Wellstone investigations --- and there are many . . ..

Abundant and Compelling Evidence
December 5, 2004
David R. Griffin
The authors of this important book argue that Senator Paul Wellstone's
death, 10 days before the 2002 elections, was an assassination, most
likely ordered by the Bush administration.
Directly confronting the widespread tendency to reject all "conspiracy
theories," the authors point out that "the idea that every theory that
implies the existence of conspiracy ought to be rejected out of hand"
is no more rational than the idea that every such theory should be
accepted. Rather, "each case has to be evaluated on the basis of the
evidence that is relevant and available in that case." On that basis,
they argue, if we look at ALL the relevant evidence and employ the
scientific method of inference to the best explanation, we must
conclude that the theory that Wellstone was assassinated is far more
probable than the official theory, according to which his Airplane
crash was an accident.
The evidence includes several facts suggesting that the NTSB (National
Transportation Safety Board) colluded with the FBI in a cover-up:
1. FBI agents from Minneapolis arrived at the crash site within 2 hours
after the crash, even though the trip from Minnesota to Duluth to the
crash site would have taken at least 3 hours--so they must have
departed before the plane crashed.
2. When asked for the times at which private flights had arrived in
Duluth that morning, the FAA said the records had been destroyed.
3. Considerable disinformation about weather conditions was quickly
given to the press.
4. Although regulations called for the investigation to be carried out
by the NTSB, not the FBI (because the crash site was not designated a
crime scene), the FBI agents were there for 8 hours before the NTSB
team arrived.
5. The FBI, even though there illegally, prevented the local "first
responders" from taking photographs.
6. Although it was the NTSB's responsibility to determine the cause of
the crash and although the FBI's prior presence was illegal, the NTSB
leader publicly accepted the FBI's declaration, made before the NTSB's
investigation, that there was no evidence of terrorism.
7. When the NTSB team finally carried out its own investigation, it was
unable to find either the cockpit recorder, which it assumed the plane
had had, or the black box.
8. The NTSB held no public hearings, claiming that it was not a
sufficiently "high-profile" case.
9. The NTSB's final report concealed the fact of the FBI's
participation.
10. The NTSB investigation was headed by Acting Director Carol Carmody,
a Bush appointee who had earlier ruled that there was no foul play in
the small airplane crash in 2000 that took the life of Governor Mel
Carnahan of Missouri, the Democratic candidate for the Senate who was
killed 3 weeks before his expected victory (over John Ashcroft).
The evidence also includes some facts strongly suggesting the falsity
of the NTSB's official conclusion, which was that the plane crashed
because the pilot failed to maintain proper speed, causing the plane to
stall.
1. The plane would have stalled only if it slowed to below 70 knots,
yet it was equipped with a device that emitted a loud warning at 85
knots.
2. The plane was being flown by two experienced and fully certified
pilots, a fact--obfuscated in the NTSB report-that makes this kind of
pilot error very unlikely.
3. The NTSB's theory fails to explain why, about two minutes before the
crash, all communication was abruptly terminated and the plane began
going off course.
The evidence also includes facts suggesting that the plane was instead
brought down by an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapon:
1. The plane's fuselage burned, although it was separated from the
wings, which contained the fuel.
2. The plane's electrical system, which would be affected by an EMP,
was in the fuselage, and the fire from the fuselage gave off blue
smoke, which is indicative of an electrical fire.
3. An EMP could explain why the plane simultaneously went off course
and lost its radio about two minutes before the crash.
4. At the same time, cell phones and garage doors in the area behaved
in a way consistent with the occurrence of an EMP.
5. An NTSB spokesman professed ignorance about the existence of EMP
weapons that could have brought down the plane, although the existence
of such weapons had been known for several years.
An important part of the authors' case is the fact that the Bush
administration would have had several motives:
1. Wellstone's defeat would return control of the Senate to the
Republicans.
2. Wellstone's death 10 days before the election meant that $700,000 in
the Republican campaign chest could be transferred, the very next day,
to the (successful) effort to defeat Max Cleland in the Senate race in
Georgia.
3. Wellstone was the biggest obstacle in the Senate to several
Republican policies, such as those involving Iraq, Colombia, the SEC,
tax cuts, and Homeland Security, and he was the strongest voice in
Congress calling for a full investigation into 9/11.
4. Two days before his death, Wellstone reported that Cheney had told
him: "If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will
do whatever is necessary to get you."
5. Wellstone had developed a 7-point lead in the polls over Norm
Coleman, the Bush administration's hand-picked candidate.
Finally, with regard to the question whether the Bush administration
would commit such a heinous act, the authors argue that an
administration that "compounded lie upon lie to . . . send hundreds of
thousands of young American men and women into harm's way is
not an administration that would hesitate to kill a single senator."
The authors conclude that the evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt
that Wellstone was assassinated. They have, in my view, made a
convincing case.
David Ray Griffin, author of "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11
Commission
Report: Omissions & Distortions

There are many . . . .

Cheney threatened him?

and in fact, the QUOTE is longer . . .

He tells them that Cheney is also saying that he'll do harm to Minnesota ---

If I get back to the particular link I'll post it for you.



EDITED to add . . .

I went back to a few links I looked at but can't find the one ....
It's in direct quotes . . .
Note this one below isn't . . .

Note also this Yahoo page of links --
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu4oMyipH1hYBkgZXNyoA?p=Paul+Wellstone+was+warned+by+Cheney&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-471

At least three of the links aren't coming up tonight --- error messages ---

but this one repeats the message without the direct quotes ---

as I recall it, he told this to an audience and presumably to other people ....

QUOTE: Wellstone reported that before the Senate vote on Iraq, Dick Cheney had warned him that bucking the administration could result in severe consequences for both him and the state of Minnesota. Neither was the vice president happy about the legislation Wellstone had introduced to improve protection against asbestos poisoning. Cheney had left Halliburton in a position to be sued by its insurer for asbestos claims staggering in their potential for remuneration. Only his assumption of the vice presidency granted him immunity from deposition. UNQUOTE

http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.php?id=309

It's much more threatening when you hear the direct quote ---

but, have to say, oddly a lot of info is getting "scrubbed" from internet and been going on a long time -- plus illogical responses to searches ---
ask for feminist stuff -- get anti-feminist stuff, etal ---

QUOTE: At a meeting full of war veterans in Willmar, Minn., days before his death, Wellstone told attendees that Cheney told him, "If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you. There will be severe ramifications for you and the state of Minnesota."

Wellstone cast his vote for his conscience and against the Iraq measure, the lone Democrat involved in a tough 2002 election campaign to do so. And a few weeks later on Oct. 25, as he appeared to be winning his re-election bid, Wellstone, his wife, Sheila, his daughter, Marcia Markuson, three campaign staffers, and two pilots died in a plane crash in Minnesota.

Talk about "severe ramifications."UNQUOTE

http://www.opednews.com/thoreau1203_wellstone_assassinated.htm

They have just as much "evidence". Funny thing is, you all would scoff at that.

It's exactly the same psychology as those that are convinced that Foster was murdered by the Clintons. Oh, and they have a long list of others murdered by the Clintons too, with lots of "evidence".

a Vince Foster murder, Clinton and Hillary would be in jail . . .
considering the huge money and influence that pulled all of this off.

On the other hand, this might have been another "false flag" operation --
kill someone in the Clinton Administration and make it look like the Clintons did it?

The Vince Foster scam has gotten more attention than the Bush S&L theft and embezzlements or BCCI!!!

That's why Scaife & Co. had to hawk their crap at fairs, over the Internet, etc.

but, Scaife, evidently having gotten everything he wants, announced a year or two ago that he was pulling his money out of backing the GOP. This might be having a visible effect at this point????

Meanwhile, was also reading just tonight that CHERTOFF was involved in two different lawsuits pursuing the "Vince Foster" case . .. !!!!

And -- I still like the idea that maybe the Foster farce was actually set up by Repugs . . . ????

4. At the same time, cell phones and garage doors in the area behaved
in a way consistent with the occurrence of an EMP.

The only actually functional EMPs ever deployed are nuclear bombs. I think we can be pretty sure a nuclear bomb didn't go off. Talking about "consistent with the occurence of an EMP" when we still can't get the damn things to work without incinerating a city is kind of silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#Non-nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse


Non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse

Non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) is an electromagnetic pulse generated without use of nuclear weapons. There are a number of devices to achieve this objective, ranging from a large low-inductance capacitor bank discharged into a single-loop antenna or a microwave generator to an explosively pumped flux compression generator.

To achieve the frequency characteristics of the pulse needed for optimal coupling into the target, wave-shaping circuits and/or microwave generators are added between the pulse source and the antenna. A vacuum tube particularly suitable for microwave conversion of high energy pulses is the vircator.


NNEMP generators can be carried as a payload of bombs and cruise missiles, allowing construction of electromagnetic bombs with diminished mechanical, thermal and ionizing radiation effects and without the political consequences of deploying nuclear weapons.

NNEMP generators also include large structures built to generate EMP for testing of electronics to determine how well it survives EMP. In addition, the use of ultra-wideband radars can generate EMP in areas immediately adjacent to the radar; this phenomenon is only partly understood.

And lesson 1 for today is "people with agendas can write whatever crap they want in wiki articles" (I'm not saying you wrote it, because I remember coming across that article a while ago and rolling my eyes.) For reasons that surpass my understanding, EMP-theorists will simply not shut up about this, and ignore all engineering realities.

NNEMP generators can be carried as a payload of bombs and cruise missiles, allowing construction of electromagnetic bombs with diminished mechanical, thermal and ionizing radiation effects and without the political consequences of deploying nuclear weapons.

Yes, they "can" be in the same sense that magma "can" be loaded into a big tube and squirted out as a giant lava-powered flamethrower. Both of these are theoretically possible but we can't make either one work. It's no small feat avoiding mutual coupling and inductance in a large enough bank of capacitors; to say nothing of the fact that actually charging one up enough draws as much power as a medium-sized town, and that the discharge of even the small ones we have gotten to work destroys the device and has an annoying tendency to catch things around it on fire.

I am not opposed to "conspiracy theories" at all (I think most history has been conspiratorial); I have trouble stomaching theories that ignore issues of logistics and/or engineering.

Why spend however many billions of dollars on a still-theoretical weapon to take down a plane (not to mention, apparently, taking out cell phones and garage doors) when you could do things like
A) have someone shoot the plane down with a missile
B) pay somebody to shoot him with a gun in his house
C) cut his brake lines
etc.

All of which have much more proven track records of working, as well as not setting off garage doors and cell phones.

Then an EMP is even worse at looking like an accident.

Using an EMP on a plane is hardly "non-lethal". But, again, we haven't solved the engineering problems of concentrating a beam and actually hitting a plane with it. Why would they use a sketchy and untested technology when there are well-known, fairly easy-to-conceal, proven ways to kill political opponents?

OK, it predates the "CSI" franchise by a good bit, but cop shows have only made it worse. People don't like how ambiguous and unsatisfying investigations are. I don't either. But that's pretty much all investigations. Hell, have you ever been on a jury for a serious crime? It's really not that clear what's happened, ever. It's not that Wellstone's crash or JFK's death or 9/11 are settled questions; it's that nothing at all is easy to settle unambiguously, and these stories are no different. You're not going to find some evidentiary silver bullet that's going to suddenly explain everything abnormal in any one of these, just like you wouldn't in a normal murder or plane crash.

Planes and fires did not demolish the Trade Center. The unambiguous evidence is in the photography and there's apparently quite a lot of it. Read all about it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=127965&mesg_id=127965

...and the one thing I've learned is that everyone sees the 9/11 they want to see. Claiming this or that is "unambiguous" is ridiculous.

I have yet to see one, and I can show you plenty that aren't buckled. That's pretty unambiguous. If the core columns didn't buckle, gravity didn't bring down the towers, period.

All one would need to do is induce a narrow high-voltage pulse in the electrical system to fry components and trip circuit breakers. Since the equipment is solid-state, a 50- or 60-volt pulse would probably do it, and inducing a 100-volt or higher pulse could probably be easily accomplished.

A receiver placed in the plane and designed to respond in a negative way to an external pulse is one way to accomplish a meltdown of aircraft electrical systems, without needing a nuclear blast. An external high-powered broadband microwave pulse aimed at the plane could induce high voltage pulses in the circuit board wiring and fry solid-state ICs.

There is no need to hypothesize a requirement for a wide-area EMP device to be needed, so saying that there couldn't have been foul play because you believe such a device had to have been used is illogical.

We certainly haven't gotten them to work at a range sufficient to hit a plane in the air

very interesting. Welcome to DU!

To "pulse" a car that is fleeing from a crime scene.

EMF devices are used by companies to see beneath the terrain to look for enemies hidden there, or for determining if there are various types of resources, especially metals.

ABout eighteenmonths ago, We also had some top officer in the Air Force stating that he hoped that a new form of EMF weaponry would be used on American protesters so that it could be determined whether the devices are harmful or not (Apparently the devices would cause you to feel dizzy or fearful, and most people in a crowd would want to disperse to get away from the painful feelings caused by the pulse.) Critics worry that among other things, such a device might cause people with metal fillings to have their teeth damaged by the metal being affected, people with metal pins inside their bones having even more severe consequences etc.

If there are devices that can "pulse" a car and stop its electronics, I fail to see why such a thing could not be used on a small private jet. It is odd for instance that neither of the pilots did not report into the tower as suddenly lost altitude.

An "official" explanation is that the plane ran into a flock of birds - however, such an event does not interfere with the electronic communication system of a jet like the one Wellstone was in.

No, we don't have that "pulsing" thing to stop cars yet; it's still in testing and the focusing doesn't work right. Currently we have "pulses" that can stop every car (even the police cars) within a 50' radius.

ABout eighteenmonths ago, We also had some top officer in the Air Force stating that he hoped that a new form of EMF weaponry would be used on American protesters so that it could be determined whether the devices are harmful or not

That's a bit simplistic description of what he said, and more importantly he also expressed a hope that the weapon would work, ie, it doesn't work yet. It was also microwave, which, while technically EM, is generally not called that.

So I am weighing what I have been told by others against what you are saying.

However please see my response at http://tinyurl.com/38ywp4 - I mean if commercial devices exist that
can stop a vehicle from fifty feet away, I bet the CIA can do a lot better

It's just that this is quite literally what I spend about 18 hours a day working on (peaceful versions; power and signal transmission) and I can assure you the engineering problems are legion.

It's like my private sector work in crypto. There's a saying "to every problem there is an engineering solution", which is true, but it becomes something of a Turing Tarpit. Yes, the NSA could crack a twofish-enciphered stream, but it's going to be much, much faster and cheaper to bribe and/or torture someone into giving them the key. Similarly, while it is probably within the means of the CIA to solve these engineering problems, make an functioning tight-beam, and shoot it at a Senator's plane, there are several big problems for me with this idea:

1) The CIA, as we've seen, is practically in a full-blown revolt against the administration. But it doesn't have to be the CIA, or it could be only a few highly-placed agents doing this, so #1, while a cause for caution, isn't entirely convincing. However,

2) This method is neither cheap nor reliable -- do you know his plane can't fly by wire? What will the weather conditions on the day be, and does the tight beam compensate for them? How do you hit a fairly small object moving in XYZ space with a beam? What's your aiming system? Is your meteorology sharp enough to know all the temperature and humidity gradiants? (See the disastrous ABM tests -- and that's an object moving at a non-relativistic speed; this is a pulse moving at c) How do you avoid bringing other planes in the area down? Where do you hide the apparatus? How do you dispose of it? How do you keep the silence of the people involved? (See Watergate)

2a) Given its expense, why not use a cheaper method like, say, poisoning, or cutting one of the wires or tubes on the plane?

2b) Given its unreliability, why not use tried-and-true methods of silencing political opponents, like extortion, poisoning, blackmail, false arrest, etc.?

3) Given that these guys' idea of a "plan" seems to be on the order of "invade the country and take the oil" or "everybody gets in their car and drives away from the Gulf Coast", where do they find the wherewithal to execute such a tightly-coordinated secret plan?

Are a possibility within the range of the government's research capability and the government's pocket book.

What might not be affordable for the cops in Dallas, TX is certainly affordable for the black ops people.

surrounding, say, a murder investigation of an ordinary street crime nature.

In a murder investigation, three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence, each one of which has other plausible explanations, are sufficient ot send some one to prison for life, while a huge pile of circumstantial evidence, assuming each piece has validity, is insufficient to support more than a yawn and a shrug.

When does a conspiracy theory become a vital investigation, and vice versa? How much evidence does it take, and does disproving one or several pieces of that evidence put the entire case in jeopardy?

Is the real problem that this case is being tried in the court of public opinion with a highly active competing force dedicated to covering it up or is it that an actual murder case would be tried in court, with a narrow and relatively rigid focus?

I know from experience that otherwise moral and highly thoughtful people, passionate enough about a particular policy or public attitude, will stop at nothing, no matter how horrid or immoral, to bring about desired change or to cover up misdeeds in the furtherance of their desires.

The rule of law is important for many more reasons than are considered in the normal run of imagination for most of us.

We are "screwn" and so was Paul Wellstone. Another outrage!

which points to the absence of a meaningful "rule of law."

i like your comparison. it made me think of the Memphis Three. those kids were imprisoned by a crazy "conspiracy theory" (rock music = satanism = murer), while loads of real evidence pointing to the real killer, and the prosecutor's motivation to protect a former informant, were ignored.

just to expand on your thought -- especially in criminal court, hegemony wins (he who hires the most/best lawyers, e.g. OJ Simpson).

The Return key and white spaces between paragraphs are your friends.

...well...this first >>

If someone told me that One of the kind people I know (in my life) had committed a terrible crime, I would be in shock and extremely upset to the point of non-belief.

When somebody accuses the Bush Administration of Murder...it's like telling me..
"It might rain tomorrow"

I wouldn't put anything past these pieces of Human Garbage.

Why should we put this past them?

152 executions in Texas ---

one of the info sites is calling him a "serial murderer" ---

There is something very wrong with all of the neo-cons --- none of them have consciences.

http://www.apk2000.dk/netavisen/artikler/global_debat/2002-na1103-ftw_wellstone_crash_eng.htm

ARGUING WITH BLITZER OVER THE DEATH OF A KNOWN TARGET
Many experienced internet researchers, especially post-9-11, understand the importance of immediately securing local press reports and eyewitness statements to pivotal events in the moments after they occur. Several keen observers were able to transcribe the following live dialogue between an on-the-scene reporter and CNN's Wolf Blizter.
Reporter: There is no evidence that weather had anything to do with the crash.
Blizter: But the plane was flying into some sort of ice storm, was it not?
Reporter: There is no evidence that the weather had anything to do with the crash.
According to these observers CNN immediately cut away from the on-scene reporter who was not heard from again. Other watchers noted a crawl along the bottom of the screen which, they said, ran only one time, "Weather not a factor in crash."
Yet the stories currently posted on the CNN site still suggest that the crash was caused by bad weather and icing.
Paul Wellstone had been a target of an assassin once before. He was strident opponent of Plan Colombia, a U.S. military aid package which involves massive aerial spraying of lands believed to be growing cocaine and the use of private military contractors employed by companies like DynCorp. Wellstone had traveled to Colombia to evaluate the program.
Shortly after his arrival on Dec. 1, 2000, as reported by a number of news sources including the AP, a bomb was found along his route from the airport. Although the State Department later downplayed the incident, the general opinion was, and remains, that as an outspoken critic of CIA and covert operations, Wellstone had indeed been a target.
Those suspicions gained credibility the next day when Wellstone and his staff were sprayed with glyphosate, a chemical that has been routinely documented as the cause of a variety of illnesses in the local population. It has left certain regions of Colombia, as one native put it, "Without butterflies or birds."
One anonymous author, using the pen name Voxfux, actually predicted Wellstone's assassination in spring 2001. The story can be read at www.voxnyc.com. In that missive the author predicted, "If the death occurs just prior to the midterm senatorial elections, expect it to be in a state with a close race. Expect a 'Mel Carnahan' style hit."

She looked annoyed and bewildered at his insistence that ice had caused the crash.

I also saw a live interview of a witness who swore he saw a flash from the tail of the plane - an interview I never saw rerun later in the day like so many others were.

I IMMEDIATELY called Governor Jess Ventura's office and begged them to get local authorities on the scene as observers. I told them about the Mpls FBI having the World Trade Center "trophy". Reminded them that the Mpls FBI had gotten Mousaoi, had been blocked from investigating what he was up to and that the Mpls FBI office had probably been restaffed and begged them for America and Minnesota's sake to get someone local on the scene.

The fact that the investigation was not routine. That in fact there was no NTSB independent investigation screams that this has to be a cover up. Wellstone was the "Conscience of the Senate". He was hard to ignore but this sent a strong message to the rest of the Congress (along with the Anthrax and the plane heading to Washington that went down in PA) that they better not stop the BFEE/Neocon agenda.

Didn't read this whole thread but Sen Kennedy had considered taking this flight also and changed his mind. Wouldn't that have been a coup?

Wellstone was on it at that time because he had changed his schedule to attend a funeral. The original schedule was that he would be in the cities campaigning with Kennedy. I don't think there was a ever a question of EMK attending the funeral. However, the original schedule had called for the two of them to attend a rally in Duluth that evening and they were still planning to meet up there. It stands to reason that, if they had both been in Minneapolis, they would have flown to Duluth together - and that plane could have gone into Lake Superior and never found.

(missed a format)

As in the other thread, I'm doing a lot of this from memory, but this has all come up before.

Here's the link (http://www.amazon.com/review/R1G75OO7OOWC9R) to what you posted without attribution, a violation of DU rules.

1. FBI agents from Minneapolis arrived at the crash site within 2 hours after the crash, even though the trip from Minnesota to Duluth to the crash site would have taken at least 3 hours--so they must have departed before the plane crashed.

Apparently there's an alien-derived technology called radio that allows one to communicate to people at a distance. Some is even incorporated into a hand-held technology called a "cell phone". This replaced an earlier alien-derived technology called a "pager". These can be used to contact travellers if they are required to change their destination while en-route somewhere else.

2. When asked for the times at which private flights had arrived in Duluth that morning, the FAA said the records had been destroyed.

The records were destroyed, therefore the plane did not arrive. :wtf:

3. Considerable disinformation about weather conditions was quickly given to the press.

Failing to look at the weather around them, and also disbelieving the weather reports of their own weather offices or material freely available online, the press was suckered into believing conditions were sunny and hot in November.

4. Although regulations called for the investigation to be carried out by the NTSB, not the FBI (because the crash site was not designated a crime scene), the FBI agents were there for 8 hours before the NTSB team arrived.

In other words, law enforcement would be prevented from sealing the area from bystanders and looters, allow evidence to degrade and stand around with their hands in their pockets because the NTSB refused to make use of the alien teleportation technology freely available to them as cogs in the government machine.

5. The FBI, even though there illegally, prevented the local "first responders" from taking photographs.

First I'd heard of this. I wouldn't want my loved one's crime scene pictures splashed all over the media, who are often hot on the tails of "first responders".

6. Although it was the NTSB's responsibility to determine the cause of the crash and although the FBI's prior presence was illegal, the NTSB leader publicly accepted the FBI's declaration, made before the NTSB's investigation, that there was no evidence of terrorism.

FBI says water is wet. NTSB (late 'cause they're afraid of the teleporter) says the water is wet. Therefore there's a massive conspiracy. Water is really fluffy.

7. When the NTSB team finally carried out its own investigation, it was unable to find either the cockpit recorder, which it assumed the plane had had, or the black box.

King Air's don't have a cockpit flight recorder or "black box".

8. The NTSB held no public hearings, claiming that it was not a sufficiently "high-profile" case.

If the NTSB held public hearings every time a small plane crashed, they'd never get anything else accomplished.

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

Show me an NTSB report that DOES mention FBI participation.

10. The NTSB investigation was headed by Acting Director Carol Carmody, a Bush appointee who had earlier ruled that there was no foul play in the small airplane crash in 2000 that took the life of Governor Mel Carnahan of Missouri, the Democratic candidate for the Senate who was killed 3 weeks before his expected victory (over John Ashcroft).

Has foul play been proven in that crash?

The evidence also includes some facts strongly suggesting the falsity of the NTSB's official conclusion, which was that the plane crashed because the pilot failed to maintain proper speed, causing the plane to stall.

1. The plane would have stalled only if it slowed to below 70 knots, yet it was equipped with a device that emitted a loud warning at 85 knots.

First off, many pilots ignore the stall warning because it's supposed to go off on approach. You've still got flyable speed left. There's no second warning when you actually hit stall speed other than you've suddenly got a flying brick on your hands.

Here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-90881.html) is a thread pointing out that the speed indication could be well off.

2. The plane was being flown by two experienced and fully certified pilots, a fact--obfuscated in the NTSB report-that makes this kind of pilot error very unlikely.

I've flown with "experienced and fully certified pilots" that made me shit my pants from the boneheaded mistakes they made. These two had a troubled career. The pilot relied upon the co-pilot to do all the work. The co-pilot had sloppy flying habits including failing to maintain throttle control during landing.

3. The NTSB's theory fails to explain why, about two minutes before the crash, all communication was abruptly terminated and the plane began going off course.

You are in a flying brick. Pick one - yack on the radio or try to get out of the stall.

The evidence also includes facts suggesting that the plane was instead brought down by an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapon:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

1. The plane's fuselage burned, although it was separated from the wings, which contained the fuel.

The wings separated before the crash? First I've heard of this.

2. The plane's electrical system, which would be affected by an EMP, was in the fuselage, and the fire from the fuselage gave off blue smoke, which is indicative of an electrical fire.

Do this google search, "electrical fire" and "blue smoke" (http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22electrical+fire%22+%22blue+smoke%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N). Other than Wellstone conspiracy threads - nothing.

There's no such thing as an "electrical fire" per se. Electricity does not burn. Electricity can start fires.

3. An EMP could explain why the plane simultaneously went off course and lost its radio about two minutes before the crash.

Fallacy of the undivided middle.

4. At the same time, cell phones and garage doors in the area behaved in a way consistent with the occurrence of an EMP.

Fallacy of the undivided middle.

My cell phone does all sorts of batshit stuff and I haven't been near an ENP (exception noted below). My garage door opens by itself so often I've stopped using the remote and have it locked.

5. An NTSB spokesman professed ignorance about the existence of EMP weapons that could have brought down the plane, although the existence of such weapons had been known for several years.

Because there aren't any.

There is, however, one EMP weapon constantly in use. EVERYBODY BE WARNED IT'S VERY VERY DANGEROUS YOU HAVE TO PANIC AND RUNING SCREAMING IN CIRLCESH AAGTRGGFRRGF8G8IT4I THERE ARE HUGE EXPLOSIONS OF GAMMA RAYS AND ALL SORRTS OF STUFF ATH WILL GIVE YOU CANCER AND AMKE YOUR COMPUTER AND OTHER ELECTRICAL GEAR ACKT WIERD!@#!!#!@#!@

It's called "the sun".

Because there aren't any.

Not so -- there are very, very effective EMP weapons; they are commonly called "nuclear devices". Their EMP pulse can disable electronics for kilometers in every direction (depending on yield). "Tactical" nukes, incidentally, were intended with the EMP as their main effect. As I try to explain ad nauseum up thread (and as, it seems, you are aware) the difficulties of getting an EM pulse to stay focused in a single beam are numerous and are why we still have networked rather than point-to-point radio and phone service. One subclass of EM pulses (lasers) do pretty well, but we still can't even vaporise a human target from space, whatever Val Kilmer said...

Here are some examples of electromagnetic radiation:

1. The electricity that comes through high-tension lines to your house
2. The microwaves with which you cook your food
3. The radio waves with which you listen to This American Life
4. The light by which you see things around you
5. The X-rays by which your doctor sees where your arm was broken
6. The laser that reshapes your cornea so that you don't need glasses anymore
7. The magnetic field which sticks your horrible emo poetry to the refrigerator

All of these are electromagnetic (EM) radiation. The genius of Maxwell's Equations is that they show all of these are the same thing, occasionally rotated by 90 degrees. EM by itself does not disable airplanes, as proved by the fact that airplanes can fly in sunlight and with radio stations broadcasting, or with crude emo magnetic poetry stickers in a passenger's purse. It takes a very, very specific frequency and amplitude of radiation delivered at a very specific power and load to damage or disable the circuitry -- delivering such a specific pulse is so non-trivial that people get PhD's for getting us just a little step closer to being able to do it (and no, the main purpose of the research isn't to bring down airplanes, but to transmit signals without error).

Take the microwave. The physical principles of using a microwave to heat things were understood since at least Maxwell (1860's or so). The engineering feat of actually delivering a steady, predictable, and constant supply of the radiation safely to a specific place took another 120 years or so.

If I were going to bring down a small plane (not that I would, mind you), I'd hide a bomb that ignited aviation fuel in an innocent-looking container that would be consumed in the fire. The bomb could be rigged to go off at a certain altitude or it could be detonated remotely by someone who was in the woods. (One of my relatives pointed out that it was hunting season, so someone could be hanging around in the woods without arousing suspicion.)

Is this necessarily true? No. But it's another way that sabotage would be possible.

In the bringing down of the plane that E. Howard Hunt's wife, Dorothy was taveling in ---
it supposedly involved having someone in the nost of the plane to manipulate it and bring it down.

I think that story is in High Treason . . . I'll have to look for it ---

As reported and repeated by Hunt -- it also involved having a huge FBI force at the scene by the time the plane crashed -- tbey were gathering up the money -- $25,000 in cash.

However, based on my experience of having spent several months in the DU 911 forum and having read many astonishingly dishonest and misleading "technical" papers and reports on that subject, I am confident in asserting that they are all nearly unanimously full of horseshit.

The whipper-uppers of American zeitgeist.
And to all others, they say SHUT UP!!!