Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

These emails from pilots who don't know anything about the specifics of this

case are meaningless relative to the Wellstone crash. This guy Burton, for

example, could not possibly know if an EM weapon had affected the pilots

by rendering them unconscious or even killing them. I would observe that

Len is going bananas, repeating and repeating himself, just as Josiah posts

and posts the same drivel, over and over again. They are obsessed, alas,

with little or nothing to show for it. Here are replies to Len's latest rants:

(1) he says I have "no direct evidence" for EM weapons. Direct evidence

would be having my hands and eyes on one, which is true but trivial; the

important factors are that we have conditions of the crash that the use of

an EM weapon can explain, such as the apparent loss of control (loss of

airspeed and altitude), non-response to the stall warning alarm (because

it had been disabled), the bluish-white smoke (indicative of an electrical

fire), the burned fuselage (ignited by the electrical fire), the melted cloud

cover (which "The NTSB Failed Wellstone" discusses), the odd cell-phone

anomaly (caused by a spill-over effect), the garage doors opening (as

another spill-over effect), where the pilots appear to have been lured in-

to the "kill zone" by manipulating the data transmitted to their GPS;

(2) he says that it was not "an electrical fire", which is a really nice illus-

tration of the sophomoric quality of his thought processes. OF COURSE

it was a metallic fire insofar as the fuselage, which was made of metals,

burned intensely for hours; the question is, What caused it?, where the

answer appears to be an electrical fire that had a high-enough temper-

ature to ignite the metal, which would not have been the case from the

occurrence of a kerosene-based fuel fire, which would not have burned

at a high enough temperature to ignite the fuselage, even if the plane's

wings had not sheered off during the crash, which deprived any fuel-

based fire of most of the fuel that it would have needed to keep going.

(3) I had expected him to make a big deal over the state of the bodies,

where I have argued that the temperatures should have cremated them.

The whole business of how much was left of each body is still ambiguous.

We know what the photos looked like. We know that they required dental

records to identify the remains. And the autopsies indicate that some of

the bodies were so badly burned that no samples of lung tissue could be

obtained-- there was little more than bones. But I would like to put the

reports in front of someone with a medical background (even better: a

forensic background) to have a better idea of exactly how much of them

was left after the fire. I am convinced it could not have been very much.

Colby's trivial complaints have no substance but he adopts the use of

LARGE LETTERS in his ongoing efforts to smear me, even though we

have an explanation for the fire, while the NTSB does not. None of his

efforts, moreover, have undermined the credibility of our investigation.

Of course, anyone who agrees with him "knows what he's talking about",

even though we have yet to be shown to be wrong about the crash on

any significant point. His posts appear to be degenerating across time.

I have also noticed a pattern, namely: that whenever I put up a post

that lays out the case for assassination using a directed-energy weapon

and leading the pilots into the "kill zone" using manipulated GPS data,

there is a flurry of posts from Burton, Colby, and Thompson that makes

it hard to even find the explanation I have provided, given the blizzard

of new posts. This appears to be a technique of obfuscation intended to

distract attention from what we have found. I hope no one is taken in.

LenC penned:

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.

[...]

____________

Care to post the pilots name, his/her email address is fine, Len?

And how do we know he/she a pilot for US Airway's [arent they in bankruptcy or were in bankruptcy recently]? Yours or Craigs word, I guess... Hell, how do we know, for sure what Evan does? What he's presumed to do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 22, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Jim...denial is NOT a river.....

Edited September 22, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

.....such as the apparent loss of control (loss of airspeed and altitude)

All which were happening while the aircraft was still in radio contact with ATC and continued after the final transmission.

...non-response to the stall warning alarm (because it had been disabled)...

You assume that because there was no apparent reaction to a stall-warning which may or may not have sounded that it must have been disabled. It may have been disabled - being switched off by the crew.

...the bluish-white smoke (indicative of an electrical fire)...

No, it isn't. It's been explained to you many times. You can see in the images of the Shark 02 crash that the burning fuel & fuselage was giving off white smoke.

... the burned fuselage (ignited by the electrical fire)...

You haven't been able to prove an electrical fire took place, so you cannot say that any post-impact fire was caused by the same. The fire was more likely caused by post-impact by hot engine components and / or electrical arcing caused by the crash.

If you once again look at the images of the Shark 02 crash site: that fire occurred after the aircraft impacted from about a 100ft hover. No great forward speed, and only from about 100ft - yet the impact caused a fire which consumed the aircraft.

...where the pilots appear to have been lured in to the "kill zone" by manipulating the data transmitted to their GPS;

The aircraft was on a VOR approach, not a GPS. This is a fact explained to you (yet again) many times. Additionally, you have presented no explanation about how the GPS data can be manipulated. Why don't you explain to all of us how the GPS works, specifically with reference to aviation?

(2) he says that it was not "an electrical fire", which is a really nice illus-

tration of the sophomoric quality of his thought processes.  OF COURSE

it was a metallic fire insofar as the fuselage, which was made of metals,

burned intensely for hours; the question is, What caused it?, where the

answer appears to be an electrical fire that had a high-enough temper-

ature to ignite the metal, which would not have been the case from the

occurrence of a kerosene-based fuel fire, which would not have burned

at a high enough temperature to ignite the fuselage, even if the plane's

wings had not sheered off during the crash, which deprived any fuel-

based fire of most of the fuel that it would have needed to keep going.

Refer once again to the Shark 02 images.

Mr Fetzer, you ignore everything that is put in front of you. Not only are ignoring facts which invalidate your theory about the cause of the crash, you ignore openings which - if explored - might show that the crash was the result of 'foul play'; just not as you have hypothesized.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Where does this sniveling little xxxx come off questioning my service to my

country? I was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant in the US Marine Corps

as a regular officer. My initial training was as an infantry officer at the US

Marine Corps base in Quantico. I then took artillery officer training at the

US Army Artillery and Missile School in Lawton, OK. I was assigned to

the 1st Battalion, 12th Marines, which was based in Okinawa. I became

the Fire Direction Officer for a mortar battery. After thirteen months in

the Far East, including training ops in Japan (twice), Korea, Taiwan and

the Philippines,I was assigned to the Recruit Training Regiment at the US

Marine Corps Depot in San Diego. I served as a Series Commander for

a year, supervising recruit training and making sure that none of the

DIs killed any of the recruits. Then I was assigned to the Regimental

Heaquarters as the Assistant Operations and Training Officer, in which

capacity I reorganized the training program to handle 11,000 recruits

in 8 weeks instead of 8,000 recruits in 11 weeks. During my service,

I went everywhere and did what I was ordered. I made Captain in 3

1/2 years, but I did not want a career as a Marine. I resigned my com-

mission after four years of active duty (June 1962-June 1966) in order

to enter graduate school, which had always been my ambition. This

punk goes too far when he makes these slanderous claims. Surely my

four years in the Marine Corps more than equalled his two years in the

UDT. He is so envious of my academic success, where he appears to

have failed (giving up a tenured position to become a private eye?) that

it appears to have driven him just a little bit mad. I have more books

on more subjects and have earned degrees of distinction this miserable

creep may have dreamed of but never attained. He has acknowledged

that, while doing research at Time/Life, he stole a copy of the Zapruder

film. (You can read his admission of this crime in his statement to the

Assassination Records Review Board, which is published in THE GREAT

ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX as an appendix.) My conjecture is that Haver-

ford, where he was teaching, did not like having a thief on its faculty,

but he will have to explain that. I also received training for four years

as an undergraduate at Princeton, where I participated in the Navy

"Regular" Program, whereby I agreed to serve in the Navy or the US

Marine Corps for a minimum of four years of active service in return

for which the Navy would pay my tuition, books, and providing $50 a

month in spending money. I elected to take my commission in the

Marine Corps, because I wanted to be in a real military organization.

During that four years as an undergraduate, I also received summer

training, including shipping out on a destroyer escort as a midshipman

after my freshman year and receiving amphibious and pilot training

after my sophomore year. These were three week programs, which

were intended to provide familiarity with different aspects of military

service. They wanted me to fly, but it would have added one more

year to my service, when I planned to return to graduate school. I

made the observation in passing because this smelly fart asserted I

had never flown, when the literal truth is that I had. I did not make

it into a big deal because it wasn't a big deal, but I briefly piloted a

T-33 during that phase of my training. There were other aspects to

it, of course, but what he was asserting was literally false. I cannot

abide someone who would trash another citizen's military service to

bolster his own ego, but I give you Joisah Thompson, who gave up a

tenured faculty position to stake out wayward husbands and wives.

If you have any doubt, then read his book, GUMSHOE, if you want to

discover how interminably boring life can be. We had an expression

in the Marine Corps that fits this sorry sack of xxxx to a tee, namely:

he wouldn't make a decent pimple on a corporal's butt! That's Tink.

I have to disagree with you about a detail, Len.  You wrote:

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

Actually, Fetzer skedaddled out of the Marine Corps as soon as Vietnam heated up and headed off to graduate school in 1966.  He had been NROTC at Princeton.  Remember his claim to have "piloted a jet?"  Remember how he magically transformed  being taken up in a jet by a real pilot ("Here Jimmy, you can put your hands on the stick for a few seconds.") during NROTC summer camp into being a jet pilot and familiar with aviation?  Fetzer was obliged to go into the Marine Corps and did so, spending his first several years sitting on his ass in Okinawa and his last year or so minding statistics at a recruit base in San Diego which sent kids off to fight and die in Vietnam.  So he wasn't a "volunteer."  Nor was he a "Vietnam era Marine officer" because he ducked it.

Fetzer's claim that his time in the Marine Corps makes him an experienced warrior is about as bogus as his claim that touching the control stick for a few seconds makes him a "jet pilot."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 22, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Ok Jim, now that you and Tink have pissed all over each other, lets get back to the task at hand, pissing on your Wellstone theory.

You claim an "electrical fire" ignited the alum. skin of the aircraft. Is that correct?

If it is please explain exactly how that happened.

Exactly what is it you claim caught the metal on fire?

Details of how that can happen please.

This should be very interesting indeed.

Edited September 22, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

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

[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.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

We don't know much about fires. We know there was one on the Wellstone

plane, and we know that the NTSB either never investigated how it started

or, if it did, it kept the details from the public. The fact that they refer to it

as a "post-crash fire" without any shreds of proof suggests to us that they

wanted to make it look that way. You suggest that an electrical fire could

not have turned into the fire that consumed the fuselage, which appears to

contradict the position of Burton, who proposes that, in lieu of a massive

surge of energy from a directed-energy weapon, it may have been caused

by electrical arcing caused by the crash. So Burton and we at least seem to

agree that electrical fires can turn into fuselage fires. He even suggests

that it might have been caused by the heat from hot engine components!

Burton's response is very clever, because he talks about alternative pos-

sible explanations for some of the evidence (the apparent loss of control,

the white smoke, and the burned fuselage), while ignoring other evidence

(the bluish-white smoke, the melted cloud cover, the odd cell phone phe-

nomenon and the garage door openings). He suggest the pilots may have

shut off their stall warning system, which does not sound very rational to

me. Remember that the NTSB's own simulations using a weaker engine

at abnormally slow speeds could not bring the plane down! So why did

two well-qualified pilots neglect the most basic aspects of flying a plane?

The problem is that an adequate explanation for the crash has to account

for ALL of the evidence and not merely SOME. Most of us can "explain"

almost anything if we are allowed to pick and choose. 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. Although

he observes they were (officially) on a VOR heading, he doesn't explain

why, if that was they case, they were so far off of the true bearing 276.

I therefore conclude that Burton's answers looks better than they are,

because, like THE NTSB REPORT, they don't actually explain the crash.

The manipulation of the GPS data, in addition, would explain why they

were heading steadily toward a location more than two miles south of

the airport and yet did not seem to think anything was wrong. Burton

appears unaware the NTSB spent a lot of time grilling Charter Aviation

pilots as to whether they might have been on a GPS instead of a VOR

approach. So the NTSB took the possibility seriously, even if Burton

does not. Most importantly, although the VOR was slightly out of toler-

ance, it becomes less and less important as you get closer and closer

to the source. So Burton really has no explanation for this deviation

from the 276 to the 268 bearing. We can explain it, but Burton can't.

He suggests the pilots simply lost track of their air speed and altitude

and had "shut off" their stall warning system. But even those moves,

which are consistent with THE NTSB REPORT, do not explain why they

should have been so far off course, while manipulated GPS data does.

As to the fire, THE NTSB REPORT is silent, apart from begging the ques-

tion by assuming it was "post impact" when they really don't know. We

believe it was caused by the use of an EM weapon. Perhaps members

of the DEPS might be able to help us to resolve this rather subtle point.

http://www.deps.org/

DIRECTED ENERGY PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY

DEPS Home

DEPS Home

Events

Events

Education

Education

Publications

Publications

DEPS Info

DEPS Info

Links

Links

Calendar of Events

Calendar of Events

Exhibit Opportunities

Exhibit Opportunities

Past Meetings

Past Meetings

Event Proceedings

Event Proceedings

Short Courses

Short Courses

Graduate Scholarships

Graduate Scholarships

Directed Energy Interns

Directed Energy Interns

Education Workshops

Education Workshops

K-12 Resources

K-12 Resources

Journal of Directed Energy

Journal of Directed Energy

Event Proceedings

Event Proceedings

JTO Bulletin

JTO Bulletin

DE News

DE News

About DEPS

About DEPS

The DEPS Team

The DEPS Team

DEPS Fellows

DEPS Fellows

DEPS Sponsors

DEPS Sponsors

DEPS Board of Directors

DEPS Board of Directors

Members Page

Members Page

Joining DEPS

Joining DEPS

Contact DEPS

Contact DEPS

DEPS Sponsors

DEPS Sponsors

Employment Opportunites

Employment Opportunites

Other Links

Other Links

Items for Sale

Items for Sale

NEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Teacher and Counselor Workshop will be held in Lihue, HI on 17 November 2005.

The election for the 2005 DEPS Board of Directors is now underway. Balloting

will end on 28 September. DEPS members can cast their vote through our Members

Access page.

The following are the candidates for the four open positions. Biographical

information for the candidates is available here.

* Tim Andreadis, HPM, Naval Research Laboratory

* Denny Boesen, HEL, Northrop Grumman

* Donald Lamberson, HEL, Consultant

* David Loomis, HEL, Consultant

* Ed Pogue, HEL, Los Alamos National Laboratory

* Greg Schneider, HEL and HPM, Northrop Grumman

* Patrick Vail, HPM, Air Force Research Laboratory

* John Young, HEL, Brashear

UPCOMING DEPS EVENTS

Registration is now open for the Eighth Annual Directed Energy Symposium, to be

held 14-18 November 2005 in Lihue, HI.

Except for student papers, abstracts are no longer being accepted for this event.

Registration has closed for the Ultrashort Pulse Laser Material Interaction

Workshop, 22-23 September 2005, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO.

The technical program appears on the web page.

The Call for Papers has been published for these events:

* Directed Energy Education Workshop, 18 November 2005, Lihue, HI

* Directed Energy Systems Symposium, 20-24 March 2006, Monterey, CA. This

includes the Beam Control, Directed Energy Modeling and Simulation, and High

Energy Laser Lethality Conferences, and the Employment of Directed Energy

Weapons Workshop

* High Power Microwave Conference, 4-6 April 2006, Adelphi, MD

Join DEPS Calendar of Events

Items for Sale

For comments regarding these web pages, contact webmaster@deps.org

The Directed Energy Professional Society fosters research and development in

directed energy (DE), including high energy laser (HEL) and high power microwave

(HPM) technologies, for national defense and civil applications through

professional communication and education. Directed energy weapons (DEW),

including many non-lethal weapons, have military, homeland security, and police

applications. Other DE systems are applied to sensing and material fabrication.

Copyright 2005 Directed Energy Professional Society

DHTML/JavaScript Menus

by OpenCube

Notwithstanding any language to the contrary, nothing contained herein

constitutes nor is intended to constitute an offer, inducement, promise, or

contract of any kind. The data contained herein are for informational purposes

only and is not represented to be error free. Links to non-DEPS information are

provided as a courtesy. They are not intended to nor do they constitute an

endorsement by DEPS of the linked materials.

Last updated: 21 September 2005

Ok Jim, now that you and Tink have pissed all over each other, lets get back to the task at hand, pissing on your Wellstone theory.

You claim an "electrical fire" ignited the alum. skin of the aircraft.  Is that correct?

If it is please explain exactly how that happened.

Exactly what is it you claim caught the metal on fire?

Details of how that can happen please.

This should be very interesting indeed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 22, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

Tsk, tsk Professor. You really are so attractive when you huff and puff and rant and rave.

You wrote:

"I did not make it into a big deal because it wasn't a big deal, but I briefly piloted a T-33 during that phase of my training. There were other aspects to

it, of course, but what he was asserting was literally false."

A T-33 was a two-place training plane. The real pilot took off and landed the plane. For a few seconds while you and the pilot were aloft, he let little Jimmy put his hands on the stick. That's what you are trying to bootstrap into "I piloted a T-33 during that phase of my training." And it's that vast experience in a T-33.... isn't it?.... that you earlier claimed qualified you to understand what happened in the Wellstone crash.

The rest is the usual Fetzerian rant. But thank you for confirming that you sat on your ass in Okinawa and went to a recruit depot before skedaddling from the Marine Corps in June 1966 when the Vietnam War was heating up and the Marine Corps needed lieutenants and captains. As for your claim concerning the Zapruder film... the full story of this is being told in the just published scholarly book by Richard B. Trask, National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film (Danvers Mass.:Yeoman Press, 2005). As in David Wrone's earlier scholarly work on the Zapruder film, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination(Lawrence, Kansas: The University of Kansas Press, 2003) your tabloid style of research provides only comedic interest for both authors. Why is it, Professor, that real scholars take your work to be silly?

Now back to the Wellstone crash and that "bluish smoke."

[Len Colby]

Non-explanatory replies from Burton are useless. The smoke was bluish-white, not simply white.

Jim I think you were the only person on this thread who did not get it. You are the one arguing that we should expect smoke from crashed aircraft to be black. This as Craig and I pointed out would only be true if the fuel supply was burning. Obviously what was burning on the Wellstone plane was something else, what fuel that was in the fuselage had already burned off.

Same with the helicopter something else was burning.

Craig explained the conditions under which a fire produces blue smoke and white smoke

Spite from has-been hack Thompson is all we should expect. Neither of them appears to have anything of value to contribute to this thread.

You're charming as always

Reviewing the reports about the bodies and their condition, I was wrong to say they were cremated by the fire. They were sufficiently intact for a determination of the cause of death to be made. I therefore withdraw the first two paragraphs of this post.

So you've been studying this case for over two years and you only realized that now?!?!

On the other hand, there is nothing at all in THE NTSB REPORT that justifies the inference that it was a "post-impact" as opposed to "pre-impact" fire. I have therefore revised it to make it a more accurate statement of my position.

At least three things indicate that it was post impact

The fuel supply was not ignited till after impact

the tail was not burned

No witnesses said anything about seeing smoke or flames

The plane was consumed by an intense fire, which burned for hours and which the firemen were unable to put out.

Already explained to you various times. If you find that explanation lacking debunk it!!!

It was a metallic fire that reduced the plane to little more than a pile of charcoal.

Other than the EMT's statement what evidence do you have that it was a metal fire?

Does Burton also know, based upon his vast experience, this did not happen in this case? Under the conditions, how could he possibly know?... There must be something about being a pilot that leads these guys to assume they know what happened... Because it is POSSIBLE that the pilots screwed-up and simply allowed the plane to crash, that must be what actually HAPPENED! School children might get away with simple-minded reasoning like this, but not adults...."

Jim, did I missunderstand you or are you now admiting that "it is POSSIBLE that the pilots screwed-up and simply allowed the plane to crash"?

You're reversing the burden of proof you are the one who has to show that it wasn´t pilot error and thatb you explination is rational!

The overwhelming evidence is indicative of pilot error based on

1] All the xxxx ups previously committed by Conry and Guess

2] the xxxx ups commited by them during the pre-approach and approach BEFORE the last radio communication

3] there are many example of similar crashes involving flight crews far more experienced and compotent than Conry and Guess

Jim you really have a thing against pilots. That must be because you can find one, not one who agrees wuth you. The only pilots you like are those two incompotents who killed your hero!!

That it might have been POSSIBLE for certain systems to survive an electromag-netic attack does not mean that it is PROBABLE that the plane could have been successfully flown under these conditions.

????? under what conditions? All critical systems working?

Jim the ball is in your court he is a pilot with many year experience. What evidence do you have that he is wrong

Burton has done nothing to explain why two qualified pilots neglected their airspeed and altitude--and even direction!--or the loud stall warning system that should have alerted them that they were about to crash. He cannot even account for the fact that they were on the wrong course, heading 268 instead of 276! If their CDIs were working, they should have known! And of course he completely ignores the NTSB's own simulations! Such arrogance!

Jim arguing with you is pointless reread the NTSB report and our posts

One feature of the Waukegan incident that he has overlooked...GPS...

Jim you have no evidence they were using GPS

Waukegan is 500 miles from Eveleth why didn't any other planes or anyone else using GPS complain?

You have no evidence that GPS can be manipulated

I could go on but why bother I tired because it's getting late here and arguing with you seems pointless. Your brain has a remarkable ability to block out any info that counters your far fetched thesis

Because it is increasingly apparent one of us does not know what he's talking about.

For once I agree with you

[Len Colby]

Jim I have four simple questions for you and I would appreciate four simple answers. No fetzering please.

Why do you believe the smoke was bluish-white?

Are you still insisting that the fire was electrical even though there was no electrical supply?

Are you admitting now [see above] that pilot error is a rational explanation for the crash?

Does anyone with a background in aviation agree with your assessment of the crash and its probable cause?

[Craig Lamson]

We don't know much about fires. We know there was one on the Wellstone

plane, and we know that the NTSB either never investigated how it started

or, if it did, it kept the details from the public. The fact that they refer to it

as a "post-crash fire" without any shreds of proof suggests to us that they

wanted to make it look that way.  You suggest that an electrical fire could

not have turned into the fire that consumed the fuselage, which appears to

contradict the position of Burton, who proposes that, in lieu of a massive

surge of energy from a directed-energy weapon, it may have been caused

by electrical arcing caused by the crash.  So Burton and we at least seem to

agree that electrical fires can turn into fuselage fires.  He even suggests

that it might have been caused by the heat from hot engine components!

Burton's response is very clever, because he talks about alternative pos-

sible explanations for some of the evidence (the apparent loss of control,

the white smoke, and the burned fuselage), while ignoring other evidence

(the bluish-white smoke, the melted cloud cover, the odd cell phone phe-

nomenon and the garage door openings).  He suggest the pilots may have

shut off their stall warning system, which does not sound very rational to

me.  Remember that the NTSB's own simulations using a weaker engine

at abnormally slow speeds could not bring the plane down!  So why did

two well-qualified pilots neglect the most basic aspects of flying a plane?

The problem is that an adequate explanation for the crash has to account

for ALL of the evidence and not merely SOME.  Most of us can "explain"

almost anything if we are allowed to pick and choose.  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.  Although

he observes they were (officially) on a VOR heading, he doesn't explain

why, if that was they case, they were so far off of the true bearing 276.

I therefore conclude that Burton's answers looks better than they are,

because, like THE NTSB REPORT, they don't actually explain the crash.

The manipulation of the GPS data, in addition, would explain why they

were heading steadily toward a location more than two miles south of

the airport and yet did not seem to think anything was wrong.  Burton

appears unaware the NTSB spent a lot of time grilling Charter Aviation

pilots as to whether they might have been on a GPS instead of a VOR

approach.  So the NTSB took the possibility seriously, even if Burton

does not.  Most importantly, although the VOR was slightly out of toler-

ance, it becomes less and less important as you get closer and closer

to the source.  So Burton really has no explanation for this deviation

from the 276 to the 268 bearing.  We can explain it, but Burton can't.

He suggests the pilots simply lost track of their air speed and altitude

and had "shut off" their stall warning system.  But even those moves,

which are consistent with THE NTSB REPORT, do not explain why they

should have been so far off course, while manipulated GPS data does. 

As to the fire, THE NTSB REPORT is silent, apart from begging the ques-

tion by assuming it was "post impact" when they really don't know.  We

believe it was caused by the use of an EM weapon.  Perhaps members

of the DEPS might be able to help us to resolve this rather subtle point. 

http://www.deps.org/

         DIRECTED ENERGY PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY 

DEPS Home

DEPS Home

Events

Events

Education

Education

Publications

Publications

DEPS Info

DEPS Info

Links

Links

Calendar of Events

Calendar of Events

Exhibit Opportunities

Exhibit Opportunities

Past Meetings

Past Meetings

Event Proceedings

Event Proceedings

Short Courses

Short Courses

Graduate Scholarships

Graduate Scholarships

Directed Energy Interns

Directed Energy Interns

Education Workshops

Education Workshops

K-12 Resources

K-12 Resources

Journal of Directed Energy

Journal of Directed Energy

Event Proceedings

Event Proceedings

JTO Bulletin

JTO Bulletin

DE News

DE News

About DEPS

About DEPS

The DEPS Team

The DEPS Team

DEPS Fellows

DEPS Fellows

DEPS Sponsors

DEPS Sponsors

DEPS Board of Directors

DEPS Board of Directors

Members Page

Members Page

Joining DEPS

Joining DEPS

Contact DEPS

Contact DEPS

DEPS Sponsors

DEPS Sponsors

Employment Opportunites

Employment Opportunites

Other Links

Other Links

Items for Sale

Items for Sale

NEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Teacher and Counselor Workshop will be held in Lihue, HI on 17 November 2005.

The election for the 2005 DEPS Board of Directors is now underway. Balloting

will end on 28 September. DEPS members can cast their vote through our Members

Access page.

The following are the candidates for the four open positions. Biographical

information for the candidates is available here.

    * Tim Andreadis, HPM, Naval Research Laboratory

    * Denny Boesen, HEL, Northrop Grumman

    * Donald Lamberson, HEL, Consultant

    * David Loomis, HEL, Consultant

    * Ed Pogue, HEL, Los Alamos National Laboratory

    * Greg Schneider, HEL and HPM, Northrop Grumman

    * Patrick Vail, HPM, Air Force Research Laboratory

    * John Young, HEL, Brashear

UPCOMING DEPS EVENTS

Registration is now open for the Eighth Annual Directed Energy Symposium, to be

held 14-18 November 2005 in Lihue, HI.

Except for student papers, abstracts are no longer being accepted for this event.

Registration has closed for the Ultrashort Pulse Laser Material Interaction

Workshop, 22-23 September 2005, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO.

The technical program appears on the web page.

The Call for Papers has been published for these events:

    * Directed Energy Education Workshop, 18 November 2005, Lihue, HI

    * Directed Energy Systems Symposium, 20-24 March 2006, Monterey, CA.  This

includes the Beam Control, Directed Energy Modeling and Simulation, and High

Energy Laser Lethality Conferences, and the Employment of Directed Energy

Weapons Workshop

    * High Power Microwave Conference, 4-6 April 2006, Adelphi, MD

Join DEPS     Calendar of Events

Items for Sale

For comments regarding these web pages, contact webmaster@deps.org

The Directed Energy Professional Society fosters research and development in

directed energy (DE), including high energy laser (HEL) and high power microwave

(HPM) technologies, for national defense and civil applications through

professional communication and education. Directed energy weapons (DEW),

including many non-lethal weapons, have military, homeland security, and police

applications. Other DE systems are applied to sensing and material fabrication.

Copyright 2005 Directed Energy Professional Society    

DHTML/JavaScript Menus

by OpenCube

Notwithstanding any language to the contrary, nothing contained herein

constitutes nor is intended to constitute an offer, inducement, promise, or

contract of any kind. The data contained herein are for informational purposes

only and is not represented to be error free. Links to non-DEPS information are

provided as a courtesy. They are not intended to nor do they constitute an

endorsement by DEPS of the linked materials.

Last updated: 21 September 2005

Ok Jim, now that you and Tink have pissed all over each other, lets get back to the task at hand, pissing on your Wellstone theory.

You claim an "electrical fire" ignited the alum. skin of the aircraft.  Is that correct?

If it is please explain exactly how that happened.

Exactly what is it you claim caught the metal on fire?

Details of how that can happen please.

This should be very interesting indeed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're dancing here Jim, but without much skill and all alone.

I'll have to go back and check but IIRC you stated somewhere in one of your many rants that the fire was an electrical fire that ignited the metal of tha aircraft. Again the direct question is did the electrical spark directly ignite the metal? If not you are done when it comes to an electrical fire. Why? Because as both Evan and I have explained, it seems endlessly, the electrical spark must ignite SOMETHING for a fire to start and grow.

You say an electrical fire burns with enough heat to ignite the metal of the aircraft and a jet fuel fire does not. Yet unless you can show somehow that the electrical system ignited the metal directly, your fire theory fails. SO please point to to anything that says you can ignite alum. with an electric spark or arc from the power sources on aircraft. I'm pretty lucky, my shop has lots and lots of stuff laying around that I can use for testing things. Today I decided to try out your "electrical Alum. fire theory" I took two 12volt deep cycle RV batteries and wired them so I had 24 volts. IIRC thats what the KIng Air uses but if I'm wrong I am willing to stand corrected. Anyway with my 24v dc power source and a pair of jumper cables, I took a small sheet of .040 alum sheeting, like that used on the sides of cargo trailers and attached the negative cable to the sheet. With the correct type of fire extingisher handy, I touched the positive cable to the shoot of metal. Sparks flew, and white smoke rose and the copper of the cable was lightly fused to the alum, sheet....but there was no fire. Now what I have read about the nature of fires started by an electrical source shows the temps of a spark or arc can reach 2000 degrees. So if thats true, and I have no reason to doubt it, why did my sheet of metal not ignite?

And by the way, both Evan and I are saying the same thing, you just have failed to comprehend. Even IF the fire was started by an electrical source...it HAD to have some combustable FUEL to it to burn. The metal of the airframe is NOT that fuel. It will be in almost every instance, a combustable like the insulation of the wires, the foam on the seats, the wall coverings in the cabin...or the jet fuel. Now here is the kicker Jim...you claim it must be an "electrical fire" and not a jet fuel fire because an electrical fire is hotter and therefore can burn the metal in the airframe. Now it you have followed along as this has been explained to you at least 4 times...there is no "electrical fire" only electrical ignition. Anything that follows is a fire of a different nature depending on the combustables available. To recap, your statement that the fire must be electrical because the metal in the airframe burned and because the smoke was bluish, or bluish/white...depending on which day you wrote your posting...is false. Got that...false. No amount of dancing on your part is ever going to change that Jim, so please retract your claim.

You love to write profusely that your theory of the EMP attack is the only theory that fully accounts for all of the available evidence. What this little exercise on fire illustrates is that you have manufactured "evidence" where none exists to bolster your claim that the plane was attacked by an EMP weapon. Thats not very honest of you Jim, but its par for the course, at least as it has been observed by myself and others over the past few years. Its also a common conclusion of a great many othere when it concerns the honesty of your "research". There are plenty of posts to that point available at your favortite link....

www.google.com

Now I know your mind is never going to be changed and you will continue to walk around like a four year old with your fingers in your ears shouting na na na na na...I can't hear you. And you will continue to claim that no one has been able to successfully debunk your case. Fine. BUt remember this. This is a public forum and unlike the walled garden of JFKResearch we have you on the public record now. Your sillyness is recorded and SAVED for future use and for all to see.

So please, keep dancing.

Edited September 22, 2005 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Colby, true to form, continues to post misleading information (some

call it "misinformation"; when it is deliberate, called "disinformation").

The VOR was only minimally out of tolerance and even the NTSB

concluded it had not contributed to the crash.  The closer you got

to the source, the less difference it would make.  This guy is adept

at citing sources without explaining their meaning or import, as long

as it contributes to his (highly selective) efforts to build his case.

Another example.  The plane was headed south when it crashed,

but the airport was almost due north.  The plane was off course

in its general direction by 8 degrees, which may not sound like

much but extended over rate times time, could have put it very

far from the airport.  As it was, when it crashed, it was about 2

miles south, very comparable to the experience reported by the

other pilot when he was attempting to land at Waukegan Airport.

The existence of weapons of this kind is not seriously indoubt, for

all the noise and shouting Colby is making over them.  Here's a

section of AMERICAN ASSASSINATION concerning EM weapons,

which corresponds to pages 90-94 of the book in its 2nd printing.

The author holds a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electro-

magnetism.  Unlike some, he actually knows what he's talking about.

Electromagnetic weapons

Since John Ongaro wondered whether his odd cell phone experience

might have been related to the use of a directed energy weapon,

it would be appropriate to provide some background about weapons

of this kind.

There are whole families of new radio frequency (RF) and

electromagnetic pulse (EMP weaponry, including high-energy radio

frequency (HERF) guns, some of which have been around at least since

the mid 1990s. But even Rees appears to be unaware of these advances in

technology. “I may be out of date," he wrote, "but last I knew a

nuclear detonation is required to produce an Electromagnetic Pulse. I

am unaware that such a force has been harnessed in an anti-aircraft

weapon, especially one small enough for assassins to skulk around in

swampy woods.”

Actually, Rees is quite “out of date“ with regard to EMP

weapons. EMP pulses are by-products of nuclear explosions, which

first led to their discovery.  A google search turns up hundreds of

sources with more current information. One of Jim's collaborators on

Zapruder film research, John P. Costella, earned his Ph.D. in physics

specializing in electromagnetic theory.  Jim asked Dr. Costella if he

could explain the general features of the use of devices of this kind in

language that a layman can understand. Here's what he had to say.

__________

The world around us is surrounded by electromagnetic waves. Some of us

may recall building crystal radio sets when we were young. Even then,

radio waves were strong enough to power the earpiece without the need

for a separate power source. Radar tracks aircraft and weather by

sending out beams of radio waves and measuring how much is bounced

back. Cell phones communicate with cable phone networks by means of

high frequency radio waves and internet carriers communicate with

satellites using powerful microwave transmitters, where radiowaves and

microwaves are different types of electromagnetic waves.

All electronic

devices can be disrupted if subjected to strong enough electromagnetic

waves. Your home music system may click or pop when a lamp is switched

on. Your TV may go fuzzy when someone plugs in a power drill.

Electromagnetic interference is a troublesome fact of life. And there

is an entire federal agency dedicated to making sure that all of our

modern electronic devices can function in the same house or work place.

Interference can be reduced by "shielding" a device in a metallic cage,

but the more metal a manufacturer uses, the more costly and weighty the

device becomes.

Today, aircraft systems are dominated by electronics.

The amount of "shielding" possible is limited by the need to keep the

aircraft light enough to fly. The most disastrous times for

electromagnetic interference to the control system is during takeoff

and landing, when there is little room for error nor time to correct

it. This is why you are told not to use cell phones, computers, or any

other electronic device when an aircraft is taking off or landing.

But

if a cell phone or a Gameboy could cause an aircraft to crash, what

about all the other electromagnetic waves flying about our modern

world? Both NASA and the FAA have performed detailed research on this

question in recent years. One NASA report is at

www-sdb.larc.nasa.gov/Air_Support/aries/papers/electromagnetic.pdf,

providing a chilling history of crashes caused by inadvertent

electromagnetic waves.

In the 1980s, for example, five different Black

Hawk helicopters dove into the ground and crashed when they flew near

radio transmitters. It was found that the rear stabilization control

system was vulnerable to electromagnetic interference. In the early

1990s, six F-111 fighers crashed or aborted their missions, due simply

to the radio transmissions of other US aircraft involved in the same

missions. Around the same time, the NTSB concluded that seven Piper

Malibu broke up in mid-flight because of electromagnetic interference

to the auto pilot, which had been reported by 300 other pilots of

similar aircraft.

A 1983 crash of a Tornado fighter was later found to

be due to the electromagnetic interference of a "Voice of America"

transmitter with its air data computer. In the early 1990s, four

different airline carriers reported widespread interference with

avionics systems in may flight in the Caribbean, which was traced to

high-power electromagnetic surveillance carried out by the US

military--both shipboard and airborne--to track drug traffic in the

region. It has even proposed that the crash of TWA 800 in 1996 might

have been due to electromagnetic interference.

The FAA has also

investigated in detail the risks of electromagnetic fields. A 1999

report is http://aar400.tc.faa.gov/acc/accompdocs/99-50.pdf. They

investigated in detail 893 "emitters" of electromagnetic waves--radio

and television transmitters, radar and satellite uplink transmitters,

and large microwave communication systems--around just the cities of

Denver, CO, and Seattle, WA. They report that there are some 50,000

similar major "emitters" of electromagnetic waves in the US and Western

Europe.

The FAA estimated the probability that a single flight into or

out of one of these cities would crash due to electromagnetic

interference. This involved estimating probabilities that the flight

path would come too close to an emitter, that an emitter would transmit

on just the right frequency and in the direction of the aircraft, and

that the interference would cause a catastrophic crash. The main

conclusions of the report address proposed new shielding levels for

aircraft, which are or appear to be appropriately safe, where the

average number of flights expected between catastrophic failures due to

this cause would be between 100,000 and 500,000.

Buried here, however,

are corresponding estimates for aircraft already manufactured under

less stringent guidelines. Reconstructing the figures from those

contained in the report, a flight in an aircraft manufactured after the

release of the 1989 standard would incur a catastrophe roughly ever

5,000 flights! For an aircraft manufactured according to 1984

standards, the figure drops precipitously to a catastrophe expected for

every 33 flights! These figures, of course, reflect approximately how

often the wrong conditions might be expected to be encountered by

aircraft merely by chance.

These estimates may be conservative and

there are many factors involved in determining whether this has

practical implications for any aircraft now flying. However, it does

highlight that completely accidental electromagnetic interference has

become a major safety concern in the modern world of burgeoning

electromagnetic communications. So if that is the score regarding

aircraft crashes merely by chance, then just how difficult would it be

to bring down an aircraft using an electromagnetic emitter on purpose?

This obviously depends on the resources available and the age and type

of aircraft under consideration. Flight paths are already designed to

avoid known electromagnetic emitters by some safe margin. If one were

simply to gain control of one of these emitters, aim it directly at an

aircraft, and transmit with sufficient power at the right frequencies,

the probability of catastrophic failure would skyrocket. If we move

into the realm of special purpose EM-weaponry--obviously possessed in

copious quantities by the military and another else with similar

desires--then literally the sky is the limit.

Some may be uneasy to

learn that today's aircraft--particularly, aging aircraft--should be so

vulnerable to relatively simple and inexpensive attack. The explanation

is that, most of the time--even almost all of the time--no one is

actively trying to cause an aircraft to crash. Regulatory frameworks

and agencies like the FAA attempt to ensure that such catastrophes do

not occur very frequently by chance. Any "cowboys" shooting

electromagnetic waves into the air at random, moreover, would quickly

be detected by the US military, either through ground-based detection

or through satellite surveillance.

It would only be in the case of very

carefully planned or specifically targeted use of EM-weaponry that the

culprits could escape detection by the US military, unless, of course,

the culprits were the US military itself. As 11 September has taught

us, the practicalities of economic life dictate that safety measures

are very finely balanced against commercial costs and corporate

profits. Anyone who could not conceive of an aircraft being brought

down by even a relatively small-sized EM emitter, therefore, ought to

pause the next time they continue to use their laptop computers or cell

phones when their planes are about to take off. It might turn out to be

their final flight.

___________

Costella's observations make it all too apparent that weapons of this

kind not only exist, but that the threats they pose to aircraft are

very real.  These threats affect every passenger, every flight.  This

means that even though most Americans are unaware of the potential of

these weapons--with former Air Force pilot Rees being an prime example--

it would be a blunder not to consider the possibility that EMP weapons

could have been employed in the Wellstone crash.  Before we continue

our exploration of this technology and why we believe it is likely

that they may have been used to assassinate the Senator, we will first

analyze the official government account.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I asked a friend to take a look at the passage with Costella's remarks...his review can be found here, the poster is JayUtah.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1126833989

[Evan Burton]

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.

[Len Colby]

Jim since Costella is a member of this forum [ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2357 ] why doesn't he post here himself?

Why do we need you as a go between?

Are we to infer from this that he is afraid to debate his ideas here? Dr. PhD in physics expert on what ever field you so declare him - even if it doesn't relate to his thesis and he hasn't published any papers on the subject - can't hold his own against people who don't even have B.S. degrees [i have a BA, Craig is a self declared college drop out, I don't know about Evan.]

Edited September 22, 2005 by Len Colby