Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone


Recommended Posts

ROTFLMHO!!!!!!!!!

Among the flimsiest of complaints is the objection that we have not proven the existence of weapons of the kind we claim were used to

take down the Wellstone plane.

Jim I asked you for links that were from RELIABLE sources, not CT sites, that say that WORKING directed energy weapons exist none of the links that I looked at provided met those criterion.

Fetzer is using his quantity not quality approach.

None of the articles I read say that WORKING directed energy weapons "of the kind [they] claim were used to take down the Wellstone plane" exist. Many state that the US and other countries have been working on them for decades. This is true.

A few based on PR from the Defense Dept. written before the 2nd Gulf War speculated that early models of such weapons might be functional and be used in that conflict, but the lack of any report of them being used makes those article seem like claims that Saddam had WMDs. The Defense Department employees including Rumsfeld who spoke about such weapon were either thinking wishfully, trying to psych-out the Iraqis or both. Haven't these same people been trumpeting "Star Wars" and anti-ballistic missile technology since the Reagan administration. It's an inherent contradiction to cite public statements by these people that "top secret" weapons exist

Many of the articles talk about weapons that are much too big to have been deployed or have different applications altogether like pulse bombs, heat rays, "mind control" devices etc. Some it seems wouldn't have the range Wellstone's plane was at about 2000 feet when Fetzer believes it was hit. One report discuses cruise missiles shooting lighting bolts. I find it hard to believe no one would have noticed a lightning bolt shooting 2000 feet in the air or that the assassins could have run the risk that they would.

Jim if this is the best you can do you've proven my case

"Electromagnetic Radiation (emr) Weapons: As Powerful as the Atomic Bomb", by Cheryl Welsh (February 2001), which includes dozens upon dozens of citations: <http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~welsh/emr13.htm>

LOL talk about putting your WORST foot forward

This come from the site of "A human rights group working for the rights and protections of mental integrity and freedom from new technologies and weapons which target the mind and nervous system." which sounds very crackpot CT to me. It is for paranoid nut cases who believe they are the "victims" of mind control weapons. But even here there is NOTHING that backs Fetzer's claims

A collection of books and articles that weaken you case Jim? Porno mags, tinfoil hat wearers and people who say that EMP don't exist are or aren't even plausible. Can't you do better that this?

It starts out with a list of books and articles that discuss wave weapon and their application for mind control a few focus on their potential as weapons. Most or all are quoted at the end. Most come from reliable sources but many come from questionable ones like Hustler Magazine!!

Others seen positively loony tunes they call into question the sanity of the claimant and the judgement of the person who assembled the list

"His aluminum foil hat has tiny holes in it, says Rex Niles, proof that the government is bombarding him with microwaves in an attempt to kill him. "They were aggravating my conscious as well as my subconscious mind," he stated."

Some books sound like supermarket titles - Zapping of America by Paul Brodeur,1977

There are some articles many from reliable sources quoted at length at the end. None of them say that there are working directed energy weapons. Some speculate they will come into existence, some say they don't exist yet or aren't plausible. Most deal with electromagnetic [EM] wave weapons' "mind control" capabilities and not their potential to 'fry' electronics

"The Lockheed Martin neuroengineer hopes to turn the "electrohypnomentalophone," a mind reading machine...into science fact".

""I am not aware of military antipersonnel weapons using em radiation. There was alot of talk about it some years ago. I believe the potential for such weaponry is small since em radiation field strength decreases inversely with the distance square in the "distant" field."

"But nothing has ever come of it," he said, "That is too science fiction and far-fetched."

"Suppose it becomes feasible to affect brain cells by low frequency waves or beams, ..."

"Assessments quoted in international literature of the potential danger of the development of a new weapon of mass destruction..."

"Once it is matured the new technology will be extraordinarily significant ..."

"Weapons based on new physical principles would include, ... beam, radio-wave, infrasonic, geophysical and genetic weapons. In their strike characteristics these types of weapons might be no less dangerous than mass strike weapons. The Soviet Union considers it necessary to establish a ban on the development of arms of this kind."

'Non-lethal' weapons from http://www.bilderberg.org/micwaves.htm

Eight articles mostly from mainstream newspapers or magazines are reproduced or excerpted. All I saw here was speculation that EM weapons are almost ready for use or are experimental. Three don't discuss the capability to knock out electronics

Article 1 - "Crowd control weapons, to be used by US troops on Iraq rioters" from the Daily Telegraph

Makes no mention of being able to disable electronics. Does not say weapons are ready for use.

"The non-lethal weapons, which use high-powered electromagnetic beams, will be fitted to vehicles already in Iraq, which will allow the system to be introduced as early as next year. "

"the beam rapidly heats water molecules in the skin to cause intolerable pain "

"The beam could be used to scatter large crowds in which insurgents operate at close quarters to both troops and civilians."

Article 2 - "E-Bombing Civilization" from lewrockwell.com an "anti-state, anti-war, pro-market" site

It is based on media reports. It does not say the weapons are ready for use

"Several news sources have reported that the e-bomb may see its first use in the attack on Iraq"

Article 3 - "America's Ultra-Secret Weapon" from Time

Says that these weapons might be ready for use in the 2nd Gulf War. None of the weapons are said to be operational yet. This is one of the articles based on military sources.

"HPMs are man-made lightning bolts crammed into cruise missiles...The HPM is a top-secret program, and the Pentagon wants to keep it that way. Senior military officials have dropped hints about a new, classified weapon for Iraq but won't provide details. Still, information about HPMs, first successfully tested in 1999,* has trickled out,."High-power microwave technology is ready for the transition to active weapons in the U.S. military," Air Force Colonel Eileen Walling wrote in a rare, unclassified report on the program three years ago. "There are signs that microwave weapons will represent a revolutionary concept for warfare, principally because microwaves are designed to incapacitate equipment rather than humans."

"But that hurt can cause unintended problems: beyond taking out a tyrant's silicon chips, HPMs could destroy nearby heart pacemakers and other life-critical electrical systems in hospitals or aboard aircraft (that's why the U.S. military is putting them only on long-range cruise missiles)." This contradicts Fetzer's contention that portable or truck based pulse weapons exist or are being developed.

"...That pulse can destroy any electronics within 1,000 ft. of the flash by short-circuiting internal electrical connections, ..."**

*no details about the test are provided

** remember the plane was at about 2000 when Fetzer believes it was struck

Article 4 - "US puts microwave bomb on Iraqi menu" from The Times of India

This is another article based mostly on Defense Department PR. The author only says that such weapons could be ready for use. There is no mention of land based ray weapons. The implication here as with the article in Time is that weapons safe enough for a human to be near by when in use aren't even close to being ready.

"The Pentagon has accelerated development of a new generation of advanced precision weaponry that could be ready for use in a high-tech battle for Baghdad, according to US military sources."

"Weapons ready for battlefield deployment include a microwave bomb that emits powerful pulses of energy to destroy enemy electronics, disable communications and even block vehicle ignitions, without hurting bystanders. "

"Pentagon officials have been racing to develop previously experimental weapons that might prove invaluable should US troops be ordered into action in Iraq. "

"US officials believe a single microwave device carried by an unmanned aircraft could hit 100 targets with 1,000 pulses of high-intensity energy on a single sortie."

Article 5 - "The Pentagon's Secret Psychopharmacological Warfare Program" from counterpunch.com

Doesn't discuss EM weapons

Article 6 - "Israelis blast church with invisible weapon" from the Daily Telegraph

Doesn't discuss EM weapons. The weapon uses sound waves

"Getting an earful ... loudspeakers held up near the Nativity Church pump out the noise. "

Article 7 - "US non-lethal weapon reports suppressed" from New Scientist [makes only 1 reference to directed energy weapons]

"Bugs that eat roads and buildings. Biocatalysts that break down fuel and plastics. Devices that stealthily corrode aluminium and other metals. These are just a few of the non-lethal weapons that the US has tried to develop, or is trying to develop...But quite how close such weapons are to reality we may never know..."

"...Others propose directed energy weapons."

Article 8 - "Just a normal town..." from New Scientist.

This article it mostly speculative, no one says that the weapons exist.

Some unnamed scientists say directed energy weapons are easy to make and can be bought mail-order! Others speculate they may have used by criminals. I find this hard to believe. If these weapons are so easy to make why haven't any terrorists or lunatics used them? Why isn't there use by criminals widespread? In another article sited by Fetzer an expert "scoffs at the suggestion that a do-it-yourselfer could build" such weapons. Why is the military only "doing lots of work to protect against this type of thing," and not taken concrete steps to protect it systems against attack, if such weapon are so easy to make and acquier?

At other times the article indicates such weapons are still experamental and says that powerful explosives are needed to trigger powerful pulses.

"E-bombs may already be part of the military arsenal. According to some, these weapons were used during NATO's campaign against Serbia last year to knock out radar systems. So do they really exist?

"Lots of people are doing lots of work to protect against this type of thing," says Daniel Nitsch of the German Army Scientific Institute for Protection Technology in Muster, Lower Saxony. "You can make your own guess."

"Marx generators are at the heart of an experimental weapons system...Marx generators have the advantage of being able to operate repeatedly. But to generate a seriously powerful, one-off pulse, you can't beat the oomph of old-fashioned explosives. The energy stored in a kilo or two of TNT can be turned into a huge pulse of microwaves using a device called a flux compressor"

"E-Bombing Civilization" by Daniel McCarthy (6 February 2003)

<http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy42.html>

see article 2 above

"EMP weapons are not science-fiction", IEEE (7 November 2003)

<http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/279992.html>

"the U.S. military is nowhere near fielding a narrowband HPM weapon"

Another speculative article . But even the prototypes mentioned are too much to large to have used against Wellstone.

The author says "...the perfect weapon would literally stop an enemy in his tracks, yet harm neither hide nor hair...In fact, it almost certainly is already here, in the form of high-power microwave (HPM) weapons."

But the rest of the text contadicts the 'already here' assesment.

""HPM sources are maturing, and one day, in the very near future, they will help revolutionize how U.S. soldiers fight wars," says Edl Schamiloglu, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of New Mexico..."

Even the prototype ray devices mentioned seem to bulky to be used as Fetzer imagines

"With a huge cylinder at one end connected to the long microwave source, the Sinus-6 looks like a giant torch lying on its side" this would have to coupled with to a micro-wave source "Among the best candidates for supplying microwaves is the backward wave oscillator"

"One disadvantage of this oscillator, however, is that it needs an external magnetic field to create the microwave beam, a major hurdle to making the whole system smaller. The size of the Sinus-6 and attendant equipment in Schamiloglu's basement suggests that the U.S. military is nowhere near fielding a narrowband HPM weapon. "When I first started working on high-power narrowband sources, we joked that you can do more damage dropping this equipment on someone than you can by using it," he recalls"

"Among those agreeing that narrowband HPM weapons will need more refining before they become truly useful to the military is Loren B. Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a military think tank based in Arlington, Va. He looked at the technology as principal investigator of "Directed-Energy Weapons: Technologies, Applications and Implications,"

"Thompson's report speaks of a future with satellites delivering missile-debilitating microwaves, unmanned vehicles that fly by and destroy communications systems" NO MENTION IS MADE OF LAND BASED SYSTEMS

"Arthur Varanelli, a Raytheon Co. engineer...says. "I just don't see people running around with Buck Rogers ray guns. It's great for a science fiction writer, great to prey upon people's fears." He scoffs at the suggestion that a do-it-yourselfer could build a microwave weapon potent enough to do real damage".

That was about as far as I got I don't have the patience to read all the crap. So come from obviously crackpot sites like

EM Weapons used on the Challenger Space Shuttle:

www.cheniere.org/books/analysis/history.htm

I could not get http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat11.pdf to open but I believe it is a report by USAF Col. Wahling [cited in the Time article] which was a funding proposal that says such weapons are not yet ready for use.

Fetzer pasted the text of another article that says we are close to developing such devices but "Such weapons are now nearing fruition. But logistical issues have delayed their battlefield debut"

Only one weapon is described as operational "Among the simplest forms are inexpensive, handheld lasers that fill people's field of vision, inducing a temporary blindness to ensure they stop at a checkpoint, for example. Some of these already are used in Iraq."

The prototypes seem impractical "At present, StunStrike is a 20-foot tower that can zap things up to 28 feet away. The next step is to shrink it so it could be wielded by troops and used in civilian locales like airplane cabins or building entrances". The StunStrike is only capable of stunning people not taking out electronics

SO FETZER I'LL ASK YOU AGAIN GIVE US A LINK TO 1 RELIABLE SITE THAT SAYS SUCH WEAPONS EXIST!!!!

Edited for correction: the plane was at about 3400/3500 feet above sea-level when Fetzer believes it was hit, but the terrain is about 1360 feet so the plane was about 2000 feet above ground level.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 342
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I will be very busy the next few days and won't be able to reply to the rest of Fetzer non-facts and nonsense till Friday!!!

Len

P.S. Jim maybe in the meantime you can post 1 link that says that a weapon capable of bringing down a plane at 2000 feet is operational!

Edited for correction: the plane was at about 3400/3500 feet above sea-level when Fetzer believes it was hit, but the terrain is about 1360 feet so the plane was about 2000 feet above ground level.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few quick observations about Fetzer's EM weapon theory.

According to Fetzer one of these weapons knocked out all the plane's electrical systems and/or incapacitated the pilots and set the plane on fire.

1] The plane would not have made an easy target. It was at 2000 feet and travelling at 165 KCAS [knots = 190 mph]*. Cloud cover was at 700 feet so the plane would have been invisible to anyone on the ground.

2] None of the witnesses who saw the plane before it crashed said anything about the plane being on fire.

3] None of the reports that I read about EM weapons mention the ability to set something on fire.

4] The plane only crashed about 2 minutes after being hit. Fetzer believes at least one of the wings caught fire before the crash. Most of the plane's fuel is in the wings [the tanks were close to full] why didn't the plane explode in a fireball?

5] Only a few of the victims had smoke in their lung's which is a sign they were alive after fire broke out. If the plane was burning before it crashed all of the victims should of had smoke in their lungs.

* http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2003/Eveleth/Ev...Meeting_IIC.pdf page 15

He believes that the plane was hit just after the last communication with the control tower in Duluth at 10:19:30, because this almost corresponds with the time of John Ogano's strange cell phone call at 10:18 [i.e. it was before the last radio communication]. "Just a few minutes prior to reaching the Hwy #53 and #37 intersection" http://www.assassinationscience.com/FuturisticWeaponry.pdf

The intersection is about 7 or 8 miles from where the plane was at the time of the "attack". You can see Hwy 53 on the NTSB map the Hwy 37 intersection is about a mile south of the airport**. If he was travelling at 60 MPH he would have been a "just a few miles" further away so presuming he was driving north on Hwy 53 he would have been near Wilson Rd [on NTSB and Yahoo maps]. That still would have put Ogano 7 - 8 miles from where the plane was. So the beam [or was that a lightning bolt?] hit plane at 2000 feet and then bounced back to affect Ogano's cellphone about 8 miles away! Strangely no one else in the area reported anything strange except perhaps some malfunctioning garage doors.

Fetzer claims that an unnamed doctor told him that an undisclosed number of nameless patients told him their garage doors acted strangely at "about the time of the crash"

** http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr=hig...ew=1&name=&qty=

Edited for correction: the plane was at about 3400/3500 feet above sea-level when Fetzer believes it was hit, but the terrain is about 1360 feet so the plane was about 2000 feet above ground level.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per John's request I've uploaded my photo.

On the subject of photography I started a new thread with some questions for photographers. I saw that Craig and Jack White already answered.

All photographers pro and amateur are invited to answer, I'd even like to hear what Jim and David have to say!

The link is

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4961

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Why am I not surprised to discover scads of new posts from Leonard Colby,

along with a photograph which makes it very difficult to see what he looks

like? No matter. Some of his objections are ones that I would agree with

today. With access to more data, it becomes possible to formulate better

theories. Bear in mind, Michael Niman (on the political motivation to take

him out), Christopher Bollyn (on the early arrival of the FBI), and Michael

Ruppert (on the crash and reports from insiders about it as a hit) and we

are close to exhaustive of research that takes seriously the possibility it

may have been an assassination! This guy wants you to think the NTSB

considered and discarded assassination as well as accident alternatives,

when that is not the case. The NTSB is only allowed to investige a crash

as the scene of a crime if the Attorney General declares it to be a "crime

scene". John Ashcroft, Attorney General, did not declare it to be a crime

scene and the NTSB gave no attention to the possibility it was deliberate.

The scenario it provided is ludicrous on its face. Two pilots flying a very

high-quality aircraft in non-threatening weather are supposed to simply

have neglected their air speed and altitude and let the plane crash. This

in spite of the fact that they were well-qualified (regardless of his drivel

about the extra flight-log, which his wife had never seen, or the precise

number of hours he had accumulated flying, the primary pilot, Richard

Conry, was an Air Transport Pilot, which is the highest civilian standing,

had passed his FAA "flight check" just two days before this flight, and

was praised as an extremely careful pilot by those who knew him best),

and the probability that TWO PILOTS would neglect their air speed and alti-

tude and simply allow their plane to crash has to be extraordinarily small.

(For example, If one pilot might do something like it 1 time in a 100, two

would do it 1 time in a 1,000!) Not to mention that the plane was equip-

ped with a loud stall warning device and sophisticated navigation system!

The plane generally headed toward the airport, then overshot the 276 de-

gree radial that would have taken them into the airport and instead head-

ed on a 268 degree radial, which carried them several miles south of the

airport, where they crased in a densely-wooded and rather swampy area.

Why? There was no distress call, suggesting that they were either unable

to make one or else did not think they were in distress. We have lately

discovered that the plane was a late model A-100 that was equipped with

a sophisticated avionics package, which apparently included a GPS system.

In fact, the NTSB spent some time inquiring whether they were using the

GPS system or the VOR approach, where the "official" answer is the VOR

approach. But having now learning that another pilot that same day had

an extremely rare--virtually unheard of--experience with his GPS system,

I now believe that the GPS data sent to Conry's plane was manipulated to

bring the plane into the "kill zone". as I explained on the Mike Malloy Show.

This pilot was flying into Waukegan Airport, IL, and set up for a landing on

runway 5. After starting the approach, his co-pilot's "GPS DEGRADE" light

came on, while his (the captain's) remained in "GPS APPROACH" mode. 10

seconds or so later, the co-pilot's light returned to normal, but the same

thing happened again 15 to 20 seconds later. About 15 seconds after the

"GPS DEGRADE" light extinguished again, it flashed again for 1-2 seconds.

They broke out of the clouds to discover they were 1/2 mile south of the

proper radial and, had they continued to fly based on their instruments,

would have missed the runway by more than a mile off to the south. All

this time the CDI (course deviation indicator) showed they were right on

line for a proper landing. He knows of no other case like this and, when

he learned of the Wellstone crash, he told his Chief Pilot that it might be

related and should be reported to the FAA. This occurred not only on the

same day but within a few minutes of the crash of the Wellstone plane.

I have spoken with the Chief Pilot and the company owner, who told me

the same story. John Costella observed that the magnitude of the devi-

ation and its direction both fit the Wellstone crash, since the Wellstone

plane crashed about two miles south of the Eveleth-Virginia Airport. We

now believe that the pilots were taking for granted that their navigation

equipment was working properly and did not realize they were in diffi-

culty until the plane had broken through the cloud cover. Yet, even at

this stage, it should have been possible to "power up" and circle around

the airport for another attempted landing, which was exactly the outcome

of the repeated simulations with a weaker engine and at abnormally slow

speeds conducted by the NTSB. And the stall warning alarm should have

alerted them if they were in any danger of stalling--unless control of the

plane was taken away from them at this point in time by the use of one

or another weapon in the EM family, which would not only take out the

electronics (including the CDI, stall warning system, and GPS system)

but also the electrical switches controlling the pitch of the propellers.

I no longer think we had everything right in the book, but of course we

do not have the resources of the government to investigate, if truth is

its objective, or to cover things up, if it is not. The fire burned bluish-

white, as I have confirmed with first responders, which is indicative of

an electrical fire. It did not burn coarsely-black, as would have been

the case for a kerosene-based fire. The wings were broken off during

the crash and did not burn, yet the fire was so intense that the firemen

could not put it out. This was very odd and not explained by the NTSB.

That only three of the victims were found to have smoke in their lungs

initially suggests that not all of them had smoke in their lungs, but only

three of them were sufficiently non-cremated to have their lungs still

available for inspection. The rest were reduced to charcoal. And some

witnesses did claim they heard some kind of explosion before the plane

crashed, which may have coincided with its being hit by an EM strike.

I continue to believe that Ongaro's cell phone anomaly and the reports

of garage doors opening are spill-over effects from the use of an EM

weapon. Certainly, the explanation I am offering here is preferable to

the NTSB's flimsy account, which is contradicted by its own simulation

evidence. It is important to remember that a member of the NTSB team,

Richard Healing, who signed the report, acknowledged that they had no

idea what caused the crash and were merely "speculating". I think we

are doing better. The bluish-white smoke, the intense fire, the props at

idle, the failure to send a distress warning, the early arrival of the FBI,

the powerful motivation to remove a persistent critic of the adminsitra-

tion, the threat he reported from Cheney, and the rest of what we know

about the case--reported in our book, AMERICAN ASSASSINATION, in

our study, "The NTSB Failed Wellstone", and on The Mike Malloy Show--

can be explained (with high probability) on our assassination scenario.

Virtually none of this can be explained by the accident alternative. We

have not only shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the accident alter-

native is unreasonable but that the assassination hypothesis is stongly

supported by the evidence and, indeed, appears to be more and more

strongly supported as more relevant evidence becomes available, which

is exactly what we would expect when an hypothesis happens to be true.

Something I find fascinating in retrospect is that some of my persistent

critics, like Josiah Thompson, have harped and harped over points that

now appear to be weaknesses in our original account, including that the

"cessation of communication" was really a failure to send a distress call,

even though they were going down in a remote, wooded, swampy area,

where the speed of arrival of responders might have made the difference

between life and death. And Leonard Colby's insistence that they would

have been at a greater altitude by our original analysis than the use of an

EM weapon would seem to accommodate. It is almost as if they knew the

actual cause of the crash and were well-positioned to point out weaknesses

in accounts that were not exactly right! Well, I concede that we did not get

everything "exactly right" the first time, but we are continuing our research

in attempting to get to the bottom of what happened to the plane, which is

more than the NTSB attempted. We are doing our best to establish what

happened and, it now appears, even our earliest work was basically right.

A few quick observations about Fetzer's EM weapon theory.

According to Fetzer one of these weapons knocked out all the plane's electrical systems and/or incapacitated the pilots and set the plane on fire.

1] The plane would not have made an easy target. It was at 3400 feet and travelling at 165 KCAS [knots = 190 mph]*. Cloud cover was at 700 feet so the plane would have been invisible to anyone on the ground.

2] None of the witnesses who saw the plane before it crashed  said anything about the plane being on fire.

3] None of the reports that I read about EM weapons mention the ability to set something on fire.

4] The plane only crashed about 2 minutes after being hit. Fetzer believes at least one of the wings caught fire before the crash. Most of the plane's fuel is in the wings [the tanks were close to full] why didn't the plane explode in a fireball?

5] Only a few of the victims had smoke in their lung's which is a sign they were alive after fire broke out. If the plane was burning before it crashed all of the victims should of had smoke in their lungs.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2003/Eveleth/Ev...Meeting_IIC.pdf  page 15

He believes that the plane was hit just after the last communication with the control tower in Duluth at 10:19:30, because this almost corresponds with the time of John Ogano's strange cell phone call at 10:18 [i.e. it was before the last radio communication]. "Just a few minutes prior to reaching the Hwy #53 and #37 intersection" http://www.assassinationscience.com/FuturisticWeaponry.pdf

The intersection is about 7 or 8 miles from where the plane was at the time of the "attack". You can see Hwy 53 on the NTSB map the Hwy 37 intersection is about a mile south of the airport**. If he was travelling at 60 MPH he would have been a "just a few miles" further away so the beam [or was that a lightning bolt?] hit plane at 3400 feet and then bounced back to affect Ogano's cellphone when he must have been about 10 miles away.  Strangely no one else in the area reported anything strange except perhaps some malfunctioning garage doors.

Fetzer claims that an unnamed doctor told him that an undisclosed number of nameless patients told him their garage door acted strangely at "about the time of the crash"

** http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr=hig...ew=1&name=&qty=

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

Opps....might want to rethink that GPS thingy Jim....unless Karl Rove now controls the sun too!

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?d...efid=ency_botpm

US NEWS SPACEWEATHER KRT

KRT US NEWS STORY SLUGGED: SPACEWEATHER KRT PHOTOGRAPH VIA NATIONAL

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (January 14) This powerful

solar flare on Oct. 25, 2002, sent a storm of high-energy particles

(proton and electrons) racing toward Earth at a million or more

miles per hour. Such flares can garble terrestrial communications

links, black out power grids, cause navigation errors, even confuse

homing pigeons. Astronauts and satellites in orbit are at special

risk. (lde) 2003

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On your "bluish white smoke"...

Got any links that support your statement that bluish white smoke is indicative of an electrical fire? I've done extensive research into reading smoke and have yet to find a source that makes the same claims as you.

One interesting factoid is that is that cold air temps often cause dark smoke to turn light. Something about moisture in the burnt gas hitting the cold air....at least thats what people who fight fires for a living say.

But hay if you can provide some source information on your claim that the smoke SHOULD have been black in those temp conditions from the fuel fire and that fires that START from an electrical source give off bluish white smoke I just might grant you this point.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

God Jim it's almost like we are two broken records arguing. You keep on raising the same incorrect and irrelevant points and I keep on replying to them.

Reread your sources you misunderstood

1] Bollyn's article,

2]NTSB accident site regulations, and

3] Mrs. Conry's interview!!! I have pointed all this out to you back on Yahoo and again here go back through my old posts.

Christopher Bollyn (on the early arrival of the FBI),

In the article from your Nazi buddy Bollyn that you cite all that he says is that the FBI in Duluth said that the 'recovery team' came from Minneapolis. This not in dispute. McCabe [the FBI spokesman] said that agents from Duluth got to site between noon and 2. The recovery team arrived later.

The NTSB is only allowed to investige {sic} a crash as the scene of a crime if the Attorney General declares it to be a "crime scene". John Ashcroft, Attorney General, did not declare it to be a crime scene and the NTSB gave no attention to the possibility it was deliberate.

Wrong again !!!

Jim you misread the NTSB regulations I think this the 3rd or 4th time I have brought this to your attention!!! I pointed this out to you a few times on Yahoo and once before here see the excerpt from post 45 below

1] This is irrelevant except for the fact that once again it shows your reading comprehension problems because that is not what it says at YOUR source. [see below]

2] a) Investigating a crash as a crime is up to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies which the Board can 'call in' at will. B) The Board does not carry out criminal investigations under ANY circumstances. c) The AG's role is to determine who leads the investigation not what can be investigated by who. I already pointed this out to you in the other forum!

"the NTSB has complete discretion over which organisations it designates as parties to the investigation...In cases of suspected criminal activity, other agencies may participate in the investigation. The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity".

"As the result of recent legislation, the NTSB will surrender lead status on a transportation accident only if the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Safety Board, notifies the Board that circumstances reasonably indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act. "

When did the "recent legislation" go into effect? The page was posted Sept. 2004, 2 years after the Wellstone crash.

<http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/invest.htm> this is the same page you cited in the From The Wilderness article.

The scenario it provided is ludicrous on its face. Two pilots flying a very high-quality aircraft in non-threatening weather are supposed to simply have neglected their air speed and altitude and let the plane crash.

Not ludicrous because similar crashes have happened before. Just one example.

How about this scenario - THREE airline pilots [much more qualified than Conry who was a part time charter pilot] flying a jetliner simply neglected their altitude and let the plane crash even after a warning horn sounded. Explain this one away Fetzer!!!

Eastern Flight 401

"In this example, we have three highly qualified flight crewmembers (captain, first officer, and flight engineer), each with a substantial amount of flight time and experience. This flight, from New York to Miami, was routine and uneventful until arriving in the Miami vicinity. At that point, when the landing gear was extended, the nose gear light failed to illuminate. The main gears were confirmed down. All three crew members became so fixated on the landing gear light, no one noticed that the autopilot had disengaged at 2000 feet and the L1011 was slowly descending towards the Everglades. At the time the air traffic controller asked "how are things coming along out there" (in reference to working on the nose gear problem), the aircraft was at 900 feet. By the time the crew had recognized how dangerously low they were, it was too late. The aircraft had impacted the ground."

"So again, we have an accident where a perfectly airworthy aircraft, under complete control of the pilot (s), was inadvertently flown into the ground, with little or no awareness by the pilot (s) until it was too late."

http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/Hu...rrorVsTerrorism

1] The pilot had 30,000 flight hours 8 - 9 x more than Conry

2]the plane was descending at about 200 feet/min.

3]even after the altitude alert horn sounded the crew remained oblivious.

the cockpit voice recorder transcript can be found at

http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/cvr_ea401.shtml

Excepts from the transcript - All times below are min:sec until impact all dialogue is from the flight crew except APP which is the control tower. My comments are in blue.

- 9:48 transcript starts

-8:50 the flight crew notice the problem with the light and try to fix it

- 7:52 Uh, Bob, it might be the light. Could you jiggle tha, the light?

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 6:08 Put the ... on autopilot here

All three continue trying to fix the light - at some point the pilot accidentally disengages the autopilot but due to a miscalibrated switch the autopilot light remains lit

- 4:40 This won't come out, Bob. If I had a pair of pliers, I could cushion it with that Kleenex

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 2:02 Naw that's right, we're about to cross Krome Avenue right now

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 1:34 [sound of altitude alert horn]

No reaction to altitude alert horn the next thing said is

- 1:31 We can tell if that # # # # is down by looking down at our indices

All three continue trying to fix the light

-0:32 APP Eastern, ah 401 how are things comin' along out there? The plane is at 900 feet but the oblivious crew thinks they are at 2000

- 0:30 pilot talks to tower changes heading doesn't notice that he is a less than half the altitude he should be

- 0:23 Huh?

- 0:21 One eighty

- 0:07 We did something to the altitude

-0:06 What?

- 0:05 We're still at two thousand right?

-0:03 Hey, what's happening here?

[sound of click]

- 0:02 [sound of six beeps similar to radio altimeter increasing in rate]

0:00 [sound of impact]

This in spite of the fact that they were well-qualified (regardless of his drivel about the extra flight-log, which his wife had never seen,

Jim you misread the interview, the log book you are talking about WAS NOT THE DUPLICATE reread the interview or see my post on that point in this thread. Even his wife said he had only 3000 - 4000 hours. He forged his logbooks and had about 3400 hours

the primary pilot, Richard Conry, was an Air Transport Pilot, which is the highest civilian standing

Airline [not Air] Transport Pilot is the highest of only TWO professional ratings. according to the BLS 80% of professional pilots are ATPs http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos107.htm

had passed his FAA "flight check" just two days before this flight

This is getting tiring Jim. You keep on bringing up incorrect or irrelevant points and I keep on replying

The check is irrelevant pilots are tested every 6 months - and he had a problem during the test after a simulated stall the head pilot had to cue him to fly faster look back through my old posts for details or reread the NTSB reports.

was praised as an extremely careful pilot by those who knew him best

There is no way to know if he or Guess were flying. Conry normally had the co-pilot fly.

He was praised by a friend who had not flown with him in 12 years!! His colleagues were mixed at best some said he was careful, most said he did not like to fly or was a bad pilot, four said he almost crashed one of them urged him to retire! He complained to a childhood friend he had difficulty flying and landing A 100s.

Jim except for Flight 401 and the statistic about ATPs I have brought all of this to your attention many times!!! Why don't even try to reply to my points?

I think I know whats wrong "Facts got your tongue"

I will reply to the rest of this crap tomorrow

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig you got that wrong.

Rumsfeld is the one who controls the sun!

Rove is one who changed the path of Katrina!!

Jim's fruit loop buddy Jack White is already charging the later and that the levees were exploded [irrefutable photo evidence of course B) ] and is probably working on evidence of the former as well!

Len

Opps....might want to rethink that GPS thingy Jim....unless Karl Rove now controls the sun too!

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?d...efid=ency_botpm

US NEWS SPACEWEATHER KRT

KRT US NEWS STORY SLUGGED: SPACEWEATHER KRT PHOTOGRAPH VIA NATIONAL

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (January 14) This powerful

solar flare on Oct. 25, 2002, sent a storm of high-energy particles

(proton and electrons) racing toward Earth at a million or more

miles per hour. Such flares can garble terrestrial communications

links, black out power grids, cause navigation errors, even confuse

homing pigeons. Astronauts and satellites in orbit are at special

risk. (lde) 2003

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God Jim it's almost like we are two broken records arguing. You keep on raising the same incorrect and irrelevant points and I keep on replying to them.

Reread your sources you misunderstood

1] Bollyn's article,

2]NTSB accident site regulations, and

3] Mrs. Conry's interview!!! I have pointed all this out to you back on Yahoo and again here go back through my old posts.

Christopher Bollyn (on the early arrival of the FBI),

In the article from your Nazi buddy Bollyn that you cite all that he says is that the FBI in Duluth said that the 'recovery team' came from Minneapolis. This not in dispute. McCabe [the FBI spokesman] said that agents from Duluth got to site between noon and 2. The recovery team arrived later.

The NTSB is only allowed to investige {sic} a crash as the scene of a crime if the Attorney General declares it to be a "crime scene". John Ashcroft, Attorney General, did not declare it to be a crime scene and the NTSB gave no attention to the possibility it was deliberate.

Wrong again !!!

Jim you misread the NTSB regulations I think this the 3rd or 4th time I have brought this to your attention!!! I pointed this out to you a few times on Yahoo and once before here see the excerpt from post 45 below

1] This is irrelevant except for the fact that once again it shows your reading comprehension problems because that is not what it says at YOUR source. [see below]

2] a) Investigating a crash as a crime is up to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies which the Board can 'call in' at will. B) The Board does not carry out criminal investigations under ANY circumstances. c) The AG's role is to determine who leads the investigation not what can be investigated by who. I already pointed this out to you in the other forum!

"the NTSB has complete discretion over which organisations it designates as parties to the investigation...In cases of suspected criminal activity, other agencies may participate in the investigation. The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity".

"As the result of recent legislation, the NTSB will surrender lead status on a transportation accident only if the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Safety Board, notifies the Board that circumstances reasonably indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act. "

When did the "recent legislation" go into effect? The page was posted Sept. 2004, 2 years after the Wellstone crash.

<http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/invest.htm> this is the same page you cited in the From The Wilderness article.

The scenario it provided is ludicrous on its face. Two pilots flying a very high-quality aircraft in non-threatening weather are supposed to simply have neglected their air speed and altitude and let the plane crash.

Not ludicrous because similar crashes have happened before. Just one example.

How about this scenario - THREE airline pilots [much more qualified than Conry who was a part time charter pilot] flying a jetliner simply neglected their altitude and let the plane crash even after a warning horn sounded. Explain this one away Fetzer!!!

Eastern Flight 401

"In this example, we have three highly qualified flight crewmembers (captain, first officer, and flight engineer), each with a substantial amount of flight time and experience. This flight, from New York to Miami, was routine and uneventful until arriving in the Miami vicinity. At that point, when the landing gear was extended, the nose gear light failed to illuminate. The main gears were confirmed down. All three crew members became so fixated on the landing gear light, no one noticed that the autopilot had disengaged at 2000 feet and the L1011 was slowly descending towards the Everglades. At the time the air traffic controller asked "how are things coming along out there" (in reference to working on the nose gear problem), the aircraft was at 900 feet. By the time the crew had recognized how dangerously low they were, it was too late. The aircraft had impacted the ground."

"So again, we have an accident where a perfectly airworthy aircraft, under complete control of the pilot (s), was inadvertently flown into the ground, with little or no awareness by the pilot (s) until it was too late."

http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/Hu...rrorVsTerrorism

1] The pilot had 30,000 flight hours 8 - 9 x more than Conry

2]the plane was descending at about 200 feet/min.

3]even after the altitude alert horn sounded the crew remained oblivious.

the cockpit voice recorder transcript can be found at

http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/cvr_ea401.shtml

Excepts from the transcript - All times below are min:sec until impact all dialogue is from the flight crew except APP which is the control tower. My comments are in blue.

- 9:48 transcript starts

-8:50 the flight crew notice the problem with the light and try to fix it

- 7:52 Uh, Bob, it might be the light. Could you jiggle tha, the light?

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 6:08 Put the ... on autopilot here

All three continue trying to fix the light - at some point the pilot accidentally disengages the autopilot but due to a miscalibrated switch the autopilot light remains lit

- 4:40 This won't come out, Bob. If I had a pair of pliers, I could cushion it with that Kleenex

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 2:02 Naw that's right, we're about to cross Krome Avenue right now

All three continue trying to fix the light

- 1:34 [sound of altitude alert horn]

No reaction to altitude alert horn the next thing said is

- 1:31 We can tell if that # # # # is down by looking down at our indices

All three continue trying to fix the light

-0:32 APP Eastern, ah 401 how are things comin' along out there? The plane is at 900 feet but the oblivious crew thinks they are at 2000

- 0:30 pilot talks to tower changes heading doesn't notice that he is a less than half the altitude he should be

- 0:23 Huh?

- 0:21 One eighty

- 0:07 We did something to the altitude

-0:06 What?

- 0:05 We're still at two thousand right?

-0:03 Hey, what's happening here?

[sound of click]

- 0:02 [sound of six beeps similar to radio altimeter increasing in rate]

0:00 [sound of impact]

This in spite of the fact that they were well-qualified (regardless of his drivel about the extra flight-log, which his wife had never seen,

Jim you misread the interview, the log book you are talking about WAS NOT THE DUPLICATE reread the interview or see my post on that point in this thread. Even his wife said he had only 3000 - 4000 hours. He forged his logbooks and had about 3400 hours

the primary pilot, Richard Conry, was an Air Transport Pilot, which is the highest civilian standing

Airline [not Air] Transport Pilot is the highest of only TWO professional ratings. according to the BLS 80% of professional pilots are ATPs http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos107.htm

had passed his FAA "flight check" just two days before this flight

This is getting tiring Jim. You keep on bringing up incorrect or irrelevant points and I keep on replying

The check is irrelevant pilots are tested every 6 months - and he had a problem during the test after a simulated stall the head pilot had to cue him to fly faster look back through my old posts for details or reread the NTSB reports.

was praised as an extremely careful pilot by those who knew him best

There is no way to know if he or Guess were flying. Conry normally had the co-pilot fly.

He was praised by a friend who had not flown with him in 12 years!! His colleagues were mixed at best some said he was careful, most said he did not like to fly or was a bad pilot, four said he almost crashed one of them urged him to retire! He complained to a childhood friend he had difficulty flying and landing A 100s.

Jim except for Flight 401 and the statistic about ATPs I have brought all of this to your attention many times!!! Why don't even try to reply to my points?

I think I know whats wrong "Facts got your tongue"

I will reply to the rest of this crap tomorrow

Len

Please do! I suspect many are awaiting your "crap" with baited breath ... roflmfao!

It appears Mr. Colby ENJOYS discussing airline tragedies [or he has a fixation with a certain University Professor, some here haven't been able to discern WHICH], the cause from offical NTSB documents only [aparently very, very sensative about any other insight - opinion or possible evidence - contrary] and aftermath - hey, whatever toots your horn.

A hint of flight experience on his part might be helpful. But no, all we get are questions regarding what kind of camera do you have, do you carry your camera on your person or in do you stow it in luggage... come on...

Pan Am still fly to So. America? Maybe Mr. Colby will enlighten us...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plane generally headed toward the airport, then overshot the 276 degree radial that would have taken them into the airport and instead headed on a 268 degree radial, which carried them several miles south of the airport.

So you now admit they were only 8 degrees off the right heading and NOT "traveling away from the airport" as you previously insisted?

Look at the map Jim. the plane continued travelling in a straight line after turning because they had overshot the radial. once already. they over shot it again and kept going straight

[ http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2003/Eveleth/Ev...Meeting_IIC.pdf. pg. 28]

Whoever was flying might have been confused because:

1) "When the airplane was less than about 1/2 mile south of the published VOR runway 27 approach course" the controller told Guess, “King Air one bravo echo is one zero miles from the VOR turn left heading three zero zero... "

[ http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/aar0303.pdf pgs. 4-5 (16-17) ]

2) Conry or Guess could have set the plane's navigation system incorrectly. Conry had already done this once before [same link as above pg. 10(22)]

3) the VOR beacon at Eveleth was 'out of tolerance'

"The day after the crash, FAA pilots tested the VOR. The inspection pilots reported to the NTSB that when they flew the approach without their automatic pilot engaged, the VOR repeatedly brought them about a mile south of the airport. In one written statement an FAA pilot told the NTSB that the signal guided him one to two miles left or south of the runway. That's the same direction Wellstone's plane was heading when it crashed." http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/feat...likm_wellstone/

The distraction of being lost could explain them not paying attention to airspeed - if a highly experienced three man airline crew like that of Eastern 401 could be so absorbed by a malfunctioning landing gear light that they did not notice that they were rapidly loosing altitude [900 feet in 32 seconds] even AFTER an alarm sounded, why couldn't we expect two substandard pilots who were lost in poor visibility and light snow to ignore their airspeed?

According to someone who unlike Drs. Fetzer, Arrows and Costella knows what he is taking about said this could have contributed to the pilot error that triggered the crash.

"The director of flight operations at the University of North Dakota's School of Aerospace Sciences, Alan Palmer, says:

'If they were that far off course, then that would have meant that the airport probably wasn't off of the nose of the airplane and having said that, maybe they started to look around for the airport and during that process of looking around, both pilots were looking and perhaps they forgot to fly the aircraft.' "

[ http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/feat...likm_wellstone/ - same link as above]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no distress call, suggesting that they were either unable to make one or else did not think they were in distress

Several flights with 2 - 3 men flight crews have crashed without making a distress calls. See post 68 for more about that or go to this link for various CVR transcripts MOST without distress calls http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/transcripts.shtml

In fact, the NTSB spent some time inquiring whether they were using the GPS system or the VOR approach

I missed that Jim please provide a link - didn't Guess ask for and get the VOR heading? I think Craig just killed that notion anyway. LOL

This pilot was flying into Waukegan Airport, IL,

Jim, Eveleth and Waukegan are 503 miles apart by car so what would that be in a straight line a little under 500? So you think they manipulated GPS for the entire upper Midwest? O'Hare the busiest airport in the world is about the same distance. Why didn't any of the thousands of other planes in the region report problems?

http://maps.yahoo.com/dd_result?newaddr=&t...ry=us&oerr=3003

The more you talk and write the less sense you make!!!

John Costella observed...

Costella is fool, he has PhD and teaches grammar school. He does not even understand the basics of fire.

We now believe that the pilots were taking for granted that their navigation equipment was working properly and did not realize they were in difficulty until the plane had broken through the cloud cover. Yet, even at this stage, it should have been possible to "power up"...which was exactly the outcome of the repeated simulations with a weaker engine

1) cloud cover was 400 - 700 feet see post # for comment from someone who knows what they are talking about

2) Yes they should have been able to. The question is why they didn't. Distraction is a strong possibility see post # and remember Eastern 401

And the stall warning alarm should have alerted them if they were in any danger of stalling--unless control of the plane was taken away from them at this point in time by the use of one or another weapon in the EM family,

The alarm could have been defective or turned off. Since it was badly damaged by the fire the NTSB could not determine if it was working properly or turned on. The last time an A100 crashed was another Aviation Charter flight in which thew pilot got lost in bad weather, the NTSB determined the stall alarm was turned off. The board also identified situations in which the alarm would not provide timely warning. I have pointed all this out to you before Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

miles south, very comparable to the experience reported by the

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

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

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

section of AMERICAN ASSASSINATION concerning EM weapons,

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

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

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

Electromagnetic weapons

Since John Ongaro wondered whether his odd cell phone experience

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

it would be appropriate to provide some background about weapons

of this kind.

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

electromagnetic pulse (EMP weaponry, including high-energy radio

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

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

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

nuclear detonation is required to produce an Electromagnetic Pulse. I

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

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

swampy woods.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________

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

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

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

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

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

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

high frequency radio waves and internet carriers communicate with

satellites using powerful microwave transmitters, where radiowaves and

microwaves are different types of electromagnetic waves.

All electronic

devices can be disrupted if subjected to strong enough electromagnetic

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

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

Electromagnetic interference is a troublesome fact of life. And there

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

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

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

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

device becomes.

Today, aircraft systems are dominated by electronics.

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

aircraft light enough to fly. The most disastrous times for

electromagnetic interference to the control system is during takeoff

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

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

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

But

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

about all the other electromagnetic waves flying about our modern

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

question in recent years. One NASA report is at

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

providing a chilling history of crashes caused by inadvertent

electromagnetic waves.

In the 1980s, for example, five different Black

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

radio transmitters. It was found that the rear stabilization control

system was vulnerable to electromagnetic interference. In the early

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

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

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

Malibu broke up in mid-flight because of electromagnetic interference

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

similar aircraft.

A 1983 crash of a Tornado fighter was later found to

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

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

different airline carriers reported widespread interference with

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

high-power electromagnetic surveillance carried out by the US

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

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

have been due to electromagnetic interference.

The FAA has also

investigated in detail the risks of electromagnetic fields. A 1999

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

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

and television transmitters, radar and satellite uplink transmitters,

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

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

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

Europe.

The FAA estimated the probability that a single flight into or

out of one of these cities would crash due to electromagnetic

interference. This involved estimating probabilities that the flight

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

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

that the interference would cause a catastrophic crash. The main

conclusions of the report address proposed new shielding levels for

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

average number of flights expected between catastrophic failures due to

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

Buried here, however,

are corresponding estimates for aircraft already manufactured under

less stringent guidelines. Reconstructing the figures from those

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

release of the 1989 standard would incur a catastrophe roughly ever

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

standards, the figure drops precipitously to a catastrophe expected for

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

often the wrong conditions might be expected to be encountered by

aircraft merely by chance.

These estimates may be conservative and

there are many factors involved in determining whether this has

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

highlight that completely accidental electromagnetic interference has

become a major safety concern in the modern world of burgeoning

electromagnetic communications. So if that is the score regarding

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

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

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

of aircraft under consideration. Flight paths are already designed to

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

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

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

the probability of catastrophic failure would skyrocket. If we move

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

copious quantities by the military and another else with similar

desires--then literally the sky is the limit.

Some may be uneasy to

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

vulnerable to relatively simple and inexpensive attack. The explanation

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

actively trying to cause an aircraft to crash. Regulatory frameworks

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

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

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

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

or through satellite surveillance.

It would only be in the case of very

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

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

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

us, the practicalities of economic life dictate that safety measures

are very finely balanced against commercial costs and corporate

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

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

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

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

their final flight.

___________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

analyze the official government account.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
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...