Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 342
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

It's both, Evan. I am McKnight Professor Emeritus and earned my Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science. I am just a bit taken aback by your post suggesting that plane crashes like this one are commonplace. That suggests to me you have not studied what happened here. The Chief Pilot for Charter Aviation said he had never heard complaints of the kind Colby cites when Conry was flying for them. Indeed, there are multiple reasons to believe they are fabricated to bolster the conjecture that the pilots were responsible. As Richard Healing, who signed the report, observed, they had "no idea" what caused the plane to crash and they were simply "speculating". The probability that two pilots would overlook their airspeed, altitude, and azimuth approaches zero as its value. If we assume these are independent events that might occur 1 time in 100 (lest small planes be falling out of the sky all the time!), the probability that one pilot would commit such blunders is 1/1,000,000. That two should do so is equal to 1/1,000,000 x 1/1,000,000. And that does not take into account the loud stall warning alarm. Even the NTSB was unable to bring the plane down in its simulations, during which it was flown at abnormally slow speeds. The kinds of evidence that matter here cover a broad range of considerations. Indeed, the NTSB never investigated any non-accident compatible alternatives, such as a small bomb, a gas canister, or a directed-energy weapon. For more, see, for example, my study co-authored with John P. Costella, a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone". It's the latest of three blogs on Wellstone that I have just published at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. Or consider the following review, which makes points you will never hear from the likes of Colby. If you learn of similar cases, I would like to know.

Abundant and Compelling Evidence

December 5, 2004

David R. Griffin

The authors of this important book argue that Senator Paul Wellstone's

death, 10 days before the 2002 elections, was an assassination, most

likely ordered by the Bush administration.

Directly confronting the widespread tendency to reject all "conspiracy

theories," the authors point out that "the idea that every theory that

implies the existence of conspiracy ought to be rejected out of hand"

is no more rational than the idea that every such theory should be

accepted. Rather, "each case has to be evaluated on the basis of the

evidence that is relevant and available in that case." On that basis,

they argue, if we look at ALL the relevant evidence and employ the

scientific method of inference to the best explanation, we must

conclude that the theory that Wellstone was assassinated is far more

probable than the official theory, according to which his Airplane

crash was an accident.

The evidence includes several facts suggesting that the NTSB (National

Transportation Safety Board) colluded with the FBI in a cover-up:

1. FBI agents from Minneapolis arrived at the crash site within 2 hours

after the crash, even though the trip from Minnesota to Duluth to the

crash site would have taken at least 3 hours--so they must have

departed before the plane crashed.

2. When asked for the times at which private flights had arrived in

Duluth that morning, the FAA said the records had been destroyed.

3. Considerable disinformation about weather conditions was quickly

given to the press.

4. Although regulations called for the investigation to be carried out

by the NTSB, not the FBI (because the crash site was not designated a

crime scene), the FBI agents were there for 8 hours before the NTSB

team arrived.

5. The FBI, even though there illegally, prevented the local "first

responders" from taking photographs.

6. Although it was the NTSB's responsibility to determine the cause of

the crash and although the FBI's prior presence was illegal, the NTSB

leader publicly accepted the FBI's declaration, made before the NTSB's

investigation, that there was no evidence of terrorism.

7. When the NTSB team finally carried out its own investigation, it was

unable to find either the cockpit recorder, which it assumed the plane

had had, or the black box.

8. The NTSB held no public hearings, claiming that it was not a

sufficiently "high-profile" case.

9. The NTSB's final report concealed the fact of the FBI's

participation.

10. The NTSB investigation was headed by Acting Director Carol Carmody,

a Bush appointee who had earlier ruled that there was no foul play in

the small airplane crash in 2000 that took the life of Governor Mel

Carnahan of Missouri, the Democratic candidate for the Senate who was

killed 3 weeks before his expected victory (over John Ashcroft).

The evidence also includes some facts strongly suggesting the falsity

of the NTSB's official conclusion, which was that the plane crashed

because the pilot failed to maintain proper speed, causing the plane to

stall.

1. The plane would have stalled only if it slowed to below 70 knots,

yet it was equipped with a device that emitted a loud warning at 85

knots.

2. The plane was being flown by two experienced and fully certified

pilots, a fact--obfuscated in the NTSB report-that makes this kind of

pilot error very unlikely.

3. The NTSB's theory fails to explain why, about two minutes before the

crash, all communication was abruptly terminated and the plane began

going off course.

The evidence also includes facts suggesting that the plane was instead

brought down by an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapon:

1. The plane's fuselage burned, although it was separated from the

wings, which contained the fuel.

2. The plane's electrical system, which would be affected by an EMP,

was in the fuselage, and the fire from the fuselage gave off blue

smoke, which is indicative of an electrical fire.

3. An EMP could explain why the plane simultaneously went off course

and lost its radio about two minutes before the crash.

4. At the same time, cell phones and garage doors in the area behaved

in a way consistent with the occurrence of an EMP.

5. An NTSB spokesman professed ignorance about the existence of EMP

weapons that could have brought down the plane, although the existence

of such weapons had been known for several years.

An important part of the authors' case is the fact that the Bush

administration would have had several motives:

1. Wellstone's defeat would return control of the Senate to the

Republicans.

2. Wellstone's death 10 days before the election meant that $700,000 in

the Republican campaign chest could be transferred, the very next day,

to the (successful) effort to defeat Max Cleland in the Senate race in

Georgia.

3. Wellstone was the biggest obstacle in the Senate to several

Republican policies, such as those involving Iraq, Colombia, the SEC,

tax cuts, and Homeland Security, and he was the strongest voice in

Congress calling for a full investigation into 9/11.

4. Two days before his death, Wellstone reported that Cheney had told

him: "If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will

do whatever is necessary to get you."

5. Wellstone had developed a 7-point lead in the polls over Norm

Coleman, the Bush administration's hand-picked candidate.

Finally, with regard to the question whether the Bush administration

would commit such a heinous act, the authors argue that an

administration that "compounded lie upon lie to . . . send hundreds of

thousands of young American men and women into harm's way [in Iraq] is

not an administration that would hesitate to kill a single senator."

The authors conclude that the evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt

that Wellstone was assassinated. They have, in my view, made a

convincing case.

David Ray Griffin, author of "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11

Commission Report: Omissions & Distortions"

That reminds me - is it Professor Fetzer or Dr Fetzer?

Thanks.

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

It's both, Evan. I am McKnight Professor Emeritus and earned my Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science.

Which do you prefer me to use?

I am just a bit taken aback by your post suggesting that plane crashes like this one are commonplace. That suggests to me you have not studied what happened here.

That suggests to me that you, as a layman in this field, haven't had a look through accident / incident databases. They are littered with similar instances:

post-2326-1261190874_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The probability that two pilots would overlook their airspeed, altitude, and azimuth approaches zero as its value.

Poppycock. It has happened time and time and time again in aircraft ranging from single engine light aircraft to multi-engine jet airliners, involving from low time private pilots to highly experienced aircrew. Do a google search on CFIT.

For more, see, for example, my study co-authored with John P. Costella, a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone".

To the best of my knowledge, neither you nor Dr Costella have experience in aviation nor human factors in aviation nor aviation accident investigation. Two laymen do not an expert make. You are drawing incorrect conclusions from the available data. As I said, he may well have been murdered but the evidence does not support that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I can't believe you are another in a seemingly endless list of those who practice special pleading by citing only the evidence that is favorable to their side and ignoring the rest. Did you understand about the early arrival of the FBI? the cessation of communication shortly before the crash? the anomalous cell-phone occurrence? the spontaneous garage door openings? the fuselage burning with blue smoke, not black? the wrong approach, even though the airport is user-friendly? the announcement by the FBI that there were "no signs of terrorist involvement" when no investigation had been conducted? that this announcement was made before the bodies had even been discovered? the exaggerated reports about the weather? that the NTSB did not even consider sabotage-related alternatives? that the props were on idle, even though the pilots should have been "powering up" to avoid a stall? that there was a loud stall-warning alarm? that the pilots were well-qualified, the senior pilot having 5,200 hours of experience, an Air Transport Pilot's certification, and passing his FAA "flight check" just two days before the fatal flight? that the head of the NTSB team is a former CIA employee? that the motivation for taking him out was extreme? that Cheney had told him shortly before that, if he opposed them on Iraq, there would be "severe ramifications" for him personally and for the State of Minnesota? that control of the senate was at stake? that it was well-known in Washington that Bush / Cheney / Rove had targeted him for elimination? that Michael Rupert was contacted by an insider who told him that Wellstone had been taken out, that the country was being run by "reinvigorated old white men" who were "nobody to screw around with" and that it was done using a directed-energy weapon, just as we found? My impression is that you have never read my ten columns on the case or our co-authored book, AMERCIAN ASSASSINATION (2004), or my co-authored study with John P. Costella, a Ph.D. in physics with a specialty in electromagnetism, who discovered there was an odd meteorological phenomenon above the crash site, which would be the predictable outcome of the use of a directed-energy weapon but is otherwise inexplicable? Do you think you have to be an assassin to study the death of JFK? What palpable crap. My co-authors and I know how to conduct research, which you apparently do not. That you would shoot off your mouth in a state of virtual ignorance tells me all I want to know about Evan Burton. And given the vast number of flights that occur in the US every day, have you made any calculation of the relative frequency with which these small plane crashes take place, much less those that satisfy the circumstances I have described above? How many? Do you even know that, when the NTSB conducted simulations with a simulator with a weaker engine and had it flown abnormally slowly, they were unable to bring the plane down? Which means that the NTSB's own data contradicted its conclusion? And how many of these crashes you list were with King Air A-100s, the Rolls Royce of small planes? Please tell me, because otherwise I and others are likely to conclude that you are simply one more phony who posts on this forum based upon their own ignorance! There's a big difference between you and us: we know that reasoning must be based upon all of the available evidence.

The probability that two pilots would overlook their airspeed, altitude, and azimuth approaches zero as its value.

Poppycock. It has happened time and time and time again in aircraft ranging from single engine light aircraft to multi-engine jet airliners, involving from low time private pilots to highly experienced aircrew. Do a google search on CFIT.

For more, see, for example, my study co-authored with John P. Costella, a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone".

To the best of my knowledge, neither you nor Dr Costella have experience in aviation nor human factors in aviation nor aviation accident investigation. Two laymen do not an expert make. You are drawing incorrect conclusions from the available data. As I said, he may well have been murdered but the evidence does not support that conclusion.

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

I can't believe you are another in a seemingly endless list of those who practice special pleading by citing only the evidence that is favorable to their side and ignoring the rest.

No, you mustn't be reading my posts. Wellstone may have had people out to get him, and may have been murdered... but the aircraft incident does not point to that. You can't use the aircraft accident itself as 'proof' because it does not specifically point to foul play. Perhaps the aircrew were slipped undetectable drugs that caused them to lose SA; if you can find such a drug then it becomes a possibility. The fact is, however, that there have been similar aviation accidents involving loss of SA during an instrument approach, unintentional stalling of the aircraft, crew actions leading to either uncontrolled or controlled flight into terrain and various combination of them. So don't use the simple occurence of the accident as 'proof' that they were murdered, because it's not true.

the cessation of communication shortly before the crash?

Has happened before.

the spontaneous garage door openings?

Has happened before.

the fuselage burning with blue smoke, not black?

Has happened before.

the wrong approach, even though the airport is user-friendly?

Has happened before.

hat the props were on idle, even though the pilots should have been "powering up" to avoid a stall?

Has happened before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that there was a loud stall-warning alarm?

Has happened before.

that the pilots were well-qualified, the senior pilot having 5,200 hours of experience, an Air Transport Pilot's certification, and passing his FAA "flight check" just two days before the fatal flight?

Similar circumstances have happened before.

That you would shoot off your mouth in a state of virtual ignorance tells me all I want to know about Evan Burton.

The fact that you have no experience in this area and try to tell people whose profession it is that you know better than them speaks volumes about your arrogance.

And given the vast number of flights that occur in the US every day, have you made any calculation of the relative frequency with which these small plane crashes take place, much less those that satisfy the circumstances I have described above?

And the odds were over a million to one that two B747s could collide on the ground... but they did.

Do you even know that, when the NTSB conducted simulations with a simulator with a weaker engine and had it flown abnormally slowly, they were unable to bring the plane down? Which means that the NTSB's own data contradicted its conclusion?

No, they were able to fly out of it - further evidence of pilot error.

And how many of these crashes you list were with King Air A-100s, the Rolls Royce of small planes?

Oh please. As far as aircraft are concerned, you don't really know the difference between a Rolls Royce and an Edsel.

Please tell me, because otherwise I and others are likely to conclude that you are simply one more phony who posts on this forum based upon their own ignorance! There's a big difference between you and us: we know that reasoning must be based upon all of the available evidence.

I'm not the ignorant one nor the phony here since I can back up all my assertions with documented examples and can prove my expertise in the field. How many flight hours do you have? Do you have piloting qualifications? As a flight navigator? As an air traffic controller? Work in the aviation field? Please - show me the qualifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And given the vast number of flights that occur in the US every day, have you made any calculation of the relative frequency with which these small plane crashes take place, much less those that satisfy the circumstances I have described above? How many?

Ah! Lies, damned lies and statistics. Okay, lets have a look.

The King Air comes in varying models. Overall, in excess of 3100 have been produced since 1963.

There have been 289 King Air crashes worldwide. Of those, 194 involved fatalities. Of those fatalities, 86 incidents were in the US.

If we look at just the A100, there were 157 built. Of those, 38 have been involved in aircraft accidents. Of those, 23 had fatalities. Of those 23, 19 were is the US.

So lets do the math:

24% of A100 King Airs have been involved in a crash.

60% of A100 King Air accidents have resulted in fatalities.

50% of A100 King Air accidents have occurred in the US and resulted in fatalities.

82% of all A100 King Air accidents resulting in fatalities have occurred in the US.

Happy now?

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that there was a loud stall-warning alarm?

Has happened before.

that the pilots were well-qualified, the senior pilot having 5,200 hours of experience, an Air Transport Pilot's certification, and passing his FAA "flight check" just two days before the fatal flight?

Similar circumstances have happened before.

That you would shoot off your mouth in a state of virtual ignorance tells me all I want to know about Evan Burton.

The fact that you have no experience in this area and try to tell people whose profession it is that you know better than them speaks volumes about your arrogance.

And given the vast number of flights that occur in the US every day, have you made any calculation of the relative frequency with which these small plane crashes take place, much less those that satisfy the circumstances I have described above?

And the odds were over a million to one that two B747s could collide on the ground... but they did.

Do you even know that, when the NTSB conducted simulations with a simulator with a weaker engine and had it flown abnormally slowly, they were unable to bring the plane down? Which means that the NTSB's own data contradicted its conclusion?

No, they were able to fly out of it - further evidence of pilot error.

And how many of these crashes you list were with King Air A-100s, the Rolls Royce of small planes?

Oh please. As far as aircraft are concerned, you don't really know the difference between a Rolls Royce and an Edsel.

Please tell me, because otherwise I and others are likely to conclude that you are simply one more phony who posts on this forum based upon their own ignorance! There's a big difference between you and us: we know that reasoning must be based upon all of the available evidence.

I'm not the ignorant one nor the phony here since I can back up all my assertions with documented examples and can prove my expertise in the field. How many flight hours do you have? Do you have piloting qualifications? As a flight navigator? As an air traffic controller? Work in the aviation field? Please - show me the qualifications.

you're dancing son..... and not well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes - attack dog Healy come to the aid of its master with nothing of substance to add, as usual. Come on sunshine - where am I wrong? The stats? The other instances where similar aircraft accidents have occurred? My qualifications in the field and Prof Fetzer's lack of them? Please enlighten me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the cessation of communication shortly before the crash?

Fetzer likes to pretend we've not been over all of this over and over again.

1) There was no "cessation of communication" only a supposed lack of a distress call

2) Many planes have crashed in similar circumstances without making SOS's

3) There was no one in the office of the airport the plane had its radio set to so even if a distress call had been made it is likely it would not have been heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

What a nitwit! These events, each of which is relatively improbable, are all happening at the same time. Their probability of occurring together is equal to their product. That would be a very small number, indeed. I am quite confident that all of these -- or even a substantial subset -- have never occurred together before. Some of them, like the odd meteorological phenomenon, have probably never happened before. Evan Burton appears to be pulling this right out of his ass. IF THERE EVER WAS A CASE WHERE THE SIMPLE OCCURRENCE OF A CRASH WAS NOT USED AS IF IT WERE THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF SABOTAGE, THIS IS IT! Either Burton is not reading my posts or he is grossly incompetent or he is dissembling in the extreme. There are no other alternatives.

that there was a loud stall-warning alarm?

Has happened before.

that the pilots were well-qualified, the senior pilot having 5,200 hours of experience, an Air Transport Pilot's certification, and passing his FAA "flight check" just two days before the fatal flight?

Similar circumstances have happened before.

That you would shoot off your mouth in a state of virtual ignorance tells me all I want to know about Evan Burton.

The fact that you have no experience in this area and try to tell people whose profession it is that you know better than them speaks volumes about your arrogance.

And given the vast number of flights that occur in the US every day, have you made any calculation of the relative frequency with which these small plane crashes take place, much less those that satisfy the circumstances I have described above?

And the odds were over a million to one that two B747s could collide on the ground... but they did.

Do you even know that, when the NTSB conducted simulations with a simulator with a weaker engine and had it flown abnormally slowly, they were unable to bring the plane down? Which means that the NTSB's own data contradicted its conclusion?

No, they were able to fly out of it - further evidence of pilot error.

And how many of these crashes you list were with King Air A-100s, the Rolls Royce of small planes?

Oh please. As far as aircraft are concerned, you don't really know the difference between a Rolls Royce and an Edsel.

Please tell me, because otherwise I and others are likely to conclude that you are simply one more phony who posts on this forum based upon their own ignorance! There's a big difference between you and us: we know that reasoning must be based upon all of the available evidence.

I'm not the ignorant one nor the phony here since I can back up all my assertions with documented examples and can prove my expertise in the field. How many flight hours do you have? Do you have piloting qualifications? As a flight navigator? As an air traffic controller? Work in the aviation field? Please - show me the qualifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a nitwit! These events, each of which is relatively improbable, are all happening at the same time. Their probability of occurring together is equal to their product. That would be a very small number, indeed. I am quite confident that all of these -- or even a substantial subset -- have never occurred together before.

Dr Fetzer, if you bothered to read my previous posts you would see you are quite wrong and simply - once again - showing your ignorance. 16 FEB 05, Cessna Citation 560, N500AT. An experienced crew conducting an ILS approach. They failed to monitor the situation and icing caused a stall, from which they did not recover. They did not make any MAYDAY call. The stall warning did not activate until after the stall had occurred.

There was a sister ship, of the same aircraft type, flying with them at the same time. It landed at the same airport in the same conditions 14 minutes later... without problems.

So you see your confidence in your judgment was again wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet more:

13 MAR 02, Beech King Air E90, N948CC. Inadequate approach airspeed for existing conditions during instrument approach. Delayed reaction to avert stalling leading to loss of control.

6 MAR 02, Cessna 208B, N208TF. Inadvertent stall during approach.

That is just during 2002.

Next, we'll do a more in-depth review of FAR 135 accident statistics and see if this incident was somehow unusual.

Edited by Evan Burton
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...