Len Colby

My reply to Fetzer pt 4 - the End

And, of course, as I have pointed out ad infinitum, since the NTSB's own simulations with a weaker engine and flying at abnormally slow speeds was unable to bring the plane down, why do you believe it? Remember, even one of the team who signed the report admitted they had no idea what happened.

All replied to ad infinitum: Bringing down the plane was not an objective of the simulations

The purpose of the simulations was to

1] "determine whether the airplane.s flightpath and time histories, as shown by the radar data during the final approach, could be matched or approximated with and without simulated airframe icing and which configurations and control inputs were required to match the data.

2] "observe and evaluate Aviation Charter.s procedures and interaction between a company pilot and copilot"

3] "observe flight crew workload" and to see how much the poor 'set up' of the approach added to the pilots workload,

Final Report pgs. 28 -30 [40 - 42]

Since the NTSB does not explain the fire, I am curious as to how you propose to explain it. We have an explanation. I doubt that you have an explanation, unless you are going to claim it was actually the fuel that burned bluish-white and ignited the fuselage, even though the wings (storage tanks) remain intact.

Jim - Craig already explained this. How do you explain the color of the smoke since your electrical fire theory has gone out the window. Is the concept really that hard to understand? You can't have a wood fire with out wood you can't have a kerosene fire without kerosene and you can't have an electrical fire without electricity. I though you had conceded that point I gave you to much credit .

That the wings which contained most of the fuel remained intact suggests that the fire was post impact. Otherwise the fire in the fuselage would have ignited the fuel supply. Some the fuel is stored in the fuselage.

Jim you're babbling now doesn't that embarrass you?

I just got another e-mail from the US Airways Pilot

Funny how people who know what they are talking about consistently disagree with Fetzer.

Len,

After reading thru the NTSB report, this sounds like an unfortunate case of the pilot getting behind and never catching up, started by a late turn-on by the controller to intercept the approach.

The aircraft was 1/2 mile south of the approach course flying at 90 degrees to the approach course (flying a heading of 360 degrees with approach to the west) when the controller issued instructions to turn to a heading of 300 degrees and intercept the VOR approach to runway 27. Speed at this point was between 164 & 194 KCAS (194 before the turn instruction, slowing thru 164 during the turn). Not surprisingly, the plane overshot the approach coarse, and it became a game of "catch up" from that point to the crash site - a game the pilots lost.

During the remainder of the approach, it's obvious that the pilot flying was focused on single elements rather than the "big picture". Look at the airspeed control (or lack thereof) while simultaneously trying to intercept the approach course and descend to the MDA - it increased from 156 KCAS while at the initial approach altitude to over 170 KCAS during the descent (130 Kts recommended by the Chief Pilot). When leveling at the MDA altitude, the speed was decreasing as needed but continued to decrease thereafter till the airplane stalled - the pilot was concentrating on leveling off at MDA and still trying to intercept the approach course and neglected speed control.

A non-precision approach is a high-workload environment, made worse in this case by the controller's late turn-on and probable icing. During this approach, the pilot made a fundamental error by not doing what is taught from the first days of at least instrument instruction - scan all the flight instruments and don't focus on one or two. They made the fundamental error of concentrating on intercepting the approach and descending to the MDA initially, then concentrated on leveling off at the MDA and flying the approach course at the end. During the entire approach after leaving the initial approach altitude, airspeed control was neglected except for a power reduction when the speed increased during the descent - a power reduction that ultimately resulted in the speed decaying after leveling off at the MDA.

A couple of other points:

- It is possible that the copilot was both flying and handling communications (see comments on accident pilot by other copilots). If so, that's just another item added to what's already a high workload environment.

- Raytheon's guidance that a stall may occur before stall warning activation in icing conditions - possibly removing the last warning that the plane was about to stall.

- It appears that the aircraft was not configured for the approach until at MDA, if then.

- In the latter part of the approach, the VOR needle should have been at full deflection. This should have triggered a missed approach (once the needle reaches full deflection you position relative to the approach cannot be determined), which could have prevented the crash.

There are other points, but the NTSB summed it up pretty well when they said that the crew did not configure for the approach and conduct a stabilized approach. In short, as I said earlier, they got behind and were playing "catch up" during the entire approach. Unfortunately, they never "caught up" and crashed. Throughout the history of aviation, there are many crashes that follow this same pattern. Since the vast majority of them don't involve political figures, the human fallibility of the pilots is accepted as the cause. The fact that this one involved Paul Wellstone shouldn't make it any different.

My Reply to Fetzer pt III -

He admits that the fire was NOT electrical

It is very odd that you want to suggest a fire that began as a class © fire, then turned into an (A) or (, which it should be obvious that the temperatures it

produced were sufficient to ignite the fuselage and turn it into a class (D) fire.

Already explained by Craig [see summary in pt. II]

You seem to be admitting here in a backhand way that the fire that produced the infamous "bluish white smoke" was not electrical! If so will you revise your book and articles and the PR on your publisher's web site? Or are you going to argue that an 'electrical fire' can exist with out electricity?

If you are making such a confession you just lost your best evidence that an EM weapon was used. All you have left are 2nd hand accounts from an unnamed doctor in Duluth about garage doors in Eveleth and a recanted account of a strange cell phone call that affected someone miles away a few minutes before you think the plane was hit

You are the one who is suggesting there was an electrical fire not I.

"It is very odd that you want to suggest a fire that" burned so hot that it produced heat sufficient to ignite the fuselage did not ignite the fuel supply until after impact or produce flame or smoke visible on the ground!

This is a nice example where I question your mental abilities. If you really believe what you are saying, then you are not very bright; and if you do not believe what you are saying, then your are being dupicitous. Of course, it is not difficult for me to decide which is which, one reason why I distrust you.

Likewise Jim. Weren't you the one complaining about nastiness?

Our theory of the fire is that the use of a directed energy weapon caused a power surge, which took out the CDI, the stall warning device, and the communications system, while destroying the electrical switches that control the pitch of the props. With no forward thrust, there was little the pilots could do.

-Are we to respect the opinion of people who can't figure that you can't have an electrical fire without electricty?

-See posts by Craig and Evan

-"Numerous tree strikes were found that were consistent with propeller blade strikes" * i.e. the propellers were still powered when the plane hit the trees

*http://www.startribune.com/style/news/politics/wellstone/ntsb/252924.pdf pg 2

The wiring caught fire and the ignition point was... broke off during the crash. Which can explain how the plane caught fire and burned so long and intensely.

Craig and I already explained that

The FBI kept photographers and others from taking photos...Which I believe is one reason why, though it was risky, they had to arrive early.

-For obvious reasons as explained by Craig

- The FBI didn't arrive early. Duluth is 1 hr from Eveleth

The sole phrase used by the NTSB about the first is that it was "post-impact".

If I am wrong about the other passengers having been turned to charcoal along

with the plane, I appreciate the correction.

"No evidence of in-flight fire was observed on the unburnt portions of wreckage, such as the empennage." [empennage = tail section]

"One occupant had a metal watch on the left arm that read approximately 1030 when the face was wiped of soot." [people "turned to charcoal" don't normally have readable watches Jim]

[both quotes from http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...ntsb/252924.pdf pg. 2]

But three of them did have smoke in their lungs, which suggests that the fire may have started before the crash.

Or that they if for however briefly survived the crash

Most interestingly, I am curious as to your account of the crash. Why did two qualified pilots with an excellent aircraft in reasonable weather simply ignore their airspeed and altitude--and direction!--and allow the plane to crash, even though it was equipped with a loud stall warning alarm? Please explain this.

Some of the replies from you and others are to the effect that, "Well, maybe the stall warning device wasn't working!" OK, that's certainly a possibility, but it is very probable? The plane was exceptional and had an excellent record of maintenance, which suggests that, while it is possible, it is highly improbable.

-Where does it say in any of the reports that they "ignored their altitude" they did fail to monitor their speed and direction, the altitude loss came after they stalled. How long have you been, "carefully researching the crash", Jim?

- The last time an A100 crashed with fatalities it was during similar circumstances. It was an Aviation Charter flight, the pilot was lost, it was snowing and the plane stalled. The NTSB determined that THE STALL ALARM WAS TURNED OFF.

- Considering the dangers involved how often do you think stall alarms are tested?

-The NTSB described several situations in which the stall alarms do not give adequate warning time. See Evan's posts.

-One of those situations was abrupt maneuvers, the plane it appears turned just before stalling. Ulman said 'The path of the wreckage, about two miles southeast of the airport, suggested the pilot may have aborted the landing'

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/4.../printstory.jsp

- The NTSB reported having found 18 previous incidents involving stalls of commuter planes not involve icing conditions. Presumably those planes had stall alarms too.

- See my previous post about 16 jetliner crashes involving stalls. In many of those cases the pilots "simply let the plane crash" and there were no distress calls and again most if not all the planes had stall alarms.

-See also my post about the "20 worst aviation disasters in history" there were many cases of unbelievable pilot error

- The case of the Avianca crash I mentioned in an earlier post. 3 international jetliner pilots mismanaged their fuel supply, and after circling JFK for over an hour due to bad weather and congestion only informed the control tower they had a "fuel emergency" when they had 5 minutes of fuel left. They then missed their approach and 'ran out of gas' before they could try again

-There is the case of Eastern flight 401. I made a small mistake in my previous account. The 'pilot flying' {PF} when the plane was loosing altitude was the co-pilot but he was also far more experienced than Conry. This crash is also very hard to believe because

1] despite having three other crew members [the pilot, the flight engineer, and an off-duty Eastern technician] trying to fix the problem the PF was so preoccupied with the landing gear light problem that he failed to notice that the plane was loosing altitude for almost 7 minutes

2] the PF also failed to notice that the plane was loosing "power" and I so assume speed (Is this correct Evan? The report mentioned the plane loosing power but I did not see any reference to speed)

3] the light he was preoccupied with was on the same control panel as the altimeter, power gauges and "speedometer"

4] the pilot who also in the cockpit during the entire descent also failed to notice all of the above

5] neither of them reacted when the altitude alert horn sounded

6] the flight engineer who had gone into the "belly" of the plane but came back to the cockpit for the most serious period of altitude loss also failed to notice 1 - 4

7]the were separate altimeters etc for all three pilots

8] no one noticed till the plane was about 200 feet off the ground.

9] it was a moonless but clear night i.e. weather was not a distraction

The following could account for the Wellstone plane being distracted, off course or too slow:

The PF of the Wellstone flight missed a turn because of a late order from the tower.

The PF had not properly 'set up' the approach and thus had to quickly loose altitude.

It was snowing

Both pilots were low skilled and had problems paying attention and landing.

Guess might well have been flying and handling communications simultaneously increasing his workload

The plane being off course could be explained by the problems with Eveleth's VOR as the article from Minnesota Public Radio reported, it directed several FAA test pilots in the same direction as the Wellstone plane.

The PF was only 8 degrees off course for about 1:36 [the interval between intercepting the flight path and crashing]*

*http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2003/Eveleth/Eveleth_Board_Meeting_IIC.pdf pg. 19 - 28

The plane being off course in poor viability could account for the PF not monitoring airspeed

To be continued

My Reply to Fetzer part II -

He admits that he has no direct evidence of EM weapons

I put up more posts on RF/EM/HERF weapons because you have so frequently challenged their existence. This is not your most brilliant move, but of course you are imposing a very demanding standard of proof, when what we have for the most part are a very large number of indirect indications of their existence.

So now you admit that you only have "indirect indications of"the existence of such weapons. I guess you were humiliated into confessing. LOL Jim haven't you been insisting for years that the existence of such weapons an undeniable fact?

Actually saying you have " very large number of indirect indications of their existence" is quite an overstatement. You a have large number of indications of there being developed and "close" to being deployed but no reliable evidence of working models that can do what you claim.

Truth be told, we are holding you to a very LOW standard of proof. All that we are asking for is ONE report from a reliable source that says that OPERATIONAL EM weapons capable of doing what you claim exist. The few working EM weapons cited don't come close being able to do the job, there is the heat bean that causes pain but no injury, the blinding beam and a 20 foot tower that can stun people 28 feet away. The [untested?] basement sized prototype does seem like a likely candidate either.

Even the majority of the CT sites did not go so far as to claim that working models of such weapons exist. You're gonna have to do like Avis [or is that Hertz?] and try harder.

[

B]Others have questioned whether the Bush administration actually had motive to take the man out...others have reached the same suspicion or conclusion as we have reached.[/b]

Most if not all of those reports were written shortly after the crash and are speculative not based on any hard evidence. Some cite discrepancies that even you no longer make an issue of like the confusion about the existence of "black boxes".

Even I was suspicious at first. then I read more about the case and began thinking more clearly. Are you in contact with any of the authors? If so how many of them are still suspect foul play?

You still have not said how killing Wellstone would have increased Coleman's chances.

Tonight I watched an arc welder and--guess what?--it gave off bluish-white smoke. Gary Ulman reported bluish-white smoke...

Remind me Jim how does that line from 'Satisfaction' about "useless information" go?

In addition to Craig's comments I would like to point any myriad of things produce blue or bluish white smoke Three-Mile Island gave off "a cloud of toxic blue smoke. " http://www.sprol.com/?p=224

You think maybe they nuked Wellstone? At least we know that nukes exist.

...and first responders with whom I have discussed the case have confirmed it. They were talking about the smoke from the plane, not the trees around it, many of which still stand.

"There was a strong smell of burned jet fuel and a clearly defined area of fuel spill that had

subsequently burned and left black charred soil and forest products" http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...ntsb/252924.pdf pg. 2

many of which still stand - What are you saying here? Some of them didn't burn therefore none of them burned.

Even if you are right about smoke coming from wreckage Craig explained why the smoke would have been that color and I speculated (see explanation '2]') that the smoke could have been produced by rubber and plastic etc. from the plane's interior.

If you have any info discounting our explanations don't be shy about telling us!

Having talked with some of the key participants in these events may enable me to more readily sort out some of the nonsense from the sense.

If any of them gave you accounts that contradict the NTSB's version of events let us know.

I welcome distinguishing between the lignition and the combustion, however, which seems a good fit with my scenario. Obviously, the electrical fire ignited the metallic fire.

I think Craig explained that rather well and shows he has a much better understanding of fire than you or your physicist friend.

Do you have hard evidence that there was a metal fire?

I speculated that there might have been one based on the statement of an EMT who was probably repeating what a volunteer fireman said. Since metal fires are rare events especially in rural areas and volunteer firefighters don't work in places with many fires, it is quite possible he was mistaken. Metal can be degraded by fire without burning.

Craig explained how a "type B" could have caused a "type A" and that could have caused a metal fire. If you have any information to the contrary I'd like to see it!

The fire was the most distinctive feature of the crash, especially when it burned with such intensity and the firemen could not put it out. The fuselage--minus the wings and the tail--was reduced to charcoal.

I explained that already and Craig reiterated have you caught on yet?

This was peculiar, since the wings are the storage repository for most of the plane's kerosene-based fuel.

The word 'most' is key. Most but not all. The plane should have had 1800 lbs. of fuel at the time of the crash. How much of that would have been in the fuselage?

[ 2345 - 536 = 1809 http://www.wcco.com/content/local_file_052162555 pg.4]

Kerosene-based fuel, of course, burns coarsely black, not bluish-white.

Explained by Craig the kerosene or most of it had long burned away.

Damn My computer crashed just as I was finishing my reply to Fetzer, erasing all my work. Fetzer proclaims expertise in computer science he must have conspired against me. I just got done rewriting most of it.

Notice how Fetzer has now conceded on two major points!!! [in parts II and III]

Wait rewrite in his latest post he conceded two more. Jim you seem to be thinking more clearly now!

My Reply to Fetzer Pt. I

I rather like my piece on the Columbia disaster, so I hope everyone will read it through. It's as though anyone who tries to figure out what happened by considering something approximating the full range of possible explanations is on that basis considered to be a "crackpot"! If that's the standard, then I'm guilty.

What's the cliche Jim, "A mind should be an open one but not like a sieve". Your piece on the Columbia is like your work on the Wellstone case, your 'consider something approximating the full range of possible explanations' based on your lack of expertise and your political orientation [90 % of which I agree with]. In that respect you are like other believers in 'crackpot' CTs

Is it just a coincidence that the people who believe in 'creation science' are all fundamentalists without science degrees, that Holocaust deniers are Fascist anti-Semites who don't have advanced degrees in European [etc.] history/studies, that the people who think the moon landings were a hoax are fundamentalists and/or CT nuts without scientific backgrounds [you buddy Costella is I think the only exception but in this case "the exception proves the rule"]

Of course it's not a coincidence, such beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance and perceived anomalities that anyone with a modicum of understanding can easily explain.

There appears to be an attitude from you and Lamson and Thompson that any one who questions government reports must be "looney-tunes".

Obviously that assertion with regards to Tink is absurd. While he was witting one of the first books to challenge the Warren Report, you were a Vietnam era volunteer [?] Marine officer.

We think you are loony based on the bizarre conclusions you reach on various subjects ranging from 9/11 to surveillance of Dealy Plaza. Have you found anyone with expertise in civil engineering or surveillance who finds your 'theories' credible? - Doesn't that make you wonder?

On the subject of expertise. I have asked you repeatedly if anyone with a background in aviation backs your conclusions about the crash or if any fire experts agree with your assessment of the fire. I take your continued refusal to answer as an embarrassed 'no' on your part and I imagine everyone following this thread will reach the same conclusion. For the sake of your own credibility you should at least respond to the question. Couldn't find one Jim? If that doesn't make to wonder your ego is really out of control.

The experts who have examined the case to the contrary all find the NTSB's conclusions credible: Evan, Rees, the US Airways pilot I am in contact with and Craig's friend are all career pilots with many decades of flying experience a piece. Whose opinion should we give more weight to yours or theirs. There is Alan Palmer, The director of flight operations at the University of North Dakota's School of Aerospace Sciences, who thought the scenario of two distracted pilots forgetting "to fly the aircraft" quite plausible.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/feat...likm_wellstone/

Let's imagine that in his spare time Mr. Palmer studies philosophy and has edited three books that come to very unorthodox conclusions that are accepted by few if any academic philosophers. Then he decides to write a book about the philosophy of science that you think is bunk. Whose opinion would most informed people give more weight to his or yours?

That is what we should expect from mediocre minds.

JIm, your remain you charming self as always!

[i edited this part. I had originally left a much nastier reply, but after a night's stoop decided that it was better not to stoop to Fetzer's level]

After all, how can anyone possibly tell a government report is right unless they actually study the evidence themselves?

That 's why we have researched the case. The more we look the greater the number of discrepancies between your version and the truth we discover. For example I took it for granted that Bollyn said that he was told by the FBI in Duluth that agents from Minneapolis arrived first. Then I looked at the article you cited and saw that he said something else. Also I found two more sources that contain information contradicting your version of events [i have incorporated them into this reply].

But that's how this game is played. We have gone beyond THE NTSB REPORT and studied the reports on which it is based.

Since we have extensively quoted the other reports, you must either be: a] trying to con the people who are following this thread, b] feeble minded, c] not paying attention or d] so blinded by your prejudices that you can't see anything regarding this case objectively.

There are major omissions and distortions. It is deceptive in the extreme when you and they continue to quote THE NTSB REPORT, when it is the accuracy of that report that is under question.

As far as I can tell there are only three people on the face of the planet who studied the case and question the NTSB's findings - Arrows, Costella and you.

Obviously the NTSB could not include all the information that it had gathered for its multitude of reports and studies in the Final Report [FR]. They had to do some editing. You claim that in the editing process they smear Conry and Guess. The truth is they actually left out a lot of the most damaging information against them. I'll cite a few example, the FR omits the following:

The pilot who had flown "about 50 times" with Conry and said he "was the pickiest and most careful pilot he had ever flown with" had not flown with him since he went to jail [in 1990] or at least a dozen years before the crash.

Conry told one of his oldest friends Timothy M. Cooney who was also a pilot that he had difficulties flying and landing A100s and had led Cooney to believe he had flown passengers for American Eagle [which he hadn't]

He told his wife "the other pilots thought Guess was not a good pilot"

She said he "had between 3,000 and 4,000 hours of flight experience" [if we deduct the hours the NTSB could not confirm from what he claimed we get 3656 hours]

She said that he confided in two pilots at Aviation Charter mainly Theresa and secondly Justin Lowe

{above info except what's in brackets [ ] from - Interview summaries - http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...ntsb/252886.pdf [pgs 18 -50]}

Theresa who was the pilot who said he was "by the book" "easy-going and calm" had only flown with him "two or three times"

Justin Lowe "said Conry did not appear confident as a pilot: "He just seemed real slow. Always hitting wrong things, saying wrong things."

[Lowe, who was the co-pilot on the flight three days before crash Conry had almost brought down another A100 by activating the wrong switch, had urged Conry to retire after the incident.]

A former Aviation Charter pilot contacted investigators to tell them "that he observed Conry and a copilot during takeoff and that their plane 'came over the top of Executive Aviation in a 60-degree bank and it looked like they were going to take out the tower.' " he"linked the incident to Conry's throttle technique"

"Paul Stanton, an Aviation Charter pilot, told the investigators that he felt Conry was "dangerous," and that he had "a real bad feeling about him."

Stanton recalled an incident when he flew into Hibbing in icing conditions and Conry was on the ground, having requested another plane because his airspeed indicator was out. Stanton said when he ferried the plane back and found nothing wrong with the indicator, but he said he did not tell management about the incident.

"He [stanton] was just uncomfortable with Conry being a pilot," the NTSB report said. "He was too timid to be a captain. . . . He was a smart guy, intelligent, but he was lacking something."

"Koski, a ground instructor and a former operations director at Aviation Charter, said Conry's performance was "a little bit below average" on written quizzes. He told NTSB investigators that Conry and Guess "were very pleasant to work with, but they were not outstanding students."

"He said Conry tended to let his copilots fly "all the time" and probably would not have been at the controls when the plane crashed."

"Koski also said he spent "extra time" working with Guess on ground school lessons. "He called Guess 'borderline,' " the NTSB report said. But the report also said Koski thought Guess was acceptable."

"After interviewing Koski, investigators also wrote: "Other pilots commented that Conry was below average. That sounded like a consensus opinion but no specifics were given. He [Koski] had heard that Conry was forgetful and made random errors."

Koski told investigators that Conry "did not fly like a seasoned pilot" even though he claimed to have the hours of a seasoned pilot..."

[ above info except in [ ] from http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.p...a&story=3736949 ]

It reminds me of the approach of Gerald Posner...You guys simply assume THE NTSB REPORT is right!

see above

Now I really can't fault you for your gullibility...If you want to be a sap for the government, be my guest!

Just because we don't buy your hokum does not make us saps or indicate that we are gullible. If you come up with any hard evidence of factual errors in NTSB's information let us know.

It's ironic that you level such an accusation against us. The closest things you have to credible reports of operational EM beam weapons that could do what you claim come from a declassified USAF report which you quote out of context and media reports based on pre-2nd Gulf War Defense Department PR saying EM weapons were 'just around the corner'

So who is the "sap for the government"?

Q: How do you know that the SECRET weapons exist, Fetzer: The government told me

...that the Challenger was shot down with a beam weapon....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're not serious about that, are you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But of course: http://assassinationscience.com/columbiamystery.pdf

I did switch the name of the shuttle, I should have said "...that the COLUMBIA was shot down with a beam weapon..."

Go to Fetzer's site [assassinationscience.com] for a veritable cornucopia of crackpot ideas*.

Len

*I do agree with a few things he has there though

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

[* 1n 2003 said he suggested that " the wing was on fire before the plane hit the ground " see below]

1]"Safety Board investigations focus only on improving transportation safety"** i.e. discovering why accidents occur and how to prevent loss of life. So it was not up to them to explain why the fire was so hard to put out. If any agency would have issued a report about that it would have been the fire department.

** http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/invest.htm

2] The NTSB did provide clues as to why it took so long to extinguish the fire. It was in an isolated location and was very intense, there were a series of equipment failures and much of what they had was inadequate and they did not want to "disturb the wreckage". According to one firefighter:

"Walking was very difficult on the swampy land and they often were in water and mud up to their knees. They passed the accident site by almost 50 yards because they could not see it through the dense trees...When he first saw the wreckage, the main fuselage area was 'fully involved'...only firefighter Nuno had a 25 lb. fire extinguisher. They knew that the extinguisher could not possibly extinguish the fire..."

"Several firefighters arrived with portable 'bladder packs' of water which they used (along with the extinguisher) to knock down the fire and prevent flare-ups. Eventually, a Department of Natural Resources brush truck came to the scene; but it had an empty water tank due to the fact that it had already been 'winterized'... Another larger water-carrying vehicle from Hibbing developed engine trouble and caught fire at the scene after being unloaded off its trailer and had to be extinguished. Finally, a Lakeland Fire Department water-carrying vehicle was able to reach the site and apply a layer of foam and water to the wreckage. During the entire extinguishing process all of the firefighters were very careful to apply the agent gently so as not to disturb the wreckage. They did not allow anyone to get near the main wreckage or move any pieces of wreckage."

According to an EMT from the fire department:

"The fire extinguisher was emptied on the fire but did not have much of an effect 'because it was a metal fire´ "

http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...ntsb/252783.pdf pgs.10 - 13

We have not claimed that the wings, which broke off during the crash, caught fire before the crash. Fetzer Sep. 15, 2005

"As Christopher Bollyn astutely observes, if the wing section is charred but the tree is not, then either the wing was moved from the crash site (unlikely, and probably strictly forbidden in accident investigations) or the wing was on fire before the plane hit the ground (accounting for the lack of damage to the tree itself)." Fetzer Jan. 9, 2003 http://www.assassinationscience.com/fbicoverup.pdf pg. 7

Costella - "Jim believes at least one witness reported something like smoke or fire from the plane."

I missed that one Jim, do you have a reference? What's the link?

We also don't know why the fire could not be put out. One possibility is that the plane could have been carrying something in its luggage compartment that exacerbated the fire. Or that it might have been coated with a film of white phosphorous, which burns intensely and cannot be put out with water.

Any evidence of this? What might have been "in its luggage compartment that exacerbated the fire" how did it get there?

How would the "film of white phosphorous" have gotten there?

When was it decided which plane Wellstone fly in? How did the "assassins" get that information?

How did they get access to the plane with out being noticed? Why didn't anybody notice the film before the plane took off?

Wasn't the plane tested for traces of explosives? Why wasn't it detected?

What evidence do you have such a "film" exists* and would do what you claim and would not be visible to the naked eye? [Please don't cut and paste entire articles especially if they are from pothead/UFO/crackpot CT/porno sites - a few select quotes and links will suffice]

Why hadn't the film burned off at the beginning of the fire? Highly flammable materials burn off quickly. If it was only 'invisible' film there could not have been very much - it's illogical to assume there would have any left after a few minutes let alone several hours.

Are you sure Costella is a scientist?

* I Googled "film of white phosphorous" and "white phosphorous film" both came up without any matches, +film +"white phosphorus" +fire gave 981 matches but I didn't see anything on the first 2 pages that looked relevant.

The above Fetzer/Costella quotes com from this post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=39975

That only three of the victims were found to have smoke in their lungs initially suggests that not all of them had smoke in their lungs, but only three of them were sufficiently non-cremated to have their lungs still available for inspection. The rest were reduced to charcoal.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=39910

"3.2 Injury Information

The Saint Louis County Medical Examiner provided copies of victims. autopsy reports. The reports are summarized in the attached injury chart. (See Attachment 2) Victims C, D, F, G, and H sustained multiple traumatic injuries during the impact and no evidence of smoke or soot inhalation was noted in these individuals. Victims A, B, and E also sustained multiple traumatic injuries; however, all three showed evidence of postimpact smoke and soot inhalation."

http://www.startribune.com/style/news/poli...ntsb/252783.pdf pg. 5

Jim if you have any information that contradicts the quote above and supports your claim please provide a link or attach a scan.

"the fire from the fuselage gave off blue smoke, which is indicative of an electrical fire."

At other times Fetzer make the same nonsensical claim but the smoke is bluish white. Like all of Fetzer's claims it sounds damning until you look into it and discover it's all hokum.

It's impossible for the fire that consumed Wellstone's plane to have been electrical because there was no source of electricity. "as soon as you cut power to an electric fire by shutting down a circuit breaker, removing a fuse, or unplugging the device, the fire ceases to be a Type C fire and reverts to either a Type A or a Type B". http://real-estate-agents.com/tips/securit...nguishers.shtml

Fires are normally categorized into three or four types

Type A - "ordinary combustibles such as cloth, wood, rubber and many plastics" i.e. Solid combustibles

Type B - "flammable liquid fires such as oil, gasoline, paints, lacquers, grease, and solvents"

Type C -"electrical fires such as in wiring, fuse boxes, energized electrical equipment and other electrical sources"

There is also are far less common fourth type

Type D -"metal fires such as magnesium, titanium and sodium"

http://www.desert-hot-springs.us/cityservi...inguishers.html

Dr. Jim Fetzer a Ph.D. in philosophy of SCIENCE and Dr. John Costella Ph.D. in PHYSICS and a grammar school math/science teacher seem to not understand things as basic how fires burn or the difference between ignition and combustion. Electricity can ignite a fire but obviously it isn't combustible itself.

Even if we were to accept Fetzer's theory that EM beam weapons exist and that one was used against the King Air, there would have to be another explanation for the color of the smoke. The fire could have been and electrical fire for the nanosecond that the beam hit the plane and then would have changed into a Type A or Type B fire. Remember that Fetzer claims the EMP shorted out all electrical systems on the plane.

Why the smoke was blue or bluish-white I can't say for sure. I like Craig actually did some research into the matter [unlike Fetzer, Costella and Arrows apparently] and found various references to things giving off blue or bluish-white smoke.

- I think the most likely explanation is that some of the surrounding vegetation was burnins as well. "Chief Shykes stated that when he saw the site there were two 'spot fires' burning and the site was smoking."* Forest fires give off blue smoke:

*http://www.startribune.com/style/news/politics/wellstone/ntsb/252783.pdf

"These true-color images covering north-central New Mexico capture the bluish-white smoke plume of the Los Alamos fire..."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/...hp3?img_id=3323

"The forest service was doing a couple of very large controlled burns today and the air in southern Newton country was thick with blue smoke"

http://www.cloudland.net/Mar03Journal.html

"On the same week that blue smoke from Northern tinder choked Edmonton, an announcement of more funding for forestry research at the University of Alberta seems appropriate."

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=152

"The fire season is pretty much over. But wait! A blue smoke at the head of Five Mile Creek! Maybe it is not over! I quick get off my butt and take an azimuth shot on it. 240 degrees 20 minutes. My excitement is squelched with the realization that it is only a hunting camp."

http://www.firelookout.org/IndianHillJournal.htm

"By May 26th the St. Ignace fire was over 2400 hectares in size and it looked very much like it might to consume the whole island. MNR had made the decision to let the fire burn. By this time the fire looked like a huge rubber tire dump had caught on fire, or a nuclear explosion had occurred. This horrific funnel of bluish smoke looked like it was a mile wide and rose into the sky,..."

http://www.superiornet.net/tourism/nirivia/fires/fires.htm

"The combination of gasification and high-temperature pyrolysis* produces a faint bluish white smoke..."

"...Twenty hours after ignition, most of the stump had been consumed. The only visible sign of combustion was faint, bluish white smoke

from a depression in the soil where the stump had been."

*" pyrolysis, which is the thermal cleavage of molecular bonds in the cellulosic and lignin macromolecules that make up the solid biomass"

http://www.firelab.org/old/fcp/fcppubs/200...D002100_pub.pdf

- Another possible explanation is that flammable material from inside the plane such as plastic and rubber [seats, carpet, paneling etc] were responsible for the color of the smoke:

"My contribution was filling the place with acrid blue smoke from the rubber belt that once ran the beater-bar in the vacume head. Plastic Smerfs do NOT fit around the roller"

http://www.geeknewz.com/board/index.php?au...d=10&m=8&y=2005

"the thick blue smoke of burning rubber."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/co...lines-columnone

"On the way to Las Vegas not long ago, the first-class cabin started to fill up with blue smoke. No one was lifting a finger, and it was getting worse. So I walked into the galley and opened the warming oven to see what was the problem. The previously oblivious flight attendant ran after me, half-panicked, and yelled, "Sir, you can't do that." By then, I had retrieved a piece of burning plastic that had been caught on the heating element."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/business...ner=rssuserland

- According to one first responder the fire was "a metal fire"*, which makes sense since much of the aluminium fusilage was destroyed. I don't know what color smoke burning aluminium produce, I looked a bit on Googlre but could not find the answer. I will look into it furthur.

*http://www.startribune.com/style/news/politics/wellstone/ntsb/252783.pdf

I did find some references to electrical fires producing blue smoke with Google but none to "bluish-white smoke" except for the ones by Fetzer.

As Fetzer himself says most of the plane's fuel was stored in the wings which were separated from the plane. Ulman didn't see the smoke till about 20 - 30 minutes after the crash. If any of the fuel had caught fire it might well have burned off before Ulman took off. Lamson made some reference to smoke turning blue in the cold. Craig I'll hold you up to the same standard as Fetzer a link would good.

Sorry Fetzer all that this talk about blue smoke shows is that you don't know what you are talking about.

I am really looking forward as to how Fetzer and Costella will try to explain this one.

Len

Jim I'm as mystified as Craig. What are you trying to prove with your latest posts? No one denies that Bush wanted Wellstone out of the Senate. Long irrelevant posts like that just clog up the thread. Is that you ploy to divert people's attention from the facts of the case?

Len

No uncle Bill never was a very good swimmer, but I do try to carry on his legacy here at "The Company" where I am quickly moving up the ranks. Being the ex-director's nephew does have it advantages LOL.

I'm not related to the guy. My family name was Cohn. My Grandmother escaped Germany after her husband was dragged off by the Gestapo. She changed her name to Colby because she was afraid of having such an obviously Jewish name. I always thought about changing it back but never did. I'm not related to Roy Cohn either.

Wasn't saying that Colby was murdered a rightwing fantasy?

Hmmm...COLBY...a name rich in CIA history...interrupted a meal

to go for a sail and fell overboard...conspiracy? Nah, just coincidence.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Len, without taking a stand on whether or not Wellstone was killed by a conspiracy, I believe this argument weakens your case. Should someone have wanted to kill Wellstone and make it look like an accident, waiting until after he was elected would have drawn too much attention and made it all too obvious to the American people.

As for the public's response to the funeral, I've read enough to know that the poor behavior by some of Wellstone's friends was blown way out of proportion by the supposedly left-wing media.

I disagree Pat all the people arguing that it was murder say that him dying days before the election was suspicious. Would it have been more suspicious if he died a month or two after being sworn in, if he indeed had indeed one? His lead was only 6 points in a poll taken two weeks before the election, victory was by no means guaranteed. He had even slipped from having a 9 point lead. As we all know there has been an unfortunate tendency recently for Democratic candidates to do less well on election day that in polls.

The question of how Wellstone's death would have increased Coleman's chances has yet to answered by Fetzer or anyone else crying murder. As for the rally if the problem was how the Democrats behaved or how it was spun is irrelevant to my point. It was not something Bush and his lackeys could have predicted - without the fallout it generated Mondale almost certainly would have won. Jonathan Alter even though Wellstone's death would increase the Democrats chances in other races in other states.

Why would they go to all the bother to kill Wellstone only to have Mondale take his place in the Senate? If Wellstone died after he was sworn in again his replacement would have been chosen by the governor and the GOP candidate was ahead in the polls.

There's no reason to believe Karl Rove and his pals were not in some way responsible for the spin created.

I agree Rove is a scumbag

This gives the appearance you are trying to show the undecided, including myself, that Wellstone being murdered is unthinkable.

I don't think "Wellstone being murdered is unthinkable". I just think tactically it would have made sense to wait and see if he did win, they could have stolen votes and used 'dirty tricks' to reduce the possibility that he would. If he won and the GOP candidate for governor lost [unlikely since he was ahead in the polls and they could have used dirty tricks and vote stealing to help him too] they could have killed a Democratic senator from a state with a GOP governor to regain control of the Senate. Kerry who looked liked Bush's strongest rival for 2004 would have been a good choice. Kerry would have been a more interesting target for them he was not that much less liberal that Wellstone and he was a threat to Bush being reelected.

Even if you disagree with my analysis about when Bush would have wanted to murder Wellstone that should not affect your assessment of my other points. Has Fetzer show to your satisfaction that working beam weapons exist? Has he eliminated pilot error as cause beyond a reasonable doubt or even that it was unlikely?

To prove me wrong, please list some conspiracy theories you believe have some merit.

The CIA was [is?] involved in the heroin trade.

Reagan and Bush conspired with the Iranians to delay the release of the hostages.

El Salvadorans backed by the CIA are largely responsible for the crack epidemic of the 80's

James Earl Ray did not act alone in killing MLK jr.

If LHO shot JFK he did not act alone

The GOP can manipulate vote counts

Dan Rather was set up on 60 Minutes

The deaths of several Brazilian opposition leaders during the military dictatorship were not accidents

he may be pre-dispositioned to believe in conspiracies

May be??

He decided the moment that he heard about the crash that it was a conspiracy. He thinks NASA's Moon photos were faked and that the Dallas Parks and Recreation Dept. is in on the JFK cover up and that the Challenger was shot down with a beam weapon.

Believing in CTs when there is reasonable evidence is one thing believing in crackpot ideas is something else.

...While he may be guilty of misrepresenting evidence

I'm glad you say so

If Fetzer is able to show that these rays exist, will you then admit his theory is possible?

Possible yes probable no

Jim

You haven't explained yet how killing Wellstone would increase Coleman's chances of winning. Mondale increased Wellstone's lead by 2 points, he lost because of the rally (or at least how it was spun).

As for those articles. It's more of your swamping us with "useless information". I don't know what heating up the atmosphere or seeing through walls has to do with shooting down planes. Since HAARP uses "75 foot towers" I don't think it would have been very practical anyway. There was one part about a company having a patent to something that can "disable communications" but nothing about its ability to disable other electronic devices its range or if it is functional. You do not need to show that something works to get a patent.

Somewhere else Col. Whaling's report was quoted. In the report she never says that EM weapons are functional she normally uses future tense. She did include a few sentences where she says EM weapons can do this or that but she was referring to what they could potentially due. I dig up my post form Yahoo about that and try to post it tomorrow.

Also Jim all those articles were from CT sites and they don't even prove your case. You still have not provided us with a link to an article from a reliable source that says EM beam weapons that could have downed the Wellstone plane exist. If the best you can do is an article from a CT site that quotes Whaling out of context give up!

Evan - There is no way to either prove or disprove that some parties may have wanted Wellstone dead.

Fetzer - With this post, Evan Burton proves that he has no serious commitment to the truth in the Wellstone case, since we devote more than a chapter to laying out the evidence that the White House wanted to get rid of him.

Jim - You're talking 'amps on 11' again. Evan didn't deny that Bush desperately wanted to defeat Wellstone. Or even that he might have wanted him dead. All that he said was that there was no way to prove it. Wanting to defeat a candidate and wanting to kill him are very different things.

As for Nilman's article it was just speculation and even he said he had no evidence. He wrote the piece a few days after the crash, he hasn't said anything else since. Don't you think if he still believed it he would have written something else.

All that your ranting shows is that become irrational where this case is concerned.

Evan's other posts go a long way to debunking you ideas.

Len

They attack JFK researchers

I don't know about Burton but I think Lamson only attacks loony tunes JFK researchers who say the Z-film is a hoax. Lamson worked with Tink

they attack Apollo researchers; they attack 911 researchers;

They don't deny the irrefutable fact that we went to the Moon or believe nonsense like the WTC collapse was a demolition job or a missile hit the Pentagon. They must be part of "The Secret Team"

they attack Wellstone researchers

As with the above they counter shoddy research. The problem with all of the above 'theories' is that no one with true expertise in the appropriate fields of science believes them. They fit into the same category as "Creation Science" and Holocaust denial

I asked Fetzer if any pilots or aviation experts agrred with him that the crash can not be explain by pilot error. I take his lack of a reply as a no. Couldn't find one Jim? What does that tell you?

they attack HAARP researchers; they attack chemtrail researchers ;

I don't know much about these cases but from what I've seen it's the same kind of paranoid crackpot CT bunk as the above theories.

Jim,

You have yet to provide us with the following.

1] Links to reliable articles that say that EM beam weapons capable of doing what you claim exist. We have been asking for this since the Yahoo forum.

1 - 3 links would be a good number rather than swamping us with moutains of trash. Including a few select quotes would be helpful. Remember the articles have to say that WORKING EM beam weapons ALREADY exist.

2] Explain how the "troika" could have expected killing Wellstone to have increased Coleman's chances of winning when it should of had the opposite effect. Coleman won because of the funeral/rally and how it was perceived by the state's independent voters - this was widely reported in the Minnesota and national press.

3] Evidence that FBI agents from MINNEAPOLIS were at the site before 1pm.

Len

I am in contact a US Airways Boeing pilot who has been flying professionally for 30 years. I'm trying to rope him in to join this thread. I didn't him take long to figure Fetzer out! Here's what he had to say:

"Len,

I started through the thread, but gave up rather quickly. The final "trump card" of the conspiracy theorists seems to always be something that can't be proven or disproven ... Because it can't be disproven, it becomes a "fact" in their arsenal. Any facts to the contrary, if everything else fails, can be dismissed as part of a plot by "sinister forces" deflect blame - inconvenient facts are part of a cover-up (or the sinister forces made it look like an accident in the Wellstone case). Of course, the "sinister forces" always do such a great job of hiding their actions that the real facts of the case in question become further proof that their hand was at work.

Needless to say that pilots - even the best - make mistakes. Airplanes maintained by the best mechanics still break. The perfect human who doesn't make mistakes hasn't been born yet and imperfect humans haven't figured out how to make a complex machine that never fails. So accidents happen. That said, trying to convince someone who believes a conspiracy exists that one doesn't is a futile effort for they are not swayed by rational arguments. And rational arguments are really all one has in cases like Wellstone's, since no one will ever really know exactly what happened in that airplane in the seconds and minutes just before the crash.

Conspiracy theorists seem to always demand a level of proof that normally doesn't and can't exist from those arguing the other side, but are never capable of offering anything approaching proof that their claims are correct. The mere act of believing their own theory is proof enough that they're right, and anyone who disagrees without irrefutable proof is brushed aside.

Consequently, I doubt there's anything you can say or information that you can provide that will convince those who believe otherwise that Wellstone's accident was just that - an accident. Unless, of course, you can come up with a video of the final minutes of what happened inside that plane. (On second thought, that would probably just be further evidence that "sinister forces" had engineered the crash - why else would there exist that video...)"

I'm sort of old-fashioned and would like a new edition to published like a regular book by a kind of standard publisher.

An "e-book" could be a good intermediate step. Amazon sells lots of downloadable books. The format has two advantages 1] the text is searchable which is a lot more effective than an index for finding what you want, 2] It would make it a lot easier for people who do not live in North America to get it, Amazon and BN etc charge a fortune to send books overseas.

The downside is that it might he harder to get a publisher interested if the book is out in digital form. I'm surprised you can't find a publisher, there are so many CT/alternative houses (Amok, Re/Search etc). You could even try the people who've put out Fetzer's stuff - they'll publish anything it seems! So will other publishers; I saw on Amazon that there is a slick new hard cover edition of "SCUM Manifesto" by Valerie Solanas the nut job who shot and tried to kill Warhol*.

I wish Hobo would rejoin us too, but the anonymity issue is a problem for him. Have you been following the thread recently? Fetzer is taking a beating again.

Len

* Apprently she was friends with 'Squeaky' Fromme the Manson acolyte who tried to kill Ford, they must have made quite a pair!!

"So Len might well have sought if he made a reference to Posner Fetzer might show up."

Tink, it seems like even you don't believe me! My comment as stated was just to highlight the fallacy of Healy's 'point'. I think you do a much better job than me of smoking Fetzer out of his hole anyway.

I asked you this before in a private exchange but think it would be interesting if you could share your answer with the readers of this thread: Who do think killed JFK and why?

Have you looked into re-releasing a revised 'Six Seconds' as an e-book? Who has the rights to the book and frames from the Z-film?

Len

That Colby is a slick one. He will deny the obvious and twist the truth, ignore evidence and assail character until no one will have the courage to speak up or search for the truth! It is a method tried and true. It is a method that worked for Hitler and it works for Bush just as well.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=39724

Jim - My response to this should be to tell you to perform a biologically impossible act. You complain that I "assail character" and in the next sentence you compare me to Hitler*! This is especially unconscionable considering you should know that I'm Jewish from our participation in the Yahoo Forum and that you repeatedly cite Bollyn a Holocaust 'revisionist' who has close ties to various neo-Nazi's as a reliable source.

It's ironic that the person who complains the most about others 'assailing character' and nasty posts is the worst offender. Cite ONE example of where I have intimidated others "until no one will have the courage to speak up or search for the truth!". Wasn't it you who attacked Pat and Steve? Isn't it you who keeps on implying that anyone who agrees with me is being "taken in" "gullible", "a sap" or "a dupe"**?

To quote Joseph Welsh from the Army-McCarthy hearings "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

*Comparing me to Bush as bad enough

** He used those words just in the post I'm quoting, anyone who has been following this thread will have seen various examples of this

Len, this thread is supposed to be about Josiah Thompson's book and work. Please restrict your flame war with Fetzer and Healy to the thread on Fetzer's book.

I'm not the one who brought up 'Hoax' in this thread and I don't think Tink would object to my using the example of Posner's book sales to counter Healy's spurious point

your choice of Posner's book is needlessly antagonistic

Fetzer compared me to Hitler* on the thread about his book, wasn't that "needlessly antagonistic"? Especially since he should know I'm Jewish from our participation in another forum. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaims...NK/message/1885

*http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4542&view=findpost&p=39724

no recent book on the assassination as reviled, and as undeserving of respect, as Posner's.

That's why I chose it what better book to counter his point with?

I assume your mentioning of this book was done to annoy Fetzer

No, I did it to counter Healy

if you choose to defend Posner's book

I'm not defending it, my whole point is that sales are no indication of quality

Dawn,

"The Inspector General's Report of 1967 on CIA Plots to Assassinate Fidel Castro... The document that neither Johnson nor (apparently) Nixon was allowed to see in its entirety, despite their asserted interest, the document so tightly held"

I realize that you were just posting something that you found interesting and don't necessarily vouch for every thing in it, but I was wondering if you knew of any information supporting this assertion.

I find it hard to swallow that the CIA would not allow the President to see a document "in its entirety, despite their asserted interest". Did they give the presidents edited versions and not tell LBJ and Nixon there was more or did the say something like "Sorry Mr. President, this too top secret for you to see"? "Despite their asserted interest" implies the later not the former.

Did Mr. Scott or whoever wrote the blurb elaborate or offer any evidence to back this up?

Len

PS deleting the duplicate post would make the thread easier to read

Mr. Turner,

In his scathing review of Seymour Hersh's THE DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT David R. Wrone wrote:

"Hersh also devotes much attention to "proving" JFK tried to assassination Castro using the CIA and Mafia. In the course of this effort, he asserts that President Kennedy used Judy Exner, a sex partner, to carry cash to the mob bosses to pay for making the hit.

A key document of the Castro murder attempts is a 1962 Department of Justice memorandum by the CIA's inspector general Sheffield Edwards. Hersh uses parts of the document in other contexts, but when he comes to the attempts on Castro's life he carefully omits what it says about them, since the document's contents would destroy his framing of JFK.

The CIA-Mafia attempts on Castro began in August 1960 and ended in November 1960, before JFK took office in 1961. Only six people knew of it, all CIA men, and they only orally. No one else knew--not Ike, not JFK--until many months after the fact when the FBI stumbled onto a bungled CIA phone tap for a mobster and it exposed the affair. A shocked Robert Kennedy ordered a complete explanation.

....There were, in fact, no JFK directed or encouraged attempts on Castro's life"

Comments?

Len

HOW ABOUT 2 PILOTS SIMPLEY LETTING THE PLANE RUN OUT OF FUEL?

(see below)

People screw up Jim it happens. It even happens to very competent people, let alone incompetents like Conry and Guess. I know you idolized Wellstone and I imagine it is easier for you to picture him as a martyr than the victim of an unfortunate accident, but the fact just don't support your conclusions

The real world is not the Land of Oz where a certificate [remember the scarecrow's diploma] in and of itself makes you smart or qualified. So Conry had an ATP, just like 80 % professional pilots.

So he just passed his flight check irrelevant. Since pilots are tested every 6 months all pilots who crash have been recently tested. Why would a pilot be less likely to crash the week following his flight check rather the week proceeding it?

I imagine if some one did a statistical analysis of crashes and classified them by the number of weeks since the pilot's last flight check the distribution would be fairly even. Every six month would be every 26 weeks, 1/26 would be with in a week, 1/26 would be1 - 2 weeks after etc. Another words the check is just another irrelevant tidbit unless we remember he didn't fly fast enough out of a simulated stall.

Date: January 25, 1990

Type: Boeing 707-321B

Registration: HK 2016

Operator: Avianca, the Airline of Columbia

Where: Cove Neck, New York

Report No. NTSB/AAR-91/04

Report Date: April 30, 1991

Pages: 285

[This is the Executive Summary, not the Abstract. New format.]

On January 25. 1990, at approximately 2134 eastern standard time,

Avianca Airlines flight 052, a Boeing 707-321B with Colombian

registration HK 2016, crashed in a wooded residential area in Cove

Neck, Long Island, New York. AVA052 was a scheduled international

passenger flight from Bogota, Colombia, to John F. Kennedy

International airport, New York, with an intermediate stop at Jose

Maria Cordova Airport, near Medellin, Colombia. Of the 158 persons

aboard, 73 were fatally injured.

Because of poor weather conditions in the northeastern part of the

United States, the flightcrew was place in holding three times by air

traffic control for a total of about 1 hour and 17 minutes. During

the third period of holding, the flightcrew reported that the airplane

could not hold longer than 5 minutes, that it was running out of fuel,

and that it could not reach its alternate airport, Boston-Logan

International. Subsequently, the flightcrew executed a missed approach

to John F. Kennedy International Airport. While trying to return to

the airport, the airplane experienced a loss of power to all four

engines and crashed approximately 16 miles from the airport.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable

cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew to adequately

manage the airplane's fuel load, and their failure to communicate an

emergency fuel situation to air traffic control before fuel exhaustion

occurred. Contribution to the accident was the flightcrew's failure

to use an airline operation control dispatch system to assist them

during the international flight into a high-density airport in poor

weather. Also contributing to the accident was inadequate traffic

flow management by the Federal Aviation Administration and the lack of

standardized understandable terminology for pilots and controllers for

minimum and emergency fuel states.

http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/250190.htm

I think you've sold more 'HOAX' books for him than any other source, third printing now...

So David are you implying that your book has some merit just because a lot of copies have been sold?

Case Closed (Paperback)

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #161,752 in Books

The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK (Paperback)

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #273,313 in Books

Case Closed (Hardcover)

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #329,563 in Books

Case Closed : Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK (Paperback)

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #496,995 in Books