Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone


Recommended Posts

You, Mr Fetzer, do not have the qualifications, training, or experience to judge the report.  You are not qualified flight crew, you have little (if any) aviation experience, and cannot speak with any authority about the cockpit environment.

Mr. Burton does not have the qualifications, training, or experience to judge the

qualifications, training, or experience of Jim Fetzer, whose intelligence and

training probably exceeds that of Burton. Like all of us, Jim is not always right...

maybe just 98 percent. I disagree with him on two things...Chauncey Holt and

O.J.Simpson.

Aviation experience is not necessary to judge facts, photographs, testimony

and news reports. A little common sense, which Jim has in abundance, is

what is necessary. Am I the only one who finds it strange that a fire consumed

an airplane and people, but did not even scorch a tree? Science is not needed

to observe this...just common sense.

Jack :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 342
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Aviation experience is not necessary to judge facts, photographs, testimony

and news reports. A little common sense, which Jim has in abundance, is

what is necessary. Am I the only one who finds it strange that a fire consumed

an airplane and people, but did not even scorch a tree? Science is not needed

to observe this...just common sense.

Jack :)

Common sense can lead you astray.

Have a look at these images:

crash_aus_wideweb__430x308,1.jpg

seakingwreck_wideweb__430x286.jpg

r44118_113790.jpg

TEMPORARY_CRASH_NIAS.jpg

39140_1.jpg

It's the crash site of a Sea King helicopter, SHARK 02, that killed nine Australian service personnel during the Nias relief effort in April 05.

The fire after the crash completely burnt the aircraft - yet the surrounding grass is untouched. Oh - and notice the white smoke. The Sea King uses AVTUR, just like a KingAir.

Come on Jack - or Mr Fetzer - tell me that this crash was staged or suspicious.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I have said: Mr Fetzer (and now Jack), you do not have the appropriate qualifications, experience, or training to challenge the NTSB report. You do not know what you are talking about. If there was 'foul play' involved, it was NOT as you have asserted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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. I am appalled at

the level of ignorance displayed by some members of this forum, which does

not seem to inhibit them from making assertions that are not only false but

even provably false. I suggest Burton exercise just a modicum of effort to

ascertain whether or not his suggestion is even remotely reasonable, which

it is not. Egad! This guy really doesn't know even the basics about this case."

Fetzer is so maddeningly predictable. Evan Burton is a pilot who, like Colonel Rees, knows more about aviation than Fetzer will ever know (all this in spite of Fetzer's earlier claim that he "piloted a jet"). Immediately, Fetzer's response is to malign Burton's motives ("he has no serious commitment to the truth in the Wellstone case") and claim falsely that "this guy really doesn't know even the basics about this case." It is this pomposity and eagerness to insult and attack the character of those with whom he disagrees that makes Fetzer such a desirable target. I don't know about Craig or Len but I find difficult to ignore a blowhard who keeps pompously claiming indisputable results based upon nothing more than his own mistaken opinions. Long ago, Fetzer embarrassed himself with the assassination research community and moved on to the next "conspiracy du jour." He could move on again. He could take a shot at the idea that George and Laura Bush personally dynamited the levees in New Orleans. How about it, Professor?

Edited by Josiah Thompson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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. I am appalled at

the level of ignorance displayed by some members of this forum, which does

not seem to inhibit them from making assertions that are not only false but

even provably false. I suggest Burton exercise just a modicum of effort to

ascertain whether or not his suggestion is even remotely reasonable, which

it is not. Egad! This guy really doesn't know even the basics about this case." (earlier post by James Fetzer, Ph.D.)

Fetzer is so maddeningly predictable.  Evan Burton is a pilot who, like Colonel Rees, knows more about aviation than Fetzer will ever know (all this in spite of Fetzer's earlier claim that he "piloted a jet").  Immediately, Fetzer's response is to malign Burton's motives ("he has no serious commitment to the truth in the Wellstone case") and claim falsely that "this guy really doesn't know even the basics about this case."  It is this pomposity and eagerness to insult and attack the character of those with whom he disagrees that makes Fetzer such a desirable target.  I don't know about Craig or Len but I find difficult to ignore a blowhard who keeps pompously claiming indisputable results based upon nothing more than his own mistaken opinions.  Long ago, Fetzer embarrassed himself with the assassination research community and moved on to the next "conspiracy du jour."  He could move on again. He could take a shot at the idea that George and Laura Bush personally dynamited the levees in New Orleans.  How about it, Professor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Non-explanatory replies from Burton are useless. The smoke was bluish-white,

not simply white. 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.

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. 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.

The plane was consumed by an intense fire, which burned for hours and which

the firemen were unable to put out. It was a metallic fire that reduced the plane

to little more than a pile of charcoal. It is worth taking a look at the photographs

that appeared in our article, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", which is found here:

View photos: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...wellstone.shtml

The bodies, by the way, were only discovered in looking through the wreckage for

the voice-cockpit recorder, which probably was included in the upgraded package

for this late model A-100, and were identified on the basis of their dental records.

Moreover, the effects of a strong EM hit not only include taking out the electronic

components of the plane (the CDI, the stall warning system, the communications

equipment) and the electrical systems (including the switches that control the pitch

of the props, among others) but can have unhealthy effects on human beings and

other living things, such as rendering them unconscious, incapable of voluntary mus-

cle control, or even dead. Does Burton also know, based upon his vast experience,

this did not happen in this case? Under the conditions, how could he possibly know?

The extensive, intense, and long fire surely would have destroyed physical effects.

As for his "explanation", I've heard it all before. There must be something about

being a pilot that leads these guys to assume they know what happened--even if

they are completely unfamiliar with the evidence in a specific case. Because it is

POSSIBLE that the pilots screwed-up and simply allowed the plane to crash, that

must be what actually HAPPENED! School children might get away with simple-

minded reasoning like this, but not adults. Unless, of course, they happen to be

PILOTS, which endows them with cognitive powers far beyond the norm! William

Rees offered exactly the same line of reasoning, which fails for the same reason.

That it might have been POSSIBLE for certain systems to survive an electromag-

netic attack does not mean that it is PROBABLE that the plane could have been

successfully flown under these conditions. Burton has done nothing to explain why

two qualified pilots neglected their airspeed and altitude--and even direction!--or

the loud stall warning system that should have alerted them that they were about

to crash. He cannot even account for the fact that they were on the wrong course,

heading 268 instead of 276! If their CDIs were working, they should have known!

And of course he completely ignores the NTSB's own simulations! Such arrogance!

One feature of the Waukegan incident that he has overlooked is that the pilot said

his CDI showed them being on the right course, when in fact they were heading in

a southernly deviation from their flight path. And the GPS DEGRADE light did not

function properly, coming on and off for the co-pilot, even though the pilot's light

was not changing. Something odd was going on at the same time the Wellstone

plane was experiencing trouble. We suspect that, since the effect was similar in

magnitude and direction, they were also subject to GPS data manipuation, which

led them into the "kill zone" without alarming them that something was not right.

Certainly, nothing that Burton has to say deals with the most basic consideration,

namely: that it is more probable that they did not "power up" and circle around

for another attempt at landing because the plane was no longer under their con-

trol than that they did not "power up" and circle around for another attempt when

the plane was still under their control! And with two pilots, if they could have sent

a distress call, it certainly would have been a good idea, since they were about to

crash in a remote, swampy area where the speed of help could make a difference

to life and death, including the life of a Senator, his wife, daughter, and three aides.

Of course, none of this gets to the other relevant evidence, including the melted

cloud cover, the bluish-white smoke, the metallic fire, the odd cell phone anomaly,

and the garage door openings. So far as I can see, nothing he has to say actually

explains any of the puzzling aspects of the crash. How does he explain why they

were on azmuth 268 rather than 276? Why didn't they notice they were not even

on the right path for a landing, if their equipment was properly functioning? And

why did they ignore their airspeed and altitude, not to mention the stall warning,

assuming their equipment was properly functioning? It makes a lot more sense

to acknowledge this was FAR MORE PROBABLE if it was not functioning properly!

Burton observes that I am not a pilot and he is, which is certainly correct. But it

does not follow that he knows more about this specific case than I do. In fact, he

displays massive ignorance about almost every aspect of the Wellstone crash and

openly acknowledges he takes for granted that THE NTSB REPORT is correct! All

things considered, at this point in time, given the extensive discussion over this

and other fora, that is an incredibly naive stance to adopt. The whole question at

stake is whether or not THE NTSB REPORT is credible. I suggest that, for a start,

he not only look at the pictures but read the words of the study cited here. Be-

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

Read text: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...wellstone.shtml

Pat,

Let's assume for a moment that Mr Fetzer is correct about a 'high energy' weapon of some type 'luring' the aircraft off-course and completely frying all the aircraft electrics.

That would make his theory about the crash correct, wouldn't it?

Simple answer: no.

If all electrical systems are completely fried:

1. Engine power and blade pitch controls still have a mechanical linkage that would allow close to normal performance - sufficient to fly out of the stall;

2. Aircraft still has altimeter - pressure operated, no electrical power required;

3. Aircraft still has Air Speed Indicator (ASI); pressure operated from pitot tube and static port on fuselage - no electrical power required;

4. Aircraft still has Vertical Speed Indicator (VSI); operated by pressure - no electrical power required; and

5. Aircraft still has Standby Atitude Indicator (AI), sometimes called the 'artifical horizon'. Main AI runs off electrics; standby AI run off vacuum reserve specifically in case of total electrical failure. FAA standards say it must run for at least 30 mins with no power.

So you still have control of your engines to deliver power, you know your pitch / roll (AI), how fast you are going (ASI), your altitude, and how fast you are descending / climbing (VSI) - everything you need to fly out of the situation. Even if the stall warning was disabled, part of instrument flying is maintaining an instrument scan - looking at all those primary flight instruments.

EVERYTHING indicates they didn't have a proper scan going (PIC responsibility), they should have seen the airspeed bleeding off, failed to recognise the impending stall, then failed to correctly recover from the stall.

It's a classic case - it's happened before and will no doubt happen again.

The NTSB has drawn the correct conclusions from the available data.

Mr Fetzer does not have the experience or training to analyse the events, and fails to recognise that he is plain wrong.

If there WAS 'foul play', it was NOT as Mr Fetzer describes.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Fetzer, you keep on ignoring the arguements put before you and maintain your tirade, insisting that you are right - no matter what is shown to the contrary.

Please continue to do so, because it simply further weakens your credibility as far as the cause of the accident is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and:

Mr Fetzer said:

Moreover, the effects of a strong EM hit not only include taking out the electronic

components of the plane (the CDI, the stall warning system, the communications

equipment) and the electrical systems (including the switches that control the pitch

of the props, among others) but can have unhealthy effects on human beings and

other living things, such as rendering them unconscious, incapable of voluntary muscle control, or even dead. Does Burton also know, based upon his vast experience, this did not happen in this case? Under the conditions, how could he possibly know? The extensive, intense, and long fire surely would have destroyed physical effects.

Yes, I can say it did not happen because the aircraft is fitted with additional mechanical linkages for prop pitch and engine power control, mechanical & pressure operated flight instruments, all which do not rely on electrical power or signals to work. The aircraft was capable of being flown safely. The aircraft did NOT crash because of those reasons mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 (B), 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Now I can understand that SOME (USofA citizens) participating in this thread had absolutely nothing to do with military service, does not surprise me in the least. Draft OR enlistment. In particular participation in any US military forces branch during the 'Vietnam ERA'. For whatever reason they saw fit. Judged against that backdrop it, what I've seen displayed here by a few of those, I'm would not surprised if they, in fact, "elected" to pass ANY type of military service.

You Dr. Tink are another story. I suspect full well, you know, and fully understand the term Vietnam Era service, and the dates associated with such term. If you served during that *declared* period, you were a Vietnam ERA Veteran! In-country or OUT, PERIOD!

Tink said: "Nor was he a "Vietnam era Marine officer" because he ducked it."

That Dr. Tink, is unabashed BullS**t ---

Is THIS how you treat those that served, those whom may have served with distinction? It's telling around here! Considering YOUR own military service, pretty low way to act.

Starting to stink, real bad!

oh, Okinawa? -- that the same place all those Marines gave their lives during WW2? The same Okinawa that houses Ft. Buckner [to this day] and all those TDY Special Forces A teams, B & C Detachments 1960-64? Unless you've access to someones DD214, how in the hell do you know what someone, anyone did in the military during the; quote "Vietnam ERA" unquote?

David Healy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...