Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
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.
-
Hi Mr. Jack,
I found your study of the big mountain small LM, vs BIg LM small mountain interesting. A site has done this observation also. However, I found this site http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html which refutes this along with other arguments. How do you respond to that? thanks
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.
-
I work for a civil engineering firm. A former division of our firm had a structural engineering contract with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and was involved with the structural analysis of the WTC after the bombing in ’93. I have spoken with engineers involved with that analysis and other engineers in our firm and no one has ever expressed disbelief in the “official” explanation of how and why the buildings collapsed.
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.
-
So far I haven't read about any. This makes me wonder about all the supposed anomalies. Why aren't they being raised by people who know what they are talking about?
Economists, atomic physicists, ad. execs, neo-Nazi journalists and water safety specialists don't count.
I refer specifically to questions as to whether the collapses of the WTC buildings can be explained by impact damage, fires and falling debris cause by the planes crashing into the towers.
Len
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.
-
Jack – you still didn't answer my question / request for information.
Again -
1. Are you are going to provide evidence the interior fires were not intense enough to cause the damaged floor structures to weaken and deflect enough to cause the progressive collapse? Not melted - weakened! Hopefully you understand the difference!
2. Can you please provide a link to where you got the screen captures from the CNN feed on Page 8. If you cannot provide a link to the information you are using, how can anyone be assured of its validity!
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.
-
Retired Army colonel says EMP weapons "never quite seem to happen"
" 'It's been this elegant promise for decades that never quite seems to happen,' said John Alexander, author of 'Future War: Non-Lethal Weapons in Twenty-First Century Warfare' and a retired Army colonel who directed non-lethal weapons development at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 'The check's always in the mail.'
http://coxnews.com/cox/news//static/cwb/pr...MICROWAR15.html
I found 2 excerpts from Col. Alexanders's book online - This guy unlike Fetzer Costella and the tinfoil hat crowd know what they are talking about.
http://www.ereader.com/product/book/excerp...Century_Warfare
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0312267398...00Q#reader-link
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"?
-
Healy dropped his bone and barked...
_____________________
"Ah, Mr. Burton, since when does ANY "organization of professional pilots" comment on American airplane crash investigations? Hypothesis included? Especially when a nationally recognized political leader found himself dead in said crash? "
How about the ALPA?
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive...5/04/c7414.html
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.
-
Healy dropped his bone and barked...
_____________________
"Ah, Mr. Burton, since when does ANY "organization of professional pilots" comment on American airplane crash investigations? Hypothesis included? Especially when a nationally recognized political leader found himself dead in said crash? "
How about the ALPA?
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive...5/04/c7414.html
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!
-
Evan Burton' dronned on:
Mr Fetzer, I challenge you to put your hypothesis to any recognised organisation of professional pilots and publish their unedited reply here.
_____________________
Ah, Mr. Burton, since when does ANY "organization of professional pilots" comment on American airplane crash investigations? Hypothesis included? Especially when a nationally recognized political leader found himself dead in said crash?
Sounds like right-wing rationality to me... kinda like the White House investigating Karl Rove for some sort of flight of fancy (pardon the pun).
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.
-
From yours (Evan) above:
quote on
"That's because they cannot absolutly say that because there is no DIRECT evidence (such as a CVR). With the available evidence, it is the most probable scenario"
quote off
"probable scenario", sounds like 'pure' speculation to me...
[/i] [/b]
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.
-
Just to make sure nothing gets edited out later.....
Colby misses the forest for the trees, most of which are mere illusions.# of pilots or aviation experts Fetzer could find who doubt the NTSB's
explanation the crash
0 No, several are cited in the book, which you may or may not have read.
It comes down to the probability that two qualified pilots would have
simply lost track of their airspeed and altitude and allowed the plane
to crash when there was a loud stall warning system to warn them. The
NTSB's own simulations contradicted this result because, using a simu-
lator with a weaker engine and flying at abnormally slow speed, they
were unable to bring the plane down. Not to mention that the plane
was off course, flying the last few minutes along azmuth 268 when it
should have been on 276. So they would have had to neglect not only
their air speed and altitude but also their CDI and the stall warning
alarm. That's quite a lot to swallow, even for the greatest apologist
for THE NTSB REPORT. Even Richard Healing, a member of the NTSB team
that signed the report, admitted that they had no idea what had caused
the crash and were merely speculating. Surely it makes more sense to
infer that these things happened to two qualified pilots because the
aircraft was no longer under their control than to suppose they were
more incompetent than pilot trainees. Plus they may have been lured
into the "kill zone" through the manipulation of the directional data.
Reasons Fetzer can come up with that since many similar crashes were due to
pilot error to doubt that the Wellstone crash was too..
0 This guy has no idea how many crashes were "due to pilot error" unless
he has actually investigated them! Numbers that are fake or fabricated
or otherwise inaccurate prove nothing. I have already enumerated many
reasons to doubt that this crash was due to "pilot error", to which it
may be added that the principal pilot, Richard Conry, had around 5,200
hours of experience, an Air Transport Pilot's license, and had passed
his FAA "flight check" just two days before the fatal flight. Accord-
ing to the government's own standards, he was highly-qualified to fly
this aircraft. Given the passenger list, moreover, there is reason to
believe the pilots would have been especially careful and cautious, a
crucial difference between this flight and any others you have in mind.
They were not "similar" in many respects, some of which were important.
Remember, too, this plane was even described by Carol Carmody, the head
of the NTSB team that investigated, as the "Cadillac" of small aircraft.
# of fire experts who agree with Fetzer's theories about the fire.
0 It doesn't take a "fire expert" to observe that the ignition point for
a metal fire is considerably higher than the temperature of a kerosene
based fuel fire. Even Burton suggested that an "electrical arc" might
have ignited the fire. An electrical fire would have been a predictable
outcome of the use of a directed-energy weapon, which not only takes out
the electronics but overwhelms the electrical systems of targets it hits.
The idea that you could test this hypothesis by connecting a couple of
batteries together and failing is ludicrous. The amounts of energy that
are created by these devices are immense and could easily start a fire.
http://whitts.alioth.net/Pagee7Handling%20...m#anchor1227940
According to whittsflying, there are four kinds of aircraft fires: engine
stat, electrical, in-flight, and post-flight. Electrical fires have an
acrid smell with possible white smoke. Black smoke warns of oil while
fuel makes orange flames. Post-crash fires are more dangerous than the
crash itself. Most deaths come from smoke and carbon monoxide inhala-
tion. Fire is fueled from gasoine or electrical energy. Black smoke
usually indicates gasoline/oil and white smoke plus a distinctive odor
is electrical. The smoke from the Wellstone crash was bluish-white, as
I have confimed by viewing aerial photos of the scene while it was still
burning and as Gary Ulman and various "first responders" have reported.
# of scientists other that Costella who believe there can be an electrical fire
without electricity
0 You again display your ignorance. Electricity is an elecromagnetic phe-
nomenon. Costella not only has a Ph.D. in electromagnetism but an honors
degree in electrical engineering as an undergraduate. He is easily the
most highly qualified person to ever study this case--the most qualified.
An intense electrical surge seems to have ignited a metallic fuselage fire.
Costella's qualifications other than his diplomas
0 This is like saying, apart from his knowledge and training, what does he
know? But the fact is that he has visited the crash scene, has studied
the aircraft manual, has reviewed the reports on which THE NTSB REPORT
itself was based, and has co-authored an article that identifies short-
comings in THE NTSB REPORT, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", which is found
here, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...wellstone.shtml.
He is the single most knowledgeable expert on the crash, in my opinion.
Evidence that Fetzer has that the fire was pre-impact
0 Although the fire, which reduced the fuselage to charcoal, was the most
striking feature of the crash, the NTSB never even attmpted to explain
it. The use of the phrase, "post-impact", was never justified by its
investigation. If everyone was killed on impact, the fact that three
of the deceased had smoke in their lungs indicates that the fire had to
have been "pre-impact". That possibility is consistent with the evidence.
# of articles from reliable sources that say that operational EM weapons as
described by Fetzer exist
0 I have put up hundreds of links to articles and studies. One of the most
interesting is to the Directed Energy Professional Society, which is con-
ducting its eighth annual meeting this year: http://www.deps.org/. Since
this is its eighth annual meeting, its first meeting must have been back
in 1997, which is highly consistent with an address to Congress presented
by a Lieutenant General about the then-current status of research in this
area, which is one of many sources we provided in AMERICAN ASSASSINATION.
Tremendous progress has been made developing such weapons, where your
continued denial of their existence only displays the strength of your bias
against taking seriously the possibility that this plane was taken down.
Direct evidence he has that an EM weapons was used against the plane
0 The request for "direct evidence", of course, is very clever, since that
would require having been on the scene to observe the plane being taken
down. We have many indirect indications, including the melting cloud
cover (discussed in the study linked above), the odd cell-phone anomaly,
garage doors opening spontaneously, the bluish-white smoke, the metallic
fire (ignited by a higher temperature than a kerosense-based fire would
provide), the lack of a distress call (which would certainly have been
appropriate, given the passengers aboard and the wooded, swampy area in
which the plane was going down, where the rapid arrival of first respond-
ers could make the difference between life and death), the loss of con-
trol, the props at idle, the failure to keep on proper course, and such,
most of which are not even acknowledged much less explained by the NTSB,
but which have high probability if a directed-energy weapon was employed.
# of people on the ApolloHoax thread who believe that Costella knows what he is
talking about in the EM chapter
0 Your source, "JayUtah", whose background is in mechanical engineering,
does not appear to have qualifications that are appropriate to address
these issues. You are eager to cite someone with no qualifications in
either electromagnetism or electrical engineering as though he were an
"expert", while denying the expertise of someone with both a Ph.D. in
electromagnetism and an honors undergraduate degree in electrical engin-
eering! By now, I think, even those who have not been following this
threat carefully should be able to discern the extent of your efforts
to bias an objective and scientific analysis by distorting the case.
# of friends, family and co-workers of any of the 8 people who died who believe
Fetzer's theories
0 I have knowledge in this area that some of the friends and family of some
of those who died in the crash do not believe the official account, but I
am not in the position to identify them. I can assure you that they exist
but, of course, as in the case of directed-energy weapons, you are always
able to deny what I am telling you. The directed-energy case is telling.
# or reasons Fetzer could come up with as to how Wellstone's death should have
helped Coleman
0 The very idea that taking out the opposing party's candidate for the U.S.
Senate ten days before the race when he was pulling 7-8 points ahead would
not help the party's candidate is so simple-minded as to hardly merit any
response. It would make it extremely difficult for the opposition party
to regroup. You could also anticipate, under the circumstances, that the
memorial service that would predictably take place would include at least
some rhetoric encouraging carrying on the dead candidate's platform, goals
and ideals, which could be spun against the party. That is exactly what
happened and, needless to add, the plan worked and Coleman was elected, a
crucial development in gaining control of the U.S. Senate by Republicans.
Evidence that Fetzer has that agents from Minneapolis arrived less than 2 1/2
hrs. after the crash was discovered
0 The testimony of Rick Wahlberg, Sheriff of St. Louis County, corroborated
by that of Gary Ulman, the Airport Assistant Manager, both of whom were
contradicted by Paul McCabe, spokesman for the FBI. These are certainly
reliable sources who had no reason to lie, unlike FBI spokesman McCabe.
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!
Evidence that the plane was using GPS
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.
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 azmuth, 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.
Evidence cited by Fetzer indicating the gov't can manipulate GPS
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. Raytheon, which manufactures the plane, is also
in the business of manufacturing weapons of these kinds. So knowledge
of what it would take would have been readily available to the Depart-
ment of Defense. Similarly, I am sure, regarding GPS data, which seems
to have been manipulated in the Waukegan case, which is the mirror image
of what happened in Eveleth--similar both in direction and in magnitude.
It would be incredibly improbable that an event of this kind should be
happening "merely by coincidence" at the very same time the Wellstone
plane was traveling on a path so closely paralleling the Waukegan case.
Explanations Fetzer has given as to why the "manipulation of GPS" effected two
planes 500 miles apart but there were no other reports of trouble.
0 It appears to have been a "local" as opposed to "global" phenomenon in
which data was affected with a "spill over" effect across state lines.
It does not appear to have been a world-wide manipulation, but rather
one that was designed for this specific purpose that "spilled over".
# of times it says in the NTSB final report [or any of the other reports] where
it says the pilots "lost track of altitude" as Fetzer alleges it does.
0 It is interesting that you raise this question, because, while the NTSB
said they lost track of their airspeed, that cannot occur without a com-
mensurate loss in altitude. So, like the NTSB, you are covering up the
true situation, which is that they were losing both airspeed and alti-
tude ("But let's just talk about airspeed: after all, it is starting
to sound too incredible to be true!") The NTSB's own data supports the
inference that the pilots had almost no forward thrust from the props
during the last few minutes. So they could maintain altitude and lose
airspeed or they could loose altitude and gain airspeed. And if they
were still in control, then they also ignored the loud stall warning!
By focusing on airspeed, the NTSB glosses over crucial questions about
direction: why were the pilots making an approach into the woods instead
of the runway? Their own analysis showed the VOR should have guided the
plane directly to the runway. And once they broke through the clouds and
saw woods instead of runway, why didn't they simply power up for a missed
approach? The logical conclusion is that, for some reason, they couldn't.
Finally, out of altitude and airspeed, with little or no forward thrust,
they turned south into a grove of softer trees, slightly higher than the
surrounding swampy areas and attempted an emergency landing. The fuselage
survived the drop through the trees, but not the impact with the ground.
It burned. The NTSB never explained why such a sequence should happen.
# of people who disagree with Fetzer's findings that he hasn't insulted
0 Egad! There must be large numbers with whom I have had no contact. My
objections have not been grounded in differences of opinion but in cases
like yours where you go out of your way to distort and manipulate with
the intention of misleading others about what logic and evidence have to
tell us about this case. Most importantly, you have never acknowledged
that the NTSB never considered "non-accident" alternatives, because the
Attorney General never declared the crash scene to be a crime scene. So
the only possibilities the NTSB considered were that something was wrong
with the pilots, the plane, or the weather. They eventually cleared the
weather and the plane, which left them with the pilots. If the NTSB had
considered non-accident alternatives, such as a small bomb, a gas canis-
ter, or a high-tech weapon, and had applied the proper principles of rea-
soning--in particular, inference to the best explanation--to this case,
it might have arrived at very different conclusions. As it happens, the
only parties to consider the full range of possible explanations, includ-
ing assassination alternatives, are civilians like Christoper Bollyn of
americanfreepress, Michael Ruppert of fromthewilderness, Michael Niman
of Buffalo State College, Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs of Northern Arizona
University, and of course John Costella, the leading expert on the case,
and me. But you are not about to admit THE NTSB REPORT neven even con-
sidered non-accident alternatives; people might think you were an idiot!
Fetzer Score Card# of pilots or aviation experts Fetzer could find who doubt the NTSB's explanation the crash
0
Reasons Fetzer can come up with that since many similar crashes were due to pilot error to doubt that the Wellstone crash was too..
0
# of fire experts who agree with Fetzer's theories about the fire.
0
# of scientists other that Costella who believe there can be an electrical fire without electricity
0
Costella's qualifications other than his diplomas
0
Evidence that Fetzer has that the fire was pre-impact
0
# of articles from reliable sources that say that operational EM weapons as described by Fetzer exist
0
Direct evidence he has that an EM weapons was used against the plane
0
# of people on the ApolloHoax thread who believe that Costella knows what he is talking about in the EM chapter
0
# of friends, family and co-workers of any of the 8 people who died who believe Fetzer's theories
0
# or reasons Fetzer could come up with as to how Wellstone's death should have helped Coleman
0
Evidence that Fetzer has that agents from Minneapolis arrived less than 2 1/2 hrs. after the crash was discovered
0
Explanations Fetzer has given as to why agents from Minneapolis simply didn't fly to Eveleth if they were in such a hurry.
0
Evidence that the plane was using GPS
0
Evidence cited by Fetzer indicating the gov't can manipulate GPS
0
Explanations Fetzer has given as to why the "manipulation of GPS" effected two planes 500 miles apart but there were no other reports of trouble.
0
# of times it says in the NTSB final report [or any of the other reports] where it says the pilots "lost track of altitude" as Fetzer alleges it does.
0
# of people who disagree with Fetzer's findings that he hasn't insulted
0
Jim instead of just dismissing this message as rubbish come up with examples to prove me wrong.
Len
PS - I have edited this post to add more 0s and will continue to do so as more occur to me.
-
Mr Fetzer,
Do you bother to read the replies to your posts? Do you automatically switch off if it tries to set you straight? It seems that way; you just continue to sprout your own ill-conceived theory no matter what anyone says.
It comes down to the probability that two qualified pilots would have simply lost track of their airspeed and altitude and allowed the plane to crash when there was a loud stall warning system to warn them.
Yes, because the probability of that happening is greater. It's happened in the past, many times. I even showed you a report from an almost identical aircraft and crew in very similar circumstances. They just flew into the ground - ignoring the visual and audible warnings from the RADALT.
The NTSB's own simulations contradicted this result because, using a simulator with a weaker engine and flying at abnormally slow speed, they were unable to bring the plane down.
This is twisting the truth. The simulation proved it was possible to fly out of the situation, NOT that it was impossible to crash. There is a distinct difference, as any aircrew can tell you.
Not to mention that the plane was off course, flying the last few minutes along azmuth 268 when it should have been on 276.
This demonstrates they were not paying proper attention to the instruments. Even on the wrong radial they would still flying towards the VOR. Instead they were tracking to the left of the VOR, demonstrating that they were not monitoring the CDI.
So they would have had to neglect not only their air speed and altitude but also their CDI and the stall warning alarm. That's quite a lot to swallow, even for the greatest apologist for THE NTSB REPORT.
As has been pointed out numerous times previously, that exact circumstances has happened before and will no doubt happen again. If you knew anything about aviation you'd understand that.
Even Richard Healing, a member of the NTSB team that signed the report, admitted that they had no idea what had caused the crash and were merely speculating.
That's because they cannot absolutly say that because there is no DIRECT evidence (such as a CVR). With the available evidence, it is the most probable scenario.
I can see exactly how you'd work this. If he had said "Yes, that's exactly how they were killed" you'd attack his statement, asking how he could say such a thing when there wasn't any direct evidence of it. Mr Healing's biggest mistake was even talking to you; as soon as he opened his mouth it would be distorted and twisted to suit your desires.
Surely it makes more sense to infer that these things happened to two qualified pilots because the aircraft was no longer under their control than to suppose they were more incompetent than pilot trainees.
No, it doesn't because there is nothing to support your view whereas there is a wealth of historical data documenting where trained, competent, qualified and current aircrew have made errors that have resulted in anything from a hard landing to the loss of hundreds of lives.
Perhaps it's necessary to post details from worldwide statistics, showing just how many crews have made the very mistakes you say do not make sense.
Plus they may have been lured into the "kill zone" through the manipulation of the directional data.
Again, there is no proof of this occuring, nor an indication of HOW it could be done.
I could easily claim that the aircraft was intercepted by undetectable UFOs. The crew and passengers were subject to medical experimentation during a 'pause in time' which, although leaving no trace, eventually killed most of them. Returning them to normal space disrupted the aircraft electrical systems and the aircraft crashed.
Why is that scenario any less valid than yours? It has as much proof as yours. Any "evidence" you say supports your claim also supports mine.
Why isn't my claim more valid? Because, like yours, it's just plain silly.
This guy has no idea how many crashes were "due to pilot error" unless he has actually investigated them! Numbers that are fake or fabricated or otherwise inaccurate prove nothing.
So you are now claiming that the details of air accident statistics around the world have been manipulated? All so it invalidates your own theory? That sounds suspiciously like paranoia.
Even Burton suggested that an "electrical arc" might have ignited the fire.
Once again twisting the truth. I said that the POST-CRASH fire could have been easily started by electric arcing or from hot engine components igniting fuel.
An electrical fire would have been a predictable outcome of the use of a directed-energy weapon, which not only takes out the electronics but overwhelms the electrical systems of targets it hits.
Not only can you not demonstrate the existance of any such weapon, you now claim to know the 'predictable outcome' (or result) of using such a hypothetical weapon.
The smoke from the Wellstone crash was bluish-white, as I have confimed by viewing aerial photos of the scene while it was still burning and as Gary Ulman and various "first responders" have reported.
And I showed you images of a helicopter crash site that was producing white smoke. The colour smoke simply indicates that the fuselage or similar was buring and producing that colour smoke. It says nothing about the cause of the accident.
Your source, "JayUtah", whose background is in mechanical engineering, does not appear to have qualifications that are appropriate to address these issues. You are eager to cite someone with no qualifications in either electromagnetism or electrical engineering as though he were an "expert", while denying the expertise of someone with both a Ph.D. in electromagnetism and an honors undergraduate degree in electrical engineering
I think you'll find he has very credible qualifications. Perhaps Craig would get permission to post them?
Speaking of qualifications, yourself and Mr Costella have none in the field of aviation.
You seem to have quietly overlooked by offer to have the report evaluated by a former senior air accident investigator with the ATSB, and a person who performs a similar role for the Navy.
Want to hear what they say?
Raytheon, which manufactures the plane, is also in the business of manufacturing weapons of these kinds.
You are accusing Raytheon of making the non-existant weapon which supposedly brought down the aircraft? I'm sure their legal department would love to know that - and I shall pass it on to them.
It is interesting that you raise this question, because, while the NTSB said they lost track of their airspeed, that cannot occur without a commensurate loss in altitude.
This statement vividly demonstrates your complete lack of aerodynamics and aviation. An aircraft can bleed off speed by raising the nose, pulling back power, and still maintain a constant alitude.
-
I swear, this thread is like a visit to bizarro-world. Here we have two of the best-educated men to ever write on the Kennedy assassination throwing food at each other in a cafeteria. If I may be so bold as to insert myself between the warring parties, let me say that, to a disinterested (but fascinated) onlooker, Fetzer's calling Tink a thief for doing what almost any concerned JFK researcher would have done is hitting below the belt, as is Thompson's questioning Fetzer's bravery and patriotism for bowing out of the military when Vietnam was heating up. I fail to see much difference in Fetzer's leaving the Marines to become an academic and Thompson's leaving academia to become a P.I. Both were respectable career choices. People are allowed to make changes in their life to better their station in life and/or increase their happiness, last that I checked.
As to the Wellstone crash, I think Evan touches on a good point. Are there OTHER explanations for the crash that haven't been explored? As I understand it, Fetzer's book has two elements to it: one, that Wellstone was murdered for political reasons; and two, that there are high tech weapons that may have been used in the assassination. If there are alternative explanations for part one than two, they should be explored and not viewed as a challenge to Fetzer's basic points.
To that end, is there any evidence the pilots were even conscious in the moments before the crash? If not, has anyone explored ways in which they could have been rendered unconscious? Could the smoke of a small electrical fire in the cabin knock them out? Could a remote-control incendiary device be used to achieve this same effect? Has there even been any research into these things? I would bet that somewhere in the libraries of the FBI, the CIA and NTSB, is a report on how planes can be made to crash and look like accidents. Has anyone ever acknowledged such a report exists?
Pat, I agree about the bizzaro-world.
Ref: concsiousness. No, there is no way to tell if they were concsious or not just prior to impact.
Could they have be rendered unconscious? Yes, however these methods would leave detectable traces. Your question about an electrical fire - if the smoke from a fire had rendered them unconscious, then there would have been traces of carbon monoxide (or other substances) in their systems. None were found in the flight crew.
From the report:
Tissue and fluid specimens from both pilots were transported to the FAA's CivilAerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) for toxicological analysis. The CAMI laboratory
performed analysis for a wide range of legal and illegal drugs and the results were negative. The analysis detected no ethanol or carbon monoxide in either of the pilot's blood and tissue specimens.
************
According to the Saint Louis County Medical Examiner's autopsy reports, the
cause of death for the pilot, copilot, and all of the passengers was multiple traumatic injuries sustained during impact. Three of the individuals showed evidence of postimpact smoke and soot inhalation.
Any incendiary device (such as a enlarged flash-bang) being used to achieve the same effect would also leave detectable traces. Smoke in lungs, residue on surfaces, distortion of airframe, etc.
Likewise, any EMP-style weapon - strong enough to disable the crew - would have left traces behind in the body, such as ruptured cells, etc. None were found.
Mr Fetzer makes a lot of the flight path and radial they were following. He neglects to mention that 'bending' experienced would have still kept them on a safe flight path to landing.
Mr Fetzer mentions the distance from the VOR and the radial were flying. He continually asks "It is interesting that he doesn't explain why they were headed steadily on a bearing of 268, when they should have been headed on a bearing of 276." Now, that sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Problem is, it is not reasonable to say it was caused by an 'EM' weapon of some type. The VOR works by comparing a 'radial' signal to a 'reference' (north) signal. The difference tells you what radial you are on. Let's say the 'reference' signal was somehow altered. Let's say the "radial" signal was somehow altered. Whatever. That means they would think they were on a certain radial (e.g. 268) when they were actually were on another (true) radial (e.g. 276). Explains everything, doesn't it? No. Because the radial still eminates from the VOR! It would simply mean they were flying TOWARDS the VOR further left or right of where they thought they were. If they were following a ground track of 268, the VOR would still indicate that they were crossing various radials, i.e. not flying TOWARDS the VOR but flying to a point left or right of it. If they were following a ground track of 268, it simply shows they were not paying attention to the VOR.
Mr Fetzer continually talks about GPS. He has shown no evidence of how this could be 'manipulated', nor any demonstration of understanding how it works. More importantly the aircraft requested, was granted, and flew a VOR approach. The two are totally unrelated.
Mr Fetzer says "...although the VOR was slightly out of tolerance, it becomes less and less important as you get closer and closer to the source..". True, the difference between radials decreases - but this makes it harder to maintain the correct radial. Additionally, it reinforces they should have been flying TOWARDS the VOR, not a parallel course (indicating they were not maintaining a proper instrument scan).
Finally, lets have a look at another accident report.
This was in 1988, in Canada. Another King Air virtually identical to the one in the NTSB report. Flight crews were similar (ATPL and CPL), conducting a MEDEVAC flight, planning an NDB approach (similar to fly although not as accurate as a VOR).
"The aircraft struck terrain 1.5nm southwest of the airport."
"The aircraft struck the tree-tops in a wings-level attitude"
"Post-impact fire destroyed the main fuselage although the empennage sustained very little damage"
"The alert pointer for the RADALT was set to 500'. The RADALT should have given the crew a further warning that the aircraft was within 500' of terrain."
"..the distraction was sufficent for both pilots to have missed the light and aural warning of the altitude alerter system and the visual system associated with the RADALT."
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:gBB0gCG...%22tsb%22&hl=en
This aircraft flew into the ground.
The transmission from the flight crew was cut off as the aircraft impacted the ground.
Yet again, Mr Fetzer may be right about 'foul play' being used in the accident, but it was NOT as he maintains.
My own opinion is that it probably was pilot error.
-
John,
It it possible for you to describe a summary of the opinions about the JFK assination? Like a general summary of what the general beliefs are and why.
It might be impossible, but as someone who has only a superficial knowledge of the events, I'd appreciate it in order to put the various publications into perspective.
-
Mr Fetzer,
Why do you cling to your theory when it borders on the ridiculous? Why don't you attack the problem from a new direction, like any logical person would do?
There may well have been 'foul play' in the crash - it's simply NOT as you have hypothesised. Can't you understand that?
What about the flight crew? Either one or both might have deliberately crashed the aircraft. Have there been any checks on whether their families received any unusual sums of money? Any insurance payouts? Stuff like that.
Futuristic weapons are not required. Why don't you develop a theory that does fit the facts?
-
Mr Fetzer,
It's become very apparent that nothing will ever sway you from your opinion that you are right and that everyone else is wrong. Hope you enjoy it.
Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted
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.