Log in

No account? Create an account

More on Wellstone - Journal of Omnifarious

Nov. 30th, 2003

11:41 am - More on Wellstone

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

I've always kinda felt that the whole Wellstone plane crash was a little too convenient. It's a conspiracy theory, but there is some hard evidence. Here is an article on the subject.

Both this administration and the Clinton administration have felt like administrations that had a public face that was vastly different from what their aims and goals actually were. The glimpses I've seen of the Bush administration's non-public aims and goals have frightened me more than the glimpses I've seen of the Clinton administration's.

There is also a woman who's husband died in the south tower of the WTC who is suing the administration because she feels very similarly to me, and thinks that Bush had more foreknowledge of the events leading up to her husband's death than he's let on.

Here is an article in a New Zealand paper about the woman and her suit. Interesting that the useful information is coming out in foreign newspapers, just like it did for the Clinton administration.

Current Mood: [mood icon] discontent


[User Picture]
Date:November 30th, 2003 05:15 pm (UTC)
I'm a confirmed skeptic cynic so maybe I'm biased but...

Jim Fetzer makes several statements that he doesnt back up with any facts at all.

For example - "In spite of what you may have heard, the plane was exceptional, the pilots well-qualified and the weather posed no significant problems. This means 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.

Jim seems to have missed the fact that the NTSB have determined that the pilots where not kept up to speed on standard company operating procedure nor were "the company was not training its pilots in crew resource management in accordance with its FAA- approved training program" according to company records obtained by the NTSB.

Which is strange given the fact that the NTSB state pilot error as the cause of the crash here.

He correctly asserts (the NTSB agree with him here) that the plane had a good track record and that whilst the weather was bad - it probably wasnt too blame. But his explaination that a bomb/explosion must therefore be the cause ignores the fact that the NTSB discounted that during their investigation*. No unusual structural damage (ie fatigue, bomb damage) was found during the course of the investigation.

Some of his facts seem pretty flimsy too - "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.

So 2 people lose communications temporarily and there an EM weapon has been used ? Or maybe a solar flare or one of a number of atmospheric conditions knocked out communications temporarily. Yeah I have no proof of that but its as plausible (if not more so) that the use of some kind of EM weapon.

To be honest I was convinced when the NTSB determined that the "flight crew's failure to maintain adequate airspeed, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which they did not recover." and that "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 speed) and to remain below the recommended approach speed for about 50 seconds." The airplane then entered a stall from which it did not recover.

The way I read it is that the pilots werent trained properly, they didnt follow standard operating procedures and basically flew the plane into the ground during bad weather.

But as I said, I'm cynical about skeptics and their love for sexy theories which ignore some of the facts so they can point the finger at the boogie man. (For the record, I would vote Democrat if I had a vote).

* I guess if you think that the NTSB are in on the conspiracy then their views really dont count.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
Date:November 30th, 2003 06:36 pm (UTC)

I don't discount what the NTSB says. And, you're right, the evidence for an EM weapon of some sort is rather sketchy.

But, from what I heard about the flying situation, pilot error didn't make a lot of sense. Especially since there was both a pilot and a copilot. Controlled flight into terrain is a very strange thing to happen on land that is largely flat.

But, if you discount any possibility of foul play, that's all that's left to explain what happened, so it's reasonable for the NTSB to have come up with that explanation.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)