Evan Burton

I said this in another forum, and I think it's just as true here: If the 'government' faked the moon landings (where there were tens of thousands of personnel involved, warehouses full of technical documentation, thousands of images, the programme was in the public eye, and subject to enormous scientific scrutiny as perhaps the most significant event of history), and the 'government' faked 9/11 (where there were hundreds of people at the scene, a few videotapes of the events themselves, and subject to massive government / public / scientific scrutiny as one of the most significant events in history).... why didn't they fake finding WMDs in Iraq? The area was under tight control and security, few people would have been involved, the faking (either chemical or nuclear) of WMDs is well within the capability of the forces involved, it would have justified events in Iraq to both domestic & foreign opponents, and it would have been a great PR boost for G.W. Bush. Yet nothing was found. Think about it.

I do not know what has happened to this thread. It seems to have gone missing when we changed servers. Some members have complained about photographs being removed from the Forum. I am afraid we have limited disk space on this Forum. This problem is not helped by some members who post a lot of large-sized photographs. Some even “quote” these photographs in their postings. Every so often Andy and myself have the task of removing old photographs from the Forum. Therefore, it is advisable for members to provide links to photographs they have on their own website as well as putting them on the Forum. I'm happy to report the following: I saved most - if not all - of the images that were uploaded to the thread (i.e. attachments, not links) on my PC. Additionally, one of the very kind people at apollohoax.com saved all the text from the thread, which includes the link URLs. At the suggestion of another one of the kind people from apollohoax.com, I checked google and managed to retrieve about half of the pages from the thread. With all this, I should be able to totally reconstruct the thread. To save valuable disk space here, I'll see about setting up a dedicated website for the work. This will probably take a few weeks to get a website, and then reconstruct it. I'll post the new URL when it's finished. Thanks again for all the help, and the kind words.

I'm just hoping it got 'missed' in the transition / recent problems with the board. Thank you for the comments, Stephen. One of the things about Apollo Hoax claims is that at first, there seems to be a basis for them. Once you can locate the details, you find that they fall apart.

Could someone tell me where all the responses I made to Jack White's 'Apollo Hoax' work on Aulis.com went to? I can't find it on the topic list, and the links are no longer working. I hope I'm not sounding paranoid, and I hope it's just a 'glitch', but I would find it disturbing that such a detailed and comprehensive rebuttal to Jack's Aulis claims were to suddenly disappear whilst all Jacks 'Apollo Hoax' claims (including images) remain intact. Please tell me I have been sadly mistaken, and made an error of some description.

I've never encountered this problem with a forum before: I normally 'right-click' links to open them in a new window. On this forum I can't do that. If I right-click a link, it will not activate a menu - simply nothing happens. I always have to click the link and open in the same window, or use the file menu to open a new window (i.e. a copy of the first) and then activate the link from there. This is occuring with my IE 5.5 at work, and Netscape 7.03 at home. Anyone else finding this problem?

As you can see Maya, Jack White will only talk to you if you support his claims. If you question what he says, he will no longer discuss his claims with you.

I think the attacks could have been prevented, but it is only with the benefit of hindsight that we could truely place importance on the specific warnings.

Stephen, As anyone who has been on the 'coal face' of a public line to large organisation can tell you, there are a lot of 'nutter' calls that come through. When I was the senior Duty Fleet Operations Officer, I had everything from bomb threats to people wanting us to have their latest inventions. I have no doubt that various agencies of the US government received calls warning them about attacks. There may have even been warnings about a specific attack, using aircraft, to the WTC on the actual date it happened. I don't know - but it may well have happened. The problem is: how do you sort out the hoax calls from the genuine? It must be an incredibly difficult job. My understanding is that the Secret Service get hundreds of calls - per week - claiming assination attempts on the President. How do you give creedence to one call and discount another? US Federal agencies may have well got warning of the attacks. They may have improperly disregarded them. Can you say, however, in the same position that you would not have done the same? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Cheers and stay well.

Just watching a programme about the NASA plans for a return to the moon, and it struck me that the present plans are the greatest piece of evidence that Jack and other 'moon hoaxers' are wrong. Here we are, 40 years later than the design of Apollo. Massively improved electronics. Huge advances in aerospace technology. NASA has the chance to design an all-new system to land on the moon. What do they come up with? "Apollo on steroids". Why? BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS. I'm just wondering how Jack et al are going to make up so-called 'proof' about the next generation of landings being faked. Have no doubt, they will.

Maya, I think I have dealt with this one on the following thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3589 The thread deals with all of the photographic claims made by Jack on the Aulis website. It's long but (IMO) worth reading. It's especially important to look for the situations where you can re-create the same scene yourself, and see what your own photographs tell you. Cheers,

Since your story quotes Dr Corely as an authoritive source, leader of the BPS Team, perhaps it would be a good idea to read his testimony before the US House of Representatives, where he does not get misquoted or taken out of context: http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full...ay01/corley.pdf *************************** Preliminary analyses of the damaged structures, together with the fact the structures remained standing for an extended period of time, suggest that, absent other severe loading events, such as a windstorm or earthquake, the buildings could have remained standing in their damaged states until subjected to some significant additional load. However, the structures were subjected to a second, simultaneous severe loading event in the form of the fires caused by the aircraft impacts. The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, permitting fires to evolve across several floors of the buildings simultaneously. The heat output from these fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures. Studies of WTC 7 indicate that the collapse began in the lower stories, either through failure of major load transfer members located above an electrical substation structure or in columns in the stories above the transfer structure. Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded, with collapse initiating at an interior location. The collapse may have then spread to the west, causing interior members to continue collapsing. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building, including the cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat connections between the interior beams and columns at the building perimeter. ****************** Although they cannot identify a specific cause for the WTC 7 collapse, they do not mention explosives once, despite having reviewed the video footage extensively.

QUOTE: (contains quotes from engineers) Eyewitness Reports Persist Of Bombs At WTC Collapse By Christopher Bollyn Exclusive to American Free Press 12-2-1 Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media. Television viewers watching the horrific events of Sept. 11 saw evidence of explosions before the towers collapsed. Televised images show what appears to be a huge explosion occurring near ground level, in the vicinity of the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, prior to the collapse of the first tower. Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech, said on Sept. 11, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The collapse of the structures resembled the controlled implosions used to demolish old structures and was "too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures," Romero told The Albuquerque Journal hours after the attack. Implosions are violent collapses inwards, which are used to demolish buildings in areas of high density, to prevent damage to surrounding buildings. Precision-timed explosives are placed on strategic load-bearing columns and beams to cause the controlled collapse. Demolition experts say that towers are the most difficult buildings to bring down in a controlled manner. A tower tends to fall like a tree, unless the direction of its fall is controlled by directional charges. The WTC towers "smokestacked" neatly, falling within the boundaries of their foundations. Skeptics say this could not have happened coincidentally and it must have been caused by strategically placed and precisely timed internal charges. Videotape images may reveal these internal charges precipitating the controlled demolition of the towers and WTC 7. Romero is vice president of research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures, and often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects. After being hit by the aircraft, the twin towers appeared to be stable. Then without warning, at 9:58 a.m. the south tower imploded vertically downwards, 53 minutes after being hit. At 10:28, 88 minutes after being struck, the north tower collapsed. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said. If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," he said. "One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion, in this case the collision of the planes into the towers, which brings emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion. Ten days after the attack, following criticism of his initial remarks, Romero did an about-face in his analysis of the collapse, "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," he told the Journal on Sept. 21. The twin towers were struck by Boeing 767's carrying approximately 23,000 gallons of fuel. However, there is other information that lends credence to Romero's controversial scenario. One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns. One of the first firefighters in the stricken second tower, Louie Cacchioli, 51, told People Weekly on Sept. 24: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building." Kim White, 32, an employee on the 80th floor, also reported hearing an explosion. "All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on," she told People. "We got all our people on the floor into the stairwell . . . at that time we all thought it was a fire . . .We got down as far as the 74th floor . . . then there was another explosion." The accepted theory is that as the fires raged in the towers, the steel cores in each building were heated to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, causing the support beams to buckle. A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets. "I designed it for a 707 to hit it," Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767's 23,980-gallon fuel capacity. Another architect of the WTC, Aaron Swirski, lives in Israel and spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio after the attack: "It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of attack," he said. Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, watched in confusion as the towers came down. "It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it," he said. Brown told AFP that although the buildings were designed to withstand "a 150-year storm" and the im pact of a Boeing 707, he said the jet fuel burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit weakened the steel. Brown ex plained that the south tower collapsed first as it was struck lower with more weight above the impact area. Brown told AFP that he "did not buy" the theory that the implosion was caused by the fires sucking the air out of the lower floors, which has been speculated. The contractor who is reported to have been the first on the WTC collapse scene to cart away the rubble that remains is a company that specializes in the scientific demolition of large buildings, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Baltimore, headed by Mark Loizeaux. CDI is the same contractor that demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building, actions that prevented independent investigators from pursuing evidence on leads suggesting that there were bombs set off inside the building. In February 2000, a federal grand jury indicted Mark Loizeaux, Douglas Loizeaux and Controlled Demolition, Inc. on charges of falsely reporting campaign contributions by asking family members and CDI employees to donate to the campaign of Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.). The Baltimore Sun reported that the illegal contributions allegedly occurred between 1996 and 1998. The Loizeaux brothers and CDI were acquitted in Sept ember 2000. Cleaning up the estimated 1.2 million tons of rubble will reportedly cost $7 billion and take up to a year. Removing the debris has also been controversial. The police said that some scrap metal has been diverted to mob-controlled businesses rather than the dump where investigators are examining rubble for clues and human remains. The second plane nearly missed the South Tower, cutting through a corner. Most of its fuel burned in an outside explosion. However, this building collapsed first, long before the North Tower, into which a similar plane entered completely. Ah, the (in)famous Romero comment. What else did he have to say about it? Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like." Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." You should try reading this article: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=4&c=y

Having a look at Jack's recommended website, you'll find it is a mixture of anti-Bush activists and conspiracy theorists. I had a close look at the one which claimed that an A-3 SKYWARRIOR hit the Pentegon, not a B757. Dribble, inaccuracte, misleading dribble. Jack's credibility is up to its usual standard - none at all.

A good place to learn such is PHYSICS911: http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.j...ysics911.net%2F Well, lets see who we have on that panel: Kinesiology (!), Mathematics, Computer Science, Biology, Linguists, Statisticians, Activists, Web Designers.... Don't see any mechanical or structural engineers there. The aerospace engineers might have some knowledge, but exactly what background do they have? So, Len, Jack's answer to your question is: NO-ONE.

Why are you so CONFRONTATIONAL? I answered your questions. Just as I did, you can go to the internet sites I provided and get the same information I got. I cannot spoon feed it to you. The articles are written by metalurgists and physicists. I did not make it up as you accuse me of. You can use Google like I did to find the COMPLETE VIDEO CLIP. It is there. Just Google for it. It is on several sites. It will play in QuickTime or RealPlayer. I played it and did SCREEN CAPTURES of individual frames. Are you accusing me of fabricating the frames? Do your own research. I have pointed the way. Do not accuse me of fabrication. Jack And like all of Jack's work - he avoids answering the 'tough' questions. As soon as you question any of his findings, you become an enemy. Even though Steve never said any such thing (see above), Jack says he "... did not make it up as you accuse me of.". You have dared to challenge Jack's work, Steve; you're now on his 'xxxx list' and he won't reply to you.

I recall the same regarding the SR-71 - what do they feed you dolt's down there in the amazon basin? Can I ask what exactly you mean by "... the same regarding the SR-71"?

Good article, thanks. Comments and hypothesis withdrawn - does ALPA have *influence* regarding NTSB findings? The Wellstone crash in particular? What can ALPA [the collective], tell the NTSB about ANY plane accident, other than opinion, comments and hypothesis? Can ALPA police itself when cause may be "pilot error"? When it comes to determining plane crash causes, I suspect ALPA's input-influence goes about as far as airplane manufacturers. I would imagine that they have no more or less influence than any other large professional body. They cannot INFLUENCE the findings, but they can certainly comment on them. They'd obviously be sensitive to any type of 'pilot error' findings because they are an organisation of professional airline pilots. If they had strong opinions that a finding of pilot error was wrong, they'd loudly voice that opinion. They do raise issues of perceived pressure to 'cut corners', poor maintenance practices, aircraft / system design flaws, etc. Basically, a professional body trying to do the best for its members and the industry they work in.

Yep, and also this: http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Do...d=1458&Tabid=73 and this http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Do...d=1458&Tabid=73 and this: http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Do...Id=785&Tabid=73 and this: http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Do...Id=785&Tabid=73 and this: http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Do...Id=785&Tabid=73 and this: http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Do...Id=785&Tabid=73 Guess David Healy doesn't know what he's talking about, either!

I've already offered - twice - to have the report scrutinised by two senior accident investigators here in Australia. There was a resounding silence to that offer.... The reason Mr Fetzer dislikes these offers because he is aware that his own hypothesis is flawed, and will not stand up to scrutiny by experts.

Hi! Just over the last few days, a couple of times when I try to access the board I get a mySQL error page come up. This morning (2200 GMT) it's working again but very slow. mySQL error: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11) mySQL error code: Date: Friday 30th of September 2005 05:08:51 PM Anyone else experiencing this? Using Netscape 7.02

Hi! Just over the last few days, a couple of times when I try to access the board I get a mySQL error page come up. This morning (2200 GMT) it's working again but very slow. Anyone else experiencing this? Using Netscape 7.02

Hi! Just over the last few days, a couple of times when I try to access the board I get a mySQL error page come up. This morning (2200 GMT) it's working again but very slow. Anyone else experiencing this? Using Netscape 7.02

Explanations Fetzer has given as to why agents from Minneapolis simply didn't fly to Eveleth if they were in such a hurry. 0 The airport was temporarily closed, which is standard practice, in case something about the airport had contributed to the crash. Not point in setting up a situation where those investigating the crash also crash! According to you Ulman took the Fire Chief up after the crash was discovered. TB was no evidence that the airport had caused the crash. You might have a point But I think if the FBI said it was an emergency they would have been allowed to land. Worst come to worst they could have diverted to near By Hibbing. YOU SEEM TO THINK YOUR UNSUPPORTED SPECULATIONS ARE A BASIS FOR REBUTTING POINTS THAT I HAVE SUBSTANTIATED WITH EVIDENCE. THAT IS NOT THE SIGN OF A RATIONAL MIND, UNLESS YOUR PURPOSE IS TO BE DECEPTIVE. THEY FLEW INTO DULUTH AND RENTED A CAR TO DRIVE UP TO EVELETH, AS I HAVE EXPLAINED IN THE BOOK. IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO READ IT! PAUL MCCABE'S STATEMENT--THAT THEY HAD ONLY ARRIVED AT 3:30--WAS CONTRA- DICTED BY THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY SHERIFF AND THE AIRPORT ASST MANAGER. The airport was closed because a crash investigation was taking place. No-one (not even the FBI) would be allowed to land there unless they declared an emergency. Declaring an emergency is not ‘I have to land there because I am part of the investigation team’ but rather ‘I have an aircraft emergency and have to land immediately for the safety of those aboard’. In this respect, Mr Fetzer has it right; until they ascertained the cause of the crash – or at least could clear the airport to resume normal operations – it would be closed to all traffic. 0 The NTSB spent hours questioning pilots from Charter Aviation about the possibility that the pilots were making a GPS rather than a VOR approach, which suggests that even the NTSB was taking the possibility seriously. 1] I read many But not all the interviews [some are not available on-line] I don't remember reading that. Please Briefly summarize these interviews and provide links if they are on-line. If not please attach them to a post B or put them up on your site. All pilots I have asked said your fly VOR or GPS not both 2] I thought that it was you position that the NTSB was trying to cover-up the case. WB they investigating all possibilities or covering up? 3] The assassins would have no way of knowing in advance if they would use GPS [Not that I think they were]. What would the killers have done if they only used VOR. EGAD! NONE OF THIS MADE IT INTO THE NTSB REPORT, IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF "PLAN A", "PLAN B", ETC.? I THINK IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN VARIOUS PLANS DEPENDING UPON HOW EVENTS ACTUALLY UNFOLDED. (I WILL SEE ABOUT PROVIDING A LINK.) It’s obvious that they considered the possibility that the aircraft tried to fly a GPS approach. They requested a VOR approach, were cleared for a VOR approach, were vectored to join a VOR approach, and never indicated that they were flying anything else but a VOR approach. That’s why the NTSB didn’t take it any further. The EVM GPS RWY 27 approach takes them along a completely different track which would have been apparent on radar. The ATCO would have questioned them as to which approach they were flying. You continually hang on this GPS business when there is absolutely no evidence in any way, shape, or form that they flew a GPS approach. The late-model plane had an advanced avionics package, including a GPS system. The problem is to explain why the plane was heading for landing on the wrong gamut, 268 rather than 276. The Waukegan pilot's odd GPS experience, which occurred at the same time, suggests that GPS data may have been manipulated to lead the plane into the "kill zone" and kill it. It's wrong heading has been explained ad infinitum But I'll explain it, just for your Benefit one more time. The plane had been off course since the first overshoot of the approach. IF THE PLANE WAS IN WORKING ORDER, AS YOU MAINTAIN, THEN THE CDI AND ALTIMITER AND AIRSPEED INDICATOR AND STALL WARNING SYSTEM ARE ALL FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. THAT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE HOW TWO QUALIFIED PILOTS--ONE EXCEPTIONAL--SHOULD HAVE LOST TRACK OF THEIR AIR SPEED, THEIR ALTITUDE, THEIR DIRECTION, AND A LOUD WARNING. THIS IS ONE OF THE STRONGEST INDICATIONS THAT YOU ARE NOT TAKING THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE PLANE WAS NO LONGER UNDER THEIR CONTROL SERIOUSLY. IN FACT YOU ADMIT AS MUCH ELSEWHERE IN THIS SPECIFIC POST. SO APPARENTLY NOTHING IS GOING TO CONVINCE YOU OTHERWISE, INCLUDING THE SMOKE, THE FIRE, THE MELTED ICE CLOUD, THE CELL PHONE ANOMALY, ETC. You have said that one pilot was “exceptional” – just how do you qualify that? Both crew were qualified and current for the flight. Having an ATPL is NOT exceptional – there are thousands of pilots in the US alone with that rating. The pilot holding the ATPL was in no way exceptional. He did not have an exceptional number of flight hours logged. He had not flown an exceptional number of aircraft types. He did not have an exceptional range of experience. he did not hold any exceptional endorsements. He was not a senior captain or instructor pilot. He was not a maintenance test pilot. He was not an experimental test pilot. He was not regarded amongst his peers or any professional organisation as an exceptional pilot. He was NOT ‘exceptional’. One pilot held an ATPL, the other a CPL. Let’s test your knowledge here. Why did one hold an ATPL, and not just a CPL? If you find it difficult to believe that a qualified and current crew can ignore warnings and simply fly their aircraft into a dangerous situation, then you have not bothered to read the multitude of reports from around the world demonstrating that qualified and current flight crew can do just that. 0 This is a new phenomenon, of course, but that is part of the ingenuity of the plan. Use a weapon of which the public is largely unaware, but which can do the job. ... Another words "Zero". Your speculation B is even more untenable than regards EM weapons. That the US and other countries have been working on them for years is not in dispute. Show me one article from a reliable source saying that someone is working of this type of technology or explaining how in theory this might be done. Specifically how one GPS unit could be targeted JUST AS IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PART OF THE PLAN TO USE A WEAPON THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH IS LARGELY UNKNOWN TO THE PUBLIC, THE MANIPULATION OF GPS DATA WOULD BE A PERFECT WAY TO INDUCE THE PILOTS INTO THINKING EVERYTHING WAS FINE WHILE THEY WERE BEING LED INTO A "KILL ZONE". ISN'T IT REMARKABLE THAT THE WAUKEGAN PILOT WAS HAVING HIS EXPERIENCE AT THE SAME TIME THE WELLSTONE PLANE WAS OFF COURSE BY A SIMILAR DIRECTION AND A SIMILAR MAGNITUDE? WHEN HE TAXIED UP TO THE AIRPORT, THE TIME WAS 10:22 ON 25 OCTOBER 2005. HE WAS THE ONE WHO WAS ALARMED AT THE PROSPECT THAT BOTH EVENTS MIGHT BE RELATED. IF THEY ARE NOT RELATED, THAT WOULD BE AN ASTOUNDING COINCIDENCE. More of the GPS – a subject which you would appear to know nothing about. Time for you to put up or shut up about this matter. 1. Explain how the GPS works, specifically with relation to an aircraft and conducting a GPS approach. 2. Explain how the GPS could have been disrupted without triggering the various error-sensing systems built into a GPS receiver. THEY WERE HEADED SOUTH, MORE THAN TWO MILES SOUTH OF THE AIRPORT. SINCE THE SIMULATIONS WITH A WEAKER ENGINE AND FLYING AT ABORMALLY SLOW SPEEDS WERE UNABLE TO BRING THE PLANE DOWN, IF IT WAS UNDER THEIR CONTROL, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO POWER UP AND CIRCLE FOR ANOTHER TRY. THE QUESTION IS WHY. YOU SUGGEST INCOMPETENCE, BUT THERE WERE TWO OF THEM, THEY HAD A GREAT PLANE, THEY CARRIED SIX PASSENGERS, INCLUDING A US SENATOR, THEY WERE NOT DEAF, ONE OF THEM HAD AN AIR TRANSPORT PILOT'S CERTIFICATION AND HAD PASSED HIS FAA "FLIGHT CHECK" JUST TWO DAYS BEFORE THE FATAL FLIGHT, MAKING IT IS OVERWHELMINGLY MORE PROBABLE THAT THEY DIDN'T RECOVER BECAUSE THE PLANE WAS NO LONGER UNDER THEIR CONTROL THAN THAT THEY SIMPLY IGNORED THEIR AIRSPEED, ALTITUDE, CDI AND ALARM, ALLOWING A CRASH. Once again, for all those reading (because Mr Fetzer will obviously ignore this), the simulation showed that it was possible to fly out of the situation; it did NOT show that it was unable to ‘bring the aircraft down’. Anyone could ‘bring the aircraft down’ – simply fly into the ground! Tell me, Mr Fetzer, what is the typical reaction of a twin-engined, low-wing, turbine powered aircraft when it enters a low speed stall at low power setting? Incompetence and inattention are more likely explanation THIS REMARK DEMONSTRATES THAT YOU ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT ANY OF THIS. And that remark simply shows you are unwilling to consider the possibility you are wrong! THERE IS MORE THAN ONE POSSIBILITY REGARDING THE DETAILS OF EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AT THE END. ONE IS THAT THEY WERE INCAPACITATED AT THIS POINT; THE OTHER IS THAT THEY WERE NOT. Correct. The NTSB report is the most probable, though. THIS IS THE "BEST CASE" SCENARIO ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WERE DOING THEIR BEST WHEN THE PLANE WAS LOSING POWER TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE CRASH. False assumptions. There is NO evidence whatsoever that the aircraft was ‘losing power’. The flight crew had reduced power in order to regain the correct descent profile. I WISH WE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. EITHER WAY, THE PLANE HAD NO FORWARD THRUST BECAUSE SOMETHING HAD HAPPENED, WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY AN ENERGY SURGE THAT SET THE PROPS ON IDLE. Again, false assumption based on absolutely no evidence. ‘Flight idle’ is a normal setting for an approach. Mr Fetzer, I challenge you to put your hypothesis to any recognised organisation of professional pilots and publish their unedited reply here.

That would seem to answer my question. Mr Fetzer doesn't seem to read the replies. I know Jack doesn't. Mr Fetzer, you can tell me a hundred reasons why political opponents would want Wellstone dead and I would have no reason at all to doubt you are totally correct. I am only interested in the accident itself, and how it took place. Everything the NTSB reports states is logical and we have seen similar occurences in the past. Your claims on HOW the aircraft came down are wrong. I'll try one more time: look for circumstances that DO match the facts. I already said that if someone were to say that one or both pilots were paid to crash the aircraft, then that would be well within the realm of possibility. I still think it's simply an accident, but deliberate CFIT fits all the known facts. If we want to head towards the 'spy world' stuff, what about a gas that would disable the flight crew yet be untracable in the toxicology? That's just as likely as your 'death ray'. Does any such gas exist? A delivery system would probably burn up in the crash leaving no evidence. Is there such a delivery system? Actually, I've just had a thought about a possible alternative. Let me check up on the facts and I'll ley everyone know.

That's correct. It is speculation - but it's speculation that fits the facts, and is backed by historical precendents in such areas as human performance and air accident investigation. It MIGHT be wrong - but there is nothing credible that best fits the known facts. If something more credible comes along - or at least a theory that fits the facts - then it should be re-examined.