The Paul Wellstone crash was.....

you left out option 4

Anybody who tries to interfere with the lucrative flesh trade, especially when there is a risk of embarrassing close US allies, is a walking unfortunate accident waiting to happen.

Nice one.

#1 it was an accident no one planned it, no one executted it.

#2 someone who wanted to see Wellstone dead for whatever reasons done something that made the plane crash.

#3 you are unsure which is it.

I believe that is sedition.

The United States has a proud tradition of unfortunate accident planning that not even Saudi Occupied Arabia can match.

Gack, I hate that expression but sometimes it is appropriate. Just trying starting a poll with only one response. All the anal retentives blow up and make a huge stinky scene.

:hi: I like your answer, an unfortunate accident planned by someone close to bush or the new senator from Mn.

in 2004. The perfect democratic candidate?

*

Today - there is an article stating Princess Diana thought that she might be targeted for assassination.

Leave woodwork immediately - Report to battle stations.

They loaded up his plane with strawberries.

cream.

was an accident. There are just too many small plane crashes carrying congress people.

There are too many small plane crashes (and anthrax attacks with military grade specimens) on DEMOCRATIC congress people.

... because they USE 'general aviation' more, and general aviation has a so-so safety record, overall? Think how many news stories you hear every year about people dying in small-plane crashes...

Politicians (Wellstone, Carnahan, John Heinz, John Tower)

Entertainers (Patsy Cline, John Denver, Rick Nelson, Jim Croce)


Sports figures (Thurman Munson, Roberto Clemente)

Such people do the most flying in small planes. That's
why so many high deaths. It's not a conspiracy. It's
probability.

Aaliyah.

Buddy Holley
Damn - Bush killed Buddy Holley - the bastard.

Oh the humanity.

Sorry, but this has just gone too far. :grr:

improbable and so far almost completely unexplained accident between the time internal Republican polls showed he would win his re-election and the time Minnesota law said his name must be replaced on the ballot.

:eyes:

Typical.

precisely why the repukes use small aircraft to knock off opponents...it can easily be written off as "another small aircraft accident" What are the odds that Mel Carnahan and Paul Wellstone both died JUST prior to an election AND they both just happen to be Democrats?

I don't know what you consider a so-so saftey record, but I have general aviation friends and I have no fear of flying with them. And how many planes crash out of the hundreds of thousands of flights in a year?

is not a very good answer.

I am making these numbers up, but say commercial aviation has an accident rate of .00001% and general aviation has an accident rate of .00003%. Thats 200% higher, but in reality, an infinitesimal number.

Here's some real numbers:

"...The number of persons killed in all aviation accidents dropped from 1,171 in 2001 to 618 in 2002. It should be noted that airline fatalities in 2001 accounted for a total of 531 deaths. The 2001 deaths included the September 11 terrorist attacks and the American Airlines flight 587 crash in November. There were no fatalities on scheduled passenger carriers in 2002. The number of general aviation fatalities increased slightly from 562 in 2001 to 576 in 2002...."

Now, common sense tells you that far more people--- FAR MORE--- fly commercially, yet the numbers *not counting those who died on 9-11* are a grand total of 42 greater than the number who died in general-aviation fatalities.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2003/031002.htm

Instead of looking at the total number of people who fly commercial vs. general aviation, I would think a better comparrison would be total flights, commercial vs general and the number of accidents for each.

If a commercial airliner goes down you are looking at hundreds of fatalities, where as if a general aviation craft goes down you are looking at 1 to a dozen.

There is no doubt that commercial flights are the safest way to travel ever invented. But general aviation is extremely safe as well. And I wonder how many of the general aviation accidents are in experimental aircraft, or by stunt piloting.

I have a private airfield 5 miles from my house in a guys back yard. He flys biplanes and does a lot of stunt flying. If he goes down its gonna be classified as a general aviation accident. But the flight was more than a point A to point B transport.

Keep telling yourself it had to be an accident even though you have no explanation for how the accident happened.

There may be a job for you at the FBI or NTSB someday.

Try:

http://www.ntsb.gov

Aren't they part of the cospiracy? *furtive look* :eyes:

Typical.

There have been 15 fatalities involving the A-100, and TEN of those fifteen involve the same charter company Wellstone was using!

Probably killed those earlier people to throw us off the scent for when they killed PW, right? :eyes:

So what you are saying is that more people died in Wellstone's crash than in the entire previous history of King Air A-100 flight!

But you probably included Wellstone's flight (the one in question, if you'll recall) in your "analysis" just to throw us off the scent, right?

Well, DUH! I'm sure Mrs. Boxworthy who taught you 3rd-grade arithmetic is proud of you today... /sarcasm off

And you have presented NOTHING--- NADA--- ZIP--- ZILCH--- BUPKUS--- to prove anything that would even TEND to show it was something besides a tragic, but altogether garden-variety accident.

You ignore facts, experienced pilots, and anything else that doesn't fit neatly into your 'the BFEE did it' conspiracy theory.

You have wholly mischaracterized my modest take -- which is that pilot incapacitation is currently the most tenable theory of why Wellstone's plane crashed.

You are the absolutist here. I am merely suggesting that we shouldn't dismiss any reasonable possibilities until we have enough evidence to do so.

Did *I* ever mention a microwave-generator to incapcitate the pilots? Did *I* ever mention a VOR generator to draw the plane off course? It was NOT a straw man argument---only a GREAT deal more rational than yours. :eyes:

the plane got more than a mile off course.

How do you explain how the plane got more than a mile off course?

As for microwave generators, it is simply one of several possibilites:

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

Of course, I realize that you don't need any stinking explanations.

What I need is something resembling *proof*. Your proof, and I use that term VERY loosely, wouldn't convince my brain-damaged dog, and he's about as gullible as they come...

I say it might not have been an accident.

Which of us needs to supply proof?

Because the vast majority of plane crashes are accidents--- even ones carrying politicians, and important people, stuff like that...

I refer you to http://www.ntsb.gov

Find it yourself.

???

Look it up your damned self, like you told me to do on an earlier post. Don't waste any more of my time until you have proof that that is NOT the case.

evidence that the vast majority of them were accidents is too weak.

I went to a Jesuit high school, and you're not EVEN in their class. Address the issue.

that's why this whole thing seems so silly to me.

Yesterday a WW II plane of the Commemorative AirForce (was Confederate Air Force until name change last year) crashed and killed the pilot.

Last week a crop duster got tangled in electri wires, flipped over and landed on the highway. Old boy walked away with minor injuries.

We also have pipeline planes go down from time to time.

It just happens with small planes. Politicians may fly a small plane to five different towns in one day. That's going to catch up to you eventually.

Heinz from Pennsylvania (R)
Wright from Texas
Boggs from Louisiana
Carnahan from Missouri
Wellstone from Minnesota
? in Alaska

die in Africa a number of years ago doing relief work?

Cokie Roberts dad who was speaker of the House died in a plane crash in Alaska.

too few happen to Repugs that are not opposed to some Bush, like some of the repug contra witnesses. John Tower was one.

Defense Secretary ?

Because he wanted to whack him ?

As I remember it, there was surprise in that it was not kind to Raygun.

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

:tinfoilhat:

troubled by allegations of a BFEE conspiracy?

But if I *were* to post suck a reply, it would be two words-- the first four letters long and the second three--- and they would be accompanied by the extension of my middle finger.

It's served you so well elsewhere.

*sprinkles troll-b-gone*

PS-- I believe stalking is against the rules, and IMO you are perilously close.

My, you're a paranoid one, aren't you?

talk about :tinfoilhat:

May God rest their souls...

can accomplish more greatness.
why do the good ones have to go so soon?
so many names in history. I was gonna one time write an epilogue had RFK lived.

... Aside from Wellstone, the one that really interests me is Salem Bin Laden. Osama's older brother and the guy who funded Junior's first oil company, Arbusto. Apparently, Salem was an experienced pilot who, for some strange reason, one day decided to take a sharp left turn into some high voltage power lines and fry himself.

Now if Osama is truly no longer a partner of the Bush Criminal Empire and considers them the enemy, what do you suppose turned him against them? The murder of his brother probably would do it.

by single pilots in privately owned aircraft.

These pilots are not required to meet the same recurrent training standards as the airlines.

This is not to say that they are bad pilots. However, there is a pretty high correlation between training and safety.

One of my cutomers is a 65 year-old private pilot who has been flying for 40+ years. We have talked about the Wellstone accident on several occasions, and he once said said "He should never have taken the chance, with weather that marginal. There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are damned few old, bold pilots"--- and he is a liberal Democrat.

eom

If their pilot had said it wasn't safe, they would have listened.

that the weather was just fine to fly into Eveleth.

Because the weather was just fine to fly into Eveleth.

on CNN and I seen they sky and the area around it and the weather looked mild but well enough for a licensed pilot to handle.

especially northeastern Minnesota is certainly a factor (Lake Superior being one variable). I'm pretty conviced it was just an unfortnate accident, but then, I tend to be on the PollyAnnish side.

The weather was fine.

No other planes in the entire state had any trouble landing that day.

an advanced degree in meteorology, not to mention extensive
training in investigating small plane crashes.

I'm a General Aviation (GA) pilot and the biggest cause of accidents is the pilot or the pilot's customer which has an attitude of "we've got to be there at a certain time". Just like JFK, Jr., he got in way over his head and it killed him. Unfortunately, some (not most) GA pilots are willing to take chances, when if they were to wait an hour, it would allow the weather to pass and they'd have a much safer flight.

because he thought the visibility was too poor.

However, when he got the METAR for Eveleth and talked to another pilot who just came from Eveleth, he concluded that the weather was just fine to land at Eveleth.

Because the weather was just fine to land at Eveleth and nobody else had ANY problems with it.

Son, you're an idiot. Weather conditions can change drastically, expecially in the winter.

I take it you're not a pilot, and heaven help us all if you ever become one.

But thanks for the pointless ad hominem anyway.

Yes, he beat john ashcroft in the election following his demise but now we have that loser as attorney general. What a sad twist of the knife.

Another liberal connected to Ashcroft family died in plane crash on eve of election victory. James Litton, 1976. One prob, Ashcroft was a chief beneficiary of Litton's death..
: http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3542&forum=DCForumID22

In 1976 Litton a liberal populist candidate was expected to win in a landlslide against Repug opponent Danforth when he died in a plane crash
As a result of his death, however, his opponent was given the Senate seat. His Republican opponent was John Danforth, then Missouri's Attorney General.
(<http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/election.pat,local/3774d78c.a17,.html>)
Who got Danforth's seat as the state AG when he moved to the Senate? John Ashcroft. When Danforth retired from the Senate, who was tapped to replace him? John Ashcroft.
(<http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/ashcroft001222.html>)
Strang how Ashcroft keeps popping up, isn't it? He gets his state AG seat because of one plane crash. When he's going down to certain defeat his opponent Mel Carnahan dies in another plane crash. That he lost the seat to a dead man could be viewed as bad timing. He should have waited until closer to election night.

The mistake wasn't repeated with Wellstone, he died the day before the due date for a replacement.



http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Bottoms/bottoms25.html


How very convenient...

...that Democratic anti-war Senator Wellstone died, to the advantage of his Republican adversary, whose ascension to the Senate will give a majority to the Republican Party.

...that Wellstone died right after Republicans conceded privately that he was going to win his Senate race in spite of, or maybe even because of, his anti-war vote.

...that he died after voting against Bush's unilateral attack on Iraq, against Bush's Homeland Security Department, and in favor of an independent 9-11 investigation over Bush and Cheney's objections.

...that he died one day before time ran out to name a replacement candidate. Running posthumously, Wellstone would surely have won, and a replacement named by Minnesota Democrats. Replacement candidate over-the-hill Mondale has less of a chance. Senator Wellstone’s wife was conveniently killed also, preventing a repeat of John Ashcroft’s defeat two years ago by the wife of newly deceased air crash victim Mel Carnahan.

But it strikes me as an accident, specifically a stall-spin accident.

This occurs when the airplane flies to slowly for the wings to generate lift.

This can be caused by pilot error. During an instrument approach, maintaining airspeed is paramount. A moment's inattention can have serious consequences.

I'd be interested to read what you think of this re: stalling the aircraft. Also, what might account for the simultaneous loss of communication?


The latest explanation, published in the Star Tribune (29 December 2002), is that the pilots committed a blunder that turned into a stall, where airspeed had dropped to 85 knots. That theory does not withstand critical inspection, when the pilots' qualifications and the suitability of the weather are taken into account. Indeed, with this plane, a loud alarm sounds at 85 knots warning the pilot(s) that a stall is imminent, but leaving enough time to compensate. Experiments with these aircraft indicate that they only actually stall out below 70 knots.

This means other, less obvious, possible explanations have to be considered, even if— on moral, political, or personal grounds--we would prefer not to confront them. These include the possibility that the plane might have been disabled by a small bomb, by a canister of gas, or by an electro-magnetic pulse. The most salient feature of the crash is the loss of communication that occurred simultaneously with the loss of control. This is difficult to explain by other, less sinister, causes. Neither pilot error, mechanical problems nor difficult weather can explain it.

http://www.reader-weekly.com/Reader/Reader_Weekly/Jim_Fetzer/WellstoneUnanswered.htm

So, if there was wing ice, the plane would stall at a higher speed than normal.

The stall warning horn could have gone off at the same moment the plane stalled.

Or alternately, the plane could have stalled before the horn ever made a sound.

Typically, if icing is a factor in an instrument approach, extra airspeed is carried for just this reason.

Further, the normal approach speed for this aircraft would probably be between 100 and 130 knots, significantly faster than reported.

As to loss of communications, I suspect that if you went into a spin in a King Air, you would have your hands full.

This is a violent Maneuver!

Communications would be the last thing on your mind.

The temperature was over freezing below 5,000. There was a well observed inversion layer.

eom

There was NO EVIDENCE of icing below 4,000 feet in Minnesota that entire day.

And the plane spent seven minutes at or below 4,000 BEFORE the co-pilot made the last "A-OK" report to ATC.

I'm a General Aviation pilot. Stall speeds increase if there is ice on the wings, which if I'm not mistaken, was a possibility. Also, you've got to take into consideration pilot error, i.e. he was below the glide slope, he misread the approach plates, the plane got ahead of him, etc... Just because the stall horn sounds doesn't mean you have altitude to recover, and a stall in IMC conditions (instrument) complicates proper stall recovery. A loss of communication might mean an electrical failure, another strike against you in IMC conditions.

I'd wait for the NTSB report. They've done so many of these they know where to look for answers.

two or three reasons that came together to make a catastrophe. If it was a problem that happened all the time, plaes would be dropping like flies. The fact that it was a rare occurance means it probably happened because of a rare cause.

just fine for dozens of planes a lot less weatherproof than a King Air A-100.

The stall warning horn would have been blaring. There were two pilots.

The plane never got below stall speed.

All the pilots who simulated the flight -- even when loaded up with simulated ice THAT DID NOT EXIST AT 1 C -- were able to recover safely.

But thanks for your ignorant platitudes about a "moment's inattention."

A pilot, Steve Filopovitch, took this photo ten miles from where Paul Wellstone's plane crashed, approximately 20 minutes before it happened. He said, "The temperature on the ground was pleasant with my estimation of visibility was 3 miles with a 500 to 1000 (foot) ceiling. There was no ground wind. Experienced pilot(s) could handle these conditions very easily."

Links to articles by Jim Fetzer re Wellstone's crash, plus rebutals:

http://www.reader-weekly.com/Reader/Reader_Weekly/Jim_Fetzer/Wellstone_JimFetzer.html


Mike Ruppert reported "that the day after the crash, he 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, who told him, '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 with. There will be a few more strategic accidents, you can be certain of that.' Which is more than just a little disconcerting."
http://www.reader-weekly.com/Reader/Reader_Weekly/Jim_Fetzer/fetzer0103.htm

"...The number of persons killed in all aviation accidents dropped from 1,171 in 2001 to 618 in 2002. It should be noted that airline fatalities in 2001 accounted for a total of 531 deaths. The 2001 deaths included the September 11 terrorist attacks and the American Airlines flight 587 crash in November. There were no fatalities on scheduled passenger carriers in 2002. The number of general aviation fatalities increased slightly from 562 in 2001 to 576 in 2002...."

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2003/031002.htm

People die in plane crashes every day...

but it doesn't mean people can tamper with a plane to make it crash. Car accidents happen everyday but it doesn't mean someone can't fuck with the brakes or do something to cause a car to crash.

Just because it was PW doesn't mean it couldn't have been a tragic accident.

but I am just saying that you may say accidents happen everyday well I can say some accidents can be the result of someone tampering with the car/plane.

I'm just saying that there's absolutely no proof (unless you count goofy conspiracy theories as proof) of any kind that it wasn't just a horrible, tragic accident. If and when there is, my mind could change. :hi:

have died in car crashes in the past 10/15 years? Not to mention Wellstone's flight had two qualified pilots not one. You would think that should up your chances.

But as for the 2-pilot issue, my friend who's a pilot said, "Once you lose it in a flat spin, all you have on board are bodies."

There was fuel on board.

The investigation did not uncover any control surface malfunctions.

This leaves three possibilities.

1. Pilot Error, see earlier post
2. Pitot, Static system failure - airspeed failure
3. Sabotage of the airspeed system

One is highly likely, it happens everyday. Two, is possible but these systems are checked routinely. Three is possible but unlikely because there was no evidence to support this conclusion.

The plane was allowed to burn into cinders for about 10 hours. Little was recovered. No calls were made to ATC describing any trouble. And there was no CVR or FDR on the flight (supposedly).

If it was merely pilot error, it bordered on pilot incapacitation.

And the weather was just fine.

CVR, CDR only applies to the airlines.

Why yell?

No one will ever prove that here wasn't a conspiracy.

I blame the elusive homonid Bigfoot, and no one will ever prove that isn't correct either.

but Congressmen and Senators don't. Though Democrats more frequently than Republicans. And the Senate's most prominent liberal, in a contest that could determine the balance of power?

Plane crashes are a favoured method of assassination. And precisely because they're relatively easy to pass off as accidents. Just look outside the US, where it seems much easier to accept political murder as standard operating procedure: Omar Torrijos in Panama, Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan.

Accidents happen, and they can be made to happen. And to think otherwise is foolhardy.

...it's rather 'goofy' to think it wasn't an accident, IMO.

If a plane hit the WTC, would you say the same thing?

Do you really believe that nobody in the entire world with the means to rig a small plane crash wanted Wellstone dead?

So why should we require proof to believe it was foul play, but require no proof whatsoever -- and not even any believable explanation -- to believe it was an accident?

Umm... small plane, bad weather, marginal weather conditions, laws of physics and aerodynamics.

Hoofbeats.... ZEBRAS! :tinfoilhat:

unfathomably dangerous approach speed, two pilots and no emergency call, recent terrorism involving plane crashes, and a ridiculously unpopular Senator who had attempts against his life in Latin America, who was Rove's #1 adversary and who was about to win.

Hear hoofbeats -- think a predator is probably hunting.

It has been explained here repeatedly, in language a dull 3 year-old could understand, that the weather was *not* 'fine'--- it was, in plain English, 'crappy', and in pilot-ese 'marginal'.

The weather was marginal at Duluth.

It was just fine at Eveleth. I mean, Wellstone's pilot had a pilot coming from Eveleth convincing Wellstone the conditions were safe. A pilot hopped into a tiny one engine to go look for the crash site. No other pilots had any problems -- even at Duluth, where the visibility and cloud cover were far worse.

about the weather at Eveleth and how it impacted the flight. The perameters you mention are irrelevant. The "ceiling" condition is the relevant data.

And as to the "tiny one engine" that took off to do a search, google "special VFR" and learn why that is conceivable.

impacted the flight and instead highlighted all the other weather factors that certainly could not, along with some anecdotal evidence that the cloud ceiling wasn't that bad either.

That doesn't make my post FACTUALLY wrong.

I'm merely presenting one side of this argument, with FACTUAL precision.

We're just stupid and Clark-loving BFEE wannabes. /sarcasm off

the shoes look to be your size.

they have to take chartered aircraft.

Republicans, on the other hand, can rely on their corporate contacts to ferry them anywhere.

Corporate flight crews and aircraft are typically very well trained and the aircraft are maintained meticulously.

I am sure there is a statistical correlation.

is supposedly extremely reliable and has an excellent safety record.

He was flying with a commercial air charter service.

These are typically well run.

My experience is that corporate flight departments are run even better because they have more money to spend.

The safety record of the plane is meaningless if the maintenance is deficient in some way.

I have flown night freight in turboprops. Most people would not set one foot in these planes looking at their condition.

I have almost died because of faulty maintenance.

Departing out of New Orleans one winter night, the aircraft I flew did not respond properly to electric trim.

Down trim made the plane go up and up trim made the plane go down.

It took two of us to control the plane and about five minutes to figure out that the mechanics had wired the trim switch backwards.

Had there only been one pilot aboard that evening, I am pretty sure that a crash would have occurred.

Stuff happens up there. It's called the real world.

and the captain had passed a proficiency test just two days before the crash.

Stuff happens, I know. But I give credence to assassination theory given what I know of the "real world."

eom

There wasn't any ice.

The plane was more than 40 mph under its recommended approach speed.

And it was still above stall speed on every radar return, but was below the stall warning horn speed for close to a minute.

And there's no evidence that the pilot ever even tried to recover Instead, the plane was turning left (a stall recovery attempt would have flown straight and a fly around would have turned right) and still slowing when it crashed -- with the engines still working.

It's called the real world.

was sleep deprived, and the secondary pilot (believed to have been piloting at the time of the crash) was relatively inexperienced.

take bigger planes (corporates), or don't fly to small towns as much.

Yeah.

Just those on Wellstone's plane, right?

And TEN--- t-e-n--- one-zero--- 10--- were on planes owned and operated by the same charter service PW used.

So what you are saying is that there were more fatalities in Wellstone's crash than in the entire flight history of all King Air A-100's ever made.

:tinfoilhat:

Let us also not forget that if Wellstone had kept his promise to the people of Minnesota to only serve 2 terms in the Senate, he would be alive today.

And if OJ's wife had just been faithful to him ...

Just pointing out that his breaking his promise to the people of Minnesota contributed to his death.

When you die tragically, I'll take pleasure in pointing out that your last two posts "contributed" to that.

my posting here will not contribute to my death.

If he had kept his promise he would not have been on that plane.

That is all I said. No more, no less.

that the leading cause of death is birth.

Knute Rockne, famed Notre Dame football coach, was
actually killed by Walker Neil Bush, great-uncle of the
current President. Angered at not getting a football
scholarship to Notre Dame Bush had to attend Yale where he
became a member of Skull and Bones. Bush had stalked Rockne
for years and finally got his revenge when he brought the famous
coaches plane down with a jerry-rigged short wave radio.



Knute, we hardly knew ye.

Guys Listen up:

It is this sort of nonsense which the disaffected electorate rolls their eyes at. To subscribe the this conspiracy theory is to give credence to those who would aregure that Bill Clinton had Vice Foster killed and that there was some sort of crime that Clinton got away with on Whitewater.

We should not be playing their game.

even consider the possibility that people in power ever commit crimes.

Because the autopsy, the ballistic evidence and the *complete absence of any other evidence to the contrary* says so!

:tinfoilhat:

I heard he had some dirt on #41. Overdose---yeah, sure. /sarcasm off :eyes:

how it happened

when it happened

to whom it happened

why it happened

how it happened

---Plane fall out of sky, go boom, people inside die.

when it happened

--- Almost exactly a year ago.

to whom it happened

---US Sen. Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, their daughter, 2 pilots and 3 other people.

why it happened

---To be determined by the NTSB.

All is clear.

Can I have my Kool-aid now?

52% on here think it was a conspiracy?

but yeah..... this is absolutely indidious.

JFK
RFK
MLK
John Lennon
Abraham Lincoln
William McKinley
Julius Caesar


and I hate the fucking Yankees

Some guy was clinically dead for a few minutes. When they revived him, the aksed him what it was like being dead. He said it was like listening to Phil Rizzuto during a rain delay.

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

Granted, the Wellstone crash may well have been an accident. People do get suspicious--especially considering who profited. But small planes do crash.

Seizing on one controversial event to laugh at ALL the people who believe ALL those silly conspiracy theories can be a method to discredit more believeable possibilties.

For example, what do you think about LIHOP?

Tuesday, April 24, 2001

"The Bushies despise Wellstone, who unlike most Senate Democrats has been fighting spirited battles against the new administration’s policies on everything from the environment to the tax cuts for the rich to military aid for the "Plan Colombia" drug war boondoggle. Other Democratic senators who face re-election contests in 2002 are, according to polls, more vulnerable than Wellstone. But the Bush camp has been focusing highest-level attention on "Plan Wellstone" — its project to silence progressive opposition."

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0424-07.htm

eom

in Columbia only an opinion?

Democratic Senator to be Assassinated Soon.
Assassination teams actively preparing hit

Within months, one of a selected group of democratic Senators, likely from a state with a Republican Governor, will meet an untimely death. The death will appear to be either a plane “accident” or by “natural causes,” - Whichever is most easily accomplished. The reality will in fact be that the Senator was one of a group of several Senators (Narrowed down into a group of “Selects”) targeted for assassination and was the one who was in the right place at the right time for the most convenient and clean "hit.”

You will see, within in the coming months, for absolutely certainty, the untimely death of at least one Democratic Senator, to "rebalance the scale". The private covert intelligence groups behind George Bush Sr. are extraordinarily well funded with petrochemical billions. They are deadly, work completely autonomously, in a terrorist formation identical to a terrorist organization, and are absolutely religiously dedicated to accomplishing their objectives. They will not rest until the Senate is under the control once again of the darkest force ever to seize control of the American Empire - The clandestine industrial / military / intelligence triad who is currently represented by George Bush Jr.

Few have the ability to comprehend the machinations of this dark force. It is beyond the scope of our “Journalists.” And only a few intellectuals still remain who will even dare to approach this grim reality. But is a reality. This triad will employ cells of ex-military/CIA "cutouts" whose mission will be to carefully eliminate one of a selected group of Democratic Senators. Once, one of the senators is eliminated the mission is complete, the tracks get covered, the evidence quickly cleaned up and the history books will once again inscribe a lie for all of posterity to suck on. And we will never know the true nature of our world and especially the dark force which now controls the world and the writing of those history books.

The mission is already underway and several "candidates" are being evaluated for extermination. The method of elimination is also being evaluated and will be narrowed down to one of several choices. One being a carefully planned "plane crash." Another is through the delivery of certain biological agents to the Senator.

http://www.lightscion.com/voxnyc/archives/senator-assassination.html

eom

...yeah, and the Soviets shot down Korean Airlines flight 007 because rabidly anti-communist Congressman Lawrence McDonald was on board.

A grip. Get one, please.

Does anyone have a single shred of non-circumstantial credible evidence to substantiate the claim that Wellstone's death was murder?

I cannot believe 54% (so far) believe in was a "conspiracy." You know the republicans also use aliens that shape shift and take on the form of Democrats like Joe Liebermann - ooooooooooooooh uh-huh! Think about it!

My uncle's cousin's nephew's brother's mom's barber's trash man's gynocoloist's pet turtle's sister-in-law actually SAW the alien take Joe's shape!

Next up: Face of Satan appears in smoke over Wellstone wreckage - read all about it in the Daily News. And if that comment offends you, its not more offensive than I found completely groundless conspiracy theories.

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

And poll results like the one above make me wonder myself, on occasion... :tinfoilhat:

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

:grr:

have voiced suspicions, albeit anonymously. (Or, I suppose, you could simply believe Mike Ruppert's making this shit up.)

"FTW was able to receive 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.'"
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110102_wellstone.html

was fortunate that he found out his fiance was a CIA
agent sent to throw him off the track in his investigations.

Whew. That was a close one.



She made a great strawberry shortcake though.

because the timing and what it meant to us was so weird and suspicious. The day he died I cried for 2 days because I knew what it meant and the huge difference it would make to America. The world was going to be way better if they could've stayed here with us. They had BIG ideas and BIG plans....good ones for all. That Memorial for Paul STUNT the Rs pulled convinced me once and for all that ALL Repukes are heartless careless cruel stupid bastards that I for one will never believe or trust again with anything,and will not have sympathy for.

"Pilot wanted to cancel Wellstone's fatal flight
BY CHARLES LASZEWSKI, RICK LINSK and TOM WEBB
Pioneer Press

U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone was so nervous about the weather before takeoff on the morning of his fatal flight to Eveleth, Minn., that his pilot asked another pilot to reassure the senator that everything would be all right.

But Wellstone's pilot, Richard Conry, had himself expressed grave doubts about the weather that October morning — so much so that when he got his first weather briefing from the Federal Aviation Administration at 7:15 a.m., he wanted to cancel the flight.

"You know what, I don't think I'm going to take this flight," Conry told the weather briefer, according to a transcript of the conversation included in the National Transportation Safety Board's first major report on the Oct. 25 crash. The accident killed Wellstone; his wife, Sheila Wellstone; his daughter, Marcia Wellstone Markuson; and five others, including Conry.

The NTSB's "factual report" of the accident doesn't say what caused the twin-engine Beechcraft King Air A100 to crash just two miles southeast of the runway at Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport. The probable cause and contributing factors will be determined later by the safety panel's board members.

But the 2-inch-thick report does delve deeply into two issues that have concerned authorities since the investigation's early days: whether meteorological conditions on the morning of the crash could have caused killer ice to form on the plane's wings, and whether Conry and co-pilot Michael Guess — individually and as a team — were competent pilots.

U.S. Rep. James Oberstar of Chisholm, Minn., the top Democrat on the House Transportation Committee and an expert on aviation, said he had been briefed on the NTSB report. After reading it, he said, he was concerned more than ever about icing and the flight crew's performance.

"It appears to me that it's ever more likely a combination of mechanical failures and pilot error — mechanical meaning icing, in which the crew loses control of the surfaces of the aircraft. And the history of the pilot — much of which was not available last fall, we didn't know all these facts about him — raises questions.

"I'm always hesitant to be critical of a pilot on a fatal crash because he's not here to defend himself," Oberstar said. "But you look at these pieces of information, and it begins to raise questions about competence in flight management." .... "

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/5236353.htm

A striking example appeared in the Duluth News Tribune (22 February 2003), when it ran a story entitled, “Pilot almost called off Wellstone’s fatal flight”. According to St. Paul Pioneer Press reporters Charles Laszewski, Rich Linsk, and Tom Webb, who wrote the story, Senator Wellstone was uneasy about the weather, and his pilot, Richard Conry, “had expressed grave doubts about the weather on that October morning—so much so that, when he got his first weather briefing from the Federal Aviation Administration at 7:15 AM, he wanted to cancel the flight.”....

You would have to read 15 paragraphs to learn that, as the time for their scheduled 9:30 AM departure grew nearer, the weather had improved. In the 17th paragraph, we learn that, when Conry obtained an updated weather briefing around 8:30 AM, he received a new report that the wind at Eveleth was calm, visibility was three miles, light snow was falling, and the cloud ceiling was at 900 feet. “OK, that’s what I need”, Conry said. “At least, it’s above my minimums.” Also buried in the story is a report that other planes flying in the area earlier that morning had taken on some ice, “but nothing severe”. So when you read the story carefully, you discover that weather wasn’t a factor, after all.

Think about this, because it displays the power of newspaper reporters and editors to spin stories creating one impression or another. The headline, “Pilot almost called off Wellstone’s fatal flight” implies (a) that the weather was bad, (b) that the weather was probably responsible for the crash, and (c) that if Conry had only been more prudent, the crash would not have occurred. But when you actually read the story, it becomes obvious (a) that the weather was not bad, (b) that it could not have been responsible for the crash, and(c) that the pilot was very prudent, only proceeding when he had been reassured that the weather was fine. The impression created was the opposite of what the facts revealed! Read the story if you think I am making any of this up.

http://www.reader-weekly.com/Reader/Reader_Weekly/Jim_Fetzer/0313Wellstone.htm

???

created by the pilot's quote regarding flight conditions, which ignored the fact he reversed his opinion, based on improved weather, more than an hour before departure.

He *did* want to cancel the flight that morning. Sure, he changed his mind, when the weather conditions improved marginally--- and now PW is dead.

when he said he wasn't going to make the trip.

When Wellstone's pilot got the MUCH BETTER conditions in Eveleth, he had another pilot coming from Eveleth talk to Wellstone to convince the Senator that the flight was safe.

Pretty soon this conspiracy is going to have a cast of characters bigger than the NYC white pages. :eyes:

I'm arguing that Wellstone's crash MAY OR MAY NOT have been caused by pilot incapacitation. Currently, it just seems like the most likely explanation to me.

Pilot incapacitation MAY OR MAY NOT have been caused by foul play.

Any putative foul play MAY OR MAY NOT have been a conspiracy.

Any putative conspiracy MAY OR MAY NOT have included the US federal government.

Contrast this to you, who unconvincingly argues that Wellstone's crash HAD TO BE an unexplained accident.

"...Contrast this to you, who unconvincingly argues that Wellstone's crash HAD TO BE an unexplained accident...."

My theory is that there is no *e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e* whatsoever to indicate that it is anythin OTHER than an accident, and you have provided BUPKUS in the way of said 'evidence to the contrary', besides your own paranoid rantings!

You just want to stop people from exploring this crash. You don't offer anything and diligently take the official line presented. I've watched this tit for tat for nearly a year now at differant topics. You and jakey and a couple of others come out of the blue when ever stickdog is present.

I just notified stickdog of the topic today and you guys show up too.


What branch of the intelligence community do you work for?

1.) I haven't been here for a year.

2.) I was posting in and to this topic long before your buddy.

3.) I'm a college student, not one of 'them'. *eerie, spooky, sinister music*

Anybody who doesn't believe the conspiracy theory
must be in on it.



Karl Rove is paying them in strawberries. I just know it.

God forbid that anyone would suggest that an airplane flying in lousy, marginal weather would crash and kill *Paul Wellstone*; obviously, people like PW never die in tragic, yet thoroughly mundane ways--- they are always murdered by some insidous cabal... /sarcasm off

of non-circumstantial credible evidence to substantiate the claim that Wellstone's death was an accident?

You can't disprove a negative.

I swear that some of these people blame Karl Rove
and Bush if they get a flat tire.

It's just as nutty as the old Clinton death list
that the right used to e-mail one another.

The burden of proof is on those making the accusation. Care to shed anything other than speculative and circumstantial evidence?

Sadly, the only items worthy of the name 'evidence' contradict their :tinfoilhat: theories...

be considered accidents unless PROVEN otherwise.

It's no wonder why plane crashes has been a preferred CIA method of assassination for a long time, now is it?

Right?

That does not constitute 'proof'; specifically, that is called 'anecdotal' evidence. get back to me when you understand what 'proof' means.

"Does anyone have a single shred of non-circumstantial credible evidence to substantiate the claim that Wellstone's death was murder?

I cannot believe 54% (so far) believe in was a "conspiracy." You know the republicans also use aliens that shape shift and take on the form of Democrats like Joe Liebermann - ooooooooooooooh uh-huh! Think about it!

My uncle's cousin's nephew's brother's mom's barber's trash man's gynocoloist's pet turtle's sister-in-law actually SAW the alien take Joe's shape!

Next up: Face of Satan appears in smoke over Wellstone wreckage - read all about it in the Daily News. And if that comment offends you, its not more offensive than I found completely groundless conspiracy theories.

:tinfilhat::tinfilhat::tinfilhat::tinfilhat::tinfilhat: "

This helps your case HOW?

Seriously, these poll numbers are disturbingly irrational.

I'm ready to order some heavy-duty anti-psychotics to pass out around here... :tinfoilhat:

who mysteriously crashed in Texas in 1988 after Bush got in trouble with the BCCI.

It was a fatal accident, so the FAA would have been involved. Link to their findings, please?

EEEK!

who is 100% certain that a General would never lie about anything.

Asking for evidence of a conspriacy is not a negative. You are asking for proof that something IS true, which is appropriate.

On the other hand, demanding proof that it was NOT a conspiracy is attempting to prove a negative and is not appropriate.

The burden of proof is always on the one making the accusation. You must prove that a consiracy occured.

I'm reading your other posts and I can't tell if I'm msiunderstnading what you're saying.

My 'you can't disprove a negative' comment was just as you said--- they can't ask me to DIS-prove a conspiracy. :hi:

aren't I the fucking asshole. :D

Go back to logic school, Columbo.

I don't have to have "non-circumstantial credible evidence" (a matter of YOUR opinion, BTW) in order to form an opinion of my own. (Incidentally, I've sat on a jury for a criminal trial that was ENTIRELY based on circumstantial indirect evidence.)

If you think Wellstone's crash was an accident, good for you. Some people here think otherwise. If you're embarrassed to be in a minority on this topic, you don't have to choose to associate with DU.

How rational. :eyes:

will be presented shortly by the NTSB.

When?

12-14 months as a rule...perhaps the notoriety of this crash might add to that period...we'll see.

How probable are the following two events?

A small plane accident kills a frequent flyer.

A politician is assassinated, in a fashion made to look like an accident.

Both of these events have occurred in the past. In neither case can we state the probability of the event at a given time on a given flight with absolute precision, given the million-and-one variables: weather, pilot, type of plane, or (on the assassination side) the complications that might arise in the attempt, etc. etc.

The odds of an uncomfortable politician being assassinated are almost certainly comparable - I'd guess higher - than the odds of a frequent flyer dying in a plane accident, but how do we define "uncomfortable politician," uncomfortable to whom, is it really worth "their" time to get him, etc. etc.

Given the above self-evident considerations, ruling out either possibility in advance of study is obviously insupportable, and almost certainly the product of bias.

There is no neutral hypothesis in this case, just two possible explanations, with no reason to favor either in advance of looking at the facts.

We also need not adhere to a legal presumption of innocence, since we are not actually trying anyone in a court of law. We are engaging in a discussion, asking, logically: Is this an accident or murder? Both are known to happen.

But here is one difference: Accident research is primarily forensic research, with psychology playing a role in the moment-to-moment actions of the actors on the scene. Whereas assassinations are willed acts (i.e., the odds of someone *plotting* to assassinate someone are either zero or one hundred percent). The assassination hypothesis therefore has to consider more than the forensic remains, the weather, or the pilot's state. It must also consider historical precedents, timing, suspects, motives, means - sticky and unclear things, compared to a burnt-out wreck, but things that can and do exist!

Now look at the timing: an accident can happen on any flight, though weather and the pilot's shape changes the chances, etc.

If you were an enemy of Wellstone who wanted him dead and his political legacy undone, however, you would almost certainly pick any day up until the very day he died - the last day before his name would have stayed on the ballot.

He had become the leader of the antiwar movement in the Senate. In the months that followed his death, he would have likely arisen as the leader of the nationwide opposition to Bush and the war.

Again, anyone who automatically rules out either hypothesis (or calls for "proof" before acknowledging that both hypotheses are valid for study) is either an idiot or in denial about how corrupt any nation can be, including the United States.

A successful assassination would obviously aim to make it difficult to prove. (If the plane was jammed electronically from the ground, you can forget about proving jack!)

Interesting that the head NTSC investigator on the Wellstone case, Carol Carmody, lists 10 years of work at the CIA on her resume.

But I forgot, the CIA are the good guys now, working hard to protect us from WMDs and free us of Bush. No one involved with them would have a general interest to sweep uncomfortable facts under the rug.

Anyway, it is ridiculous to attack anyone for having their obvious suspicions about the Wellstone case. Wondering about the chances that a suspicious death was an assassination on a message board should not qualify you for insults, doubts about your sanity or name-calling.