Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NTSB: Wellstone crash result of pilot error

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
southpaw72 Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:07 PM
Original message
NTSB: Wellstone crash result of pilot error
WASHINGTON (AP) Pilot error caused the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., and seven others, investigators said Tuesday.

Investigators told the National Transportation Safety Board that the twin-propeller King Air A100 slowed down too much while approaching Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport in northern Minnesota on Oct. 25, 2002. The plane lost altitude, veered sharply, sheared off treetops and crashed 2 1/2 miles short of the runway.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-11-18-wellston...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Pilot error brought on by pilots being drugged?
Perhaps pilot error brought on by a second becaons ignal directing them to an incorrect site.

Horseshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. moral of the story: Dems, stay out of small planes. period.
drive, don't fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Pilots make errors
It happens.

Not everything is a conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Yep, but a the second Democratic Senator being dead
in the exact same fashion almost two years to the day as the last one.

Bullshit.

Majority Margin of Bushevik Party in the Imperial Senate: 2
Number of Democratic Senators Dying in Small Plane Crashes: 2
Number of Democratic Senators Dying in Small Plane Crashes Conveniently Located in Battleground Midwestern States Trending Bushevik in Which the Transition Could be sped along if Only Those Pesky Incumbents Would Go Away: 2.
Number of Democratic Senators Dying in Small Plane Crashes in Sates with solidly safe Democratic Seats: 0

Even IF they found evidence that Wellstone was assassinated, do you really think they would tell us? It would be signal for CIVIL WAR IMMEDIATELY, IMHO. So, once again, "for the good of the nation" (who's good and who's nation?), a Bushevik Crime will be covered up.

Watergate was an aberration at the Height of the Old Republic. Bushevik Treason from the 1936 Smedley Butler Coup to the October Surprise and Iran-Contra have ALL been covered up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. He is the only Democratic Senator who has died in a plane crash recently
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Huh?
Your memory does not go back to the Autumn of 2000?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Sure. No Democratic Senators died than.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Sorry, you are wrong. Mel Carnahan died on October 16, 2000.
Edited on Tue Nov-18-03 02:47 PM by Zhade
You know, Democratic Governor Mel Carnahan? The dead guy that John Ashcroft lost the Senate race to? Died in a small plane crash?

On edit: Ah, my mistake, you said no Democratic Senators, not Senators-to-be.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. He was not a Senator. He was a Governor.
And the results of that race make it even more unlikely that Wellstone was killed. Ashcroft lost that race due to the sypathy vote. Would would the Republicans kill him and risk that happening again.

If they wanted to gain Senate seats, it would make more sence to kill a Democratic Senator from a state with a Republican Governor, so that a Republican would be appointed to serve out the rest of the term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Yes. I edited my post a few minutes before you "corrected" me.
Edited on Tue Nov-18-03 03:15 PM by Zhade
We both misread each other's posts. It happens.

You need to substantiate your claim regarding the "sympathy vote" theory. I don't know if this is correct.

ON EDIT YET AGAIN: Sheesh, this time I misread MY OWN post. Oy!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. Ashcroft was narrowly leading before that crash
But the point that I am trying to make is that the death of the Democratic candidate in 2000 did not lead to a Republican victory then, so why would they try it again. If they really wanted use murder to pick up a Senate seat, there would have been better targets. Particulary a Senator who was not up for reelction in a state with a Republican Governor. It would likely be at least serveral months (or as long as two years depending on state law) until a election would have to be held. This would give the new Senator time to use the power of incumbentcy to bolster their election prospects.

So far those who are arguing that this was murder have to provided a shred of proof. The only thing that they have provided was a motive. But that motive is, as explained above, rather unlikely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. Oh, but they got Wellstone's wife this time around
(thus correcting past errors)

Had Jean Carnahan died, Ashcroft would be an Imperial Senator today, instead of our Himmler, IMHO

Your point is technically correct. However, by 2002, both Imperial Senate seats were Bushevik.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #40
52. Both had children that use their father's last name
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
39. Your logic is flawed.
"And the results of that race make it even more unlikely that Wellstone was killed. Ashcroft lost that race due to the sypathy vote. Would would the Republicans kill him and risk that happening again."

1. The Republicans had far more control over the election process in 2002; after all, the President wasn't named Bill Clinton.

2. Getting a Republican elected wasn't necessarily the primary reason for killing Wellstone. THEY WANTED WELLSTONE OUT OF THE WAY! A re-elected Wellstone would have been George W. Bush's worst nightmare. The Republicans would have elected any Democrat elected in his place.

But the sympathy vote didn't work for the Dems anyway - probably because the Republicans controlled the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #39
61. You're both full of it
Plane's don't magically crash because of the people on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #39
85. How did Republicans control the election process in MN?
The governor there was an independent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #85
91. "How did Republicans control the election process in MN?"
I don't know; I wasn't aware that they did.

They certainly had a lot of control over NATIONAL politics and media, and Minnesota Republican candidates were supported by pResident George W. Bush versus President Bill Clinton in 2000.

But I wasn't aware the Republicans directly controlled the election process in Minnesota. Please tell me more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Red State Rebel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
117. There is currently a lawsuit being tried.....
in St. Louis over Carnahan's crash. The family is suing because they say that the mechanical failure that caused the crash was known about by the manufacturer but not corrected. (Apparently there was a recall on this particular part but either they weren't notified or it was before they bought the plane)

It's hard to put this one in the conspiracy category with this much scrutiny into the cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Code_Name_D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. Mell Carnahan ring a bell?
He was the carcuse that still managed to beat Ashcroft. He also died in a plane crash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #27
37. He was not a Senator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Why bother?
Edited on Tue Nov-18-03 02:41 PM by TrogL
(removed ad hominem)

I dislike Occam's Razor but I'm going to invoke it here.

Why bother going to all the trouble of magic ray guns and portable beacons?

Do a cost-benefit analysis. It just doesn't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Red State Rebel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
118. I had a pilot friend killed in a "pilot error" crash....
nobody wants to believe it can happen. We later found out the co-pilot was flying our friends jet at the time of the crash. They hit a guy wire to a tower of some kind and sheared off a wing. Stuff happens, the problem is, when stuff happens and you are flying the odds are, you aren't going to survive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #118
135. I have had at least 4 pilot friends die by their own errors in 40 years.
As much as it pains me to admit, pilots make mistakes. Some are fatal.

Here are their names:
Cecil Gibson
Lou Simmons
Bob Johnson
Jimmy Stephenson

Cecil was a mediocre pilot. He did not have the temperament and skill that is paramount. He managed to finally get a license to fly a Lear jet and crashed it, killing himself and 3 (or 4, I forget now) other people.

Lou was a great pilot. A Captain with Frontier Airlines and part-time
instructor. He died in a stupid accident in a teeny little Cessna 150 along with his student. We never found out why. *

Bob was very experienced and loved to fly gliders. One day he was in a
Bergfalke glider that was being launched with a winch. For some reason he didn't release the hook and the winch yanked his glider down, pulled a wing off and he smashed into the ground right at the end of the runway, and

Jimmy, who had over a thousand hours in a Commander 500 inexplicably one day stalled it and crashed.

No evidence of any mechanical malfunction was ever found in any of these incidents.

* which has reminded me of a bittersweet memory. The first time I ever flew a glider was with Lou. We met up at the airport, he wanted to fly, and besides we two, there was only one other pilot certified to tow gliders...nobody to "walk the wing" (normally there is a person who will hold one wing tip level for a few dozen feet until there's enough airspeed for the glider pilot to keep it level with the ailerons) so we thought "well, let's just hook up the tow rope and let it pull us along for a bit, we'll have control in a few seconds."

So we did that. The tow-plane started down the runway, took up the slack in the rope and off we went. After a few seconds, I noticed we were heading for the fence on the east side of the runway. It didn't alarm me right away, I figured Lou was avoiding a pothole or something. But we kept going off to the side...I turned around (I was in the front seat) and said "where the hell are you going?" He yelled, "I thought YOU were driving!"

I am not making this up. It only became funny much later.

If I could write, I'd write a book.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #135
137. I lost as friend as well
He was working for forestry. He was a passenger in a float plane taking off from a lake and the pilot ran out of water and put it into some trees. This was an experienced bush pilot with thousands of hours.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. BULLSHIT!
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, BULLSHIT! I will never believe that! We may never be able to conclusively prove it, but I firmly, totally believe that the crash was no accident, and that Wellstone was murdered. And "pilot error" is what they always say when they don't really know what happened or when they don't want anyone to know what happened, it's just a catch-all cover-your-ass phrase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Character Assassin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
23. You'll never believe it?
Thus no amount of evidence, ever, of any sort could convince you that it was simply a crash.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
30. You mean you don't trust authority?
Me niether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knowledgeispower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
98. I'm with you
Wellstone was going to be re-elected after he stood up in the Senate and denounced the war on Iraq as being "all about oil." He would have given the anti-war crowd a figurehead to rally behind, and he might have rode that all the way to the White House in 2004. You think the BFEE didn't see that coming? You think they didn't take it upon themselves to make sure it didn't happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. As I predicted. I don't -like- pilot error, being a professional pilot bu
but is all too common, unfortunately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pa28 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
69. The report discounts ice
But given the weather conditions at the time it seems likely. Ice plus human error and pilot deficiency making a classic accident chain. No conspiracy here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. Another thread on this....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. Has the NTSB
ever determined that a crash was caused by sabotage, or made a finding embarassing to the government? (Come in, TWA Flight 800...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yes. Many times. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Have they ever found the sabotage to be committed by Amerikans?
I'll need to see a link here, karl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. Here is one. There are several on the NTSB server
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #21
42. Can't argue with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scott Lee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
9. BP: Reichstag Fire Caused by Oily Rags
Yeah, that's the ticket....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. LOL!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slack Donating Member (250 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
18. Sorry
As a european reader of this board, I don't believe one word of this report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. elucidate
What, specifically, do you object to?

What, specifically, do you think happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slack Donating Member (250 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #19
138. I think BushCo killed him
because he was the face, the hearable voice who spoke against this stupid war. and this war is business. business of bush-family&friends.
but evidence? nope. simple cui bono?
perhaps a little bit influenced by http://www.bushbodycount.com /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fleshdancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
22. refresh my memory...
wasn't this the same pilot who's files were missing from the company he was working for? Conspiracy theories aren't normally my thing, but the Wellstone crash make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. First I've heard of missing files
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knowledgeispower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #22
100. Don't forget Senator Kennedy was supposed to be on the plane too
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #100
124. I'm not sure that is correct....
I wrote that to DU when this happened as that is the way I heard it on NPR, however, later I understood that they were to do something together in MN, but Wellstone felt he had to cancel the appearance or meeting with Kennedy to go to northern MN for the funeral (memorial?) of the person who died, though they did say that the person who died was also close to Kennedy. Maybe someone knows the precise details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. I don't know how precise my details are, but I know this
Kennedy and Wellstone were scheduled to spend the day campaigning together in the Twin Cities metro area. Later, they were suppose to attend a rally in Duluth together. Wellstone changed his plans to attend a funeral. Kennedy stayed in Mpls and continued the campaign schedule with Walter Mondale and Warren Spannus (Spannus used to the state Attorney General.) The plan was he and Wellstone would hook up in Duluth for the rally.

It stands to reason that, if the original plan had been stuck to, they would have flown to Duluth together. However, I never heard either Kennedy or Wellstone's people confirm or deny that (which certainly doesn't mean they haven't said something).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
26. Here come the conspiracy theorists....
Just once I would like to see some real hard evidence and not just speculation to back up these claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. That's what a lot of people say about coincidence theorists, too.
Like the ones who simply accept the government's explanation of 911, despite the lack of evidence of who, how, why, etc.

(Not saying you do this. Just offering a point to consider.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. The whole "coincidence theorist" crap is just like...
...the arguments that "creation scientists" try to use to argue against evolution.


Not one of those 9-11 theories have any real verifiable evidence to support them.


I don't trust everything the government says, but I don't automatically distrust it either. You have to take in as much information as possible and then base your opinion on where the proponderance of evidence lies.


All of the speculation in the world does not make something true.







PS - I do think that all of the reasons that 9-11 happened do need to be investigated, but for a real investigation to happen we need Bush out of the white house. Oh, and my guess is that a real investigation would not show a conspiracy, but more likely just gross incompetence from Bushco (note that I said "guess").


PPS - If this came off harsh, then I apologize, but I have grown tired of the flawed arguments and counter-arguments that the conspiracy theorists keep using.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #31
44. Good conspiracy theory is based on LOGIC.
If you think consiracy theories swirling around Paul Wellstone's plane crash are based only on coincidences, you're sadly mistaken. Coincidences are certainly part of it - but they're extraordinary coincidences.

But a key factor is LOGIC. If Wellstone's plane crash was routine, how do you explain the obvious media conspiracy (obvious to anyone who followed the media closely)? What did the Republicans have to gain from assassinating Wellstone? How did they benefit?

"Not one of those 9-11 theories have any real verifiable evidence to support them."

Wow, you're going WAY out on a limb there!

"I don't trust everything the government says, but I don't automatically distrust it either. You have to take in as much information as possible and then base your opinion on where the proponderance of evidence lies."

You don't automatically distrust the government? In other words, you think most elected officials are honest? Sheez, join the 21st century, man!

"All of the speculation in the world does not make something true."

Of course not. But the word of the government doesn't make it true, either. Good conspiracy theorists weigh the evidence and try to decide which scenario is most likely.

"PS - I do think that all of the reasons that 9-11 happened do need to be investigated, but for a real investigation to happen we need Bush out of the white house. Oh, and my guess is that a real investigation would not show a conspiracy, but more likely just gross incompetence from Bushco (note that I said "guess")."

Yes, I could see the gross incompetence in George Bush's eyes as he sat on his butt reading a story about a pet goat after Andrew Card informed him that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. A person would almost have to PRACTICE to look that unconcerned in the face of such news; kind of like George Bush Senior going fishing during Gulf War I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. You need help....
You're not talking about logic, you're talking about supposition. You are basing your arguments on incomplete evidence. I am using Occum's Razor to base my opinion on. Show me real hard and verifiable evidence supporting something different, and I will change positions immediately. But you can't do that because you have none....


Oh, and....

Wow, you're going WAY out on a limb there!


Nope. Never seen any real hard and verifiable evidence to support anything more then gross incompetence (itself possibly a crime, but far from LIHOP or MIHOP).

You don't automatically distrust the government? In other words, you think most elected officials are honest? Sheez, join the 21st century, man!

Way to put words in my mouth. That was incredibly dishonest of you. I never said anything close to that. You should feel ashamed of yourself for using argumentative tactics like that.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. Are you a creationist?
"You're not talking about logic, you're talking about supposition."

Do you even know what logic is???

"You are basing your arguments on incomplete evidence."

You're basing yours on the word of government officials.

"I am using Occum's Razor to base my opinion on."

WHAT? You're using Occum's Razor? Well, why didn't you say so?!

Sheez, if you're using OCCUM'S RAZOR, then you win this debate hands down!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. Slow down, slow down
You're posting logical fallacies faster than we can swat them...a standard right-wing technique. Hey, I guess that makes you a Republican operative. (mods, I'm being sarcastic).

We are basing our opinions on published evidence. This evidence is available under Freedom of Information and has been widely reported in the media. If you think the entire media is in cahoots on this, you need help.

WHAT? You're using Occum's Razor? Well, why didn't you say so?!

Another logical fallacy - the "horse laugh".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #57
67. Published Evidence?
You're basing your conclusion on published evidence? What an amazing coincidence - George Bush's rationale for attacking Iraq is now widely avaiable as published evidence, too! It's been widely reported in the media, and you don't even need to use the Freedom of Information Act to access it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #67
72. Show me the photographs of the WMD's
Do it.

Link it right now, or shut up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #51
59. This has turned productive...
If A = B, and B = C, then A = C must also be true.

That, sir is logic.

You are using A = B then A = C must be true. You're missing a step there.

You should stop insulting the people you are trying to persuade to your side. It tends to be a much more effective debating strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #59
71. Another fine propaganda technique.
Well, if I'm using A = B then A = C must be true, then YOU'RE using
if A = B, it really doesn't matter because I trust the government and the corporate media!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. So if you don't trust the media and you don't trust the NTSB...
The pictures were published among other on CBS-Verizon-owned media outlets. They are not in Republican/RRR hands last time I checked.

The NTSB has been around a lot longer than the Dubya administration. Many of those people would be Clinton-era appointees/hirees. What are they - moles??

Your theory amounts to "the plane crashed because Dubya wanted it to".

There is no way of verifying your theory, hence it is invalid. There is no test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #75
80. Sheez
"The pictures were published among other on CBS-Verizon-owned media outlets. They are not in Republican/RRR hands last time I checked."

Sheez, I'd have to spend several hours teaching you Media 101 just to bring you up to speed!

"The NTSB has been around a lot longer than the Dubya administration. Many of those people would be Clinton-era appointees/hirees. What are they - moles??"

The Department of the Interior has been around a lot longer than Bush. Many of the people now trashing the environment would be Clinton-era appointees/hires. What are they - moles??

"Your theory amounts to 'the plane crashed because Dubya wanted it to'."

Your theory amounts to "I'll take the government's word for it, because I'm too lazy to check out alternative theories."

"There is no way of verifying your theory, hence it is invalid. There is no test."

There is no way of verifying your theory, hence it is invalid. There is no test.

All we have to distinguish your theory from my theory is circumstantial evidence - and that evidence clearly points towards a likely assassination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. My argument follows inductive reasoning
Which is valid. It's also internally consistent.

Yours is riddled with logical fallacies and huge leaps of faith.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #84
92. Another Propaganda Technique
Claiming your opponent's reasoning is "riddled with logical fallacies and huge leaps of faith" - especially when you have no argument of your own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #92
105. Recap - my argument
A large number of plane crashes are caused by pilot error, be it incompetence, poor cockpit management skills, inattention, stupidity or insanity.

At least one of the pilots is documented as being incompetent, stupid and or inattentive (eg. pushing wrong buttons) and having poor cockpit management skills to the point where a co-pilot had to wrestle the controls away from him. At least one of the pilots needed work on approaches.

Cockpit management skills can be adversely impacted by less than ideal weather.

Cockpit management skills can be adversely impacted by unexpected events.

The plane flew through less than ideal weather - clouds, fog, possible icing (at least at higher altitudes).

The plane came out of the clouds fairly well on course, but too high and too fast - an unexpected event.

The pilots, perhaps encumbered with a cockpit management load that exceeded their ability to cope, failed to properly slow the plane or perform a go-around and either deliberately forced it into a stall or lost control of the aircraft and were unable to recover from said stall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. Facts versus Corporate Government/Media Claims
"A large number of plane crashes are caused by pilot error, be it incompetence, poor cockpit management skills, inattention, stupidity or insanity."

True.


"At least one of the pilots is documented as being incompetent, stupid and or inattentive (eg. pushing wrong buttons) and having poor cockpit management skills to the point where a co-pilot had to wrestle the controls away from him. At least one of the pilots needed work on approaches."

According to the government and corporate media.


"Cockpit management skills can be adversely impacted by less than ideal weather."

True.


"Cockpit management skills can be adversely impacted by unexpected events."

True.


"The plane flew through less than ideal weather - clouds, fog, possible icing (at least at higher altitudes)."

Apparently true; that's fairly common in Minnesota.


"The plane came out of the clouds fairly well on course, but too high and too fast - an unexpected event."

According to the government and corporate media.


"The pilots, perhaps encumbered with a cockpit management load that exceeded their ability to cope, failed to properly slow the plane or perform a go-around and either deliberately forced it into a stall or lost control of the aircraft and were unable to recover from said stall."

According to the government and corporate media.

More facts.

The timing was an extraordinary coincidence - almost unbelievable.

Republicans had a lot to gain from Wellstone's death.

Republicans are capable of murder.

Wellstone's plane crash was followed by an extraordinary media conspiracy - unless you want to dismiss it as extraordinarily sloppy journalism.

* * * * * * * * * *

I need to research the claim that the FBI was on the scene within 40 minutes of the crash. That's an extraordinary piece of evidence I wasn't aware of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. So the plane crashed because....
Timing does not crash planes.

Having a lot to gain does not crash an airplane.

Being capable of murder does not crash an airplane.

A media conspiracy does not crash an airplane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #80
102. The NTSB is the most apolitical entity in the whole government.
I have known several of their investigators and helped on a couple accidents that happened around my own city (Tulsa.) There might be a small handful of partisan bad apples but they are few and far between.
I was encouraged on many occasions to apply for a job with NTSB and actually entertained the idea on occasion but I'm too impatient for the endless detail they have to document.

Nobody will ever convince me they would deliberately cover up or falsify an investigation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #102
106. "No one will ever convince me"
Jaysus, now you're doing it too.


GRRRRRRRRRRRRR :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #106
119. Yeah, I guess I am! And nobody will ever convince me the earth
is flat either. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #80
116. So we're left with..
Sheez, I'd have to spend several hours teaching you Media 101 just to bring you up to speed!

Which isn't an answer, it's an insult. Please demonstrate right wing control of CBS/Verizon/PBS/NPR etc.

The Department of the Interior has been around a lot longer than Bush. Many of the people now trashing the environment would be Clinton-era appointees/hires. What are they - moles??

The "fox guarding the henhouse" scenario at Interior has already been documented. There have been no major changes at the NTSB. If you are aware of them, post them now or shut up.

There is no way of verifying your theory, hence it is invalid. There is no test.

Nope. In both cases it's a matter of faith. I believe in the laws of physics. I believe in causality. I believe in the logical progression of argument. I believe what I've been told by flight instructors and pilots and weather officers and what I read in flying textbooks.

To believe in cockeyed theories about magic rays and movable beacons, gas cannisters and all the other cokamamie explanations required to bring down the plane is simply to great a leap in faith for me to sanction.

Planes do not crash by magic.

Bad pilots crash planes.
Bad pilots were on the plane.
The plane crashed.

Seems pretty straightfoward to me.

One last time - let's hear your version and how it varies from "Dubya wanted it to crash so it did".

No evasions. No red herrings. No bullshit. Just lay it all out, right here, right now or shut up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meisje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #59
99. he's been watching too much Hannity or whoever!
SHUT UP! SHUTUPSHUTUP SHUT UP!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #47
90. By the way, it's Occam's Razor..
not Occum's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #90
96. Very nice Occam's razor site
http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~soss/cs644/projects/jacob /

Read the whole thing, including the examples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #90
108. actually it's Ockham's Razor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #108
153. Yes, it was named for William of Ockham,
but in most texts (at least in the states) it is referred to as Occam's (why, I don't know, but I rarely see it spelled Ockham).

I don't really care, but just brought it up because I though if the poster is going to dis someone with philisophical arguments, he might as well at least spell it correctly. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #31
120. Hey, I agree with you here.
Not one of those 9-11 theories have any real verifiable evidence to support them.

You're quite right. None of the 9-11 theories from the government have any verifiable evidence that has been presented to the American public in support of those theories.

There is one very disturbing question that must be answered: why were none of the planes intercepted? As this is standard operating procedure, somewhere along the line units must have been told to stand down.

Why?

That's what we all need to have answered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #120
141. I am in complete agreement with you there friend....
There are indeed questions that need to be answered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. here we go again...
Edited on Tue Nov-18-03 03:38 PM by Minstrel Boy
We've gone over this ground before.

It's more than conjecture. There are legitimate questions about the crash. Here are few:

The arrival of an FBI recovery team from Minneapolis to secure the perimeter, as witnessed by airport officials, just 45 minutes after the crash was identified. This is significant because:

- The FBI had not been notified of the crash.
- Minneapolis is a 40 minute flight from Eveleth.
- The FBI team secured the perimeter, and had the site to itself for eight hours before the arrival of the NTSB.
- Despite witnesses, including a local sherriff, seeing the FBI on site 45 minutes after the crash, the FBI has since been elusive about the arrival time, moving it back, in at least one instance, more than three hours.
- The arrival of an FBI recovery team so soon upon an isolated crash site suggests anticipation, which in turn suggests the possibility of tampering with the evidence for the eight hours in which they had the site to themselves.
- Eveleth airport logs of arrivals for the day of the crash and the day previous have been deemed classified.
- Curiously, members of the Minneapolis FBI recovery team had been accused of stealing evidence from the WTC site.

The intense fire in the fuselage, which burned with an unusual light blue smoke. This is significant because:

- Fuel would burn with a heavy black smoke.
- The fuel was stored in the wings.
- The wings separated upon impact.
- The wings were charred and damaged, but did not burn as intensely as the fuselage.

The attempt on Wellstone's life in South America months before while investigating US policy and "Plan Colombia," with a bomb the runway, and the "accidental" spraying of his plane with toxin.

The timing of the crash, just one day before Wellstone's name would have been allowed to stand on the ballot, at a time when he was leading the Republican contender, in a race which could determine the the balance of power in the Senate.

The chief NTSB investigator was a ten-year veteran of the CIA. Any chance a CIA veteran would be anything less than absolutely forthcoming?

Links for all this, and more, can be found in the clusterfuck of a thread known as
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #33
55. Yup, that thread was indeed...
...a total clusterfuck. :)


Of course you failed to mention that Padraig18, mhr, TrogL, myself and a few others refuted most of that. Most of the rest is does nothing to back up any allegation of murder.


Oh, and do a little freaking research before saying that the closest FBI agent was in Minneapolis. There are offices in both Bemdji and Duluth, both cities were fairly closs to where the crash site was.

The Minneapolis office is just the headquarters office for the state, we also handle North Dakota too. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. a little research yourself, if you please
There were closer agents, but the team on the scene was from Minneapolis.

And nope, it didn't slip my mind. What I posted was not refuted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. There's no point in re-arguing it
Each of your points was addressed in the old thread. Go read that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #66
77. I think we can agree
there's no point in rearguing it. One of those threads is enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #55
130. Were you one of the many who immediately said that the
cause was ice? I have disdain for people who don't explore the possibilities (especially in light of this being the 40th anniversary of the roller coaster blaster bullet).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #130
132. Yep
Then new information came along (pilot incompetence) that made the ice alone theory less attractive.

I still think had an involvement at higher elevations, but more as an annoyance (and contributor to cockpit management problems) than a primary cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
markus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
29. Yeah, flying with Wellstone and almost having Kennedy board the plane
would be an error in judgement.

However, it sounds plausible. Under the bad weather conditions, possibly lost due to the bad guidance system, to lose track of what he was doing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. No, it's not plausible
That the best most progressive senator, in
a critical must-win state/race, one of the few
to vote against the Iraq slaugter for oil, died in
the same fahion as (D) Mel Carnahan a couple of years earler,
'cept this time they made sure his wife went with
him so she wouldn't get elected like Mrs. Carnahan
did.

They murdered him and his wife and daughter and others
bigger'n hell, and wanted Kennedy to be with him
because he was probably the 2nd most progressive
and outspoken senator.

I'm sure it was a total bummer for the BFEE that Kennedy
didn't cooperate and die.

But this NTSB "report" is the expected BS cover up.
Would we really expect the evil powers that be to
murder those folks, then allow the NTSB to confirm the
obvious fact?

Miss you Senator Wellstone.
You'll always be an inspiration.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #38
58. Perhaps Gephardt had him killed
Gephardt knew that he wasn't going to win a majority in the House, so he didn't want a Democratic majority in the Senate to make him look bad. Additionally, he didn't need a progressive like Wellstone around to remind people of his vote the the war in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #38
131. Yes, his legacy and acts of heroism will stay with me to death...
His first vote in the Senate - against Iraq War 1.
His last vote in the Senate - against Iraq War 2.

With a lot of good votes in between.

A TRUE American and person of faith.

Teach your children about that legacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demdave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. Were they going to let Kennedy drive?
That would have saved an investigation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #41
50. What the hell does that mean?
Taking a little dig at one of our few good
senators who barely escape murder?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demdave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #50
62. What did someone sabotage the steering on his car
all those years ago? The rich get away with murder no matter what their politics. I refuse to give him a pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #62
156. "What did someone sabotage the steering on his car"
Actually, I find it entirely plausible that "someone"
did. Look at the subject of this thread. It's about
the murder of Senator Wellstone, one of the few good Dem pols.
And Ted Kennedy (one of the few good Dem pols) was supposed
to be with him.

In addition, it was open season on progressives (tho'
they weren't called that at the time) at that time (and now).
John and Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King,
had already been murdered in the 60s. Why is hard to
believe that the brakes on the last surviving Kennedy
brother's car would be tampered with?

I'm not even saying I believe that for sure demdave.
And your point about rich people getting away with
murder(s) is irrefutable:
OJ, Patsey Ramsey, Robert Durst,...
Oh, why itemize?
The 'Merkan criminal "justice" system is only meant for the poor.

But it's entirely possible that Ted Kennedy was the target of
a failed assignation attempt. (Well, it succeeded in killing his
passenger of course.) It's also entirely possible that he was
a criminally negligent drunken slob who drove off a bridge
and killed his lady friend. But put in context of all the 60's
assignations, I do wonder...

Of course now they're more sophisticated. Now there are
fewer bullets (so obvious) and more "plane accidents."
Of course the victims of the "plane accidents" are almost
always progressive Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knowledgeispower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #29
101. And where was the co-pilot during all this?
He wasn't the least bit concerned that the pilot was stalling the plane? He didn't say something like "um...gee we are going pretty slow. Are you sure that is a good idea?"

Remember people: there were TWO pilots on board this plane. That makes the likelihood of pilot error as the cause of the crash MUCH MORE remote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. I can see you are not a pilot.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #101
111. One person flies at a time
Until he hands off the aircraft or somebody wrestles the stick away from him, he's in control.

On takeoff, I've seen both pilots hands on the throttles but AFAIK that's to confirm they're all the way forward.

Again, it comes down to cockpit management. If the co-pilot's too chickenshit to counter the pilot's decision (which happens a lot) then the plane is lost.

If the plane is in a stall you need to get the nose down and the engines spun up. If they're too close to the ground, there's no time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #111
123. You're exactly right and reminded me of a long ago time, I was flying
from the right seat and in the left seat was a friend named Cecil Gibson; we were coming back from a short trip up to Grand lake for lunch or some such trivial matter. He flew the plane up there and I flew it back...it never much mattered to me which seat I was sitting in, all the controls are on both sides and I probably wanted the practice anyway since I was getting ready to get my instructor ticket.

For some reason, I decided to make a high and steep approach, don't recall why, and I put the plane into a fairly radical forward slip to lose altitude. It can appear a bit alarming but is a perfectly safe maneuver. Anyway, he sort of freaked out and grabbed the controls and jammed on a bunch of rudder. It caught me by surprise (he was a licensed private pilot and thought he was pretty good) and we were somewhat fighting for control for several seconds. It was pretty ugly, we damn near went into a spin at 3 or 4 hundred feet altitude...for sure no room to recover if that had occurred. I am not suggesting this is what happened in Minnesota, but it probably happens more often than we have a way of knowing, unfortunately.

(Cecil eventually got his commercial license and a Learjet type rating. He managed to crash it a few years after the incident I described and killed himself and 4 other people.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiddleRiverRefugee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
32. Meme me up, Scotty.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
35. Face it, there was no evidence of anything other than a crash
That might mean it was a crash, or it might mean that it was made to look like a crash, but in either case the evidence the NTSB has suggests pilot error. I don't believe the NTSB is lying. That would require someone trusting too many investigators to keep quiet. Far better to make it look like a crash (if there is a shadowy conspiracy behind it, I mean).

Bottom line, the evidence they collected does not indicate that anything other than an accident took place. That doesn't absolutely prove that nothing else happened. Pilot error means that basically they found nothing wrong with any equipment, but the plane went too slow and stalled. That's quiet possible, it happens, and since it happens the NTSB is inclined to believe that. That's what the evidence shows.

Any murder that may have happened therefore would have had to affect the plane in some way that did not leave any evidence, and looked like a slow speed stall.

The biggest problems with most conspiracy buffs is that they form their beliefs on what they want to have happened, and any official who suggests otherwise was in on it. That's not convincing. Start with what you can prove, with what the evidence says, and go from there. For any conspiracy to work, assume that there is almost no one involved in it, and that the majority of people who say there was no conspiracy are acting in good faith.

The NTSB is acting in good faith. Some members might even suspect or believe something else happened, but all they can prove is what they've said, based on evidence. They can't go back and say that the coincidence is too great, or any such interpretive suggestion. They use the physical evidence they have. That's what a conspiracy theorist should do. Use what they've said, build your theories from there.

Two possibilities for tampering I see are forced pilot error (finding a way to make the pilot deliberately crash, such as threatening his famil), or some form of interference with the equipment, making air speed seem faster than it was. That's not necessarily what I believe (frankly, I haven't formed my belief yet), but those are the two options I can see. There are probably others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meisje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #35
43. How dare you!!!!!!!!!!
to suggest that anything that ever happens to the dems was created by anything other than Rove machine is treason!!!!

j/k :)

seriously people, accidents do happen! I guess just not on D.U.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 04:10 AM
Response to Reply #35
145. FBI having control of the crash scene for 8 hours could fit your scenario.
Your approach to conspiracy theory, which I find honest and refreshing (as you seem to allow that conspiracies do happen), is a solid model.

I don't know if the NTSB is lying. I do know that it would be pretty easy for the FBI to set up a believable "accident" for the NTSB to investigate - in which case, the NTSB's report is honestly based on their best work with the evidence they discovered at the crash scene.

It may be that the FBI team used those 8 hours very efficiently...who knows? I'm not ruling it out, and not claiming it as gospel truth. It's not an impossible notion, really.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #145
150. What would you rather do if you were a "conspirator?"
Let's say you want to murder a senator in a plane crash. You could higher someone to sabotage the plane, then order a few FBI investigators to go to the crash site and hide whatever you sabotaged, then order the other dozens of investigators on the scene to cover up whatever was done, then just to be sure order the NTSB investigators to further lie about whatever they find, and to be extra sure, block any insurance or independent investigation of the accident scene, data, or evidence, and then hope that no one accidentally stumbles upon something that would have been damaged beyond repair during the sabotage, all the while counting on the hundred or so conspirators at this point to remain silent, never let their conscience get the best of them, never go to the Enquirer for money, etc.

Or, you could have one special operative call the pilot just before takeoff and tell him "If that plane lands safely, you, your wife and kids, and any other family you have will die in horrible agony. Either way you're dead. Your choice." No evidence of sabotage, nobody extra involved in a coverup, and if you've done your homework and were convincing, very little danger the pilot would reveal anything.

That's just one scenario. My point is that the perfect crimes-- and at the level we are talking about, they would be perfect-- would not require anyone to lie during the investigation. Which is why most JFK theories are so ridiculous from the beginning.

Not saying I think that's what happened, just that people need to quit tilting at windmills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #150
152. Interesting thought
check out this article from the Feb 23, 2003 Mpls Star Tribue

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1752/3668854.html

<snip>
The captain of Sen. Paul Wellstone's fatal flight to Eveleth was so concerned about the weather that he briefly canceled the trip before deciding to go ahead with it, according to new information from crash investigators.

On the morning of the fatal flight, icing was on Conry's mind when he canceled Wellstone's flight. The captain's first weather briefing came at 7:15 a.m. The general forecast at that time for northern Minnesota was for mist, light snow, mixed icing conditions, calm winds and visibility of 1 to 4 miles.

In the meantime, Conry had received an updated weather forecast that showed the weather had improved a bit. Conry told the weather briefer, "OK, that's what I need, at least it's above my minimums."

Steve Thornton, the air traffic controller who handled the first weather briefing and listened to a recording of the second briefing after the crash, told investigators he was concerned that someone was putting pressure on the pilot of Wellstone's plane to make the flight. Thornton told investigators he believed the pilot was "more stressed and apprehensive about the flight" during the second briefing, which was given by another controller.

Wellstone was a nervous flyer, I doubt he would have put the pressure on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #152
157. Co-pilot's last words to his mother
Guess's mother, who talked to him a day or two before the accident, was still reeling from news of the tragedy Monday morning.

"The only thing I want to say is, he called me and told me, 'I love you, Mom. No matter what.' Those were the last words he ever spoke to me," his mother said.

-----


This was also from a Star Tribune article. Sounds cryptic in print.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
36. I'll NEVER accept that verdict!
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I wouldn't count on a government agency to speak the truth if foul play was involved - and I strongly suspect it was in this case.

As with 9/11. the Repulicans had the motive and the means, and the event was accompanied by an extraordinary media conspiracy. I spent quite a bit of time documenting the story as it unfolded, and I put a Wellstone website online. Unfortunately, it isn't available at the moment (website revision/transition).

But the LOCAL media reported some very interesting things that the national media refused to mention. And do you remember the furor over the black box?

The media immediately began suggesting that it might be impossible to find the plane's black box, or they HOPED searchers could find it. They also mentioned the intensity of the crash and fire.

Then I saw a photo of the plane. It was lying intact in sparsely wooded area!

Reality Check: Black boxes are discovered in crasch scenese that stretch for miles through dense forests or rugged terrain. They're recovered from under the sea. Wellstone's crash was a cake walk!

It sounded to me as if someone desperately hoped a black box would NOT be discovered, and communicated his fears through the media, which were trying to prepare the public for news they might not ordinarily accept ("Sorry, folks, but we just couldn't find the flight recorder!")

Some people have attacked my argument with THIS argument: Paul Wellstone's plane wasn't equipped with a black box.

Exactly. So why didn't the media report that from the beginning? Even if it took them a few days to figure it out, why would they devote so much press to despairing of finding a black box when it was probably within 100 yards of the plane, if not INSIDE the plane?

And did you know that one of the individuals who died in the infamous Begich plane crash in Alaska has a brother who lives in the community where Wellstone died? This was reported in the local media, but the national media ignored it!

I'm not saying this is part of a grand conspiracy. But it's an awesome coincidence.

The argument that Republicans had no reason to assassinate Wellstone is simply stupid. Wellstone was Bush's most outspoken opponent, and he had a very good chance of winning his last campaign. Remember: The Republicans and the media had been working overtime in an effort to convince the public that it wasn't patriotic to criticize Bush or his dirty wars. They also tried to convince candidates that criticizing Bush was a sure way to lose an election.

Yet Wellstone arrogantly defied the odds - and he appeared to be winning. If he HAD won, just think of the message that would have sent out!

Another note: Seattle leftwing media whore Geov Parrish and one of his colleagues quickly pounced on the Wellstone plane crash story. Did they repeat any of my ideas? Hell no; they launched into a ferocious attack on "conspiracy theorists" such as myself. This is another example of Republican operatives desperately trying to stamp out any critical thinking regarding Wellstone's plane crash.

I was browsing Democratic Underground one day when I discovered a thread focusing on a Wellstone website. To my amazement, it was MY website! An individual had discovered it and was very much impressed with the information I had assembled to support my conspiracy theory.

Another DUer shot my website down with the most stupid logic. I don't know if he was an operative or just a dumbass. I wasn't registered to post at the time; it's one reason I signed on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. I'm sorry that you are deluding yourself....
Then I saw a photo of the plane. It was lying intact in sparsely wooded area!


First thing, the plane's structure was almost non-existant in every photo I've seen of it.

Secondly, the area where the plane went down is very heavily wooded. Again, something I saw in every picture I saw.


Oh, and just so you know I live in Minnesota. The coverage was almost non-stop from the moment it happened.


You need to open your mind to the possibility that things might not always be guided by some mysterious hand. Sometimes shit just happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. The articles I read talked about a very hard impact and an intense fire.
The photo I saw stuck in my mind because the fuselage was intact and was white. I don't know much about airplane fires, but I expected to see a crumpled piece of metal blackened by fire. The plane I saw in the photo did not look exceptionally damaged. I can't remember if the wings were physically attached or not, but it looked like a very "mellow" plane crash compared to others.

"Heavily wooded"? I'll have to see if I can find the photo I'm referring to. I think it was heavily wooded in the sense that there were lots of trees - but I think they were very small trees. At any rate, the plane was clearly visible from the air - not covered by dense forest growth.

"The coverage was almost non-stop from the moment it happened."

I know; I followed it almost non-stop from the momenet it happened. And there were two or three key items mentioned in the local media that the national media forgot to mention. Interesting.

You need to open your mind to the possibility that not everything that appears to be an accident is. Some people might have thought that burglars accidentally broke into the Watergate. We now know it was a conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #48
54. Hmmmm. the burglary tools were kind of a giveaway
You need to open your mind to the possibility that not everything that appears to be an accident is. Some people might have thought that burglars accidentally broke into the Watergate. We now know it was a conspiracy.

We're not saying "everything" is an accident. We're saying this crash is.

You complained earlier of people criticizing your website's logic.

I can see why. You just posted a classic "straw man".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Must_B_Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 05:26 AM
Original message
I saw the plane too.
It looked like the front was gone but the tail was sticking up in the air. It looked like about 3/5ths of the plane relatively intact, if not more. This was the immediate coverage on CNN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Must_B_Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 05:26 AM
Response to Reply #45
147. I saw the plane too.
It looked like the front was gone but the tail was sticking up in the air. It looked like about 3/5ths of the plane relatively intact, if not more. This was the immediate coverage on CNN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #36
46. It wasn't even necessary to read your post
You've already stated that nothing will convince you to change your mind. I take it this includes minor irritants like facts and inconsistencies on your on logic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #36
49. Now that I've read it
1. Black boxes. King Airs do not come with black boxes from the factory. They can be installed as an after-market product. Some companies do, some don't. The King Air I spend time on doesn't have one.

2. And did you know that one of the individuals who died in the infamous Begich plane crash in Alaska has a brother who lives in the community where Wellstone died?

Ever played "six degrees of separation" (or whatever it's called). Everything is connected to everything else if you look hard enough.

I've flown on a King Air. That's a suspicious concidence. BLAME ME!!! I ADMIT IT!!! I DID IT

3. Another DUer shot my website down with the most stupid logic. I don't know if he was an operative...

That was likely me or if not something I would have done. Not everybody in the world is a Republican operative. I'm a card-carrying Liberal.

People attack crazy conspiracy theories because they're crazy conspiracy theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. Republican Operative or Goofy Liberal?
You wrote, "1. Black boxes. King Airs do not come with black boxes from the factory. They can be installed as an after-market product. Some companies do, some don't. The King Air I spend time on doesn't have one."

So what's your point?

"Ever played "six degrees of separation" (or whatever it's called). Everything is connected to everything else if you look hard enough.

"I've flown on a King Air. That's a suspicious concidence. BLAME ME!!! I ADMIT IT!!! I DID IT"

Grow up. If the media were presented with two coindences - the info about Begich's brother and the fact that some anonymous DU poster flew in a King Air - do you really think each would carry equal weight?

And I very clearly stated that the Begich thing was NOT a "suspicious" coincidence; in other words, I would not describe it as part of a conspiracy. Wellstone's plane crash was a suspicious coincidence. Begich's brother was simply an AMAZING coincidence.

Given the coverage that was given Wellstone's plane crash, the media should have been printing some stuff about similar "political plane crashes." As a matter of fact, they DID write about political plane crashes, and I read some amazing articles about the Begich plane crash. Yet I never saw any mention of the Begich-Wellstone connection. That strongly suggests that the mainstream media either weren't following local Minnesota news, or they didn't WANT to mention Begich's brother - for obvious reasons.


"That was likely me or if not something I would have done. Not everybody in the world is a Republican operative. I'm a card-carrying Liberal."

I've learned that there's often no practical difference.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. Oh, now that's interesting.
>Not everybody in the world is a Republican operative. I'm a card-carrying Liberal."

I've learned that there's often no practical difference.

Please elicidate the similarities between Republican operatives and members of the Liberal Party of Canada.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. ooh, can I answer that?
Please elicidate the similarities between Republican operatives and members of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Two words: Tom Wappel.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. Who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. You're a card-carrying Canadian Liberal
and you don't know Tom Wappel?

He's a Toronto MP, far-right "family values" wacko (which didn't stop him from leaving his wife for a younger model). Seems like he'd be more at home in the Alliance. But that Liberal Party of yours is quite the big tent. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. Yep, we've probably got a few wackos
I'm not real fond of Paul Martin.

Nevertheless, that's a logical fallacy - the "tar brush".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. true, but you'll note
I added a :evilgrin: . Surely that counts for something? ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. Oops, didn't see that
Too busy swatting flies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #63
74. Republican operatives mess with liberals' minds. Goofy liberals'
minds are already messed up.

There's no better example than the teachers union meetings I've attended. It's often nearly immpossible to determine if an individual is a) working for the other side or b) simply ignorant (or worse).

I finally came to realize that it doesn't make much difference, because people who aren't well informed (or aren't playing with a full deck) can be easily manipulated by the bad guys.

On a bigger scale, look at Americans in general. One terrorist attack, and millions are convinced that George W. Bush is a great leader, or, at least, that they should rally behind the man who ran and hid in Nebraska.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #74
94. "Goofy liberal"? "aren't playing with a full deck"?
Geez, we're having a real workout today - ad hominem attacks.

I'll post a cheat sheet so you can have a full slate.

You're using the same "logic" as those opposing the theory of evolution - it's not "proven".

Guess what, neither is gravity. We still don't have a good solid theory of how gravity works (string theory notwithstanding). Nevertheless, I find myself firmly seated in my chair.

You mention people who aren't "well informed". Informed in what?

We have the same set of information in front of us. You discount all of it because it comes from the media.

Answer me these simple questions.


  • How do you know Wellstone existed? Did you meet him? Did you examine his birth certificate?
  • How do you know the plane existed? Did you touch it? Did you go inside?
  • How do you know the plane crashed? Did you visit the crash site? Did the FBI allow you to examine the evidence in situ?
  • Do you believe Skinner exists? Prove to me he does. I think he's a bunch of pixels (for the sake of argument). I think the photos are doctored. Nobody in their right mind would post their real name, real location, their regular handle or their photograph on the internet. They'd have to be insane to do it. Prove otherwise.


This reminds me of people who don't believe in the moon landings. Start a separate thread in the lounge if you want to argue that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #94
103. I see you're employing more strategies from your cheatsheet.
"Geez, we're having a real workout today - ad hominem attacks."

Goofy liberals are a fact of life. I'm not the first to use the term "sheeple" to describe Americans, conservative and liberal alike. Face it, there aren't many intelligent people between Maine and California.

"You're using the same "logic" as those opposing the theory of evolution - it's not 'proven.'"

Your theory isn't proven either. My theory is based on the events of that fateful day, the timing, a rather obvious media conspiracy and the rather obvious facts that the Republicans had everything to gain by Wellstone's death. Your theory is based on the word of a government agency and the corporate media.

"Guess what, neither is gravity. We still don't have a good solid theory of how gravity works (string theory notwithstanding)."

Gravity doesn't HAVE to be proven. We know it exists. Similarly, we knew many thousands of animal and plant species existed before we knew where they came from.

"You mention people who aren't 'well informed.' Informed in what?"

Politics, corporate takeover, common sense. Few people - including teachers - are aware of the conspiracy in our public schools. Eveyone knows corporations have taken over the government, but they can't believe corporations could or would take over public education.

"We have the same set of information in front of us. You discount all of it because it comes from the media."

Baloney. You're using another propaganda technique from your cheatsheet - ignore everything your opponent has said. I posted some very provocative observations.

"Answer me these simple questions."

Another propaganda technique, probably listed on your cheatsheet. I'd like to say "nice try," but it's really amateurish - extremely amateurish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #103
109. This is getting recursive
We know it exists.

Just like ...

Eveyone [sic] knows corporations have taken over the government - "Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true"

a rather obvious media conspiracy - obvious to whom?

I'd like to say "nice try," but it's really amateurish - extremely amateurish - "Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #109
127. You aren't aware of corporate corruption?
"Eveyone knows corporations have taken over the government - 'Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true'"

In this case, it's widely held to be true because...

1) Just about every member of George W. Bush's administration is a millionaire corporative executive or former corporate executive.

2) Dick Cheney's company, Haliburton, is raking in the bucks from Gulf War II, thanks to Uncle Sam's no-bid contract.

3) The California "Energy Crisis" (no conspiracy there!)

4) George Bush's relations with "Kenny Boy" Lay, of Enrongate fame

5) FuneralGate

6) The fact that corporate executives profited so handsomely from 9/11 while everyone else suffered

7) Bush's incessant attacks on workers and teachers, health benefits, unions, etc.

8) An oil tanker was named after Condoleeza Rice.

9) America's chief monopolist, Bill Gates, ws rescued from justice after Bush was elected.

10) Corporations give far more money to the Republicans than they do Democrats.

I could go on and on and on, but I suspect you wouldn't believe that corporations run the government unless the Washington Post reported it on the front page.


"A rather obvious media conspiracy - obvious to whom?"

Obvious to anyone who's politically involved and has a little common sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #127
133. Corporations have always had a relationship with government
It tends to get bad with right-wing governments.

It's particularly bad with this government.

Nevertheless they have not "taken over".

Yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
53. If you don't think your opponents are capable of murder,
Edited on Tue Nov-18-03 04:36 PM by Minstrel Boy
you haven't been paying attention for the past 40 years.

I suspect Wellstone was murdered, and my suspicions are not groundless. I posted some of them above. But neither do I dispute that sincere people can make a decent case for the crash having been an accident. What I find both objectionable and quite sad is the dismissive ridicule towards those who question official stories, and the naive faith these coincidence theorists have in institutions of government. After all we've lived through, I'd have thought by now we'd have put away those childish things.

So what will it take for the mockery to stop so we can have a serious discussion? How bad will it have to get? How many more have to die?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #53
64. AMEN!
Conspiracy theories come in many flavors. Some are very believable (e.g. the sinking of the Battleship Maine), others are wacko (Elvis Presley abducted by aliens). People who say September 11 was not a conspiracy prove their ignorance. SOMEONE had to conspire to pull off the terrorist attacks!

One possiblity is that Islamic terrorists conspired to hijack airliners, catching Republicans by surprise. Another possibility is that certain key officials knew the attacks were coming and made no effort to stop them. A third possibility is that Republicans were actually among the plotters. All three are CONSPIRACIES, and one has to be the truth - unless someone can prove the conspirators were Norwegian.

Leftwing media whore Geov Parrish once accused me of being suspicious of conspiracies swirling all around us. The Seattle Weekly also accused me of being a conspiracy theorist (of the goofy variety). So I did some research on Geov Parrish and the Seattle Weekly, and I learned some amazing things. It would appear that the late Judge Gary Little - at the center of one of Seattle's darkest mysteries - may have had some unusually close connections to the Seattle Weekly. But I dare not say that without risking being labeled a conspiracy theorist.

Bullshit! People need to stand up to this deliberate perversion of the word "conspiracy." People obviously denigrate the word as a means of degrading people they don't like. The word conspiracy is based on the word conspire. For those who can't handle conspiracy theories, look up the word conspire in the dictionary, then change your diapers and grow up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #64
70. You're changing the topic
which is a logical fallacy.

I believe in LIHOP and half a dozen other conspiracy theories.

Just not this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #70
76. I'M changing the topic?
The original topic was Paul Wellstone's plane crash. I'm not the one who changed it into an attack on conspiracy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #76
81. The original topic was...
Pilot error caused the plane crash...

First post - Tom Paine called that "horseshit".
Second post - LiberalHistorian called it "bullshit".

...and we were off to the races...

26th post - Abaques finally disparaged "conspiracy theorists".

36th post JailBush posed his "conspiracy theory".





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. I see.
So I'm one of several people who have changed the topic. That's why I thought it was odd for you to write "You're changing the topic" - as if YOU aren't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. You have to follow the thread of conversation
Up until I objected, the conversation had been about Wellstone's crash and/or conspiracy theories surrounding it.

That has nothing to do with 9-11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #86
89. Whatever your original point was,
it's been lost in all your red herrings, logical fallacies and hypocrisy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #89
113. OK, identify them
The only red herrings I've seen are references to some guy from Alaska, references to the 9-11 crashes and some blather about school boards.

I've already identified plenty of logical fallacies. The ones you claim to be fallacies aren't on the list.

Hypocrisy? My position has been the same from the beginning with minor variations as more information came available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #113
128. Who was the guy from Alaska?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. What amazes me is the ferocity with which people who claim to be
liberals, Democrats or "one of us" defend the party line. The fact is WE DON'T KNOW WHY PAUL WELLSTONE'S PLANE CRASHED.

It could have been pilot error. It could have been bad weather. It could have been an assassination. All are valid theories. Bad weather and piliot error are more likely causes when you consider the rarity of political assassinations. On the other hand, the extraordinary circumstances of the crash and the media conspiracy that followed point a big finger at foul play.

But people can't even SPECULATE about assassination without being attacked and compared to creationists by idiots who are CONVINCED that whatever the government and the media reported is the truth. Then they start throwing around terms like "logical fallacies" in an attempt to make themselves look like powerful thinkers when they're really overpowering fools.

This raises some interesting questions. Has any U.S. citizen ever been killed as the result of a conspiracy involving the federal government? Can any rational person believe the federal government's explanation of 9/11? Do people who have blind faith in the government and media have all their marbles?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #129
136. This is your attempt at rational discourse?
idiots...when they're really overpowering fools

ad hominem attack.

compared to creationists

Actually, that was your line.

throwing around terms...in an attempt to make themselves look like powerful thinkers

Interesting use of language. If you can't win an argument using the standard tools of logic then resort to perjoratives.

Has any U.S. citizen ever been killed as the result of a conspiracy involving the federal government?

Yep, plenty of them. I don't buy into JFK (there's another thread going so don't start), but MLK's death reeks to high heaven.

Can any rational person believe the federal government's explanation of 9/11?

*sigh* There you go again with the logical fallacies. I'll assume you meant "Do I believe...". No. I'm a firm believer in LIHOP.

Do people who have blind faith in the government and media have all their marbles?

Who said anything about "blind faith in government"? I wouldn't trust most of it any further than I could throw a tantrum, but I do trust some of the agencies, specifically the NTSB and CDC.

The media? CBS has disappointed me lately. I had hope they could do a better job of bucking the right-wing trend. PBS and NPR have been doing a better job. Neverthless, there's plent of liberal commentary out there - where do you think all the political cartoons people have been posting come from?

the extraordinary circumstances of the crash

The only extraordinary circumstances are those that you are reading into them. Go and read the NTSB database of crashes. You'll find lots of other ones just like this one.

All are valid theories.

All are possible theories. Some are probable theories. Some are :tinfoilhat: madness requiring astronomical leaps of faith and suspension of disbelief.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #129
155. Humor him Jail...
obviously TrogL just got a B+ in Logic 101. The buzz words are flying..

I think your following paragraph hits the nail on the head:

"But people can't even SPECULATE about assassination without being attacked and compared to creationists by idiots who are CONVINCED that whatever the government and the media reported is the truth. Then they start throwing around terms like "logical fallacies" in an attempt to make themselves look like powerful thinkers when they're really overpowering fools."

Unless one can prove with absolute certainty that it was NOT an assasination, all we really have are a bunch of theories. Personally, when I heard about the crash, I instantly thought it was an assasination. Sometimes, you just know. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #128
134. The Alaska thing
And did you know that one of the individuals who died in the infamous Begich plane crash in Alaska has a brother who lives in the community where Wellstone died?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
87. I'm sorry, but that is just Chimpshit!
I always though the idea behind this incident was to make it soooooooooo obvious, it couldn't possibly be intentional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #87
93. Some have argued that the extraordinary similarity between the
Wellstone and Carnahan plane crashes, not to mention the Begich plane crash, argues AGAINST a Republican conspiracy; why would they be so obvious?

Here are some possibilities:

1. Desperation - Paul Wellstone WAS a threat, and if they did want to eliminate him, what other method could they use that would be less suspicious? Suicide? Poison? Though a plane crash would obviously be suspicious, it would also credible alternatives. The really suspicious elements would be largely limited to the timing.

2. Warning - It's possible that conspirators would be brazen enough to make it just obvious enough to make others think twice before challenging Bush. Think about it: Would you feel safe in a small plane if you were a noted Bush critic?

3. Arrogance - Let's face it, there are some real loony tunes in Bush's administration. Besides arrogance, we could cite religious fanaticism, mental instability, etc. How about that kook who launched the anthrax attacks? (He may not be a member of Bush's administration, but the best suspect is a bizarre right-winger.)

Conspirators are human, and they're subject to the same emotions and frailties as the rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
88. The freepers are getting in on the act
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1024329/posts

They're blaming it on a lost left wing ( :wtf:), a lost engine ( :wtf:), a wacko right-wing pilot ( :wtf:), the guys who did Vince Foster and Jim McDougal ( :wtf:) and George Bush.

I could've sworn shortly after I heard about this accident, that it was a Right-Wing Wacko Pilot that did this on purpose to benefit the balance in the Senate. Surely I'm not the only one that remembers this slanderous uttering from the extreme DemoncRATic left.

Actually, no I don't remember that one.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
95. The Logical Fallacies cheatsheet
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. Thanks for sharing your cheatsheet with us.
But I think I'll just stick with logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #97
112. what logic?
Conspiracies-by-virtue-of-unknowability are a form of religion since they can't be falsified. It doesn't mean they're untrue, just based on faith that precludes observation (e.g., "I will not accept that verdict!").

The problem with Conspiracy-Creationism (as opposed to the scientific method) is the conclusion is always the antecedent to the hypothesis. No Creationist will accept an answer besides "God did it", and no Conspiracy-Creationist will take "pilot error" for an answer. And yes, they both view evolution as a form of "coincidence theory" inferior to "common sense".

I'd be happy to accept that the plane was felled by Karl Rove, or Anthony Pellicano, or God himself, but not in the absence of a supportable hypothesis. Conspiracy-Creationists, on the other hand, reject conclusions out of hand that don't support their "feelings" on the subject. Most people need a narrative where the strings are pulled from on high, but it might as well be the Hand of Sauron once evidence becomes secondary to steadfast belief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #112
114. Extremely well put foo_bar!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #112
115. Bravo
I could'a saved myself two hours of arguing.

You're right - it's pointless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JailBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #112
126. Huh?
"Conspiracies-by-virtue-of-unknowability are a form of religion since they can't be falsified. It doesn't mean they're untrue, just based on faith that precludes observation (e.g., 'I will not accept that verdict!')."

Baloney; conspiracies don't necessarily preclude obervation.

"The problem with Conspiracy-Creationism (as opposed to the scientific method)<snip>

AS OPPOSED TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD??? Good conspiracy theory is very similar to science! Scientists and conspiracy theorists alike work with evidence and logic to develop THEORIES, which may or may not later be accepted as fact.

Think about it this way: Would a reputable scientist accept the "fact" that global warming is a myth if the corporate media say it's so? Of course not; reputable media would consult SCIENTISTS for information about gloabl warming.

Yet you naively swallow whatever the corporate media say about Paul Wellstone. You're the creationist.

"No Creationist will accept an answer besides 'God did it,' and no Conspiracy-Creationist will take 'pilot error' for an answer."

A good conspiracy theorist will accept pilot error as a POSSIBLE explanation, but he will also consider other theories if there's evidence to the contrary.

"I'd be happy to accept that the plane was felled by Karl Rove, or Anthony Pellicano, or God himself, but not in the absence of a supportable hypothesis."

So the only way you'd consider the possibility that Wellstone was assassinated is if the assassin(s) did a sloppy job and left a calling card(s) AND the corporate media reported it. Nice going, Mr. Creationist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #126
140. circular arguments never die
A good conspiracy theorist will accept pilot error as a POSSIBLE explanation
(compare and contrast)
I'll NEVER accept that verdict!

...they just swallow their tail.

Once we excise the circular reasoning/strawmen ("you naively swallow whatever the corporate media say about Paul Wellstone"), ad hominem/strawmen ("Mr. Creationist"), and false dilemmae/strawmen ("So the only way you'd consider the possibility that Wellstone was assassinated is if the assassin(s) did a sloppy job"), there isn't an argument an angel could dance upon. I'm sorry it has to be this way, but reason trumps faith once the epicycles become too much work even for the faithful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
121. What I think
IT was an unfortuante accident. Could someone have had a more sinsiter plan? Maybe, but the evidence doesn't exist to support that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
122. The amount of skepticism this report was greeted with
by my coworkers was surprising - not that that proves anything, it's just interesting that the distrust of anything a government agency says seems so widespread. I did notice the skepticism seemed to be stronger among us baby boomers - may releasing the report so close to the JFK anniversary was a mistake.

Yeah, it could have been an accident - but until God tells me it was I'll have a hard time believing it.

I will again, the two witness accounts I saw on local TV the afternoon of the crash. Reports I did not see repeated. One guy claimed that he saw a flash from the tail of the plane, another said he heard "popping sounds" after the plane had passed over his house.

Granted eye and ear witness testimony is unreliable. Look at all those witnesses who though they heard shots from the grassy knoll. And those 16 doctors at Parklawn Hospital who couldn't recognize the wounds they saw in Kennedy's autopsy photos as the wounds they thought they saw at Parklawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-18-03 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #122
139. Yeah there were witnesses for a day
Including the one Wolf Blitzer tried to stuff words in the mouth of. It was the weather-Wolf No, the weather is normal-dude.
The most blaring thing and thanks to Minstrel for bringing it up or I would have. The witch from cia that gave the first news conference for the NTSB. She basically stated the findings before any investigation had begun. Then she mysteriously leaves that post after planting the lie. That was not proper for the NTSB.
Even if they wouldn't have gotten a repub in there, they accomplished a lot by ridding Bushco of the single most potent true democrat thorn in the side to daddy and jr. Also, just so happens that that goofball coleman was promoted by cheney and the other guy. They brought in millions from out of state to forward their agenda.
Another fine mess. Wellstone will be missed for a long time and one had to wonder if his road would have gone to the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptainMidnight Donating Member (611 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
142. NTSB = COVER UP ARTISTS!
NTSB has NO FUCKING CREDIBILITY WITH ANYONE!

They covered up Flight 800 being shot down by a Navy missile.

Read Into The Buzzsaw, for starters.

NTSB = CIA

Captain Mike
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #142
143. The NTSB is untainted by partisan politics. It is my sad duty to inform
you that you're goofy. Sir.


If you have some evidence that 800 was shot down by a missile, you are guilty of withholding that evidence. You should share it with the rest of the world.


:eyes:

Moran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptainMidnight Donating Member (611 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #143
144. it's "moron"
not Moran.

Unless you'r accusing me of being Irish, a Mick, a potato-eater. In that case, you would be right.

Idgit!

Captain Mike

PS: GOOGLE is 'your friend!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tlb Donating Member (611 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
146. I recall Carl Sagan on " Cosmos" discussing the clouds on Venus.
Referring to the old time theories of life on Venus, he made the point that early astronomers saw nothing but the clouds blocking any observation of the planet's surface. He then said something to this effect :

" I only see clouds, the clouds must mean very heavy humidity, very heavy humidity must mean tropical vegetation, tropical vegetation must mean dinosaurs. I see nothing = dinosaurs."

The Wellstone crash has always seemed like that to me. People make the wildest leaps of fact and logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Must_B_Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
148. This is a Jessica Lynch story
Edited on Wed Nov-19-03 05:32 AM by Must_B_Free
if there ever was one.

Forget all the coincidences. This is pathetic.

What ever happened to "ice on wings"? Funny how all you conspircacy doubters were convinced it was ice on the wings. You argued about weather patterns and altitude. Are you now willing to admit your failure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #148
151. Scientific method at its best
Examine the available facts, compose a theory, test, revise.

At the time, all I had available to me was weather reports and radar traces (some missing as Stickdog pointed out). The theory that required the least amount of jumping through hoops was that the plane was affected by ice.

Then new information came in about the pilots and weather conditions that made the icing theory less tenable and the cockpit management theory more to my liking.

I haven't changed my position much since then except to note the "too fast and too high" scenario.

The conspiracy theory methodology is to compose a theory and then twist facts, ignore facts or just plain make up "facts" to justify it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romberry Donating Member (632 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
149. Good thread remains at Salon Table Talk
A lot of good info including a call to the manager of the charter company that owned the aircraft.

See the Wellstone thread here: http://tabletalk.salon.com/webx?14@@.596c4aa0/0

And here: http://tabletalk.salon.com/webx?14@@.596c4aa0/18

And here: http://tabletalk.salon.com/webx?addBookmark@@.596c4aa0/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crissy71 Donating Member (311 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-03 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
154. Where's Stick Dog?
I'd like to read his take on this - he's a pilot who's been posting about this before
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct 22nd 2017, 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC