Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone

Evan Burton · September 27, 2005

Mr Fetzer,

Do you bother to read the replies to your posts? Do you automatically switch off if it tries to set you straight? It seems that way; you just continue to sprout your own ill-conceived theory no matter what anyone says.

It comes down to the probability that two qualified pilots would have simply lost track of their airspeed and altitude and allowed the plane to crash when there was a loud stall warning system to warn them.

Yes, because the probability of that happening is greater. It's happened in the past, many times. I even showed you a report from an almost identical aircraft and crew in very similar circumstances. They just flew into the ground - ignoring the visual and audible warnings from the RADALT.

The NTSB's own simulations contradicted this result because, using a simulator with a weaker engine and flying at abnormally slow speed, they were unable to bring the plane down.

This is twisting the truth. The simulation proved it was possible to fly out of the situation, NOT that it was impossible to crash. There is a distinct difference, as any aircrew can tell you.

Not to mention that the plane was off course, flying the last few minutes along azmuth 268 when it should have been on 276.

This demonstrates they were not paying proper attention to the instruments. Even on the wrong radial they would still flying towards the VOR. Instead they were tracking to the left of the VOR, demonstrating that they were not monitoring the CDI.

So they would have had to neglect not only their air speed and altitude but also their CDI and the stall warning alarm. That's quite a lot to swallow, even for the greatest apologist for THE NTSB REPORT.

As has been pointed out numerous times previously, that exact circumstances has happened before and will no doubt happen again. If you knew anything about aviation you'd understand that.

Even Richard Healing, a member of the NTSB team that signed the report, admitted that they had no idea what had caused the crash and were merely speculating.

That's because they cannot absolutly say that because there is no DIRECT evidence (such as a CVR). With the available evidence, it is the most probable scenario.

I can see exactly how you'd work this. If he had said "Yes, that's exactly how they were killed" you'd attack his statement, asking how he could say such a thing when there wasn't any direct evidence of it. Mr Healing's biggest mistake was even talking to you; as soon as he opened his mouth it would be distorted and twisted to suit your desires.

Surely it makes more sense to infer that these things happened to two qualified pilots because the aircraft was no longer under their control than to suppose they were more incompetent than pilot trainees.

No, it doesn't because there is nothing to support your view whereas there is a wealth of historical data documenting where trained, competent, qualified and current aircrew have made errors that have resulted in anything from a hard landing to the loss of hundreds of lives.

Perhaps it's necessary to post details from worldwide statistics, showing just how many crews have made the very mistakes you say do not make sense.

Plus they may have been lured into the "kill zone" through the manipulation of the directional data.

Again, there is no proof of this occuring, nor an indication of HOW it could be done.

I could easily claim that the aircraft was intercepted by undetectable UFOs. The crew and passengers were subject to medical experimentation during a 'pause in time' which, although leaving no trace, eventually killed most of them. Returning them to normal space disrupted the aircraft electrical systems and the aircraft crashed.

Why is that scenario any less valid than yours? It has as much proof as yours. Any "evidence" you say supports your claim also supports mine.

Why isn't my claim more valid? Because, like yours, it's just plain silly.

This guy has no idea how many crashes were "due to pilot error" unless he has actually investigated them! Numbers that are fake or fabricated or otherwise inaccurate prove nothing.

So you are now claiming that the details of air accident statistics around the world have been manipulated? All so it invalidates your own theory? That sounds suspiciously like paranoia.

Even Burton suggested that an "electrical arc" might have ignited the fire.

Once again twisting the truth. I said that the POST-CRASH fire could have been easily started by electric arcing or from hot engine components igniting fuel.

An electrical fire would have been a predictable outcome of the use of a directed-energy weapon, which not only takes out the electronics but overwhelms the electrical systems of targets it hits.

Not only can you not demonstrate the existance of any such weapon, you now claim to know the 'predictable outcome' (or result) of using such a hypothetical weapon.

The smoke from the Wellstone crash was bluish-white, as I have confimed by viewing aerial photos of the scene while it was still burning and as Gary Ulman and various "first responders" have reported.

And I showed you images of a helicopter crash site that was producing white smoke. The colour smoke simply indicates that the fuselage or similar was buring and producing that colour smoke. It says nothing about the cause of the accident.

Your source, "JayUtah", whose background is in mechanical engineering, does not appear to have qualifications that are appropriate to address these issues. You are eager to cite someone with no qualifications in either electromagnetism or electrical engineering as though he were an "expert", while denying the expertise of someone with both a Ph.D. in electromagnetism and an honors undergraduate degree in electrical engineering

I think you'll find he has very credible qualifications. Perhaps Craig would get permission to post them?

Speaking of qualifications, yourself and Mr Costella have none in the field of aviation.

You seem to have quietly overlooked by offer to have the report evaluated by a former senior air accident investigator with the ATSB, and a person who performs a similar role for the Navy.

Want to hear what they say?

Raytheon, which manufactures the plane, is also in the business of manufacturing weapons of these kinds.

You are accusing Raytheon of making the non-existant weapon which supposedly brought down the aircraft? I'm sure their legal department would love to know that - and I shall pass it on to them.

It is interesting that you raise this question, because, while the NTSB said they lost track of their airspeed, that cannot occur without a commensurate loss in altitude.

This statement vividly demonstrates your complete lack of aerodynamics and aviation. An aircraft can bleed off speed by raising the nose, pulling back power, and still maintain a constant alitude.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Evan Burton

Evan Burton · September 27, 2005

Just to make sure nothing gets edited out later.....

Colby misses the forest for the trees, most of which are mere illusions.
# of pilots or aviation experts Fetzer could find who doubt the NTSB's

explanation the crash

0 No, several are cited in the book, which you may or may not have read.

It comes down to the probability that two qualified pilots would have

simply lost track of their airspeed and altitude and allowed the plane

to crash when there was a loud stall warning system to warn them. The

NTSB's own simulations contradicted this result because, using a simu-

lator with a weaker engine and flying at abnormally slow speed, they

were unable to bring the plane down. Not to mention that the plane

was off course, flying the last few minutes along azmuth 268 when it

should have been on 276. So they would have had to neglect not only

their air speed and altitude but also their CDI and the stall warning

alarm. That's quite a lot to swallow, even for the greatest apologist

for THE NTSB REPORT. Even Richard Healing, a member of the NTSB team

that signed the report, admitted that they had no idea what had caused

the crash and were merely speculating. Surely it makes more sense to

infer that these things happened to two qualified pilots because the

aircraft was no longer under their control than to suppose they were

more incompetent than pilot trainees. Plus they may have been lured

into the "kill zone" through the manipulation of the directional data.

Reasons Fetzer can come up with that since many similar crashes were due to

pilot error to doubt that the Wellstone crash was too..

0 This guy has no idea how many crashes were "due to pilot error" unless

he has actually investigated them! Numbers that are fake or fabricated

or otherwise inaccurate prove nothing. I have already enumerated many

reasons to doubt that this crash was due to "pilot error", to which it

may be added that the principal pilot, Richard Conry, had around 5,200

hours of experience, an Air Transport Pilot's license, and had passed

his FAA "flight check" just two days before the fatal flight. Accord-

ing to the government's own standards, he was highly-qualified to fly

this aircraft. Given the passenger list, moreover, there is reason to

believe the pilots would have been especially careful and cautious, a

crucial difference between this flight and any others you have in mind.

They were not "similar" in many respects, some of which were important.

Remember, too, this plane was even described by Carol Carmody, the head

of the NTSB team that investigated, as the "Cadillac" of small aircraft.

# of fire experts who agree with Fetzer's theories about the fire.

0 It doesn't take a "fire expert" to observe that the ignition point for

a metal fire is considerably higher than the temperature of a kerosene

based fuel fire. Even Burton suggested that an "electrical arc" might

have ignited the fire. An electrical fire would have been a predictable

outcome of the use of a directed-energy weapon, which not only takes out

the electronics but overwhelms the electrical systems of targets it hits.

The idea that you could test this hypothesis by connecting a couple of

batteries together and failing is ludicrous. The amounts of energy that

are created by these devices are immense and could easily start a fire.

http://whitts.alioth.net/Pagee7Handling%20...m#anchor1227940

According to whittsflying, there are four kinds of aircraft fires: engine

stat, electrical, in-flight, and post-flight. Electrical fires have an

acrid smell with possible white smoke. Black smoke warns of oil while

fuel makes orange flames. Post-crash fires are more dangerous than the

crash itself. Most deaths come from smoke and carbon monoxide inhala-

tion. Fire is fueled from gasoine or electrical energy. Black smoke

usually indicates gasoline/oil and white smoke plus a distinctive odor

is electrical. The smoke from the Wellstone crash was bluish-white, as

I have confimed by viewing aerial photos of the scene while it was still

burning and as Gary Ulman and various "first responders" have reported.

# of scientists other that Costella who believe there can be an electrical fire

without electricity

0 You again display your ignorance. Electricity is an elecromagnetic phe-

nomenon. Costella not only has a Ph.D. in electromagnetism but an honors

degree in electrical engineering as an undergraduate. He is easily the

most highly qualified person to ever study this case--the most qualified.

An intense electrical surge seems to have ignited a metallic fuselage fire.

Costella's qualifications other than his diplomas

0 This is like saying, apart from his knowledge and training, what does he

know? But the fact is that he has visited the crash scene, has studied

the aircraft manual, has reviewed the reports on which THE NTSB REPORT

itself was based, and has co-authored an article that identifies short-

comings in THE NTSB REPORT, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", which is found

here, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...wellstone.shtml.

He is the single most knowledgeable expert on the crash, in my opinion.

Evidence that Fetzer has that the fire was pre-impact

0 Although the fire, which reduced the fuselage to charcoal, was the most

striking feature of the crash, the NTSB never even attmpted to explain

it. The use of the phrase, "post-impact", was never justified by its

investigation. If everyone was killed on impact, the fact that three

of the deceased had smoke in their lungs indicates that the fire had to

have been "pre-impact". That possibility is consistent with the evidence.

# of articles from reliable sources that say that operational EM weapons as

described by Fetzer exist

0 I have put up hundreds of links to articles and studies. One of the most

interesting is to the Directed Energy Professional Society, which is con-

ducting its eighth annual meeting this year: http://www.deps.org/. Since

this is its eighth annual meeting, its first meeting must have been back

in 1997, which is highly consistent with an address to Congress presented

by a Lieutenant General about the then-current status of research in this

area, which is one of many sources we provided in AMERICAN ASSASSINATION.

Tremendous progress has been made developing such weapons, where your

continued denial of their existence only displays the strength of your bias

against taking seriously the possibility that this plane was taken down.

Direct evidence he has that an EM weapons was used against the plane

0 The request for "direct evidence", of course, is very clever, since that

would require having been on the scene to observe the plane being taken

down. We have many indirect indications, including the melting cloud

cover (discussed in the study linked above), the odd cell-phone anomaly,

garage doors opening spontaneously, the bluish-white smoke, the metallic

fire (ignited by a higher temperature than a kerosense-based fire would

provide), the lack of a distress call (which would certainly have been

appropriate, given the passengers aboard and the wooded, swampy area in

which the plane was going down, where the rapid arrival of first respond-

ers could make the difference between life and death), the loss of con-

trol, the props at idle, the failure to keep on proper course, and such,

most of which are not even acknowledged much less explained by the NTSB,

but which have high probability if a directed-energy weapon was employed.

# of people on the ApolloHoax thread who believe that Costella knows what he is

talking about in the EM chapter

0 Your source, "JayUtah", whose background is in mechanical engineering,

does not appear to have qualifications that are appropriate to address

these issues. You are eager to cite someone with no qualifications in

either electromagnetism or electrical engineering as though he were an

"expert", while denying the expertise of someone with both a Ph.D. in

electromagnetism and an honors undergraduate degree in electrical engin-

eering! By now, I think, even those who have not been following this

threat carefully should be able to discern the extent of your efforts

to bias an objective and scientific analysis by distorting the case.

# of friends, family and co-workers of any of the 8 people who died who believe

Fetzer's theories

0 I have knowledge in this area that some of the friends and family of some

of those who died in the crash do not believe the official account, but I

am not in the position to identify them. I can assure you that they exist

but, of course, as in the case of directed-energy weapons, you are always

able to deny what I am telling you. The directed-energy case is telling.

# or reasons Fetzer could come up with as to how Wellstone's death should have

helped Coleman

0 The very idea that taking out the opposing party's candidate for the U.S.

Senate ten days before the race when he was pulling 7-8 points ahead would

not help the party's candidate is so simple-minded as to hardly merit any

response. It would make it extremely difficult for the opposition party

to regroup. You could also anticipate, under the circumstances, that the

memorial service that would predictably take place would include at least

some rhetoric encouraging carrying on the dead candidate's platform, goals

and ideals, which could be spun against the party. That is exactly what

happened and, needless to add, the plan worked and Coleman was elected, a

crucial development in gaining control of the U.S. Senate by Republicans.

Evidence that Fetzer has that agents from Minneapolis arrived less than 2 1/2

hrs. after the crash was discovered

0 The testimony of Rick Wahlberg, Sheriff of St. Louis County, corroborated

by that of Gary Ulman, the Airport Assistant Manager, both of whom were

contradicted by Paul McCabe, spokesman for the FBI. These are certainly

reliable sources who had no reason to lie, unlike FBI spokesman McCabe.

Explanations Fetzer has given as to why agents from Minneapolis simply didn't

fly to Eveleth if they were in such a hurry.

0 The airport was temporarily closed, which is standard practice, in case

something about the airport had contributed to the crash. Not point in

setting up a situation where those investigating the crash also crash!

Evidence that the plane was using GPS

0 The NTSB spent hours questioning pilots from Charter Aviation about the

possibility that the pilots were making a GPS rather than a VOR approach,

which suggests that even the NTSB was taking the possibility seriously.

The late-model plane had an advanced avionics package, including a GPS

system. The problem is to explain why the plane was heading for landing

on the wrong azmuth, 268 rather than 276. The Waukegan pilot's odd GPS

experience, which occurred at the same time, suggests that GPS data may

have been manipulated to lead the plane into the "kill zone" and kill it.

Evidence cited by Fetzer indicating the gov't can manipulate GPS

0 This is a new phenomenon, of course, but that is part of the ingenuity

of the plan. Use a weapon of which the public is largely unaware, but

which can do the job. Raytheon, which manufactures the plane, is also

in the business of manufacturing weapons of these kinds. So knowledge

of what it would take would have been readily available to the Depart-

ment of Defense. Similarly, I am sure, regarding GPS data, which seems

to have been manipulated in the Waukegan case, which is the mirror image

of what happened in Eveleth--similar both in direction and in magnitude.

It would be incredibly improbable that an event of this kind should be

happening "merely by coincidence" at the very same time the Wellstone

plane was traveling on a path so closely paralleling the Waukegan case.

Explanations Fetzer has given as to why the "manipulation of GPS" effected two

planes 500 miles apart but there were no other reports of trouble.

0 It appears to have been a "local" as opposed to "global" phenomenon in

which data was affected with a "spill over" effect across state lines.

It does not appear to have been a world-wide manipulation, but rather

one that was designed for this specific purpose that "spilled over".

# of times it says in the NTSB final report [or any of the other reports] where

it says the pilots "lost track of altitude" as Fetzer alleges it does.

0 It is interesting that you raise this question, because, while the NTSB

said they lost track of their airspeed, that cannot occur without a com-

mensurate loss in altitude. So, like the NTSB, you are covering up the

true situation, which is that they were losing both airspeed and alti-

tude ("But let's just talk about airspeed: after all, it is starting

to sound too incredible to be true!") The NTSB's own data supports the

inference that the pilots had almost no forward thrust from the props

during the last few minutes. So they could maintain altitude and lose

airspeed or they could loose altitude and gain airspeed. And if they

were still in control, then they also ignored the loud stall warning!

By focusing on airspeed, the NTSB glosses over crucial questions about

direction: why were the pilots making an approach into the woods instead

of the runway? Their own analysis showed the VOR should have guided the

plane directly to the runway. And once they broke through the clouds and

saw woods instead of runway, why didn't they simply power up for a missed

approach? The logical conclusion is that, for some reason, they couldn't.

Finally, out of altitude and airspeed, with little or no forward thrust,

they turned south into a grove of softer trees, slightly higher than the

surrounding swampy areas and attempted an emergency landing. The fuselage

survived the drop through the trees, but not the impact with the ground.

It burned. The NTSB never explained why such a sequence should happen.

# of people who disagree with Fetzer's findings that he hasn't insulted

0 Egad! There must be large numbers with whom I have had no contact. My

objections have not been grounded in differences of opinion but in cases

like yours where you go out of your way to distort and manipulate with

the intention of misleading others about what logic and evidence have to

tell us about this case. Most importantly, you have never acknowledged

that the NTSB never considered "non-accident" alternatives, because the

Attorney General never declared the crash scene to be a crime scene. So

the only possibilities the NTSB considered were that something was wrong

with the pilots, the plane, or the weather. They eventually cleared the

weather and the plane, which left them with the pilots. If the NTSB had

considered non-accident alternatives, such as a small bomb, a gas canis-

ter, or a high-tech weapon, and had applied the proper principles of rea-

soning--in particular, inference to the best explanation--to this case,

it might have arrived at very different conclusions. As it happens, the

only parties to consider the full range of possible explanations, includ-

ing assassination alternatives, are civilians like Christoper Bollyn of

americanfreepress, Michael Ruppert of fromthewilderness, Michael Niman

of Buffalo State College, Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs of Northern Arizona

University, and of course John Costella, the leading expert on the case,

and me. But you are not about to admit THE NTSB REPORT neven even con-

sidered non-accident alternatives; people might think you were an idiot!

Fetzer Score Card
# of pilots or aviation experts Fetzer could find who doubt the NTSB's explanation the crash

0

Reasons Fetzer can come up with that since many similar crashes were due to pilot error to doubt that the Wellstone crash was too..

0

# of fire experts who agree with Fetzer's theories about the fire.

0

# of scientists other that Costella who believe there can be an electrical fire without electricity

0

Costella's qualifications other than his diplomas

0

Evidence that Fetzer has that the fire was pre-impact

0

# of articles from reliable sources that say that operational EM weapons as described by Fetzer exist

0

Direct evidence he has that an EM weapons was used against the plane

0

# of people on the ApolloHoax thread who believe that Costella knows what he is talking about in the EM chapter

0

# of friends, family and co-workers of any of the 8 people who died who believe Fetzer's theories

0

# or reasons Fetzer could come up with as to how Wellstone's death should have helped Coleman

0

Evidence that Fetzer has that agents from Minneapolis arrived less than 2 1/2 hrs. after the crash was discovered

0

Explanations Fetzer has given as to why agents from Minneapolis simply didn't fly to Eveleth if they were in such a hurry.

0

Evidence that the plane was using GPS

0

Evidence cited by Fetzer indicating the gov't can manipulate GPS

0

Explanations Fetzer has given as to why the "manipulation of GPS" effected two planes 500 miles apart but there were no other reports of trouble.

0

# of times it says in the NTSB final report [or any of the other reports] where it says the pilots "lost track of altitude" as Fetzer alleges it does.

0

# of people who disagree with Fetzer's findings that he hasn't insulted

0

Jim instead of just dismissing this message as rubbish come up with examples to prove me wrong.

Len

PS - I have edited this post to add more 0s and will continue to do so as more occur to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David G. Healy · September 27, 2005

Evan Burton wrote:

Mr Fetzer,

Do bother to read the replies to your posts? Do you automatically switch off if it tries to set you straight? It seems that way; you just continue to sprout your own ill-conceived theory no matter what anyone says.