Was Paul Wellstone Murdered by the BFEE?

[seventhson]

Poll question: Was Paul Wellstone Murdered by the BFEE?

Just Read Jackson Thoreau's excellent piece of work on this subject which can be found here:

http://www.liberalslant.com/jt123003.htm

He says the following:

"My first hunch upon hearing about the tragedy was that the Beech King Air A-100 was tampered with by right wingers, possibly the CIA, either directly or through electromagnetic rays or some psychic mind games.

"And nothing I have heard or read since then has made me drift from that hunch. I'm not alone. The Duluth News Tribune featured a column by Jim Fetzer, a University of Minnesota-Duluth philosophy professor and author, in November 2003. Fetzer wrote that an FBI "recovery team" headed out to investigate the Wellstone plane crash BEFORE the plane went down. "I calculate that this team would have had to have left the Twin Cities at about the same time the Wellstone plane was taking off," Fetzer wrote.

"That apparent prior knowledge was similar to Dallas police putting out an all-points bulletin for accused John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald at 12:43 p.m. in 1963 for shooting a police officer. The problem was the officer was not shot until 23 minutes later.

"Fetzer also noted that Wellstone's plane was 'exceptional, the pilots well-qualified, and the weather posed no significant problems." He wrote that "we have to consider other, less palatable, alternatives, such as small bombs, gas canisters or electromagnetic pulse, radio frequency or High Energy Radio Frequency weapons designed to overwhelm electrical circuitry with an intense electromagnetic field. An abrupt cessation of communication between the plane and the tower took place at about 10:18 a.m., the same time an odd cell phone phenomenon occurred with a driver in the immediate vicinity. This suggests to me the most likely explanation is that one of our new electromagnetic weapons was employed.'"


Now I tend to agree with this analysis.

After reading this article, do you agree?

[sendero]

1. "the pilots well qualified"?

That statement flies in the face of earlier reports that the pilot had a very questionable background and was anything but well-qualified.

Were those reports just disinformation? Or is this.

Here's the reason I cannot get worked up over this possiblity. What kind of threat exactly did Paul Wellstone pose to anyone? I'm sorry, being a liberal isn't enough. What exactly were "they" afraid he was going to do that would make them do such a thing?

[seventhson]

4. If Wellstone Had won he might have stopped the Iraq war

He also might have helped maintain control of the Senate.

Hell. He might have run for President.

Wellstone was the BFEE's Public Enemy Number 1 (as expressed in the article).

Wellstone may have been able to stop what the BFEE wanted - along with a handful of others.

Or maybe they were just "practicing" on Wellstone and sending a warning shot at any other Senator who might stand in their way.

Judging by the responses. Thoreau's theory is a real possibility in the opinion of MANY here (if the numbers represent the whole).

I musy add: Those who believe that the BFEE would kill Wellstone also believe that they would try ANYTHING to win in 2004.

That is why we as Democrats must keep this story alive: to Warn our top tier candidates whose lives may be in danger.

My biggest fear in 2004 is hat our candidate, whever he/she is, gets Wellstones and the Bushes pick up the pieces and walk away with the election 2004 due to our confusion and the cvhaos of loss.

It is a Nazi staple tactic and that is what we are facing here. For real.

[worldgonekrazy]

42. He WOULD have run for President

And maybe its just wishful thinking, but if he had put a strong face and voice to the anti-war movement he very well might have won. People always underestimated him in Minnesota and they would have done so at the national level. That was the thing about Wellstone: he could do it.

[no name no slogan]

87. No he wouldn't have-- he stated this in 2000

Paul was diagnosed with MS in the late 1990s. He purposefully decided against a run in 2000 because of this, and it's highly unlikely he would have run in 2004.

He was not originally going to run in 2002, but BushCo stepped into the race and dictated to the MN Repubs who they should run for the seat (a popular ex-Mayor of St. Paul). He saw the designs the Repubs had, and knew that he was probably the best hope the Dems had of retaining the seat.

All this talk about a "conspiracy" to kill Wellstone is a bunch of BULLSHIT. Take that from somebody who knew and worked with/for Paul Wellstone as far back as 1987. All this speculation is an INSULT not only to the memory of Paul and Shiela, but to the two pilots who flew the plane, as well.

It's time to MOVE ON, people. More tinfoil hat theories will not do this.

:nuke:

[Dr.Phool]

75. I'm a pilot

Only a private pilot, but I'm working on my commercial and instrument tickets.

The NTSB said the probable cause was airframe icing. The weather conditions were consistent with that analysis. I've also read that the pilot was good, but even very good pilots make serious mistakes in judgement. And Weather is THE biggest misjudgement. And forcasts can change enroute.

In instrument flight conditions, which were in effect that day, you can't see anything outside the cockpit. You fly on instruments and "FEEL". If you're coming in on a IFR approach and you notice you're descending a little to fast, you add some power. If that doesn't work, you add more power.

In the conditions he was flying in, you have to assume you're picking up ice. Only problem is, it's heavy, slows control response, and you can't get rid of it. You're close to the ground, so the only thing you can do is add more power, but eventually you run out of power to add. Eventually you hit the ground at full throttle while you're trying to ascend.

Do I think it was convenient for Wellstones plane to go down? YES

Do I think it was suspicious? No. Just one of those things that happen in life. Sometimes the odds just switch out of your favor.
And just for mention, I attended 3 days of Camp Wellstone last month.

He continues to leave a lasting legacy.

[Jakey]

84. Icing was NOT a factor in NTSB final report...

Aircraft Accident Report
Adopted November 18, 2003

Loss of Control and Impact With Terrain
Aviation Charter, Inc.
Raytheon (Beechcraft) King Air A100, N41BE
Eveleth, Minnesota
October 25, 2002

Analysis
2.4 Weather Issues

2.4.2 Airframe Icing, pg. 48

"On the basis of all of this evidence, the airplane was most likely not in the cloud layer in which moderate icing was present for enough time to accumulate any significant airframe icing. Further, any icing that the airplane might have accumulated would have
been shed by the deicing equipment, or it would have begun shedding off the airplane's surfaces as it was descending through 5,000 feet because of the warming temperatures. In addition, the airplane's performance was not consistent with the effects of icing, and
flight simulations showed that the performance could be matched with and without simulated icing with enough reserve engine power available to increase the airspeed during the descent. Therefore, the Safety Board concludes that icing did not affect the
airplane's performance during the descent."

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf

And here's the NTSB conclusions:

3. Conclusions
3.1 Findings

1. The flight crewmembers were properly certificated and had received the training for pilot certification prescribed by Federal regulations. No evidence indicated any preexisting medical or other physical condition that might have adversely affected the flight crew's performance during the accident flight. Fatigue most likely did not degrade the performance of either pilot on the day of the accident.

2. The accident airplane was properly certificated, equipped, and maintained in accordance with Federal regulations and approved company procedures. The recovered components showed no evidence of preexisting powerplant, system, or structural failures.

3. The weight and balance of the airplane were within limits for dispatch, takeoff, climb, cruise, and landing.

4. The flight crew failed to maintain an appropriate course and speed for the approach and did not properly configure the airplane at the start of the approach, making the later stages of the approach more difficult.

5. During the later stages of the approach, the flight crew failed to monitor the airplane's airspeed and allowed it to decrease to a dangerously low level (as low as about 50 knots below the company's recommended approach airspeed) and to remain below the recommended approach airspeed for about 50 seconds.

6. The flight crew failed to recognize that a stall was imminent and allowed the airplane to enter a stall from which they did not recover.

7. The inadequate airspeed or the full course deviation indicator needle deflection should have prompted the flight crew to execute a go-around; however, they failed to do so.

8. The flight crew was not adhering to Aviation Charter's approach procedures and was not effectively applying crew resource management techniques during the approach segment of the flight.

9. Clouds might have prevented the flight crew from seeing the airport.

10. Icing did not affect the airplane's performance during the descent.

11. The Duluth approach control south radar controller's instructions did not prevent the flight crew from intercepting the Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport VOR runway 27 final approach course at a sufficient distance to safely execute an approach and
landing.

12. The out-of-tolerance condition and slight bends in the Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport VOR signal were not a factor in this accident.

13. Both pilots had previously demonstrated potentially serious performance deficiencies during flight operations consistent with below-average flight proficiency.

14. At the time of the accident, Aviation Charter was not operating in accordance with its weight and balance load manifest procedures, it did not have adequate stall recovery guidance, it did not have consistent deicer boot operational guidance, and it did not have an in-range checklist.

15. Aviation Charter was not adequately making company pilots aware of its Standard Operating Procedures.

16. At the time of the accident, Aviation Charter was not training its pilots on crew resource management (CRM) in accordance with its Federal Aviation Administration-approved CRM training module.

17. Although the Federal Aviation Administration's surveillance of Aviation Charter was in accordance with its standard guidelines, it was not sufficient to detect the discrepancies that existed at Aviation Charter.

18. En route inspections, combined with ground training, flight training, and proficiency check observations, are essential for ensuring adequate oversight of a company's operations and should be conducted on flights operated by 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on-demand charter operators.

19. The circumstances of the October 2002 Aviation Charter accident indicate that crew resource management training should be extended to include all 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on-demand charter operations that conduct dual-pilot operations regardless of whether the aircraft requires two or more pilots.

20. The development of and requirement for the installation of low-airspeed alert systems could substantially reduce the number of accidents and incidents involving flight crew failure to maintain airspeed.

3.2 Probable Cause

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the flight crew's failure to maintain adequate airspeed, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which they did not recover.

[stickdog]

110. Jakey, how the hell did you know that Wellstone's plane leveled off

at 400 feet before crashing before the NTSB released this information?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=561809#568672

And in answer to this long ago posed question, there's something called an autopilot.

[Jakey]

113. As it turns out.....

that information (the source was a newspaper story quoting an NTSB spokesman) was incorrect. According to the radar data provided by the "Final Report", the aircraft did NOT level at 1740' MSL (400' AGL as previously reported, though undocumented) but, instead, leveled at 1840' MSL which was 500' AGL (Above Ground Level). This is of MAJOR significance in 3 regards.

1. At 500' AGL (1840 MSL), this placed the aircraft 100' ABOVE the reported "ceiling" at Eveleth, which was 400'. In other words, there is little chance that the crew was EVER able to establish GROUND contact, no less contact with the RUNWAY ENVIRONMENT at their last reported "controlled flight" altitude.

2. The crew was actually complying with the vertical mandates of the approach profile which specifies an MDA (Minimum Descent Altitude) of 1840' MSL (500' AGL) until reaching the 2 DME (Distance Measuring Equipment) fix, at which point they would have been authorized to descend to 1740' MSL (400' AGL). This suggests controlled flight as opposed to incapacity.

3. The fact that the aircraft was leveled (correctly) at 1840'MSL and NOT 1740'MSL indicates that, at least as far as DME propagation is concerned, the VOR was transmitting and the aircraft was receiving appropriate DME transmissions.

There is also another remarkable bit of evidence contained in the heretofore unreleased data. If you look closely at the descent profile, you will note that the aircraft briefly leveled at approximately 2140'MSL and held that altitude for approximately 3/4 of a mile (2 radar fixes on the chart). It is, in all probability, at this point that the crew elected to level the aircraft so as to configure it for the approach (landing gear and approach flap extended). This is PRIMA FACIE evidence of a poorly planned, poorly conducted approach, as ANY instrument rated airman will attest to. These airmen were woefully "behind the aircraft", behind the "power curve", and behind them were Paul Wellstone, his family, and his staff.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf

[stickdog]

114. Or else they were responding to a overriding VOR or something else

that was screwing with their instruments.

[Jakey]

116. You deal in plausibilities....

I, and the NTSB, deal in probabilities.

[stickdog]

122. NTSB investigations operate under the assumption of an accidental crash.

Within the constraints of this assumption, they came to the same conclusion I would have -- namely, that the pilots were almost literally asleep at the stick.

I mean, we've got two pilots and they don't notice that the CDI needle isn't anywhere near centered for a full two and a half minutes.

In addition, they don't notice themselves slowing more than 60 mph below the intended approach speed, they don't notice the stall horn, and they make no discernable attempt to recover from their stall.

Now, if this type of pilot error is actually any some sort of probability, why are chartered flights legal, much less insurable?

This level of pilot incompetence is truly legendary. As in urban legend-ary. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it happens extremely seldomly to experienced commercial pilots flying extremely safe planes unless there are severe weather, aircraft or pilot incapacitation issues.

In contrast, literally millions of people with powerful enemies have fallen victim to foul play.

[TrogL]

125. Having powerful enemies do not make planes crash

Unrecoverable stalls do.

I finally read the whole report. I'll post at length tommorow. It's 4 a.m. here and I have to be up in 3 hours.

The stall horn would not have sounded until 5 knots BELOW stall speed, IF it sounded at all, because of....

...

...

wait for it...

...

...

feel the anticipation burning...

...

...

you know you're gonna love it...

...

...

because of.........ICING!!!!!

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:
:party::party::party::party::party::party::party::party::party::party::party:

YEEEEHAAAAA!!!!! I've come full circle.

More tomorrow. I'll bet you can't wait.

[stickdog]

140. So, according to you, the NTSB conclusions are full of shit.

What lengths one needs to go to in order to explain this "accident" in a way that doesn't strain credulity ...

There's still no evidence for icing and lots of evidence against it.

See the final NTSB report if you don't believe me.

[TrogL]

158. Nope, it's in there

More later.

[Jakey]

144. There's a "Smoking Gun" debunking the "phantom VOR" ....

The right-side radio magnetic indicator was severely damaged by impact forces and fire, the glass plate was shattered, and the flag positions could not be determined. The compass card and both indicator needles were contained within the plate display and
were damaged by heat; however, the numbers were legible. The compass card was positioned with the number 180 directly beneath the lubber line. Indicator needle No. 1 was pointing to approximately 335°, and needle No. 2 was pointing to approximately 332°.


According to this data, the first officer's RMI (Radio Magnetic Indicator) needles were indicating headings of 335 and 332 to the respective sources of the #1 and #2 VOR receivers. This instrumentation is INDEPENDENT of the CDI and indicates that the SOURCE of the radio navigation signal they were using to navigate was NNW (NORTH NORTHWEST) of their position, almost PRECISELY the location of the Eveleth VOR!!!!

So much for the "phantom VOR"....

[stickdog]

150. Cut the power to the phantom VOR. Voila!

The needles track the Eveleth VOR!

[Jakey]

153. Riiiiight.......

and now the post-crash, unpowered RMI indicators somehow energize themselves to re-orient towards the Eveleth VOR.

[stickdog]

165. Why wait until the plane hits the ground to cut the power to the decoy

beacon?

[Jakey]

168. You see Stickdog...

this is a perfect example of why you're simply unqualified to play the conspiracy game.

If you had an aviation background which went beyond being able to recognize an airplane when you see one, you'd understand that an unreliable navigational signal or loss of signal mandates the immediate execution of a missed approach. That would hardly have been an acceptable outcome to the conspirators, now would it?

And, by the way, this is my last retort to your drivel, unless, of course, the quality of your gamesmanship improves substantially.

[stickdog]

177. This isn't a game.

I'm simply posting my thoughts in an effort to come to terms with this tragedy.

You have presented nothing more than a false dichotomy wrapped in a tiresomely unsupported ad hominem indictment.

Assuming, as you do, that pilot incompetence caused this crash, the pilots ignored the CDI indicator for well over two minutes, all airspeed indications and indicators for almost a full minute, the go around mandated by both their wildly off course and dangerously slow approach, the stall horn, and the plane's subsequent stall.

Assuming, as I have been, that the plane was drawn off course by a stronger overriding "decoy" VOR until it was lured within range of a high powered microwave weapon, events would have proceeded in this manner.

A. The overriding VOR was powered up as the plane completed its turns to make its final approach.

B. Flying a little too fast for the proscribed optimum approach, the pilots configured the plane to lose airspeed at a relatively sharp rate.

B. The plane was drawn well within the effective range of the HPM weapon.

C. High powered microwaves were directed at Wellstone's plane, incapacitating the pilots. This weapon remained locked on the cockpit of the approaching plane, which was now flying on unassisted autopilot.

D. The plane continued to lose speed until it dangerously neared its stall speed.

E. The plane stalled and began to plummet to the ground at a steep (nearly 30 degree) angle.

F. The plane hit the treeline and crashed into the ground.


The "decoy" VOR would, of course, be switched off sometime between D & F.

[TrogL]

183. The autopilot has nothing to do with it

No pilot I know of would use the autopilot in this manner. The autopilot would be turned off when the gear went down. The VOR would not support the autopilot being used in this manner.

This was NOT an ILS approach - get over it

[Jakey]

186. Trog...with all due respect...

you have a tendency to argue points, often erroneously, based on anecdotal knowledge and experience. This only serves to give a false aura of credibility to the conspiracy babble when your "facts" are refuted.

Stating that "The autopilot would be turned off when the gear went down" is, I'm sorry to say, almost preposterous. In fact, using good operating practice, in a non-precision approach (as this was)the auto-pilot (if being used as it SHOULD be used) would be engaged in both vertical and lateral modes until commencing the final descent
from the MDA (1740' in this case) till touchdown.

I think there is irrefutable evidence to suggest that the auto-pilot was NOT being used, at least in lateral (navigational) mode and no evidence to suggest that it was or was not being used in vertical (altitude/pitch) mode. Failure to properly utilize the auto-pilot most likely contributed to the situational overload experienced by this crew which, IMO, caused them to overlook their critically diminishing speed.

[stickdog]

188. Thanks, jakey.

However, we all know that Conroy invariably used autopilot on his approaches. In fact, one of the biggest complaints about him was that he sometimes relied on autopilot too much, especially on approaches.

That's why an overriding "decoy" VOR explanation makes the most sense.

Why the hell would an autopilot lover like Conroy disengage his autopilot on an instrument approach in cloud cover?

Just so he could drift aimlessly off course while completely ignoring both his bearing and airspeed?

[TrogL]

194. Where does it say that??

we all know that Conroy invariably used autopilot on his approaches

I've never seen that documented. URL please.

on an instrument approach

How do you do an instrument approach on a non-ILS beacon?

[TrogL]

193. OK, you know more than I do

I actually didn't word it correctly. The point I was trying to make was that I doubted it was being used in "approach" mode where it handles everything based upon ILS information that being impossible because it wasn't an ILS beacon.

[Jakey]

199. Trog....you need to better understand...

the function/capability of an auto-pilot and how it may be integrated in the conduct of BOTH precision and non-precision approaches. When you state that you "doubted it was being used in "approach" mode because this was not an ILS approach, it indicates, to me, that you don't fully grasp the function/capability of an auto-pilot or the terminology, or both. Let me try to quickly clarify.

An autopilot may be used in a "coupled" mode to automatically maintain course and glideslope profiles when available. This defines a "precision approach", where both lateral and vertical guidance is available. But there is also a second auto-pilot capability known as "command" mode, where lateral and/or vertical commands are input directly by the crew. These commands might include heading, altitude capture/hold, or rate of climb/descent. When conducting a non-precision approach such as the VOR27 at Eveleth, it would be most desirable to "couple" the auto-pilot in the "lateral" mode, allowing it to capture and fly the "inbound course" and using "pitch" command mode to input "vertical" commands. While more demanding in terms of crew input and monitoring, when properly utilized, this can SIGNIFICANTLY augment a crew's ability to process and react to the extraordinary complexities that flying a non-precision approach can present.

Now, with that in mind, let me state that you were correct, to a degree, in your statement. It is almost irrefutable that, IF the auto-pilot was being used, it was, most certainly, NOT being used in the lateral "approach" mode as the auto-pilot clearly failed to capture and "track" the inbound course upon it's initial intercept. This may have been by choice of the PIC (Conroy, who, IMO, was almost assuredly flying the aircraft), or it may have been caused by a failure to properly "Arm" the lateral approach mode of the auto-pilot. Conroy had demonstrated (in the recent past on 2 seperate occasions) that his "proficiency" in the use of the auto-pilot was sub-standard. This is, perhaps, another link in the chain that ultimately led to the scene of the accident.

[TrogL]

203. Does a King Air autopilot maintain airspeed?

How different is its autopilot to that on a Gulfstream?

[Jakey]

204. That would be an "auto-throttle"...

and, had it been available and properly used this thread might not exist at all. As it was never mentioned in the NTSB report, I doubt this aircraft was so equipped. It's an option that I doubt you'd find installed on most "commercial" King Airs. Privately owned might be a different matter.

My guess is that most Gulfstreams, being a much more advanced aircraft, would have auto-throttle as part of a standard avionics package. Only a guess tho.

[TrogL]

121. Oh, kewl, the final report

OK, I'm gonna be down for awhile reading this.

[TrogL]

175. How to read an NTSB report.

It's here (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf) in case you missed the link elsewhere.

First, of course, read it cover to cover. Then go back and see what they spend most of their time talking about. Also see what specific things they mention. Finally, see what their recommendations are, then work backwards to find out how they arrived at them.

I read the whole thing last night online. Today I printed it out for a more detailed study without having to squint (I think I need new glasses or a new monitor).

The recommendations:

• inspections of pilot training and flight operations
  
• CRM (cockpit resource management) training programs
  
• low-speed alert systems
  

The executive summary mentions:

• failure to maintain airspeed leading to stall
  
• flight crew proficiency
  
• operational and training issues
  
• inadequate CRM
  
• inadequate FAA surveillance
  
• need for improved low-airspeed awareness
  

In sequence, the reports talks about:

• discussion about icing before the flight
  
• discussion about icing during the flight
  
• lack of a "go around" plan
  
• overshooting the glidepath
  
• problems with the pilot including complaints of him being "too timid", having to have the controls taken away from him and his propensity for letting the co-pilot do everything and bad logbooks
  
• problems with the co-pilot including his "inability to land the airplane without assistance" and "difficulties with power management"
  
• de-icing systems
  
• "a stall warning system designed to sound a horn in the cockpit 5 to 8 knots below the actual stall speed" that included a heated lift transducer vane and faceplate
  
• "the heater for the faceplate is activated by positioning the right pitot and stall warning system to ON"
  
• four miles visibilility with a ceiling of 300 feet
  
• "first pilot to depart EVM after the accident told the Safety Board investigators that he experienced trace to light icing below 6000 feet"
  
• a long discussion about the VOR eventually eliminating it as a factor
  
• brief discussion of ATC and flight records
  
• "normal engine operation at the time of impact" with "power settings just above flight idle"
  
• cockpit instrumentation "settled into a large pile"
  
• various simulations in which it was noted the aircraft "immediately recovered from a stall when power was increased" but that when the approach from the Wellstone flight was used, there was a "noticeably higher workload - with gear delayed, I felt behind the aircraft" and that "gradual, significant pitchup was necessary to maintain altitude"
  
• pilots did not receive CRM training module
  
• there were not stall recovery procedures in the training manual
  
• confusion over when to deploy landing gear
  
• confusion over Standard Operating Procedures especially callouts
  
• "stall warning devices are not accurate and should not be relied upon...when ice is on the wing"
  
• stall warning heat should be on before any visible moisture is encountered"
  
• "even small amounts of ice accumulation can defeat the airplane's stall warning system"
  
• no clear standardized procedures concerning icing
  
• lack of FAA surveilance due to cutbacks
  
• the company had a previous crash related to training
  
• the flight crew's inadequate setup of the approach
  
• flight crew's failure to stabilize the approach
  

Finally, there is a long discussion of low-airspeed awareness.

Here's my latest scenario for what happened.

The copilot was flying the plane, a usual practice with this pilot. The copilot was also running the radios (according to ATC). The copilot was also looking for the runway (it was on his side). Cockpit management was muddled due to poor training. Nobody was calling out altitudes or airspeeds due to poor training. There was confusion about icing procedures due to poor training. The copilot screwed up the approach (known problem) and the pilot was too timid, tired or distracted to do anything about it. Things were happening so fast that they "got behind" the aircraft. When they discovered they were too high and too fast, they powered the engines back to near idle. The stall horn may have sounded too late to be of any good, or not sounded at all due to minor icing. Nobody fired up the engines due to cockpit management issues. The copilot did NOT have his hands on the engine controls (bad habit). The pilot was known to be late to make power adjustments. With nobody effectively flying the plane, it impacted into terrain.

Hence the NTSB called for better training and a better stall warning system.

[stickdog]

184. I'm severely disappointed in you.

The copilot was flying the plane, a usual practice with this pilot.


Not on the passenger leg, and certainly not with a Senator aboard. There is no evidence that Conroy EVER let his co-pilots fly the passenger legs of his flights.


The copilot was also running the radios (according to ATC).


Because, of course, he wasn't flying the plane.


The copilot was also looking for the runway (it was on his side). Cockpit management was muddled due to poor training. Nobody was calling out altitudes or airspeeds due to poor training.


It was an instrument landing.


There was confusion about icing procedures due to poor training.


There wasn't any ice.


The copilot screwed up the approach (known problem) and the pilot was too timid, tired or distracted to do anything about it.


The co-pilot wasn't flying the plane.


Things were happening so fast that they "got behind" the aircraft. When they discovered they were too high and too fast, they powered the engines back to near idle.


The CDI needle showed them WAY off course for nearly 2 1/2 minutes. Why did they fly the plane off course? Why didn't either of the pilots look at any of the navigation instruments once over these 2 1/2 minutes?


The stall horn may have sounded too late to be of any good, or not sounded at all due to minor icing.


There wasn't any ice. Read the NTSB conclusions. In any case they were supposed to approach at 150 mph and they slowed all the way down to 90 mph over a period of almost a full minute. How could two pilots possibly not notice the plane was barely flying?


Nobody fired up the engines due to cockpit management issues. The copilot did NOT have his hands on the engine controls (bad habit).


Since the copilot wasn't flying the plane, it was actually a very good habit.


The pilot was known to be late to make power adjustments.


60 mph too late? Come on, TrogL. Why didn't he even TRY to execute a go around? How could he just ignore the stall horn? Why didn't he even TRY to recover from the stall?


With nobody effectively flying the plane, it impacted into terrain.


Exactly. Because both pilots were incapacitated.

[TrogL]

192. I'm severely disappointed in YOU!

There is no evidence that Conroy EVER let his co-pilots fly the passenger legs of his flights.

Pg. 9 "the accident pilot often allowed them to conduct the flights they flew with him as if they were single-pilot operations...without his assistance".

It was an instrument landing.

How do you do an ILS approach on a VOR/DME without ILS capability?

http://www.airnav.com/cgi-bin/navaid-info?id=EVM&type=VOR.DME&name=EVELETH

The co-pilot wasn't flying the plane.

You were there??

Why did they fly the plane off course?

This co-pilot has a history of screwing up approaches.

Incidentally, you've ignored the issue of the late stall horn and, as usual, you've ignored the issue of cockpit management.

[stickdog]

198. Guess NEVER flew a single passenger flight leg with Conry as

the primary pilot. In fact, Guess never flew a single passenger leg for Aviation Charters as the primary pilot. That you suggest otherwise is ignorant, and that the NTSB even left open the minute possibility that Conry would have allowed Guess to fly his first primary pilot passenger leg with Wellstone, his family and his staff aboard was both deceitful and highly unprofessional.

See: http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/2002/12/29/news/local/4826241.htm

I ignored the "issue" of the "late stall horn" because it's not an issue. The plane's final MEASURED speed was below the speed at which the stall horn sounds.

[TrogL]

202. What goes on record may not match reality

"It's awesome flying with Capt. Conry," he wrote. "He lets me fly most of the time."

[mhr]

2. This Has Been Rehashed Here To Death

As a commercial pilot, there is nothing in the linked article that sheds light on the aviation accident.

All indications are that the plane crashed due to pilot error i.e. the pilots flew too slow on final approach and stalled.

Death rays, electromagnetic rays, mind rays, none of this adds up and is mindless speculation.

People need to face the fact that planes crash and people die regularly due to pilot error. That is a fact.

Just because Wellstone was controversial does not change the preceding statement.

By comparison, there is much more compelling evidence that Kennedy was killed via a conspiracy than Wellstone.

[Robb]

5. I'm a real nutter for the secret rays...

...and I agree with mhr, there is nothing compelling in that article, or in any of the discussion I've heard here before. There are a lot of mistakes, or misstatements, in people's analyses of how physics works.

I think it bears repeating: "Planes crash and people die regularly due to pilot error."

[seventhson]

11. I think this bears repeating

There is nothing secret about EMP weapons (do a google)

This also bears repeating: Since there was NO investigation of this possibility (since the technology clearly exists to target a plane by emp and there is supporting evidence that this happened) there is NO way to know if this may have been the cause of the crash or NOT!

To say without an investigation that it could NOT have happened is merely speculation. To say it is a POSSIBILITY or even a PROBABILITY is reasonable under all the circumstances.

[Indiana Democrat]

28. I believe in Santa Claus

And I think it's a possibility that Senator Wellstone's plane collided with his sleigh.

I'm interested if anyone can prove to me that it's **not** a possibility?

[seventhson]

30. Santa does not exist (other than spiritually) the BFEE does exist

and is known for such things

[Indiana Democrat]

32. PROVE...

...that Santa does **not** exist.

[TrogL]

50. You're the one making the outrageous claim

prove he does.

[stickdog]

103. The level of incompetence the NTSB attributed to the pilots -- without

a shred of evidence -- is outrageous.

[stickdog]

100. I think this bears repeating.

The extraordinary of level of incompetence that the NTSB attributed to Wellstone's pilots strains credulity.

[TrogL]

117. may as well say it one more time

What I tell you three times is true - Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark

[seventhson]

6. I love it when you say "rehash"

This is a new article, a new perspective, and an important one going into this election season.

Motive, opportunity, means are all there for it to have been murder.

I suppose when you say nothing in the article sheds any new light you are ignoring the fact that the conditions whereby the plane was caused to crash by "going too slow" COULD NOT BE RECREATED in tests!

If EMP was NOT EVEN CONSIDERED as a possibility, HOW could it be ruled out?

Since nothing else explains the crash and NOBODY examined the EMP possibility "pilot error" becomes the reason? Baloney.

Nothing to SEE here: move along.

Schnell!!!

[Robb]

8. I think rehashed is fair

"EMP" was considered a possibility here on DU, and in many aviation forums, and ruled out.

This new article leans the entire "case" for EMP on "electrical actuators" that move the control hydraulics, which (and please correct me if I'm wrong) we figured out don't exist on this aircraft.

:shrug:

[seventhson]

19. Link?

I think that there are several ways emp could have affected the plane -- the ones for the control hydraulics are not the only ones.

But unless someone here is an expert on EMP I do not know how anyone could say it is not possible.

But where is the evidence of no control hydraulics and where is the evidence for emp being "rules out"?

People may disagree on this, but it proves nothing and again if there is no investigatioon of this possibility how could ANYONE say it has been "ruled out"

[Robb]

38. Actually, I'm the expert you're looking for.

I'm willing to bet no one on the board knows more about RF weapons. If you "think there are several ways" directed energy could hurt this aircraft, let's hear 'em. Other than messing with the radio, I can't think of one. Even the fuel system is gravity-fed. I get the feeling you don't understand how these weapons work.

Besides, seventhson, "EMP" is so 80's, so Reagan. Try HPM, UWB, HPRF.... There are a bunch of reasons why EMP sucks as a weapon, and why various other narrowband and ultra-wideband sources are better.

For the record, I'll rule out "EMP" for two reasons:

1. Even in directed energy circles, source-generated EMP has been abandonded for more efficient (and frequency-agile) electronics killers; and

2. Millimeter-wave weapons target electronics; this a/c has no flight-critical electronics.

Wrong weapon, wrong choice for the "job". This technology is not a panacea for every plane crash mystery.

[librechik]

47. I think we're quibbling about semantics here

Of course no one knows what actually brought it down. We're speculating that some black ops device such as you describe may have been involved. "EMP" is a generic term we engineering-jargon-impaired folk use to indicate a nonconventional weapon which effects the electronic systems. There is an advantage here because to most people this science is quite invisible and mysterious.

My theory is a shoulder mounted missile with incendiary fuel. That's why it burned for hours and they could excuse the missing black box.

You intrigue me with your acronyms. What are HPM, UWB, HPRF? Those sound like even better tools for the crime.

[TrogL]

51. The black box wasn't missing

King Airs do NOT have black boxes.

[Minstrel Boy]

53. I just googled "King Air" and "black box"

and found this, from ABC News, regarding a crash in Colorado, January 29, 2001:

"Investigators are still searching for the "black box" flight data recorder of the chartered plane, which crashed during a snowstorm.
...
"According to the NTSB, the 11-seat Beechcraft King Air 200 Catpass was equipped with automatic de-icers, which inflate to physically break ice off the wings of the turboprop aircraft before takeoff."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/sports/DailyNews/planecrash010129.html

I don't know whether Wellstone's plane was equipped with a black box, but you may want to reconsider your sweeping statement that King Airs don't have black boxes.

[TrogL]

57. How many King Airs have you been inside?

How many pilots have you talked to about it?

My work requires me to fly in King Airs on a regular basis. I often talk to the pilots.

[Minstrel Boy]

58. You're issue isn't with me.

Take it up with ABC News.

I have no position re: black boxes on board Wellstone's flight. You asserted King Air's never have them, and I found a cite that contradicted you. Do you have anything more than your word to support you?

[TrogL]

79. They are available as an add-on

Which are rarely installed because they are not required by the FAA for this class of aircraft.

They were not installed on this particular aircraft.

This ABC report came out fairly quickly after the crash, before anybody figured it out.

Here's a link.

http://cjonline.com/stories/111903/pag_wellstone.shtml

However, the aircraft was not required to be equipped with a cockpit voice recorder or a flight data recorder, which could have greatly aided investigators.

[Dr.Phool]

77. De-icers

I'm a private pilot, working on commercial and instrument tickets. I've flown in the cockpit of a King Air as a passenger, with friends who were the pilots several times. Not enough to be an expert, but just letting you know where I'm coming from.

De-icing equipment is normally only on the leading edge of the wings. It protects against the most common form of ice build-up which happens on the leading edge of the wings, which disrupts the smooth airflow over the top of the wing (Bernouli principle). This greatly increases the stall speed of the aircraft, increases weight, and changes the center of gravity. However. In severe conditions the entire airframe can ice up, and there ain't no getting rid of it other than getting into warmer air, and escaping icing conditions.

Wellstones plane was on approach, and probably encountered severe conditions. This probably caused an immense weight build up. The pilot kept applying more power to keep altitude, but eventually ran out of power, and hit the deck at full throttle.

Sorry, to see him go, but I think it was just a tragic accident.

[Dr.Phool]

78. Normally

A King Air probably wouldn't be equipped with a Flight Data Recorder, aka "black box". In civilian use, they're only required on airliners, and not charter planes the size of a King Air.

They're very expensive to install and maintain.

[dflprincess]

83. I think the correct statement would be that they are not

required to have black boxes. This was mentioned on local news reports in the first couple hours after the report and it was said at the time that there was no black box on Wellstone's plane. However, at the same time, mention was made looking for the voice recorder, though it wasn't long before it was reported that it turned out there wasn't a voice recorder on the plane either - again the King Air is apparently not required to have one (or so we were told) and, conveniently, there wasn't one on Wellstone's plane.

[TrogL]

92. conveniently??

that's :tinfoilhat: talk.

It's expensive running a small airline like Wellstone used. They can't afford to put every doodad and gimmick on aircraft if they don't have to. It just adds to the weight and service bill. Cockpit voice recorders' tapes have to be changed constantly. This gets expensive.

[dflprincess]

95. I don't deny that my tinfoil hat has been firmly in place

from the time I heard the news of the crash.

Originally it was reported that there was a voice recorder on the plane, then we were told there wasn't one. Film clips of locals who claimed they saw flashes from the tail of the plane disappeared by the 6 o'clock news (the original reports had been live interviews - oops).

Sorry it offends you, but I remain highly skeptical of any report coming from any agency of the government. (Remember the one about the air quality in the area around the WTC being safe?)

[Jakey]

142. One correction....

Cockpit voice recorders' tapes have to be changed constantly.

Actually, in the ones I'm familiar with, the CVR's record the last 30 minutes of data and overwrite older data with newer data.

[TrogL]

160. True

but I think the tapes wear out and have to be replaced unless they're totally electronic.

You'd know more than I would.

[Robb]

59. Yes, but, as I pointed out

...and TrogL confirmed, there are no flight-critical electronics on this KingAir. So a weapon that damages electronics wouldn't be particularly useful. :shrug:

FWIW: High Power Microwave, Ultra-Wideband High Power Radio Frequency. :) Happy new year!

[Dr.Phool]

76. You're wrong on one point

The King Airs fuel system is not gravity fed but has fuel pumps.

[TrogL]

80. No, it has boost pumps

It will fly without them.

http://www.iflyamerica.com/accidentinfo.htm#Beech%20C90%20King%20Air

In this accident report, the pilot has the boost pumps off on final. He turns them back on when the engine acts up (to no avail, he's out of gas).

[stickdog]

104. Exactly. HPM is the far superior choice. (nt)

[TrogL]

120. Why?

For that matter, what does it stand for?

[stickdog]

123. Because it fucks with the pilots even more than the electronics.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CBC91-B6FD-1E51-A98A809EC5880105

And it doesn't leave as much of a trace.

[TrogL]

127. At that range, it wouldn't

It also wouldn't work.

http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/avio41002.htm (3rd last paragraph)

The range of HPM weapons has always been a concern. Tests have shown effects at tens to "more than" hundreds of feet

[stickdog]

135. My God, you're disingenous.

The very next sentence reads:

Walling seemed more optimistic. "With current technology, the range for a tactical microwave weapon could be in the tens of kilometers, and future advances . . . should permit the development of even longer ranges," the report said.

[Robb]

141. I think the point to be made

...is that outside of the program(s), no one has anything but guesses about frequencies, power levels, or (subsequent) ranges. Similarly, it's hard to quantify range without knowing the first two. We have good guesses, but they're just guesses; for example, if you assume every contractor for capacitors in the late 90's came through on their promises, we're in great shape. ;)

[stickdog]

151. Exactly. We simply don't have complete information.

However: http://liun.hektik.org/hightech/herf/ISTAS.htm

While there are many variables that must be considered to determine the range of an HPM weapon, a reusable system able to disrupt systems hundreds of meters away is certainly achievable.


And: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0302-01.htm

WASHINGTON, March 1 — The Pentagon today unveiled what some military officials hope will become the rubber bullet of the 21st century: a weapon that uses electromagnetic waves to disperse crowds without killing, maiming or, military officials say, even injuring anyone slightly.

Known in Pentagon patois as an "active denial system," the weapon is the fruit of 10 years of research and is intended to help American soldiers in the quasi-military roles they have increasingly been asked to play as peacekeepers or police in places like Kosovo and Ethiopia.

As envisioned by its Pentagon designers, the weapon would fire bursts of electromagnetic energy capable of causing burning sensations on the skin of people standing as far as 700 yards away — without actually burning them, officials said.

"It's not designed to burn," Col. George P. Fenton of the Marine Corps, director of the Department of Defense's Joint Nonlethal Weapons Program in Quantico, Va., said at a news conference today. "It's a heat-induced sensation."

[TrogL]

162. Did you actually read the article??

The tests were done with direction line of exposure. Not with an airplane in the way.

Talk about disingenuous.

[stickdog]

178. It's one article about one test of one type of HPM weapon.

And the only thing it says about the maximum range of any and all available HPM weapons (including any currently classified models) is that an effective range of thousands of yards wouldn't be surprising in the least.

[TrogL]

182. and yet you say

that this weapon was used to bring down a King Air even though you can't point to anything resembling a working prototype never mind a finished weapon.

If you can, do so now.

[TrogL]

161. "could be", not "is"

I deal in facts, not fantasy.

[stickdog]

102. If it was a take down, then here's what did it.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CBC91-B6FD-1E51-A98A809EC5880105

They set up a stronger "decoy" VOR that lured the plane off course, and then hit the pilots with incapacitating high powered microwaves.

Then the "service van" simply drove away. A "perfect" crime.

[TrogL]

131. How far away would this "service van" need to be?

[seventhson]

134. That's classified

But ask Cheney. He would know.

[TrogL]

159. So you still think I have a pipeline to Cheney?

Since when does anybody in that administration listen to Canadians?

[stickdog]

167. I don't. I just think you fell for the "magic icing" theory and got

invested in it.

You seem to be a good guy. I just couldn't understand why you felt so strongly about defending something that, to me, was quite obviously a steaming load.

[TrogL]

171. The icing theory was nice until something better came along

I'm just about to do a longish post about the NTSB final report.

I'll wrap the whole thing up there instead of responding to individual sub-threads. I'll append to to the "oh, kewl" response so it's near the top.

[stickdog]

185. The "magic icing" theory was a steaming pile.

But you definitely out did it with your new "pilot let copilot land a Senator, his wife, kid & 4 other passengers, then fell asleep while copilot has a spazz attack, got frustrated and then decided to go to the bathroom while the plane was crashing" explanation.

[TrogL]

195. It's not new

I've been talking CRM for ages.

[stickdog]

99. Come on. Two pilots and nobody looked once at the CDI or

the airspeed indicator on the final approach for almost a full minute?

The plane drops from 182 mph to 87 mph (150 mph being the recommended approach speed) over a period of one minute and 12 seconds, but nobody ever even notices that the plane is flying dangerously slowly?

The stall warning horn goes off, yet no attempt is ever made to recover?

I'm not saying it wasn't pilot incompetence. What I'm saying is that the level of incompetence shown strains credulity enough that alternative explanations -- you know, the ones we have no evidence for because they were never even considered by the NTSB -- demand investigation.

The thing is that I know that you know all this. So why are you tryig to convince all of us otherwise?

[TrogL]

119. Telling me what I know??

It's really quite simple. They stalled the thing on purpose to lose airspeed and altitude. Glider pilots do it all the time.

Unfortunately, the King Air isn't a glider.

Hence, they ignored the stall horn because they caused the stall.

A more competent pilot may have pulled it off. An Air Canada pilot had to deliberately stall an aircraft, since dubbed "the Gimli glider" when he ran out of gas (ground crew misunderstood metric system) and successfully landed it on an unused runway in Gimli, Manitoba. However, he had spent lots of time in gliders. These guy's hadn't.

[stickdog]

126. Yeah. They had eight passengers including a US Senator, his wife & kid,

and they decided to play daredevil rather than execute a go around?

And in contrast, a man with hundreds of powerful enemies becoming the victim of foul play is a wild theory?

[TrogL]

129. Now that I've read the report

I've changed my mind on that one.

I don't think they stalled it on purpose (although I wouldn't put it past them). I'm wondering if the stall horn went off at all.

It's now 4:20 a.m. I need sleep. Full scenario tomorrow after i've digested the NTSB report.

[Junkdrawer]

3. I've always been suspicious of the timing:

By Minnesota election laws, if a candidate dies LESS than 10 days before the election, his/her name stays on the ballot and, if they win, the Governor appoints someone until a special election is held.

Paul died 10 days before the election and Mondale had, after all was said and done, less than a week to campaign (and to overcome the seemingly planned funeral slander).

[bryant69]

7. What do you do with this information

The way your posts are shown up, if you don't buy into this, you say either the definate "No, it was JUST an accident" or "Get over it, he's dead."

How about one that says, "There's no way to know for me to know for sure, but my guess is no, it was an accident."

Also what do you propose be done about this? Do you want to open congressional investigations? Federal Investigations (which presumably have already happened)? What?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[seventhson]

9. I have added a new question

That addresses your thoughts.

It is a valid point.

Part of the reason for posting this is to get the pulse of this board.

I want to know where I stand and where this community stands.

It is an open ended question.

Recent polls here show some 10% of anonymous posters support Bush or do NOT support the Dems.

I expect polls like this to reflect that bias in favor of Bush of that 10-15 %

I DO support an independent investigation of the EMPD question. I do not expect that to happen in this Congress or presidency.

But by continuing to raise the iusse and to feel the pulse of the people on this issue I hope to do three things:

1. Raise the consciousness of folks that the death of Wellstone may very well have been a politically motivated murder.

2. That the murder may well have been carried out using such technology as exists and is in the possession of the BFEE and

3. That our candidates continue to be at risks from the possible perpetrators of the Wellstone crash; i.e. anyone who poses a serious threat to the BFEE (including Dean, Clark and Kerry and even any o the others) MUST be aware of this possibility.


Finally, I raise these three issues in order to try to PREVENT it from happening AGAIN. I would love to see the perps in prison. I would love to see a TRUTH and RECONCILIATION COMMISSION in our country to explore all of these political crimes and crimes against humanity by the Bushes, Rockefellers, Kissinger et al. I would love to see an international investigation at the UN.

But mostly I want the PEOPLE to be aware of these possibilities so that the BFEE will be LESS likley to try it again.

Fool me once, shame on us and we won't be fooled again

[bryant69]

16. Yeah, but

Isn't it entirely possible to oppose President Bush for his failures in foreign policy, security and the economy, while not buying the idea that he had Wellstone "rubbed out?"

[seventhson]

26. Absolutely

But I believe that to ignore or resist the possibility that the BFEE would use any means necessary to maintain power, including assassination of our Democratic leaders, is dangerous and ignorant based on their history.

[Yupster]

35. It's also possible

That Bush had the means and motive to murder Wellstone, and yet he didn't do it. In fact Bush had the means and motive to kill any of the many people in America that were murdered yesterday, yet he probably didn't have anything to do with any of them.

[seventhson]

10. 35% Think it was BFEE Murder, 35% Suspicious, 30% say Accident/get over it

I think this is an excellent gauge of the political philopophies and level of intelligence and political insight at DU.

Thank you for your responses!

But PLEASE tell us WHY you voted as you did!

[Indiana Democrat]

12. What's EMPD stand for?

?

[seventhson]

29. Electromagnetic pulse device (or weapon)

They have been in development to stop planes, tanks and other vehicles for many years by the military.

Tons of info online.

They send a pulse which knocks out or short circuits the electrical system temporarily or, if powerful enough, permanently (like blowing a fuse).

It is the equivalent of a means to short circuit the power, the radio, the gauges and meters, the alarm telling them they were going to slow etc., and to cause the plane to stall out and veer out of control.

The power can go out just long enough to send the plane into a dive from which it cannot pull out and then it comes back on leaving no trace. Like stabbing someone in the brain with an icycle -- but there is not even any water left and no traces if an EMP device (weapon) is used (except - according to some here at DU - there might be microscopic traces in the circuitry - but since most of the circuitry burned up it may be impossible to trace).

The fact is that it is all of the circumstances of the crash which lead me to believe that this is the likeliest scenario.

[Indiana Democrat]

31. Thanks for the reply.

But...

Now that I know what it means, I honestly can't believe that this subject is given so much credence in the poll options.

Wow!

WOW!!!!!

[TrogL]

52. At the moment

...slightly more people feel it was an accident than BFEE.

That's faintly encouraging.

[Minstrel Boy]

54. Presumably you're including

those who chose "I don't know how he died, but it's suspicious" as though that's the same response as "accident"? That's just wrong.

Those who find the death at least suspicious total 70%. And that I find encouraging.

[TrogL]

81. probably

actually, I think I misred it - my bad

Hence, I find it discouraging. LIHOP, RRR, VRWC, BBV and even MIHOP make a certain amount of sense. People should not be falling for the more outrageous :tinfoilhat: stuff.

[librechik]

62. lots of local police departments are trying to buy these devices

to stop high speed police chases. It's pretty controversial for civil rights reasons (I don't really get why) but these are actual, extant and even commercial.

[Minstrel Boy]

65. this isn't a flight of fantasy

It is, of course, speculative to raise EMP with respect to the Wellstone crash, but it's not the stuff of science fiction.

...

The Dawn of the E-Bomb

For the wired world, the allure and the danger of high-power microwave weapons are both very real

By Michael Abrams

In these media-fueled times, when war is a television spectacle and wiping out large numbers of civilians is generally frowned upon, the perfect weapon would literally stop an enemy in his tracks, yet harm neither hide nor hair. Such a weapon might shut down telecommunications networks, disrupt power supplies, and fry an adversary's countless computers and electronic gadgets, yet still leave buildings, bridges, and highways intact. It would strike with precision, in an instant, and leave behind no trace of where it came from.

In fact, it almost certainly is already here, in the form of high-power microwave (HPM) weapons. As their name suggests, HPMs generate an intense "blast" of electromagnetic waves in the microwave frequency band (hundreds of megahertz to tens of gigahertz) that is strong enough to overload electrical circuitry. Most types of matter are transparent to microwaves, but metallic conductors, like those found in metal-oxide semiconductor (MOS), metal-semiconductor, and bipolar devices, strongly absorb them, which in turn heats the material.


An HPM weapon can induce currents large enough to melt circuitry. But even less intense bursts can temporarily disrupt electrical equipment or permanently damage ICs, causing them to fail minutes, days, or even weeks later. People caught in the burst of a microwave weapon would, by contrast, be untouched and might not even know they'd been hit. (There is, however, an effort to build a microwave weapon for controlling crowds; a person subjected to it definitely feels pain and is forced to retreat.)

...

The fact that we seldom hear about HPM weapons only adds to their exoticism. Last spring, stories leaked to the press suggested that the Pentagon, after decades of research, had finally deployed such a device in Iraq. And when news footage showed a U.S. bomb destroying an Iraqi TV station, many informed onlookers suspected it was an electromagnetic "e-bomb."

More:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/nov03/1103ebom.html

[Minstrel Boy]

13. some cause for suspicion:

The FBI recovery team arrived on the scene within an hour of the crash, not long after the crash site had been determined. Yet the team was from the Minneapolis office, far too distant to account for the time. The team had the scene to itself for eight hours. The same team had been accused of stealing items from the World Trade Center site.

The arrival and departure logs for the airport Wellstone was flying into - and presumably, the FBI team - have been classified for the day of the crash and the two preceding.

The plane's passenger compartment burned intensely for hours with an unusual light blue smoke (fuel fires should be dark black), though the fuselage had separated from the wings, which carried the fuel tanks.

Wellstone had been the subject of an assasination attempt while on a recent trip to Colombia, involving the bombing of his aircraft.

If you can pick your way through it, there's a lot of information to be had here, with cites for the above:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=561809&mesg_id=561809

[Indiana Democrat]

14. Just curious...

Is there a conspiracy you don't believe? One that's just too far, too unbelievable?

[Minstrel Boy]

18. Just curious myself...

Is there a conspiracy you do believe?

To answer your question: I'm not a credulous fool.

[Indiana Democrat]

20. I can't think of one I believe.

I am a firm believer in one simple thing...

As many as three people can keep a secret...

As long as two of them are dead.


So...What famous ones don't you believe?

[tom_paine]

60. One example of a secret kept:

(This information was sealed until the Year 2000 by Roosevelt. Anybody ever hear of it?)

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1373/n11_v45/17471772/p1/article.jhtml

[Lars39]

17. Suspicious, too,

was the subsequent *emergency* landing Trent Lott and others experienced, as if to say, "see, a bad airplane thing can happen to Republicans, too." They made such a big deal out of it, it's really hard not to be suspicious.

[stickdog]

133. More cause for suspicion.

The original reports of Wellstone's crash all stressed horrible weather and icing conditions.

For example: http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/4368592.htm

Wellstone and his party were en route to the funeral of the father of a state lawmaker when his twin-engine King Air A100 turboprop went down in freezing rain and light snow near the Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport, about 175 miles from St. Paul. The last contact with the plane was at 10:20 a.m.

And: http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/ap/dec02/ap-wellstone-crash121702.asp?format=print

WASHINGTON - Federal investigators believe icing may be a cause of the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone and seven others after determining the engines and propellers were working properly.

Paul Czysz, professor emeritus of aerospace engineering at St. Louis University, said it only takes an eighth of an inch of ice on the wing's leading edge to disrupt the flow of air. That can cause the wing to lose its lift and the plane to suddenly change course.

Investigators say Wellstone's plane made an abrupt right turn as it approached the runway. The weather conditions made it difficult for the pilot to recover, Czysz said.


Kinda strange considering that there wasn't any measurable precipitation that day, nor any evidence of icing at the plane's pre-approach altitude. Wouldn't you agree?

[TrogL]

163. Strange, the NTSB report I read said plenty about icing

I take it you don't understand the words "believe" and "may be"?

Look at the date of the article. This is the first "kick at the cat" before all the data is in.

[stickdog]

166. It was always obvious that the "magic icing" explanation was a load.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf

Aircraft Accident Report
Adopted November 18, 2003

Loss of Control and Impact With Terrain
Aviation Charter, Inc.
Raytheon (Beechcraft) King Air A100, N41BE
Eveleth, Minnesota
October 25, 2002

Analysis
2.4 Weather Issues

2.4.2 Airframe Icing, pg. 48

"On the basis of all of this evidence, the airplane was most likely not in the cloud layer in which moderate icing was present for enough time to accumulate any significant airframe icing. Further, any icing that the airplane might have accumulated would have
been shed by the deicing equipment, or it would have begun shedding off the airplane's surfaces as it was descending through 5,000 feet because of the warming temperatures. In addition, the airplane's performance was not consistent with the effects of icing, and
flight simulations showed that the performance could be matched with and without simulated icing with enough reserve engine power available to increase the airspeed during the descent. Therefore, the Safety Board concludes that icing did not affect the
airplane's performance during the descent.

...

3. Conclusions
3.1 Findings

1. The flight crewmembers were properly certificated and had received the training for pilot certification prescribed by Federal regulations. No evidence indicated any preexisting medical or other physical condition that might have adversely affected the flight crew's performance during the accident flight. Fatigue most likely did not degrade the performance of either pilot on the day of the accident.

2. The accident airplane was properly certificated, equipped, and maintained in accordance with Federal regulations and approved company procedures. The recovered components showed no evidence of preexisting powerplant, system, or structural failures.

3. The weight and balance of the airplane were within limits for dispatch, takeoff, climb, cruise, and landing.

4. The flight crew failed to maintain an appropriate course and speed for the approach and did not properly configure the airplane at the start of the approach, making the later stages of the approach more difficult.

5. During the later stages of the approach, the flight crew failed to monitor the airplane's airspeed and allowed it to decrease to a dangerously low level (as low as about 50 knots below the company's recommended approach airspeed) and to remain below the recommended approach airspeed for about 50 seconds.

6. The flight crew failed to recognize that a stall was imminent and allowed the airplane to enter a stall from which they did not recover.

7. The inadequate airspeed or the full course deviation indicator needle deflection should have prompted the flight crew to execute a go-around; however, they failed to do so.

8. The flight crew was not adhering to Aviation Charter's approach procedures and was not effectively applying crew resource management techniques during the approach segment of the flight.

9. Clouds might have prevented the flight crew from seeing the airport.

10. Icing did not affect the airplane's performance during the descent.

[TrogL]

196. Two different issues

It didn't affect the flight performance.

I'm wondering if it affected the stall warning device.

[TrogL]

205. I'm perfectly willing to drop icing, again

because the primary problem was cockpit management due to improper training and oversight.

Which reminds me, you still haven't told me where they got the two gigawatts of power needed for your untested, undocumented, non-specified, ink-still-wet-on-the-blueprints death ray. The one that didn't fry every electronic component in every TV set, computer, radio or child's toy for miles around.

[Minstrel Boy]

197. Doppler radar at the time of the crash,

for what it's worth:

[stickdog]

136. Even more cause for suspicion.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:wWusdqc1NGgJ:www.readerweekly.org/Read/ReaderWeekly/Jim_Fetzer/0313Wellstone.htm

When I first learned that the FBI could only have been on the scene of the crash by noon (as St. Louis Country Sheriff Rick Wahlberg reported) if it had departed from St. Paul at approximately the same time that Paul Wellstone’s plane departed, that Carmody was reversing the roles of the NTSB and the FBI, and that John Ongaro had experienced an unusual cell-phone phenomenon that appeared to be a manifestation of the use of an EMP weapon, I made efforts to contact the Congressman (Oberstar). I called his Duluth and Washington offices on 15 January 2003, after I learned that he would be in Duluth on the following day. I explained the reasons I wanted to confer with him, but his staff would not allow us to meet.

After having been stonewalled by Oberstar, I have not been surprised to have run into other dead ends in my investigations. I have traveled to the Eveleth Sheriff’s Office to review the official logs of persons coming into and departing from the crash scene, only to discover they are grossly incomplete. The records I was given as the “original” logs were on assorted legal pads. The “computer log” created from them not only included no entries prior to 3 PM (apart from setting up “North Command” at 12:20 PM) but excluded a whole sheet of names of FBI agents. If there were as many as 100 agents on the scene, as another source has told me, there is nothing in the logs to substantiate it nor the presence of anyone else on the scene before 3 PM.

That in itself is disturbing, but the situation is even worse. In my research on the time of arrival of the FBI, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the FAA on 8 January 2003 for information about private and charter flights into the Duluth International Airport on the morning of 25 October 2002. I heard back by a letter dated 30 January 2003 that my request was being forwarded to the same office sending the letter. By a letter dated 10 February 2003, I heard from the same office that I should not expect a response until around 1 August 2003 and that there would be a charge of .10 per page. By a letter dated 28 February 2003, however, I was informed that “the requested data has been purged”. Why am I not surprised?

Most telling of all, in an obscure article that appeared on page A8 of the Star Tribune (“Safety Board to Report on Wellstone Crash”, 20 February 2003), Tony Kennedy and Greg Gordon stated that a new report (which we have been discussing) will cover the areas of operations and human performance and that future reports (one of which we have also discussed) will consider airworthiness and airplane maintenance. In closing paragraphs, they also observe, “In some of its crash investigations, the NTSB conducts an investigative public hearing when it first releases factual reports from its working groups. That won’t be the case Friday. ‘The board felt that was not needed to move the investigation forward’”, according to NTSB spokesman Paul Schoamm. No doubt! When you already know your conclusion, you don’t have to worry about the evidence. Why am I not surprised?

[stickdog]

137. cause for suspicion #93

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=17316&forum=DCForumID61#10

[stickdog]

138. cause for suspicion #94

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5471&forum=DCForumID43

[Lostnote03]

173. Fuselage continued burning?

...after wings had seperated...maybe there was some left over debris from the WTC that managed its way into the fuselage...that Office Max stuff is deadly...I put nothing past the followers of the RW cabal to enable the corporate takeover of our Republic...

[Ficus]

15. psychic mind games?

tampered with by right wingers, possibly the CIA, either directly or through electromagnetic rays or some psychic mind games.

Psychic mind games? Huh? Since when does the RW have this sort of technology? And why are we all mind controlled into being right wingers then?

[seventhson]

21. This bothered me too.

But I left it in because he said it.

Psychi mind games may include "tricks" of perception (such as tricking the pilots by false readings on the dials/meters etc).

Maybe he should have said psychological mind games.

I really don't know what he meant by that -- it was just his first thought. Are there "psychic weapons"? I don't know, but I know there are those who believe the military has them (subliminal seduction,brainwashing, hypnosis) and uses them.

Bottom line is that his conclusion is that EMP was the likely cause NOT psychic mind games, so this statement is irrelevent.

[seventhson]

24. For the curious on Psychic warfare

I did a quick google search and found several sources of info.

If you are curious follow them up. I am not endorsing this Manchurian candidate type of warfare as what happened -- I am just saying that there are some who believe in it and there are lots of books and articles on the subject.

Here are some:

http://www.ehe.org/display/ehe-bookreviews.cfm?formtype=cat1&revid=1033

[hayu_lol]

22. Seventhson: Why do you continue to waste our time with...

your repeated efforts to disrupt and contaminate the DU boards? You have yet to understand the simple physics of flight characteristics...and I would imagine your understanding of how machines and electronics operate.
This is your forte.
Why dont you just go away and leave intelligent and reasoning people alone.

[Minstrel Boy]

23. and why don't you hide the thread?

There are yet a good many here who find this a valid subject.

[hayu_lol]

25. He has yet to come up with any valid subject--see the archives. nt

[seventhson]

33. Personal attacks are uncalled for

especially when a LOT of Duers feel the same way I do about this appalling tragedy.

The most effective political assassination is one which looks like an accident and we all know this.

I have done a LOT of posts on hundreds of "valid subjects"

But, based on the fact that some 10% of Duers admit to favoring Bush or opposing Dems in the 2004 election, I fully expect that some folks here will say anything to try to discredit me.

I am tough.

And this story will not die. I expect more and worse crimes to come to try to destabilize our democracy from within in the next year.

As a pacifist I oppose all violence. But those who oppose peace and democracy WILL do anything.

[Minstrel Boy]

34. "I expect more and worse crimes

to come to try to destabilize our democracy from within in the next year."

And sorry to say, so do I. I dread what 2004 holds.

Whatever happens, you can be sure the usual suspects will want to stifle dissent from the official narative.

[librechik]

48. thanks for the poll thread SS--I'm afraid I posted a dupe (sorta)

about the Thoreau article--fascinating stuff (no poll though)

the two threads make an interesting combo

[Indiana Democrat]

27. Whoops...

...misunderstaning on my part. Post deleted by me. :)

[YNGW]

36. Warning

Be aware that COINTELPRO agents have used covert methods in the past to discredit people or groups they regard as dangerous. There are those who have every reason to believe COINTELPRO agents acting as agent provecurs are attempting to use these methods here, knowing that their postings will be viewed by the general public as "crack-pot conspiracy theories", and these things will be used in order to discredit the Democratic Party. Please be aware they have used these methods in the past with great success. Also, be aware that they will attack and attempt to discredit any and all who they fear are exposing these methods.

(It has been brought to my attention by the powers that be that the mere mention of the name “COINTELPRO” and any references having to do with the methods of its agents causes individuals to hit the “Alert” button. Apparently, there are some here who wish this subject would go away. I wonder why?)

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

37. No. This is stupid.

Prove it. This dipshit speculation is getting to be a bore.

[gulliver]

39. No. That's ridiculous. But...

... it could easily be argued that if Coleman had not gotten so much money from GOP owners, Wellstone would not have had to fly as much. The people who own the GOP put a lot of unfair stress on Dems. Dems not only have to tell the truth. They have to do it against all of the lies money can buy.

Same thing happened to Carnahan.

[Piperay]

40. Murdered

by the bushies.

[aeon flux]

41. I'll never forget what Babs said on live television

"You can criticize me, but don't criticize my children and don't criticize my daughters-in-law and don't criticize my husband, or you're dead."

- Barbara Bush (live interview on Larry King).

Is there any freaking doubt?

[cryofan]

43. Sounds crazy. Anyway, why not blame the Dem party structure, too?

I seriously doubt anyone murdered him. He was not that powerful. What is the motive?
Why not blame some insider from the Democratic party, too.
They are just as corrupt, AFAIK.

[TrogL]

44. I cannot BELIEVE this has come up again (extended rant)

(cut and paste went sour)

We've been over and over and over this.

The linked article quotes the same tired, old, disproven nonsense and even adds a new twist "psychic mind games".

However, it's been awhile and I've got nothing in particular to do this evening so I will go over it hopefully for the last time.

First, an exercise for the reader. Go to the NTSB website (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp) and start reading accident reports. Better yet, download the entire database and start searching (required Microsoft Access). Over and over and over you will see "pilot error", "inattention", "poor cockpit management" and other phrases indicating a loss of concentration resulting in a loss of the aircraft. It does not matter what kind of aircraft is involved. Lose your focus - lose the aircraft.

I'll go through the article in the order it's written, then address individual points.

"If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you" ... a few weeks later ...Wellstone, his wife, Sheila, his daughter, Marcia Markuson, three campaign staffers, and two pilots died in a plane crash.

In other words, because Wellstone predicted trouble, there was trouble. Whether or not Wellstone predicted trouble is irrelevant and a reverse of causality.

My first hunch upon hearing about the tragedy was that the Beech King Air A-100 was tampered with by right wingers, possibly the CIA, either directly or through electromagnetic rays or some psychic mind games...And nothing I have heard or read since then has made me drift from that hunch.

This is classic conspiracy-monger thinking. Reach your conclusion, then look at (or ignore) the facts of the issue.

The last time I heard about electromagnetic waves and psychic mind games affecting real-world events, it was in a massive, incomprehensible paranoid rant stuffed in my mailbox by a guy who thought the RCMP was controlling his mind with gammar rays beamed from spaceships orbitting Venus.

FBI "recovery team" headed out to investigate the Wellstone plane crash BEFORE the plane went down

This is undocumented.

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/news/opinion/7306797.htm

"I have reviewed the log books maintained by the Sheriff's Department at Eveleth and have discovered that they are grossly incomplete and cannot confirm when the FBI showed up."

How very typical that this quote didn't make it into the article. When facts disagree with your conclusion, ignore them.

"The team of 'recovery' agents had not come from Duluth but had traveled from the FBI office in Minneapolis."

We have no indication why the team from Minneapolis was on the road. My understanding is that teams are on the road a lot and rarely hang out at the office. My understanding is that they carry cell phones and radios so they can be quickly dispatched. This, also, cannot be confirmed without records.

[the] plane was "exceptional, the pilots well-qualified, and the weather posed no significant problems

The condition of the plane was never in question. The pilots' incompetence is well documented (and has been discussed at great length in previous threads). The weather was marginal - YOU try landing a plane coming out a fog bank with no ILS.

An abrupt cessation of communication between the plane and the tower

There was no "cessation of communication". The pilots had announced their approach to an uncontrolled runway. There was nothing more to say. If the plane got in trouble the last thing a busy pilot is going to do is start babbling on the radio.

"these clowns are nobody to screw around with"

Bad people magically cause planes to crash. Nonsense.

The pilots flew too high and too fast when they began a left turn toward the runway, then let it slow to dangerous levels, the NTSB said

There we go. A perfectly logical explanation for the crash. They were above the glide slope, stalled the plane out (possibly to try and get back on course) and lost control. You cannot control a stalled airplane until you get it out of the stall. There is insufficient wind over the control surfaces. That's the whole problem with going too slow.

"One of them should have been monitoring the instruments,"

Yep, it happens over and over. Go back and read the NTSB crash reports, especially the one about an airliner crashing in a swamp because everybody was busy fixing a broken light bulb instead of watching the instruments or the ground.

The pilots in the Wellstone flight were dealing with an off-course aircraft in poor conditions looking for a runway they couldn't see yet. They had a history of poor cockpit management.

NTSB said that Conry made mistakes on previous flights that were covered by his co-pilots

WAIT A MINUTE!!!! I thought these were "well-qualified pilots"!

"It is hard to believe that two experienced pilots would fail to monitor airspeed"

Go read the NTSB crash reports. It's there - over and over and over.

the same time an odd cell phone phenomenon occurred with a driver in the immediate vicinity

Now check this out... http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/news/opinion/7306797.htm

"When I answered it, what I heard sounded like a cross between a roar and a loud humming noise. The noise seemed to be oscillating, and I could not make out any words being spoken. Instead, just this loud, grotesque, sometimes screeching and humming noise."

That's called "cross-channel" - a well-known phenomenon using analog cell phones (which were common at the time). Two repeaters picked that exact time to try and broadcast two different telephone calls on the same frequency.

What he heard may very well have been electronic interference from an EMP or microwave weapon.

Microwaves are not detectable by cell phones - they're on a different frequency.

Now let's talk about EMP's.

Theoretically, a person a few miles from the runway could bombard the aircraft with an intense electromagnetic pulse, which could cause an electrical failure, instantly knock out radio communication, disrupt normal engine ignition, and cause loss of steering control. The steering control surfaces on these airplanes are controlled by individual electrical actuators that are mechanically linked to the rudder, ailerons, and flaps.

First off, a King Air doesn't have individual electrical actuators mechanically linked to the rudder and ailerons. They are mechanically connected to the controls. This is not a fly-by-wire aircraft. The auto-pilot would be shut off by now, they were on approach. The aircraft has turbine engines with manual controls. The radios were no longer needed - they could see the ground and had finished using them.

To severely affect the aircraft with a magnetic pulse, it would have to be powerful enough to fry big cables - millions of watts. A magnetic pulse weapon is not a focused weapon - it's designed to knock out EVERYTHING for miles around. Even if you did manage to focus it somehow, the backscatter would affect stuff for miles around. If it was bad enough to affect a sophisticated piece of equipment like a cell phone, it would have played absolutely havoc with older technology AM and VHF radios in cars, aircraft and homes, and scrambled every TV set for miles around.

Nobody noticed a thing.

As Wellstone's plane approaches the airport, the VOR/ILS jamming equipment is activated, and a 'decoy' VOR signal is sent to the plane, thus tricking the plane's instruments into believing the airport is somewhere several degrees off the true course to the runway," S.H. wrote. "The pilot follows that signal straight into the ground"

There's only one problem. This wasn't an ILS approach. It's not an ILS airport. They were well beyond the point where they needed instruments. They were on approach, looking for the runway lights. When the found them they discovered they were too high, so they slowed the aircraft down to a stall and never recovered.

This a reasonable explanation that takes all the known facts into account. It does not require magic rays, weird and wonderful technology, violations of laws of physics or psychic events.

[aeon flux]

45. if you're so smart

Can you explain why Barbara Bush made such a crude remark on live national television about killing people who criticize anyone in her family?

It's hard to imagine someone in her position, the mother of the current POTUS, would even dare say or 'joke' about such a thing unless she didn't mean it.

I am not easily shocked, but I've never been more shocked in my life that a former first lady could be so very UN-lady like. She sounds more like a low-level mafisoso street thug than a former first lady.

[TrogL]

49. Barbara Bush is an idiot

flapping her mouth in the breeze. I think she's fairly delusional about the amount of power she actually wields.

She, however, cannot crash airplanes by sheer willpower. (I'm not suggesting that's what you said)

[aquart]

74. Barbara has always had a trash mouth.

We in NY recall that she called the first major party woman candidate for Vice President a "bitch" before an open mike. A family failing, it seems.

Quite an ugly little mind on Barbara.

[Indiana Democrat]

61. Thanks for the info.

It all seems pretty clear to me...It was a horrible accident.

I'm absolutely amazed at the results of this poll...I really am. If we can't come to terms with the simple fact that we lost a wonderful man in a horrible accident, how can we expect to convince level-headed Americans to vote for us? I can't imagine how out of touch a person has to be in order to believe this conspiracy stuff. And those who are out of touch, don't win.

The results of this poll are very discouraging.

[rumguy]

85. Thanks Trog for injecting some much needed rationality into

this thread....

[Loren645]

46. Sadly, yes. Without a doubt.

As blatant as can be.

The BFEE are some mean MFs.

[nolabels]

55. Just think of all them billions they spent on all them smart bombs

To supposedly make a surgical strike to get Saddam and then he pops up like a leprechaun. Too many important people have died in plane crashes, drug overdoses and baxterizatons to let me think something wasn't coming down the pike. Unless is the whole world is one big co-winky-dinky, surly something must have been up.

[AlFrankenFan]

56. Very suspicious

*gets shifty eyes*

[Character Assassin]

63. No. But his ghost is constantly tortured by stupid people.

He wrote that "we have to consider other, less palatable, alternatives, such as small bombs, gas canisters or electromagnetic pulse, radio frequency or High Energy Radio Frequency weapons designed to overwhelm electrical circuitry with an intense electromagnetic field.

No, 'we' don't have to consider anything like that. That's for the mouth-breathing intellectual neanderthals who need to stop listening to the space-monkey transmissions beamed directly into their cottony heads.

[stickdog]

128. Exactly. Murder is a bunch of hooey. People who believe people actually

get murdered are mouth-breathing intellectual neanderthals who need to stop listening to the space-monkey transmissions beamed directly into their cottony heads!

[PVnRT]

179. No!

You see, people have been assassinated before, therefore any politician that you like who dies MUST HAVE BEEN ASSASSINATED! NO PROOF IS REQUIRED!!!

Isn't absurd logic fun? Can we keep playing?

[Character Assassin]

181. Bingo

Exactly right.

[stickdog]

187. Bingo, what?

Here is your argument: "Foul play requires conclusive proof. On the other hand, accidents don't even require a fathomable explanation."

Your line of thinking completely and utterly illogical in that it presupposes what it seeks to prove.

The truth of the matter is that we are evaluating two speculative hypotheses without a shred of hard evidence for either. Hence, we must compare the reasonableness of these competing speculative theories in an evenhanded manner.

On the murder side, we have obvious means, motive and opportunity.

On the accident side, we have two pilots flying the plane over the final 90 seconds of flight so incompetently as to be utterly indistinguishable from zero pilots.

[Character Assassin]

200. That's too full of gaping holes to be taken seriously

Here is your argument: "Foul play requires conclusive proof. On the other hand, accidents don't even require a fathomable explanation."

Get real. Yes, half of that is my argument, but I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth and attempt to attribute positions to me that I do not hold, especially stupid ones like "accidents don't even require a fathomable explanation".

Your line of thinking completely and utterly illogical in that it presupposes what it seeks to prove.

Bullshit. You are basing that on opinions and positions that I do not subscribe to.

Foul play and accidents happen to be my line of work; I'm intimately familiar with what is involved in differentiating between them, thanks.

The truth of the matter is that we are evaluating two speculative hypotheses without a shred of hard evidence for either. Hence, we must compare the reasonableness of these competing speculative theories in an evenhanded manner.

No effing kidding, but you're leaving something else out: what is the justification for even considering murder a reasonable hypothesis?

On the murder side, we have obvious means, motive and opportunity.

If you're referring to Bush & Co., my response is bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I look at the claims people make to justify their fantasies that these three exist, and they're made transparently hollow by the tortuous machinations that must exist for such a scenario to be remotely imaginable.

If you are not referring to them, please clarify.

On the accident side, we have two pilots flying the plane over the final 90 seconds of flight so incompetently as to be utterly indistinguishable from zero pilots.

This is correct, and I have never posited otherwise.

[stickdog]

206. Means, motive & opportunity

An important, influencial and powerful man with many enemies dies. For the death to be accidental, two pilots had to somehow manage to forget to engage autopilot in overcast instrument conditions, ignore the CDI needle indicating they were flying way well off course for a full two and a half minutes, slow more than 60 mph below the recommended approach speed, ignore the stall warning horn, and never even attempt a stall recovery or a go round. Under these circumstances, how in the world can you completely exclude foul play from the realm of reasonable hypotheses?

Opportunity - Wellstone's friend dies and schedules a funeral near the Eveleth Airport.

Means - Draw the plane off course using a decoy VOR, bring it down with any of a variety of weapons (even a big gun, if you want to be low tech), then make sure the crash site is well saturated with aviation fuel and burning.

Motive - You must be kidding. It takes "tortuous machinations" to conclude that Wellstone had powerful enemies? How many billions was Wellstone costing the credit card and banking industries by blocking bankruptcy "reform"? How many billions was Wellstone costing construction material industries by blocking asbestos legislation? Do you really think he'd be letting Halliburton, Carlyle and Betchel profiteer in Iraq without constantly raising a huge stink about it?

[Character Assassin]

207. OK, let's look at this.....

An important, influencial and powerful man with many enemies dies.

His influence, importance and enemies are open to interpretation.

For the death to be accidental, two pilots had to somehow manage to forget to engage autopilot in overcast instrument conditions, ignore the CDI needle indicating they were flying way well off course for a full two and a half minutes, slow more than 60 mph below the recommended approach speed, ignore the stall warning horn, and never even attempt a stall recovery or a go round. Under these circumstances, how in the world can you completely exclude foul play from the realm of reasonable hypotheses?

It is a hypothesis, to be sure, but one absent of all evidence with nothing more that what I consider to be base speculation. Absent any proof, the behavior of the pilots was indeed remarkable, but not necessarily influenced by nefarious influences.

Opportunity - Wellstone's friend dies and schedules a funeral near the Eveleth Airport.

That is, to say the least, a rather opportunistic opportunity. No one knew his friend was going to die; it was a random event. I would need to see a lot more than that to seriously consider it as opporunity.

Means - Draw the plane off course using a decoy VOR, bring it down with any of a variety of weapons (even a big gun, if you want to be low tech), then make sure the crash site is well saturated with aviation fuel and burning.

In order to establish reasonable means, I need to have suspects more subtantial than simply 'many enemies', and I don't see any.

Motive - You must be kidding. It takes "tortuous machinations" to conclude that Wellstone had powerful enemies? How many billions was Wellstone costing the credit card and banking industries by blocking bankruptcy "reform"?

How many other times has the credit card industry been implicated in the murder of 'powerful' political figures, and how many billions, precisely, was he and he alone costing it?

How many billions was Wellstone costing construction material industries by blocking asbestos legislation? Do you really think he'd be letting Halliburton, Carlyle and Betchel profiteer in Iraq without constantly raising a huge stink about it?

I find that to be marginally important, at best. Other prominent figures have raised and continue to raise objections to our actions in Iraq and they have not been killed.

[Minstrel Boy]

208. "Other prominent figures have raised

and continue to raise objections to our actions in Iraq and they have not been killed."

And there was only one Senator standing for election who voted against the Iraq War Resolution.

Do you know what it means to "send a message"? Never mind that control of the Senate hinged on a single seat. And forget about his death coming one day before his name would have been permitted to stand.

Mike Ruppert - but alas, I'm sure you're already tuning out - received "comments on the crash from two Democratic members of the House of Representatives. Both, who spoke on condition of anonymity, stated that they believed that Wellstone had been murdered.

"One said, 'I don't think there's anyone on the Hill who doesn't suspect it. It's too convenient, too coincidental, too damned obvious. My guess is that some of the less courageous members of the party are thinking about becoming Republicans right now.'"

Say, have you noticed a number of Democrats turning Republican lately, or am I just imagining things?

"The day after the crash I received a message from a former CIA operative who has proven extremely reliable in the past and who is personally familiar with these kinds of assassinations. The message read, 'As I said earlier, having played ball (and still playing in some respects) with this current crop of reinvigorated old white men, these clowns are nobody to screw around with. There will be a few more strategic accidents. You can be certain of that.'"
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110102_wellstone.html

And you can ask the likes of the late John Kokal all about subsequent "strategic accidents." Wayne Madsen can refresh your memory: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112003_kokal.html

[littlejoe]

64. Whatever you're smoking, I want some of it.

[Lostnote03]

66. Motive, Motive, Motive.......

......as I understand it Sen.Kennedy after campaigning for Wellstone the prior week was in all likelihood scheduled to be on that flight as well....the fact that a video camera did not actually capture the images of a criminal act does not stand as proof that a crime did not occur.....Wellstones crusade to abolish HS funding for companies that utilize offshore addresses definitely was placing pressure on the war profiteers plans.....as we now know many of the prized contracts were awarded w/o competitive bidding during the pre-sale period prior to the pre-emptive invasion.....nothing was going to stand in the way of Bushs wet dream....the FAA/FBIs' behavior regarding the 911 investigation does not instill the confidence needed to propel me to leap across the schism of doubt that suspends belief in a littany of happenstance attached to the actions of the Bush administration....

[plaguepuppy]

68. "we lost a wonderful man in a horrible accident"

How many times does that have to happen before you start to see a pattern? And oddly enough the exact same group of people happen to be the beneficiaries every time. Can you say Al-CIA-Duh boys and girls?

So when are we going to stop accepting the "just get over it" routine?

[evil_orange_cat]

67. I'm appaulled at the results...

you know, liberals pride themselves as being open minded and pragmatic, but the devotion to conspiracy theories in the Wellstone crash is disturbing. Not even Al Franken, Wellstone friend, has made any noise about this.

[plaguepuppy]

69. I'm appaulled

Sure it's not just a hairball?

Sorry kitty but it's not "devotion to conspiracy theories" that makes people pursue these questions. It's because we see major inconsistencies in the public record that point to certain acts being deliberate, and refuse to airbrush over these stubborn facts.

http://www.theassassinatedpress.com/fetzer.htm


The official "conspiracy theory" (i.e. Bin Laden and his band of evil doers
conspired to do it by themselves and without US intelligence agencies finding
out about it) is the one conspiracy theory that deserves to be laughed right out
of court. - Brian Clarke


"If the truth is that ugly -- which it is -- then we do have to be careful about the way that we tell the truth. But to somehow say that telling the truth should be
avoided because people may respond badly to the truth seems bizarre to me."
--Chuck Skoro, Deacon, St. Paul's Catholic Church

[evil_orange_cat]

71. what inconsistencies are there in the Wellstone incident?

the plane crashed... what proof is there that it was brought down... was it shot down? Was there a bomb on board??

what??? give me something... sure, it's healthy to question things when everything doesn't add up. But to conclude this was some GRAND CONSPIRACY is just silly... especially when there is little or no evidence.

Even the Kennedy Assassination had evidence. But Wellstone is hardly as significant as Kennedy. I doubt some sort of right-wing group would risk detection and incarceration just for Paul Wellstone.

[plaguepuppy]

72. Did you read the link I just posted?

You don't see anything at all odd in the evidence he presents? The FBI investigation team leaves the Twin Cities, headed directly to the crash site, at about the time Wellstone's plane took off, and you see nothing disturbing about that?

"some sort of right-wing group would risk detection and incarceration just for Paul Wellstone"

Your problem is assuming that these guys would actually consider themselves at risk for "detection and incarceration." They play hardball from hell and are very used to getting away with criminal acts. Failure is not an option, and they will sacrifice anyone and anything in their way. Seen your constitution lately?

[TrogL]

82. I debunked all this up above

This stuff was trotted out months ago. It was idiocy then and it's idiocy now.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[evil_orange_cat]

73. the problem with elaborate conspiracies is...

the more people that know about it, the more likely someone is going to talk and expose it. I doubt Bush could have gotten enough people at the NTSB and FBI to go along with his "plans". Plus, I think Bush and Rove are too arrogant to have considered Wellstone a threat. BTW, what is one senator going to do to disrupt their "plans"? eh?

I can believe the Kennedy assassination... based on the ballistics evidence, and the sheer reality that there were tons of people with motives and opprotunities... as well as the gravity of the situation at a time in the Cold War when things were very precarious.

But Paul Wellstone? bah... sure, it's possible he was killed... but in all likelihood, I doubt it.

[stickdog]

130. Yeah. Conspiracies never happen. See, that's why they're illegal. (nt)

[Minstrel Boy]

70. Not even Robert Kennedy

made noise about his brother's death. Not in public.

But intimates revealed after his death his private conviction of the CIA's complicity, and his believe that only the power of the presidency could bring justice.

[Indiana Democrat]

91. Frankin was in on it.

That's the obvious conclusion.

[rumguy]

86. the results here disturb me...

LIHOP is way more believable than this...way more...

[stickdog]

132. No. Murdering 8 people cleanly is far more believable than 3,000 messily.

But there's far more evidence for LIHOP.

Of course, given the comparative scope of the two putative crimes, that would be expected.

[rumguy]

147. that's my point, the evidece for this Wellstone theory is scant, or

nonexistant...it's conspiracy-mongering for its own sake, not a good habit to get into to.

[no name no slogan]

88. This article and thread are an INSULT

...to the memories of Paul and Shiela Wellstone.

I knew Paul Wellstone "back in the day", in the 1980s, when he was just a professor from a small liberal arts college in Minnesota. He was a brilliant man, and truly caring politician, and a social activist of the best kind. He's the reason I became active in the Minnesota DFL party, and the reason I was a delegate to two state conventions in 1988 and 1990.

HOWEVER, he was not a saint. He did not walk on water. He made SEVERAL votes in his Senate career that I did not agree with-- and I'm a true-blue "Wellstone Progressive" in the most literal sense of the word.

NEITHER was he the "biggest threat to the BFEE". He was one Senator who happened to be critical of BushCo and its actions, and demanded accountability from them. He was no different than Robert Byrd in that respect.

Wellstone died in an ACCIDENT. All credible sources and investigations say the same damn thing. You truly do a disservice to their memories by trying to rehash what is basically a done deal.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[seventhson]

98. I agree that Wellstone's likely murder is a "done deal"

we honor him by investigating or pursuing investigations.

It is frivolous to assume that it was only an accident or a "done deal" when ALL possibilities have not been truly ruled out by an impartial and thorough investigation.

Ceasing the investigation when their conclusions are inconclusive is criminal in my view, and would be dishonoring Wellstone.

[stickdog]

112. How the hell does asking questions about Wellstone's death insult his

memory?

Please explain.

[aeon flux]

89. Why is it so hard to believe?

Amazing how some can believe in government involvement with JFK's death but not Wellstone's?

How can you can believe a government conspiracy took place in the death of JFK, but at the samw time say its ridiculous to think Wellstone could have been the victim of a large-scale government conspiracy?

If it happened before, why can't it happen again? History has a nasty way of repeating itself.

Time and again the right-wing has gotten away with these political killings, got away with killing John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, the list goes on.

Is it any surprise they'd do it again? Should we give them a free pass once again, so they can keep on doing it?

[TrogL]

93. Once upon a time...

...there was a boy who amused himself by calling "wolf, wolf" every time he got bored. Pretty soon people stopped listening to him. One day a wolf actually did show up. When the boy cried "wolf" nobody came to his rescue and he was eaten alive.

If we get out our tinfoil hats for every bad thing, we are dismissed as kooks and people won't listen when something real happens, like BBV.

[stickdog]

124. Once upon a time, there was a TrogL who cried "icing." (nt)

[stickdog]

139. Just to refresh your memory a little ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=15464&forum=DCForumID61&archive=yes#17

[Yupster]

94. RFK ?

RFK was killed by the BFEE too?

[seventhson]

96. RFK's death helped Nixon just as JFK's did.

Bush was a cohort and part of the Nixon cabal (actually Nixon was hired by the Bush/Dulles/Rockefeller cabal)

BFEE all the way.

Nixon made Bush I head of the Republican National Committee, then Ambassador to China (a huge sellout with the Communists under Mao) and then his VP replacement (Ford) made Bush head of the CIA.

Historically it makes sense that the BFEE was involved in or behind the murders of both Kennedys as well as the Reagan attempt (Hinckley's family were bigtime Bush supporters with CIA ties)/ Bush I is also linked to the whole Bay of Pigs (Cuba) thing which blew up in the BFEE's face thanks to Kennedy whom they hated.

I believe it is the case that RFK's death benefitted the BFEE for sure. The BFEE includes all those who were in cahoots with the Bushes, including Nixon, Rockefellers, and the shadow CIA under Dulles et al.

[Yupster]

105. Wow

I had heard it was some Palestinian guy.

[Minstrel Boy]

97. "Only the powers of the Presidency will reveal the secrets of my brother's

death." Bobby said that at San Fernando State College, just three days before he was killed.

RFK's murder was an act of state. The evidence for conspiracy is overwhelming.

The coroner found he was shot from behind at an upwards trajectory, the gun nozzle no more than an inch from his skin. There were powderburns. Yet Sirhan was standing approximately two feet directly in front of Kennedy.

Photos of the crime scene show many more bullet holes than can be accounted for by the official story that Sirhan was the lone gunman. (The LAPD subsequently removed the wood panels, door jambs and ceiling tiles and destroyed them.) Five people were shot, one twice, besides Kennedy, who himself was shot four times. To account for Sirhan hitting them all, requires several "magic" bullets with astonishing trajectories. And there were 13 bullets to account for, five more than Sirhan's gun could hold.

Sirhan was found to be extremely suggestible to hypnosis, and exhibited evidence of having been hypnotized previously, with hypnotic blocks still impeding his memory of the events. There's plentiful evidence that he was in an altered state at the time of the killing, only coming out in the police station.

Sirhan's last memory before the shooting is of having coffee with a woman in a polka dot dress. He was seen in her company, with another man, entering the Ambassador hotel. After the shooting, a number of witnesses saw a woman in a polka dot dress flee with a man, and separate accounts have the woman saying "We shot him! We shot Kennedy!"

Bullets fired cannot be matched to each other or to Sirhan's gun, and the chain of evidence shows gross tampering.

Security guard Thane Eugene Cesar was standing slightly to RFK's rear, at the location of the shots. He admitted having drawn his gun, but it wasn't tested. And he claimed to have had a gun of the type which killed Kennedy, but had sold it before the shooting. But a receipt proved it had been sold afterwards. His security work involved partner corporations of the CIA.

There's a picture of RFK lying on the floor, his arms outstretched. Next to his right hand is a clip on tie. It is Cesar's. RFK pulled it off him as he fell.

Multiple witnesses saw only blue flashes and paper residue flying from Sirhan's gun, suggesting he was firing blanks. Witnesses who had heard many gunshots said it sounded more like a cap pistol.

Sirhan is still alive and imprisoned, and still suffering a hypnotic block about the events of the evening. Experts provided by the state have found that Sirhan truthfully cannot remember.

There's so much more. Here are a couple of places to start:

Listen to Lawrence Teeter, Sirhan's current lawyer:
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/64634.php

Visit the Real History Archives of Lisa Pease:
http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/assassinations/rfk.htm

[seventhson]

101. Thanks MB

Those who have ears to hear will hear; those who don't won't.

Based on the numbers here close to 75% think it was either planned by the BFEE or is very suspicious.

We may be more suspicious or informed as Democrats than the general public and close to 10-15% here are Bush supporters or non-Dems -- so it is more like 80-85% of the proDems here at DU who believe that the death was probably an assassination or at least very suspicious.

That means roughly 40% of likely voters feel that way as well if we reflect the general population at all.

I know almost no one who does not think it was very suspicious, Here at DU we can say we BELIEVE it was murder. Just like JFK and RFK. And we know who we believe was responsible if it was murder. There are few suspects, really, just those close to the POTUS.

I think that belief here is a good thing and trnslates to votes. NOBODY will vote Repub because a lot of us think Wellstone was murdered.

[Yupster]

106. Wow

So the Bush family hypnotized a Palestinian to shoot RFK. Who would have thought that?

[seventhson]

108. LOT'S OF FOLKS

Ever see the Manchurian candidate?

Brainwashing of Medal of Honor winner to kill candidate.

Shit happens.

All the time.

But I imagine manipulating Sirhan was probably pretty easy to do for the MKUltra crowd. And we all know it.

On the other hand, if it doesn't LOOK like a murder, (like Wellstone) then you do NOT need a patsy.

The BFEE learned that accidents are easier to do and harder to figure out than just shooting a contender or president. It was getting old and too messy.

[TrogL]

172. Logical fallacy

Many people thinking an erroneous thing does not make it any less erroneous.

[Minstrel Boy]

109. Yupster, what can I tell you?

Did I say anything about the Bush family?

Even the prosecution admitted Sirhan had been under a trance, though they claimed it was self-induced.

Here's a little something for you:

There was an LA hypnotist, William J Bryan Jr, who had done contract work for the CIA and police agencies, and the military during the Korean war. Technical advisor on The Manchurian Candidate. He often boasted about his work hypnotizing Albert de Salvo, the Boston Strangler, while de Salvo was in custody. He also boasted to prostitutes about having hypnotized Sirhan. Thing is, he had no access to Sirhan after the assassination.

And here's a funny thing: there are examples of automatic writing from Sirhan's "diary", evidently written under a trance, and of which he has no recollection. For instance, a page filled with "RFK must die, RFK must die..." In the margins, the words "de Salvo" appear several times. The name has no meaning to Sirhan. He doesn't recall ever having heard it. Yet the CIA-contract hypnotist, who idly boasted to hookers about having hypnotized Sirhan, also often boasted about his work with de Salvo. It seems as though just as Sirhan was imprinted with the "RFK must die" message, he also picked up Bryan's frequent boast about de Salvo.

But really, why am I bothering to tell you this? To you, it's just the sound of tinfoil crinkling, isn't it?

Think what you will. But even if you disrespect others, at least show yourself the respect of holding an informed opinion.

[plaguepuppy]

111. MKULTRA

Sirhan has many fingerprints of the MKULTRA program, a documented real program (thanks to the late lamented FOIA) that trained mind controlled assasins using a combination of hypnosis, trauma-based conditioning and drugs.

If the research is too much for you, at least watch the Mel Gibson movie Conspiracy Theory - his character is an accurate portrayal of an MKULTRA alumnus. The Parallax View with Warren Beaty is another more-or-less factual portrayal of a similar program, a pretty good movie if you can find it.

And choosing a Palestinian, gee, who would have thought of that?
For how long now have the Arabs been the default boogie man in our culture?

A majority of Americans believe that JFK was killed by more than one person. For that to be true implies that the group was powerful enough to hide its public tracks and avoid prosecution, something only possible if one has control of state power. Who took control after JFK's death? A deeply corrupt Texas oil man with strong military-industrial ties. Sound familiar? And if it works once, they'll keep doing it.



“The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight."
John F. Kennedy at Columbia University, November 12 1963, ten days before his murder on November 22, 1963.


"Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed
upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglas (1857)


My favorite quote from the Lone Gunmen (actually an X-Files episode):

Byers: (voiceover) "My name is John Fitzgerald Byers. I was named after our 35th president, and I keep having this beautiful dream. In my dream, the events of November 22nd, 1963, never happened. In it, my namesake was never assassinated. Other things are different, too, in my dream. My country is hopeful and innocent; young again. Young in spirit. My fellow citizens trust their elected officials, never once having been betrayed by them. My government is truly 'of the people, by the people, for the people'. All my hopes for my country, for myself... all are fulfilled. I have everything a person could want; home and family... and love. Everything that counts for anything in life... I have it. But the dream ends the same way every time. I lose it all."
(Byers is left standing alone in the desert holding a wedding ring)

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/The_Lone_Gunmen_Episode_1.htm

[PVnRT]

180. If Wellstone was such a threat

because he was so powerful, why didn't BFEE take out Kucinich? Or any other Congressman/woman who criticizes them? Why focus on Wellstone, when he is not a mainstream, popular politician (out in the real world, he is very popular on DU)?

[ngGale]

107. Wellstone on plane, Kennedy took commercial flight

Paul Wellstone had worked his way into my heart from watching him on C-span. I thought he would make a great president, one that was honest and true to his beliefs. I had the T.V. on as the news cut in and said he and his family had died in a plane crash. My first thought said out loud, they killed him. Then they said Ted Kennedy would have been on the plane with Wellstone, but had switched to a commercial flight. Then I cried, thinking why would anyone miss a chance to kill a Kennedy or why would they give him a warning? I don't know who THEY are. I do know that the California/Gray Davis deal and Arnold ending up as Governor triggered my memory and made a point. They needed him, for whatever reason and it worked.

[seventhson]

115. One last time

kick

[Rex]

118. I think he was murdered by the BFEE

They couldn't find a way to explain a fall from 6 stories and thought that maybe it would be a 2fer.

[seemslikeadream]

143. seventhson please read

www.cyberspaceorbit.com/alchenc.htm

These guys are discussing things that I have been thinking about for a long time, especially the connection with W.R. Grace.

[Minstrel Boy]

148. radar anomaly at time of Wellstone crash

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/wellstone.html

[Minstrel Boy]

149. asbestos and WR Grace, Wellstone and Cheney.

A big part of the story, suggesting motivation. And there's more than just Wellstone's crash to consider.

[stickdog]

154. On the same topic ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5471&forum=DCForumID43

[Minstrel Boy]

155. Thanks stickdog, I'd missed that thread.

That's a keeper.

[seventhson]

169. Yikes

What IS That?

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hayu_lol]

146. Wait two weeks...

Seventhson will be back yet again with another of these 'soap operas.'

[stickdog]

152. You mean the ones BushCo used to induce us to attack Iraq? (nt)

[liberalhistorian]

156. My very first thought upon

hearing about the crash was that it was no accident and I wondered how they'd managed to do it this time (they've certainly had enough practice at it, haven't they)? We may never be able to conclusively prove it, but I will NEVER believe that it was just an "accident", especially since Darth Cheney had specifically targeted him for defeat and there had been previous death threats against him. No accident, no way, no how, huh-uh.

[seventhson]

157. kick

[Cascadian]

164. I am not a tin foil hat wearer but....

with all that has been happening in the last three years, nothing would surpsrise me anymore. Rove and the rest of those in the Bush administration are just evil. Period!


John


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/demorealunderground/

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

170. If he were an incredulous writer like Jackson Thoreau would only serve

to discredit that notion indefinitely. Maybe he should send his research to a credible writer so he doesn't mess up any investigation.

[Romberry]

174. See this thread at Salon Table Talk

Fetzer has some interesting things to say but I think he is way off base for the most part. There is a great thread at Salon Table Talk that tends to be sane in its approach to the question of what may have happened. Recommended reading.

See Was Paul Wellstone Killed to Give Bush a Republican Senate?

http://tabletalk.salon.com/webx?14@@.596c4aa0/0

[Romberry]

176. No toxicology reports

See the end of the Table Talk thread mentioned in the last post.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

189. What about Carnahan?

When Carnahan's plane crashed in the tight race with Ashcroft, I don't think many of us thought about foul play. Carnahan still won, and at that time we didn't know the extent of John Ashcroft's depravity. Then the same thing happens to another Democrat in a tight race. This time we know just how evil the Bush administration is. As more and more comes out about 9/11 it's becoming clearer just what they are capable of.

In light of that, how can anyone NOT be suspicious?

[Minstrel Boy]

190. I don't pretend to know what I'm seeing here, but there were some odd

radar anomalies at the time and place of Carnahan's crash:

[Jakey]

191. LOL...more like Paint Shop Pro "anomalies"...

unless, of course, you have a link to the original host archives as opposed to a "members.toast.net" server. But I won't hold my breath for that one.

Rather interesting how the underlying weather return seems to have had a remarkable change in shape as well. Highly entertaining tho.

[Jakey]

201. Was the Wellstone party running late for the memorial service?

Does anyone know the scheduled time for the memorial service that the Wellstone party was flying to attend? I suspect that they were late and Conroy may have been trying to make up some lost time by flying an abnormally fast approach.

[Zan_of_Texas]

209. Just a few more coincidences, questions for the stirred pot

1. The same person at the NTSB who was in charge of the investigation of the Wellstone crash was in charge of the Carnahan crash. Carol Carmody. On her public resume, she lists a previous unspecified stint at the CIA. http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/bios/carmody.htm

2. Something NOT similar between the crashes -- in the Carnahan crash, the Senator left a widow, who then served out the term he won posthumusly. In the Wellstone crash, Sheila Wellstone, a popular public figure in her own right, was onboard; thus, there was no widow to serve or run for her deceased husband's seat in the Senate.

3. An aide to Missouri Republican Senator used the tail number of the Carnahan plane for the name of his political website. The AP story (sorry, I neglected to record the date):

Aide leaves Sen. Bond's staff -- used Carnahan's plane on Web

WASHINGTON (AP) An aide to Missouri Republican Sen. Kit Bond left the senator's staff after it was discovered he had been running a political Web site named for the tail number of a plane that crashed in 2000, killing the Democratic Missouri governor.

The title of the site N8354N "is not random," a note on the Web site read. "It marks an inflection point in current Missouri politics. On that day, the worm began to turn."

Gov. Mel Carnahan was running for Senate when his plane crashed Oct. 16, 2000. He was elected posthumously and Carnahan's widow, Jean, was appointed to take his place in the Senate. But Republican Jim Talent won the seat from her last year in a special election to finish out her husband's term.

Missouri Democrats found the Web site and made the connection to Bond's office on Wednesday. Bond issued a statement Thursday morning saying the aide was no longer on his staff. His staff would not say who the person was.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Questions I've not seen answered definitively:

1. Who got to the crash scene first? Was it the FBI? How much time did they have before local authorities got there?

2. Why was the crash fire so intense? Other crashes I've looked at did NOT have intense fires like this. Could the fire have been set or accelerated?

3. Why did the plane go down at such a sharp angle, and not in the expected area for an approach to a runway? Even if the pilots were nincompoops, even if both engines stalled, why couldn't they drift down and at least avoid a stand of tall trees?

4. If they were conscious and their electronics worked, why didn't the pilots radio that they were having a problem? At least a MAYDAY call?

5. We were on tingling alerts for terrorism then. Why was there a near-immediate statement that there was no evidence of terrorism (or foul-play), before virtually any facts were in? Why did the NTSB set up task forces to investigate the weather, the engines, the pilots, etc. but NOT at least the possibility of foul play? By the time 6 or 8 people were shot by a sniper in Washington, the whole country was up in arms and the media led with the story for THREE WEEKS. We had to see types of rifles, we had to see maps, we saw tarot cards, they closed schools in an area of several million people. But eight people die in a plane crash, including a US Senator in a crucial race days before an election, just as his polls start to look like he will win, and "there's nothing to see here, folks. Keep moving. Bad weather mumble mumble."

6. I do not have this confirmed, but it has been alleged. Did CNN, in its first report, get the information that Wellstone was on the crashed plane from the White House? At 12:43 Central Time? Just a little over two hours after the plane disappeared? If so, how did the White House know before a news organization? (Posted but not confirmed as a CNN report, 10-25-02, 1:43 PM EDT: "CNN's John King reported that White House sources confirmed there were fatalities in the accident -- and that Sen. Wellstone was on the plane's manifest.")