutes before it plowed into the ground. According to the New York Times, during that last transmission, at 10:18 a.m., "there was no evidence on the controller's part or from the pilot's voice that there was any difficulty, no reported problems, no expressed concern." (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/28/politics/28CRAS.html) No expressed concern about, for instance, icing, though the media has been rife with speculation that icing could have played a role in the crash. The King Air A100, as the Washington Post noted, "is equipped with numerous de-icing systems. Wings and tail surfaces are equipped with pneumatic de-icing 'boots' that inflate and deflate repeatedly to break ice from the leading edges of these surfaces. The plane's engine intakes are protected by electric heating elements, as are propeller surfaces. Fuel is heated automatically." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17030-2002Oct25.html) It seems unlikely then that icing was a major contributor to the crash, unless the aircraft's multiple de-icing systems failed, and the aircraft's warning systems failed to notify the pilots of those failures -- but if that were the case, then perhaps the most likely explanation would be sabotage, and that has, of course, already been ruled out. The King Air A100 is said to have a very good safety record, with the last fatal crashes occurring six years ago. Strangely, there were two such fatal crashes involving the A100 just eleven days apart in December of 1997. Even more strangely, one of those two crashes was of a plane that was owned by the very same charter company that owns the plane that Wellstone was killed in. As the Pioneer Press reported, the 1997 crash that killed two Minnesota men, and that bore "some eerie similarities to Friday's accident ... involved a King Air owned by Aviation Charter, Inc., of Eden Prairie. That company has the same business address and CEO as Beech Transportation." Beech Transportation, of course, is the owner of the plane that was carrying Wellstone. (http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/4371837.htm) So as long as the King Air planes are not owned by this particular charter company, and don't happen to be carrying residents of the state of Minnesota, they are known to be very safe and reliable aircraft. The particular King Air plane carrying the Wellstone family "had only two reports of problems in its [23-year] history, according to the FAA. Both were in March 1996 and were problems with worn fuel cutoff levers that were replaced with the recommendation for more frequent inspections." (http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/4371837.htm) We have thus far covered weather, icing, and the structure and airworthiness of the plane as likely causes of the crash. Next up is engine failure. That one, alas, doesn't seem very likely either. The New York Times held that "Officials have said that both of the plane's engines showed blade damage, which they said suggested that the engines were running when the plane crashed," while CNN noted that Carmody voiced the same conclusion: "propeller damage indicates the engines may still have been operating at the time of the crash." (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/28/politics/28CRAS.html and http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Midwest/10/26/w...ion/index.html) The only other typical cause of small plane crashes is pilot error, and that also doesn't seem very likely. Though only required to have a single pilot, Wellstone's plane had two pilots on board, and both were fully qualified to fly the aircraft. The primary pilot, Captain Richard Conry, held an "airline transport pilot certification -- the highest certification a pilot can receive." (http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/4371837.htm) It appears as though the WSWS was right then in concluding that none of the typical causes of small aircraft crashes appear to apply in this case. That is not to say that they can be definitively ruled out -- just that they don't initially appear to be applicable. Wellstone, in other words, appears to have been in good hands with regards to the choice of aircraft and the flight crew, and the flying conditions - while less than ideal - were well within the abilities of the plane and its crew. And yet, in just two minutes time, with no distress calls and no warning, something went horribly wrong. Casting doubt on the most likely causes of an accidental crash does not, of course, prove that an alternative theory - such as sabotage - is true. Neither, for that matter, does placing the crash in its proper context in light of recent history, though it seems appropriate to do so. Though not widely reported, Wellstone was apparently previously targeted for assassination while visiting Colombia in December of 2000, which of course was right after Mel Carnahan's plane fell out of the sky just a few weeks before election day. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/colombia001201.html, http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/coun...ber/004162.html, and http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2000/12/irp-001201-col.htm) As has already been forgotten by the media, Congress was shut down for a period of time just after the September 11 attacks due to the anthrax mailings -- widely portrayed at the time as yet more 'terrorist' doings, and now rarely talked about at all. And who was it that was targeted by those mailings? Two of the most prominent Democrats in the Senate: Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. These were not likely meant to be successful attacks, by the way, since Daschle and Leahy are good team players, but rather were probably meant as a warning to others. Some have theorized that Flight 93, which never made it to its intended target on September 11, was scheduled for an attack on Congress. If so, were the anthrax attacks meant to do the job that Flight 93 failed to accomplish -- put the fear of God into Congress and force the temporary closure of the legislative body? More recently, the House considered legislation that would enable the quick replacement - which is to say, replacement without going through the bother of checking with the voters - of House members in order to maintain "continuity of government" in the event of - what else? - some sort of terrorist attack. (This legislation was discussed in an L.A. Times article from October 2, 2002, the link to which no longer works.) This legislation could very easily be perceived, by any dissenters in the legislative crowd, as a not-so-subtle warning that they can be quite easily replaced with hand-picked stand-ins. When viewed on a continuum then, with the attempted assassination of Wellstone, what is widely perceived to be the assassination of Carnahan, the possible (and, admittedly, entirely speculative) targeting of Congress on September 11, the attack on Congress just after September 11, and the House legislation allowing for rapid replacement of members who might suddenly find themselves victims of a terrorist attack, it is only natural to speculate on whether the Wellstone crash was something other than an accident. So what are we to make of all this? We can, through a process of elimination, narrow the options on the causes of the crash, but we cannot then conclude that the plane was in fact sabotaged (or shot down, as evidence at the Carnahan crash site seemed to indicate). We can speculate that assassinating Wellstone fits in with what seems to be a systematic effort to quell any and all dissent in Congress, but that likewise doesn't allow us to reach a definitive conclusion. So the key question, if we are to construct a case built on something more than speculation and circumstantial evidence, is: has any direct evidence surfaced that there was foul play involved in the crash? There are a couple of tidbits of information that point in that direction. There were reports, for instance, of what Carmody herself referred to as "an intense post-crash fire." The Pioneer Press quoted airport manager Gary Ulman as saying that the plane, broken into several scattered pieces, was engulfed in fire that "was still burning five hours after the crash." (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Midwest/10/26/wellstone.investigation/index.html and http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/4372594.htm; see also http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-1...innesota_x.htm) And there was one letter writer to the WSWS who says that there "was at least one witness, a blond haired man who said he saw a flash of light at the rear of the plane. This was on CNN. Saw him once and that was it." (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/well-n02.shtml) Of course, this claim, as with that of Mike Ruppert's correspondents, cannot be verified unless someone happened to catch it on videotape. But neither should these accounts be dismissed out of hand. It is in fact the case that the cable news networks run live footage that contradicts what later emerges as the official story. The networks invariably then proceed to pretend as though the offending footage never aired. So ... was Wellstone whacked? The only way to definitively answer that question is through a full investigation of the crash -- preferably one not run by a former CIA analyst and a former electronic warfare specialist who both have experience in issuing questionable reports on the causes of high-profile aircraft crashes. And now, I leave you with this cryptic posting that has been circulating of late, and that was purportedly first posted in May of 2001. If so, the pseudonymous poster made some uncannily accurate predictions. Of course, this could also be a hoax created after the fact and pre-dated. The missive claims that several Senators were being "evaluated" for possible assassination. The means of assassination was being "narrowed down to one of several choices. One being a carefully planned 'plane crash.' Another is through the delivery of certain biological agents to the Senator." (http://www.voxnyc.com/archives/senator-assassination.html) The author specified that if a biological approach was used, it would most likely be an "Anthrax hit." Also specified in the posting is that if "the death occurs just prior to the midterm senatorial elections, expect it to be in a state with a close race. Expect a 'Mel Carnahan' style hit." Strange but true, or just a hoax? I couldn't tell you, but I pass it along for whatever it's worth. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00206.htmWellstone Plane Was Out Of Control – Media Survey Wednesday, 30 October 2002, 11:06 am Article: Rick Ensminger The following is a summary of the facts available at this time via the media, surrounding Senator Paul Wellstone's airplane crash of 10-25-02. Judge for yourself, was this more likely an assassination or an accident? *************** >From the 10-27-02 Sunday edition of the St.Paul Pioneer Press: "They were no longer in control of the aircraft." said Don Sipola, a former president of the Eveleth Virginia Municipal Airport Commission, who has 25 years of experience flying at the airport. "That will be the $64 question---what occurred in the last few minutes that distracted them or caused them to wrestle control of the aircraft." "Something caused them at low altitude to veer off course," Sipola said. The angle of descent also indicates an out of control flight, Sipola said. The normal approach for the aircraft is a descent of 3 degrees, he said. But Siploa said the NTSB investigators told him Saturday that the plane was descending at 30 degrees. "This was a real steep bank, not a nice, gentle don't-spill-the-coffee descent," Siploa said. This is more like a space shuttle coming down. This was not a controlled descent into the ground." *************** >From the Minneapolis Star Tribune 10-26-02: The state of Minnesota operates two King Air 100's. Jesse Ventura uses the planes. Tom Kirton, an associate professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fl. said he flew a similar King Air model for five years as a corporate pilot before joining the school, which also has one. "The King Air is the finest airplane I have ever flown," he said. "The engines were totally reliable." "Performance on take off and landing was suberb. I mean, its got power to spare," Kirton said. "You take off and lose an engine, most folks could bring it down very, very easily on one engine and land a perfectly normal landing." Jeff Johnson, an associate professor in the aviation program at St.Cloud State University, said he has flown about 500 hours in King Air 100's as a private pilot. He said the planes are forgiving, stable and reliable. ADVERTISEMENT Johnson noted the King Air 100 has a flexible, boot-like device on the leading edges of the wings that the pilot can make "expand like a balloon to break ice off." He said he was told that only one pilot is required to fly the plane, two were hired because a Senator was on board. The pilots of Wellstone's plane... Conry had nearly 5200 hours of flying time and the highest certification a pilot can attain, his company said. Guess had 650 hours and was certified as a commercial pilot; he graduated from UND's aeronautics program. The weather at the Eveleth airport was a mix of mist and light snow at the time of the crash. Greg Spoden, assistant state climatologist said that at the Eveleth airport visibility was about 3 miles at the time of the crash. End of Star Tribune article. *************** As CNNFirst Reported: Breaking News. The crews on the ground found two large sections of plane. The tail section was intact. The weather did not have anything to do with the crash, said the on the scene reporter. Wolf Blitzer tried to correct her. He said, “The plane was flying into the storm of freezing rain, right?” There is no evidence that weather had anything to do with the crash. The on-the-scene reporter stuck to her guns. *************** >From the 10-29-02 Minneapolis Star Tribune: However, the team was able to make this significant discovery: the plane's landing flaps, which allow a slower and steeper approach to a runway, were extended 15 degrees on EACH wing. This information tends to discount the possibility, discussed by some local pilots, that one flap may have malfunctioned, putting them in different "asymmetric" positions and causing the plane to slowly turn 90 degrees from its westward approach to the runway in the moments before the crash. According to Executive Aviation, which operated the plane, Capt. Richard Conry flew his second-to-last flight Thursday, to Bismarck, N.D. His co-pilot on that flight told the NTSB that Conry didn't seem sick or tired on that flight. Conry spent much of Wednesday undergoing a required test of his flying proficiency, the Star Tribune has learned. Executive Aviation spokeswoman Mary Milla said Monday that Conry passed the so-called check ride, which was administered by a company pilot designated to conduct the exams by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The proficiency checks are required of commercial aviators every six months to maintain licensure. "He passed the check with flying colors," said Conry's wife, Johanne, on Monday. She also said her husband was in good health and well rested for the Wellstone flight. *************** >From the 10-29-02 St.Paul Pioneer Press: "Investigators...have ruled out physical problems with the pilots and one important piece of equipment." Dr. Thomas Uncini, St.Louis County's chief medical examiner, said Monday his preliminary conclusions are that the two pilots were in good physical condition and there were no signs that they suffered a heart attack or stroke. "No, it didn't happen," he said of medical problems. "It looked pretty straightforward." Frank Hilldrup, lead investigator for the NTSB said the landing gear appeared to be down but was too damaged by fire to determine if it had been locked into place. Another pilot who landed a slightly larger twin engine plane at the airport on Friday, a couple of hours before Wellstone's plane crashed, said in an interview that he experienced no significant problems. Veteran pilot Ray Juntunen said there was very light ice, "but nothing to be alarmed about. It shouldn't have been a problem." He said he ran into moderate icing conditions at 10,000 feet and requested permission to drop to 5,000. At that altitude, he had only light icing. When he dropped to 3400 feet, to begin his approach, "the ice slid off the windshield," he said. According to the NTSB, Wellstone's pilots received warnings of icing at 9,000 to 11,000 feet and were allowed to descend to 4,000 feet. Juntunen said he was able to see the airport from five miles out, and another pilot landed a half-hour later and told him the clouds were a little lower, but still not bad. Radar tapes indicate the plane had descended to about 400 feet and was traveling at only 85 knots near the end of its flight. It then turned south, dove at an unusually steep angle and crashed. *************** >From the 10-26-02 edition of the St.Paul Pioneer Press: The weather Friday was dismal, gray, foggy, with light snow, but the landing should have been routine, said Gary Ulman, assistant manager of the Eveleth Virginia Municipal Airport. Shortly after 10 a.m., Ulman heard the pilot's voice on the radio and saw the landing lights flash on after the pilot clicked the signal from the cockpit. But the plane didn't land. "After a while, I thought to myself, 'Where the hell are they?' " Ulman jumped into his own private plane and took off in search of the missing aircraft." *************** Summary: If the icing conditions were so bad (which they weren't) why would Ulman take his own plane up? They had just radioed in that they were coming in for a landing. They were only about 7 miles out. They gave no indication of any problem. The NTSB has confirmed that several times. There was no problem with icing at the altitude they were flying. Airport manager Ulman even took his plane up proving that icing was not a problem. The landing gear was down. The plane was "forgiving, stable and reliable." The engines were "totally reliable." You could land it "very, very easily on one engine." "Performance on taking off and landing were superb." The pilots were experienced veterans in good health and well rested. Only one pilot was required to fly the King Air A100 but they had two as an extra precaution for safety. Bush had made it his number one priority to get Wellstone out of the Senate, presumably thru the election process. Bush himself had come to Minnesota to stump for Republican Norm Coleman. "Americans for Job Security", a Republican controlled "tax-exempt" group pumped over one million dollars into ads against Wellstone. Wellstone had voted against Bush's Homeland Security. He had voted against some of Bush's judicial appointees. He pushed stronger environmental programs while Bush pushed the opposite way. Wellstone pushed hard for genuine measures to counter corporate fraud while Bush pushed for cosmetic ones. Wellstone pushed hard for an independent 9-11 investigation over Bush and Cheney's strongest objections. Wellstone voted against giving Bush a free hand to invade Iraq and it actually increased his popularity in Minnesota. He was pulling ahead of Coleman and it looked like he would win re-election. …AND THEN... They lost all control and all communications in his plane instantly, without warning during a landing approach. Is this sabotage, assassination or an accident? You be the judge. - Compiled by Rick Ensminger <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 (edited) WOW Jim...more wasted bandwidth and yet still no answers from you, why am I not suprised. Oh yea, now I remember...fetzering. I'm at a loss as to exactly what you are trying to show us here with your last few posts. That there are plenty of kooks like you out there in the trees? If thats the case don't bother, most of us know that already. Now how about a link to a working weapon? And please no more silly links like the on on Angle Light...that one almost surpasses your links to the pot head sites! LOL! And about that bluish white smoke.....wheres you source on that one Jim? And then there is this wonderful missive... "Certainly, no solar flare interference would be expected to have such systematic and regular effects, where the intensity and direction of the deviation is in the same direction and of similar magnitude--and at essentially the same time!" Certainly? Really, got any reference material to support this silly statement? I've spend quite a bit of time researching this and what you state here is exactly the opposite of what one would expect, but please if I'm wrong about this I would love to see your documentation that says you are correct. And please spare us another "expert" opinion from Costella. So what to you have left? Pilots are ok? Nope Weather was fine?...Nope EMP or death ray of your choice (which seems to change as the days pass)? Nope Motive? Maybe but in serious need of some supporting facts. Bluish White smoke points to an electrical fire? Nope Simulations prove the pilots compentent to save the plane? Nope GPS was manipulated by some unseen group or person? Nope Cell phone and questionable garage malfunction was caused by man made source? Nope. FBI arrives too soon? Nope Your worldview and partisan leanings? Yep. By inference this leads us to a conclusion...Jim Fetzer, based on his worldview and political leanings devises a wild CT and then tries in vain to find evidence to support his silly theory and along the way just makes things up out of thin air, and spins factual data in a vain but failing attempt to support his CT. When the validity of his "evidence" is called into question he resorts to his standard appeal to authority and finally vitriol filled rants aimed at those who would dare question him. What we have is a perfect example of the fine art of fetzering. Edited September 19, 2005 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 No uncle Bill never was a very good swimmer, but I do try to carry on his legacy here at "The Company" where I am quickly moving up the ranks. Being the ex-director's nephew does have it advantages LOL. I'm not related to the guy. My family name was Cohn. My Grandmother escaped Germany after her husband was dragged off by the Gestapo. She changed her name to Colby because she was afraid of having such an obviously Jewish name. I always thought about changing it back but never did. I'm not related to Roy Cohn either. Wasn't saying that Colby was murdered a rightwing fantasy? Hmmm...COLBY...a name rich in CIA history...interrupted a mealto go for a sail and fell overboard...conspiracy? Nah, just coincidence. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Jim I'm as mystified as Craig. What are you trying to prove with your latest posts? No one denies that Bush wanted Wellstone out of the Senate. Long irrelevant posts like that just clog up the thread. Is that you ploy to divert people's attention from the facts of the case? Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Jim I'm as mystified as Craig. What are you trying to prove with your latest posts? No one denies that Bush wanted Wellstone out of the Senate. Long irrelevant posts like that just clog up the thread. Is that you ploy to divert people's attention from the facts of the case?Len <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Facts - whose fact's? Better get Evan back here, your sinking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 (edited) "the fire from the fuselage gave off blue smoke, which is indicative of an electrical fire." At other times Fetzer make the same nonsensical claim but the smoke is bluish white. Like all of Fetzer's claims it sounds damning until you look into it and discover it's all hokum. It's impossible for the fire that consumed Wellstone's plane to have been electrical because there was no source of electricity. "as soon as you cut power to an electric fire by shutting down a circuit breaker, removing a fuse, or unplugging the device, the fire ceases to be a Type C fire and reverts to either a Type A or a Type B". http://real-estate-agents.com/tips/securit...nguishers.shtml Fires are normally categorized into three or four types Type A - "ordinary combustibles such as cloth, wood, rubber and many plastics" i.e. Solid combustibles Type B - "flammable liquid fires such as oil, gasoline, paints, lacquers, grease, and solvents" Type C -"electrical fires such as in wiring, fuse boxes, energized electrical equipment and other electrical sources" There is also are far less common fourth type Type D -"metal fires such as magnesium, titanium and sodium" http://www.desert-hot-springs.us/cityservi...inguishers.html Dr. Jim Fetzer a Ph.D. in philosophy of SCIENCE and Dr. John Costella Ph.D. in PHYSICS and a grammar school math/science teacher seem to not understand things as basic how fires burn or the difference between ignition and combustion. Electricity can ignite a fire but obviously it isn't combustible itself. Even if we were to accept Fetzer's theory that EM beam weapons exist and that one was used against the King Air, there would have to be another explanation for the color of the smoke. The fire could have been and electrical fire for the nanosecond that the beam hit the plane and then would have changed into a Type A or Type B fire. Remember that Fetzer claims the EMP shorted out all electrical systems on the plane. Why the smoke was blue or bluish-white I can't say for sure. I like Craig actually did some research into the matter [unlike Fetzer, Costella and Arrows apparently] and found various references to things giving off blue or bluish-white smoke. - I think the most likely explanation is that some of the surrounding vegetation was burnins as well. "Chief Shykes stated that when he saw the site there were two 'spot fires' burning and the site was smoking."* Forest fires give off blue smoke: *http://www.startribune.com/style/news/politics/wellstone/ntsb/252783.pdf "These true-color images covering north-central New Mexico capture the bluish-white smoke plume of the Los Alamos fire..." http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/...hp3?img_id=3323 "The forest service was doing a couple of very large controlled burns today and the air in southern Newton country was thick with blue smoke" http://www.cloudland.net/Mar03Journal.html "On the same week that blue smoke from Northern tinder choked Edmonton, an announcement of more funding for forestry research at the University of Alberta seems appropriate." http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=152 "The fire season is pretty much over. But wait! A blue smoke at the head of Five Mile Creek! Maybe it is not over! I quick get off my butt and take an azimuth shot on it. 240 degrees 20 minutes. My excitement is squelched with the realization that it is only a hunting camp." http://www.firelookout.org/IndianHillJournal.htm "By May 26th the St. Ignace fire was over 2400 hectares in size and it looked very much like it might to consume the whole island. MNR had made the decision to let the fire burn. By this time the fire looked like a huge rubber tire dump had caught on fire, or a nuclear explosion had occurred. This horrific funnel of bluish smoke looked like it was a mile wide and rose into the sky,..." http://www.superiornet.net/tourism/nirivia/fires/fires.htm "The combination of gasification and high-temperature pyrolysis* produces a faint bluish white smoke..." "...Twenty hours after ignition, most of the stump had been consumed. The only visible sign of combustion was faint, bluish white smoke from a depression in the soil where the stump had been." *" pyrolysis, which is the thermal cleavage of molecular bonds in the cellulosic and lignin macromolecules that make up the solid biomass" http://www.firelab.org/old/fcp/fcppubs/200...D002100_pub.pdf - Another possible explanation is that flammable material from inside the plane such as plastic and rubber [seats, carpet, paneling etc] were responsible for the color of the smoke: "My contribution was filling the place with acrid blue smoke from the rubber belt that once ran the beater-bar in the vacume head. Plastic Smerfs do NOT fit around the roller" http://www.geeknewz.com/board/index.php?au...d=10&m=8&y=2005 "the thick blue smoke of burning rubber." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/co...lines-columnone "On the way to Las Vegas not long ago, the first-class cabin started to fill up with blue smoke. No one was lifting a finger, and it was getting worse. So I walked into the galley and opened the warming oven to see what was the problem. The previously oblivious flight attendant ran after me, half-panicked, and yelled, "Sir, you can't do that." By then, I had retrieved a piece of burning plastic that had been caught on the heating element." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/business...ner=rssuserland - According to one first responder the fire was "a metal fire"*, which makes sense since much of the aluminium fusilage was destroyed. I don't know what color smoke burning aluminium produce, I looked a bit on Googlre but could not find the answer. I will look into it furthur. *http://www.startribune.com/style/news/politics/wellstone/ntsb/252783.pdf I did find some references to electrical fires producing blue smoke with Google but none to "bluish-white smoke" except for the ones by Fetzer. As Fetzer himself says most of the plane's fuel was stored in the wings which were separated from the plane. Ulman didn't see the smoke till about 20 - 30 minutes after the crash. If any of the fuel had caught fire it might well have burned off before Ulman took off. Lamson made some reference to smoke turning blue in the cold. Craig I'll hold you up to the same standard as Fetzer a link would good. Sorry Fetzer all that this talk about blue smoke shows is that you don't know what you are talking about. I am really looking forward as to how Fetzer and Costella will try to explain this one. Len Edited September 19, 2005 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 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. [* 1n 2003 said he suggested that " the wing was on fire before the plane hit the ground " see below] 1]"Safety Board investigations focus only on improving transportation safety"** i.e. discovering why accidents occur and how to prevent loss of life. So it was not up to them to explain why the fire was so hard to put out. If any agency would have issued a report about that it would have been the fire department. ** http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/invest.htm 2] The NTSB did provide clues as to why it took so long to extinguish the fire. It was in an isolated location and was very intense, there were a series of equipment failures and much of what they had was inadequate and they did not want to "disturb the wreckage". According to one firefighter: "Walking was very difficult on the swampy land and they often were in water and mud up to their knees. They passed the accident site by almost 50 yards because they could not see it through the dense trees...When he first saw the wreckage, the main fuselage area was 'fully involved'...only firefighter Nuno had a 25 lb. fire extinguisher. They knew that the extinguisher could not possibly extinguish the fire..." "Several firefighters arrived with portable 'bladder packs' of water which they used (along with the extinguisher) to knock down the fire and prevent flare-ups. Eventually, a Department of Natural Resources brush truck came to the scene; but it had an empty water tank due to the fact that it had already been 'winterized'... Another larger water-carrying vehicle from Hibbing developed engine trouble and caught fire at the scene after being unloaded off its trailer and had to be extinguished. Finally, a Lakeland Fire Department water-carrying vehicle was able to reach the site and apply a layer of foam and water to the wreckage. During the entire extinguishing process all of the firefighters were very careful to apply the agent gently so as not to disturb the wreckage. They did not allow anyone to get near the main wreckage or move any pieces of wreckage." According to an EMT from the fire department: "The fire extinguisher was emptied on the fire but did not have much of an effect 'because it was a metal fire´ " http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...ntsb/252783.pdf pgs.10 - 13 We have not claimed that the wings, which broke off during the crash, caught fire before the crash. Fetzer Sep. 15, 2005 "As Christopher Bollyn astutely observes, if the wing section is charred but the tree is not, then either the wing was moved from the crash site (unlikely, and probably strictly forbidden in accident investigations) or the wing was on fire before the plane hit the ground (accounting for the lack of damage to the tree itself)." Fetzer Jan. 9, 2003 http://www.assassinationscience.com/fbicoverup.pdf pg. 7 Costella - "Jim believes at least one witness reported something like smoke or fire from the plane." I missed that one Jim, do you have a reference? What's the link? 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. Any evidence of this? What might have been "in its luggage compartment that exacerbated the fire" how did it get there? How would the "film of white phosphorous" have gotten there? When was it decided which plane Wellstone fly in? How did the "assassins" get that information? How did they get access to the plane with out being noticed? Why didn't anybody notice the film before the plane took off? Wasn't the plane tested for traces of explosives? Why wasn't it detected? What evidence do you have such a "film" exists* and would do what you claim and would not be visible to the naked eye? [Please don't cut and paste entire articles especially if they are from pothead/UFO/crackpot CT/porno sites - a few select quotes and links will suffice] Why hadn't the film burned off at the beginning of the fire? Highly flammable materials burn off quickly. If it was only 'invisible' film there could not have been very much - it's illogical to assume there would have any left after a few minutes let alone several hours. Are you sure Costella is a scientist? * I Googled "film of white phosphorous" and "white phosphorous film" both came up without any matches, +film +"white phosphorus" +fire gave 981 matches but I didn't see anything on the first 2 pages that looked relevant. The above Fetzer/Costella quotes com from this post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=39975 That only three of the victims were found to have smoke in their lungs initially suggests that not all of them had smoke in their lungs, but only three of them were sufficiently non-cremated to have their lungs still available for inspection. The rest were reduced to charcoal.http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=39910 "3.2 Injury Information The Saint Louis County Medical Examiner provided copies of victims. autopsy reports. The reports are summarized in the attached injury chart. (See Attachment 2) Victims C, D, F, G, and H sustained multiple traumatic injuries during the impact and no evidence of smoke or soot inhalation was noted in these individuals. Victims A, B, and E also sustained multiple traumatic injuries; however, all three showed evidence of postimpact smoke and soot inhalation." http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...ntsb/252783.pdf pg. 5 Jim if you have any information that contradicts the quote above and supports your claim please provide a link or attach a scan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 ...that the Challenger was shot down with a beam weapon.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're not serious about that, are you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But of course: http://assassinationscience.com/columbiamystery.pdf I did switch the name of the shuttle, I should have said "...that the COLUMBIA was shot down with a beam weapon..." Go to Fetzer's site [assassinationscience.com] for a veritable cornucopia of crackpot ideas*. Len *I do agree with a few things he has there though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 (edited) I rather like my piece on the Columbia disaster, so I hope everyone will read it through. It's as though anyone who tries to figure out what happened by con- sidering something approximating the full range of possible explanations is on that basis considered to be a "crackpot"! If that's the standard, then I'm guilty. There appears to be an attitude from you and Lamson and Thompson that any- one who questions government reports must be "looney-tunes". That is what we should expect from mediocre minds. After all, how can anyone possibly tell a government report is right unless they actually study the evidence themselves? But that's how this game is played. We have gone beyond THE NTSB REPORT and studied the reports on which it is based. There are major omissions and distortions. It is deceptive in the extreme when you and they continue to quote THE NTSB REPORT, when it is the accuracy of that report that is under question. It reminds me of the approach of Gerald Posner to the assassination of JFK. He wrote a simplified version of THE WARREN REPORT that was based upon many claims, like the single-bullet theory, that are not only false but provably so, yet insists what he says is true. You guys simply assume THE NTSB REPORT is right! Now I really can't fault you for your gullibility. I suppose you also believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11, that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama, and that there were weapons of mass destruction. (According to Rumsfeld, we knew where they were!) If you want to be a sap for the government, be my guest! I put up more posts on RF/EM/HERF weapons because you have so frequently challenged their existence. This is not your most brilliant move, but of course you are imposing a very demanding standard of proof, when what we have for the most part are a very large number of indirect indications of their existence. Others have questioned whether the Bush administration actually had motive to take the man out, so I have posted several articles that address that point, too. And along the way I have put up articles--some overlapping--that demonstrate that others have reached the same suspicion or conclusion as we have reached. Tonight I watched an arc welder and--guess what?--it gave off bluish-white smoke. Gary Ulman reported bluish-white smoke and first responders with whom I have discussed the case have confirmed it. They were talking about the smoke from the plane, not the trees around it, many of which still stand. Having talked with some of the key participants in these events may enable me to more readily sort out some of the nonsense from the sense. I welcome distinguishing between the igniter and the combustion, however, which seems a good fit with my scenario. Obviously, the electrical fire ignited the metallic fire. The fire was the most distinctive feature of the crash, especially when it burned with such intensity and the firemen could not put it out. The fuselage--minus the wings and the tail--was reduced to charcoal. This was peculiar, since the wings are the storage repository for most of the plane's kerosene-based fuel. Kerosene-based fuel, of course, burns coarsely black, not bluish-white. It is very odd that you want to suggest a fire that began as a class © fire, then turned into an (A) or (, which it should be obvious that the temperatures it produced were sufficient to ignite the fuselage and turn it into a class (D) fire. This is a nice example where I question your mental abilities. If you really believe what you are saying, then you are not very bright; and if you do not believe what you are saying, then your are being dupicitous. Of course, it is not difficult for me to decide which is which, one reason why I distrust you. Our theory of the fire is that the use of a directed energy weapon caused a power surge, which took out the CDI, the stall warning device, and the com- munications system, while destroying the electrical switches that control the pitch of the props. With no forward thrust, there was little the pilots could do. The wiring caught fire and the ignition point was high enough to ignite metal components of the plane. That would not have been true if the fire was based on the fuel, most of which was in the wings, which broke off during the crash. Which can explain how the plane caught fire and burned so long and intensely. The FBI kept photographers and others from taking photos of the scene, which is also odd, if you want to record the details to reconstruct what happened. It makes great sense, however, if you want the plane to burn to a crisp, as it did. Which I believe is one reason why, though it was risky, they had to arrive early. The sole phrase used by the NTSB about the first is that it was "post-impact". If I am wrong about the other passengers having been turned to charcoal along with the plane, I appreciate the correction. But three of them did have smoke in their lungs, which suggests that the fire may have started before the crash. Most interestingly, I am curious as to your account of the crash. Why did two qualified pilots with an excellent aircraft in reasonable weather simply ignore their airspeed and altitude--and direction!--and allow the plane to crash, even though it was equipped with a loud stall warning alarm? Please explain this. Some of the replies from you and others are to the effect that, "Well, maybe the stall warning device wasn't working!" OK, that's certainly a possibility, but it is very probable? The plane was exceptional and had an excellent record of maintenance, which suggests that, while it is possible, it is highly improbable. And, of course, as I have pointed out ad infinitum, since the NTSB's own sim- ulations with a weaker engine and flying at abnormally slow speeds was un- able to bring the plane down, why do you believe it? Remember, even one of the team who signed the report admitted they had no idea what happened. Since the NTSB does not explain the fire, I am curious as to how you propose to explain it. We have an explanation. I doubt that you have an explanation, unless you are going to claim it was actually the fuel that burned bluish-white and ignited the fuselage, even though the wings (storage tanks) remain intact. One of the problems with this account, of course, is that the temperature of a kerosene based fuel fire is considerably below that of an electrical fire. Since the ignition point of a metallic fire is considerably above the temperature of a fuel fire but not that of an electrical fire, such an account appears very unikely. Why don't you tell us, Leonard? Let us see the wisdom that comes with such an intense obsession with this case and unceasing attacks upon me, when my motive is to figure out what happened, consistent with the available evidence. I am curious how you propose to explain this oddity when the NTSB could not. ...that the Challenger was shot down with a beam weapon.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're not serious about that, are you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But of course: http://assassinationscience.com/columbiamystery.pdf I did switch the name of the shuttle, I should have said "...that the COLUMBIA was shot down with a beam weapon..." Go to Fetzer's site [assassinationscience.com] for a veritable cornucopia of crackpot ideas*. Len *I do agree with a few things he has there though <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Edited September 20, 2005 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 I'm not going to put up with any more of Mr Fetzer's dribble; he has fixated on the idea that the crash was an 'assassination' and nothing will convince him otherwise. I suspect that if the ghosts of the flight crew appeared before him and said they screwed up, Mr Fetzer would accuse them of being part of a 'cover up'. The NTSB report is based upon the KNOWN FACTS and, based on those facts and past incidents, determines the most likely reasons for the accident. They have done a thorough investigation and there is nothing CREDIBLE to disagree with their conclusions. If there is anything factually incorrect about the report, then inform the NTSB. I don't talk about high energy weapons because I am not qualified to seriously discuss them. You, Mr Fetzer, do not have the qualifications, training, or experience to judge the report. You are not qualified flight crew, you have little (if any) aviation experience, and cannot speak with any authority about the cockpit environment. Simply put, with regard to the NTSB report - its investigations and conclusions - you don't know what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 (edited) I rather like my piece on the Columbia disaster, so I hope everyone will read it through. It's as though anyone who tries to figure out what happened by con- sidering something approximating the full range of possible explanations is on that basis considered to be a "crackpot"! If that's the standard, then I'm guilty. Nothing wrong with the consideration..what takes you into the land of the moonbat crackpot is you inability to understand even the basics of the subject in question. You sillyness on the Columbia disaster was based on a distinct lack of understanding of the basics of digital photography and could have been avoided with just some simple research. Instead you jumped head first into you silly emp moonbat ct theory. The big problem with Jim Fetzer is not the lack of brains but rather the ability to use them in a productive manner. There appears to be an attitude from you and Lamson and Thompson that any- one who questions government reports must be "looney-tunes". That is what we should expect from mediocre minds. After all, how can anyone possibly tell a government report is right unless they actually study the evidence themselves? Not at all. Questioning is fine. Playing fast and loose with the evidence and facts to support your silly claims is not. In this case the "mediocre minds" are all in your pathetic camp Jim. Like you we have also studied the evidence provided by a number of sources including the goverment as well as that provided by you and your horde. Your evidence is contrived and lacking in substance and detail. Much is it is made up from whole cloth. In addition you disregard all that damages your claims with a simple wave of the hand. Not the kind of work one would expect from a man of your education, but then again you do seem to have a "mediocre mind" But that's how this game is played. We have gone beyond THE NTSB REPORT and studied the reports on which it is based. There are major omissions and distortions. It is deceptive in the extreme when you and they continue to quote THE NTSB REPORT, when it is the accuracy of that report that is under question. There are no major omissions nor distortions, except for what you see in your CT addled mind. The report is NOT under question. Its stands on its merits, unlike your work which has been torn limb from limb. And like you we have also went under the hood to get to the meat. Unlike you we do not have to distort the truth to make a case. It reminds me of the approach of Gerald Posner to the assassination of JFK. He wrote a simplified version of THE WARREN REPORT that was based upon many claims, like the single-bullet theory, that are not only false but provably so, yet insists what he says is true. You guys simply assume THE NTSB REPORT is right! ]Wrong again Jim. We assume nothing. We have done the homework and found no fault in the basis or conclusion of the NTSB final report nor the supporting reports. You however have based your entire theroy on assumption. The assumptions that EMP weapons actually exist in operational and transportable form, that bad pilots are good and that they do not make mistakes, that a electrical ignition source is the same thing as a fuel fed fire, that the lack of proper firefighting equipment equates to a fire that was impossible to put out, that not making a distress call equates to the comm equipment not being functional...and on and on and on. Your entire case is an assumption. Now I really can't fault you for your gullibility. I suppose you also believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11, that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama, and that there were weapons of mass destruction. (According to Rumsfeld, we knew where they were!) If you want to be a sap for the government, be my guest! This is not germain to this discussion but its clearly your sleazy style....fetzering I put up more posts on RF/EM/HERF weapons because you have so frequently challenged their existence. This is not your most brilliant move, but of course you are imposing a very demanding standard of proof, when what we have for the most part are a very large number of indirect indications of their existence. You have no indirect indications at all. What you have posted is future looking documents and pie in the sky links from CT sites and pothead sites. Our proof is not demanding at all. You made an extraordinary claim and you need to back it up with extraordinary proof. To date you have failed in a very big way. You are living on a huge assumption here. I find it amazing you try to take us to task for assumption when the very basis for your entire case is based on fantasy. Others have questioned whether the Bush administration actually had motive to take the man out, so I have posted several articles that address that point, too. And along the way I have put up articles--some overlapping--that demonstrate that others have reached the same suspicion or conclusion as we have reached. Great, but what does it prove? That there are others who are a kooky as you? It helps your case how? Tonight I watched an arc welder and--guess what?--it gave off bluish-white smoke. Gary Ulman reported bluish-white smoke and first responders with whom I have discussed the case have confirmed it. They were talking about the smoke from the plane, not the trees around it, many of which still stand. Man thats too cool! You saw an arc welder! So what. Exactly what fuel was burning in that arc Jim? Surely you have to know that an electrical arc can only be a source of ignition, it cannot be a fire. For an electrical ignition source to produce actual fire it has to IGNITE SOMETHING. In your theory on the Wellstone crash lets assume for a moment that your fantasy emp weapon actually exists and it caused the electrical system to short on the aircraft. For a fire to consume the aircraft that electrical short would have to ignite some other fuel source, and in an aircraft interior there are a multitude of materials that are combustable. If in fact such a short happened the fire that would have ensued would not have been an electrical fire but rather a fire fed by the combustables contained inside the airframe. The heat of that fire has nothing to do with the ignition point of an electrial short but rather the fuel source, the amount of available oxygen and the flashpoint of the superheated smoke and gas that would have built inside the airframe as the fire burned. And the smoke color is not a true indication of the fuel source but rather the fuel oxygen mixture. A fuel rich fire burns with black smoke, perfectly mixed fire burns near smokeless and a fuel lean fire burn with a whitish smoke...regardless of the fuel. And on that acr welder thing...are you sure you saw bluish-white smoke or did you see whitish smoke illuminated by the very blue (hot) light emitted by the arc? Having spent a lot of time in weld shops and having photographed many a welder...I gotta tell you Jim .. its the blue light from the arc. Fire neeeds three things, heat-fuel-oxygen, Tonight as you watched the arc welder did the metal continue to "burn" when the arc was removed? Having talked with some of the key participants in these events may enable me to more readily sort out some of the nonsense from the sense. I welcome distinguishing between the igniter and the combustion, however, which seems a good fit with my scenario. Obviously, the electrical fire ignited the metallic fire. In a word...bullxxxx. If there was an electrical malfunction and it ignited a fire, the fire that it ignited was not a metallic fire. It was a fire fueled by the combustables in the aircraft. In fact the most likely explaination for the fire that consumed the airframe is that a jetfuel fire that entered that damaged airframe and ignited the combustable in the cabin. The jet fuel would have burned very rapidly, while the combustables and the hot unburnt combustion gases condensed in the cabin until flashover happened and the high heat from that flashover then consumed the airframe. The fire was the most distinctive feature of the crash, especially when it burned with such intensity and the firemen could not put it out. The fuselage--minus the wings and the tail--was reduced to charcoal. This was peculiar, since the wings are the storage repository for most of the plane's kerosene-based fuel. You are twisting the facts Jim. The firefighters could not put the fire out because the plane was in the middle of a swampy woods and getting firefighting equipment of the magnitude required to put the fire out was near impossible. Kerosene-based fuel, of course, burns coarsely black, not bluish-white. It is very odd that you want to suggest a fire that began as a class © fire, then turned into an (A) or (, which it should be obvious that the temperatures it produced were sufficient to ignite the fuselage and turn it into a class (D) fire. You show a distinct lack of knowlege here Jim. The color of the smoke that a fire produces is dependant on the fuel air mixture. As fuel rich Jet A file will burn with black smoke, a fuel lean Jet A fire will burn with whitish smoke. If the smoke from the crash...when it was found...was bluish/white the most probile answer is that the Jet A fuel was mostly burnt at that time. You really need to do some research Jim, your not making yourrself look very good here. This is a nice example where I question your mental abilities. If you really believe what you are saying, then you are not very bright; and if you do not believe what you are saying, then your are being dupicitous. Of course, it is not difficult for me to decide which is which, one reason why I distrust you. This is really rich...you call Len a dummy when he has it right and its you that have it totally wrong. Its no wonder why so many distruct YOU! Our theory of the fire is that the use of a directed energy weapon caused a power surge, which took out the CDI, the stall warning device, and the com- munications system, while destroying the electrical switches that control the pitch of the props. With no forward thrust, there was little the pilots could do. Great theory...too bad NONE of the evidence from the aircraft point in any way to any of this. Not that this stops you...you simple dismiss the findings of everyone involved in the investigation based on nothing but your hatred of the government. Thats standard CT tactics. Its also dishonest. The wiring caught fire and the ignition point was high enough to ignite metal components of the plane. That would not have been true if the fire was based on the fuel, most of which was in the wings, which broke off during the crash. Which can explain how the plane caught fire and burned so long and intensely. Agian this is simple bullxxxx...see my reply to the fire above. The FBI kept photographers and others from taking photos of the scene, which is also odd, if you want to record the details to reconstruct what happened. It makes great sense, however, if you want the plane to burn to a crisp, as it did. Which I believe is one reason why, though it was risky, they had to arrive early. Why is this odd? It was the scene of the death of a US Senator and it was also a delicate scene. Would you want a bunch of press photogos stamping around the scene of the crash until it was well secured and the evidence was collected. Your suggestion is just plain silly. Jim...the plane was going to burn to a crisp regardless, press or no press. A plane buring to this extent is pretty common in this type of crash and its exactly what happened when a Hendricks Motorsports King Air crashed into a mountain last year. In fact if you study air crash history its not unusual at all. You are once again twisting fact and making it fiction to fit your theory The sole phrase used by the NTSB about the first is that it was "post-impact". If I am wrong about the other passengers having been turned to charcoal along with the plane, I appreciate the correction. But three of them did have smoke in their lungs, which suggests that the fire may have started before the crash. And it could as easily suggest that they died on impact and did not draw a breath after the fire started. Most interestingly, I am curious as to your account of the crash. Why did two qualified pilots with an excellent aircraft in reasonable weather simply ignore their airspeed and altitude--and direction!--and allow the plane to crash, even though it was equipped with a loud stall warning alarm? Please explain this. Len can add his own thoughts but the evidence infers that two marginal pilots flying in weather that was just above minimums, flew a poor approach, missed the correct radial and failed to control the aircraft while trying to figure out exactly where they were...all the while flying too slow and too low. They screwed up and killed themselfs and theor passengers. Its pretty common for this to happpen in avation. On the other hand there has never been one confirmed case of an emp bringing down an aircraft. Some of the replies from you and others are to the effect that, "Well, maybe the stall warning device wasn't working!" OK, that's certainly a possibility, but it is very probable? The plane was exceptional and had an excellent record of maintenance, which suggests that, while it is possible, it is highly improbable. Did you pay any attention to Evans posts on this subject? It need not have been broken at all for it go go off too late to save the aircraft. That is not improbable. And, of course, as I have pointed out ad infinitum, since the NTSB's own sim- ulations with a weaker engine and flying at abnormally slow speeds was un- able to bring the plane down, why do you believe it? Remember, even one of the team who signed the report admitted they had no idea what happened. And as we have pointed out the simulations had noting to do with "being able to bring the plane down" It simply was a test to see if the aircraft could have recovered. It says nothing about the actual actions of the pilot or copilot onboard the Wellstone aircraft. And of course the simulation also showed that when flying the actual track and profile of the Wellstone flight, the poor approach greatly increased the workload of the pilot. Couple that with the fact that both the pilot and copilot were know to be weak and not confident on approach and landings and it makes this increased workload a key finding of the simulations that points in favor of pilot error and not away from it. Since the NTSB does not explain the fire, I am curious as to how you propose to explain it. We have an explanation. I doubt that you have an explanation, unless you are going to claim it was actually the fuel that burned bluish-white and ignited the fuselage, even though the wings (storage tanks) remain intact. Explained above. One of the problems with this account, of course, is that the temperature of a kerosene based fuel fire is considerably below that of an electrical fire. Since the ignition point of a metallic fire is considerably above the temperature of a fuel fire but not that of an electrical fire, such an account appears very unikely. The jet fuel as only an partial fuel source and not the source for the continuing fire. It never is. However the temps generated by a airframe combustables fire is high enough to ignite the airframe. And Jim...there is no such thing as an electrical fire..only a fire ignited by an electrical source. Why don't you tell us, Leonard? Let us see the wisdom that comes with such an intense obsession with this case and unceasing attacks upon me, when my motive is to figure out what happened, consistent with the available evidence. I am curious how you propose to explain this oddity when the NTSB could not. Get real here Jim..your motive is clearly to find a way to take painful accident and somehow find a way to blame a President and administration you hate. You are an open book in this regard. And it perhaps the only book outside of your professioanl work that has even a bit of truth to it. Edited September 20, 2005 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 (edited) As I understand it, everyone on this thread agrees that there was no good reason for the plane to crash. As far as has been determined, even by the NTSB, either incompetence or foul play was involved. While the NTSB make the assumption that incompetence was the more likely cause, Dr. Fetzer assumes that foul play was more likely. While there has been anecdotal evidence supporting both assumptions, there is no data available to demonstrate that one is really more likely than the other, as we, as a society, have no real idea how many airplane crashes have been caused by foul play. Dr. Fetzer has presented a theory on how he thinks the assassination took place. If one is to disprove his particular theory on how the assassination took place, or find it sorely lacking, it by no means should lead one to the assumption that THEREFORE the crash was an accident. The two thoughts should not be connected. I should think that everyone could see this simple point. I think it's interesting that those arguing with Fetzer apparently have not looked into the Kennedy assassination to any large degree. When one looks into the Kennedy assassination, even if one concludes Oswald acted alone, one must confront the fact that one of the most extensive investigations in American history failed to explore vital evidence readily available, and misrepresented much of the information it did turn up. This is significant. Even Gerald Posner would agree this is true. While Dr. Fetzer's refusal to go along with everything in the NTSB report, written by men with presumably far more knowledge than himself on all things airplane, might sound arrogant to those without his background, his experience as a JFK researcher has taught him to distrust the experts hired by the government to look into controversial matters. To him, this distrust is well warranted. And so I have to say my sympathies are with him on this one, without my even reading his book. While Len and Craig's posts have been able to demonstrate that there's reason to doubt parts of Fetzer's theory, their unwillingness to acknowledge that the NTSB report leaves the window open that there was a 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%? chance of foul play makes it appear that they are more concerned with shutting down ALL theories on Wellstone's death outside the unproven pilot error theory, than they are in shutting down his particular theory. Guys, there's no real evidence for pilot error outside the fact that it's not impossible and might even be likely. Therefore, even if you are successful in shutting down Fetzer's particular theory on HOW Wellstone was killed, you will not be able to touch him on his theory WHY he was killed. Like the deaths of the Kennedys, Mary Meyer and Marilyn Monroe, the death of Wellstone is destined to be subject to decades of conjecture, unless, of course, Fetzer's research turns up something SO HUGE even you will recognize its worth. Edited September 20, 2005 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 (edited) Pat, Let's assume for a moment that Mr Fetzer is correct about a 'high energy' weapon of some type 'luring' the aircraft off-course and completely frying all the aircraft electrics. That would make his theory about the crash correct, wouldn't it? Simple answer: no. If all electrical systems are completely fried: 1. Engine power and blade pitch controls still have a mechanical linkage that would allow close to normal performance - sufficient to fly out of the stall; 2. Aircraft still has altimeter - pressure operated, no electrical power required; 3. Aircraft still has Air Speed Indicator (ASI); pressure operated from pitot tube and static port on fuselage - no electrical power required; 4. Aircraft still has Vertical Speed Indicator (VSI); operated by pressure - no electrical power required; and 5. Aircraft still has Standby Atitude Indicator (AI), sometimes called the 'artifical horizon'. Main AI runs off electrics; standby AI run off vacuum reserve specifically in case of total electrical failure. FAA standards say it must run for at least 30 mins with no power. So you still have control of your engines to deliver power, you know your pitch / roll (AI), how fast you are going (ASI), your altitude, and how fast you are descending / climbing (VSI) - everything you need to fly out of the situation. Even if the stall warning was disabled, part of instrument flying is maintaining an instrument scan - looking at all those primary flight instruments. EVERYTHING indicates they didn't have a proper scan going (PIC responsibility), they should have seen the airspeed bleeding off, failed to recognise the impending stall, then failed to correctly recover from the stall. It's a classic case - it's happened before and will no doubt happen again. The NTSB has drawn the correct conclusions from the available data. Mr Fetzer does not have the experience or training to analyse the events, and fails to recognise that he is plain wrong. If there WAS 'foul play', it was NOT as Mr Fetzer describes. Edited September 20, 2005 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 (edited) Let me begin by observing that an uncomplicated pattern of reasoning leads me to believe that I am probably not wrong about the physical condition of the victims of the crash with regard to the state of their bodies. The plane was consumed by an intense fire, which burned for hours and which the firemen were unable to put out. It reduced the plane to little more than a pile of charcoal. Take a look at the photographs that appeared in our article, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", found here: View photos: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...wellstone.shtml Since the plane would only burn at a higher temperature than bodies would burn, it is difficult for me to resist the inference that they were cremated on the spot. If there was enough left to determine that three of them had smoke in their lungs, I very much doubt that there was enough left to determine that the rest did not. Of course, I could be mistaken, but study the photographs. How would it be possible? The bodies, by the way, were only discovered in looking through the wreckage for the voice-cockpit recorder, which probably was included in the upgraded package for this late model King Air A-100. They were identified on the basis of their dental records. I submit that the available evidence suggests their bodies were otherwise destroyed by the fire. How could it be otherwise? It is easy to create phony words on paper. I don't want to suggest the medical examiner issued a false report, but the available evidence appears to strongly support that the bodies were destroyed. Moreover, the effects of a strong EM hit not only include taking out the electronic components of the plane (the CDI, the stall warning system, the communications equipment) and the electrical systems (including the switches that control the pitch of the props, among others) but can have unhealthy effects on human beings and other living things, such as rendering then unconscious, incapable of voluntary mus- cle control, or even dead. Does Burton also know, based upon his vast experience, this did not happen in this case? Under the conditions, how could he possibly know? The extensive, intense, and long fire surely would have destroyed physical effects. As for his "explanation", I've heard it all before. There must be something about being a pilot that leads these guys to assume they know what happened--even if they are completely unfamiliar with the evidence in a specific case. Because it is POSSIBLE that the pilots screwed-up and simply allowed the plane to crash, that must be what actually HAPPENED! School children might get away with simple- minded reasoning like this, but not adults. Unless, of course, they happen to be PILOTS, which endows them with cognitive powers far beyond the norm! William Rees offered exactly the same line of reasoning, which fails for the same reason. That it might have been POSSIBLE for certain systems to survive an electromag- netic attack does not mean that it is PROBABLE that the plane could have been successfully flown under these conditions. Burton has done nothing to explain why two qualified pilots neglected their airspeed and altitude--and even direction!--or the loud stall warning system that should have alerted them that they were about to crash. He cannot even account for the fact that they were on the wrong course, heading 268 instead of 276! If their CDIs were working, they should have known! And of course he completely ignores the NTSB's own simulations! Such arrogance! One feature of the Waukegan incident that he has overlooked is that the pilot said his CDI showed them being on the right course, when in fact they were heading in a southernly deviation from their flight path. And the GPS DEGRADE light did not function properly, coming on and off for the co-pilot, even though the pilot's light was not changing. Something odd was going on at the same time the Wellstone plane was experiencing trouble. We suspect that, since the effect was similar in magnitude and direction, they were also subject to GPS data manipuation, which led them into the "kill zone" without alarming them that something was not right. Certainly, nothing that Burton has to say deals with the most basic consideration, namely: that it is more probable that they did not "power up" and circle around for another attempt at landing because the plane was no longer under their con- trol than that they did not "power up" and circle around for another attempt when the plane was still under their control! And with two pilots, if they could have sent a distress call, it certainly would have been a good idea, since they were about to crash in a remote, swampy area where the speed of help could make a difference to life and death, including the life of a Senator, his wife, daughter, and three aides. Of course, none of this gets to the other relevant evidence, including the melted cloud cover, the bluish-white smoke, the metallic fire, the odd cell phone anomaly, and the garage door openings. So far as I can see, nothing he has to say actually explains any of the puzzling aspects of the crash. How does he explain why they were on azmuth 268 rather than 276? Why didn't they notice they were not even on the right path for a landing, if their equipment was properly functioning? And why did they ignore their airspeed and altitude, not to mention the stall warning, assuming their equipment was properly functioning? It makes a lot more sense to acknowledge this was FAR MORE PROBABLE if it was not functioning properly! Burton observes that I am not a pilot and he is, which is certainly correct. But it does not follow that he knows more about this specific case than I do. In fact, he displays massive ignorance about almost every aspect of the Wellstone crash and openly acknowledges he takes for granted that THE NTSB REPORT is correct! All things considered, at this point in time, given the extensive discussion over this and other fora, that is an incredibly naive stance to adopt. The whole question at stake is whether or not THE NTSB REPORT is credible. I suggest that, for a start, he not only look at the pictures but read the words of the study cited here. Be- cause it is increasingly apparent one of us does not know what he's talking about. Read text: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...wellstone.shtml Pat,Let's assume for a moment that Mr Fetzer is correct about a 'high energy' weapon of some type 'luring' the aircraft off-course and completely frying all the aircraft electrics. That would make his theory about the crash correct, wouldn't it? Simple answer: no. If all electrical systems are completely fried: 1. Engine power and blade pitch controls still have a mechanical linkage that would allow close to normal performance - sufficient to fly out of the stall; 2. Aircraft still has altimeter - pressure operated, no electrical power required; 3. Aircraft still has Air Speed Indicator (ASI); pressure operated from pitot tube and static port on fuselage - no electrical power required; 4. Aircraft still has Vertical Speed Indicator (VSI); operated by pressure - no electrical power required; and 5. Aircraft still has Standby Atitude Indicator (AI), sometimes called the 'artifical horizon'. Main AI runs off electrics; standby AI run off vacuum reserve specifically in case of total electrical failure. FAA standards say it must run for at least 30 mins with no power. So you still have control of your engines to deliver power, you know your pitch / roll (AI), how fast you are going (ASI), your altitude, and how fast you are descending / climbing (VSI) - everything you need to fly out of the situation. Even if the stall warning was disabled, part of instrument flying is maintaining an instrument scan - looking at all those primary flight instruments. EVERYTHING indicates they didn't have a proper scan going (PIC responsibility), they should have seen the airspeed bleeding off, failed to recognise the impending stall, then failed to correctly recover from the stall. It's a classic case - it's happened before and will no doubt happen again. The NTSB has drawn the correct conclusions from the available data. Mr Fetzer does not have the experience or training to analyse the events, and fails to recognise that he is plain wrong. If there WAS 'foul play', it was NOT as Mr Fetzer describes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Edited September 20, 2005 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 (edited) You, Mr Fetzer, do not have the qualifications, training, or experience to judge the report. You are not qualified flight crew, you have little (if any) aviation experience, and cannot speak with any authority about the cockpit environment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mr. Burton does not have the qualifications, training, or experience to judge the qualifications, training, or experience of Jim Fetzer, whose intelligence and training probably exceeds that of Burton. Like all of us, Jim is not always right... maybe just 98 percent. I disagree with him on two things...Chauncey Holt and O.J.Simpson. Aviation experience is not necessary to judge facts, photographs, testimony and news reports. A little common sense, which Jim has in abundance, is what is necessary. Am I the only one who finds it strange that a fire consumed an airplane and people, but did not even scorch a tree? Science is not needed to observe this...just common sense. Jack Edited September 20, 2005 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now