Interesting Transcript of 2007 Dr. Fetzer radio show Part 2 of 4 parts

[Jeannon Kralj]

Interesting Transcript of 2007 Dr. Fetzer radio show  Part 2 of 4 parts

 

Today, I’m talking about scientific research in relation to 9-11 and the desire and the tendency to restrict the range of investigation so that in fact the true hypothesis, what actually happened, may be excluded from consideration from scratch on the basis of some kind of ideological or propagandistic reasoning that is very cleverly contrived but that ultimately can be exposed.

 

Now based upon some remarks I made yesterday about the way in which the research community can be contained, I mentioned two ways.  One is the passivity approach where you have meetings and watch videos, but you never have debate, discussion or take any actions.  That’s one way of containing a 9-11 research movement. Convert it in to a passive mode of operation.  People will come.  They will be motivated.  They may be idealistic, energetic, full of ideas, but they’re going to be turned off by this passivity of merely watching DVDs, hearing things over and over, stuff they may have already figured out for themselves because that’s why they were motivated to get into the movement.  It becomes boring, tedious, uninteresting and ultimately accomplishes nothing.  And that might seem very strange unless your objective is to control the movement by having meetings that are tedious and boring and uninteresting that accomplish nothing because you want to accomplish nothing.  So that’s one modus operandi in relation to activism.

 

The other modus operandi of disinformation in relation to research, here thereby dividing the issue in terms of these two different modes of operation that apply one to activism and the other to research is to artificially constrain or contrive the range of hypotheses that are under consideration.

 

I experienced this up close and personal when I did research into the death of Senator Paul Wellstone, whose plane crashed on 25 October, 2002.  It was just about ten days before the election.  He had been climbing out of a 7 or 8 point lead after giving a speech denouncing the Bush administration with regard to the war on Iraq, and as I got deeper and deeper into doing research on this subject, I discovered that the NTSB’s own investigation was a charade because it turns out that unless the attorney general declares a crash scene to be a crime scene that it can’t be investigated as a crime scene, and which meant that you’ve got a perfect mechanism here for getting your political enemies – bring them down in a plane crash and then have a complicit or compliant attorney general declare it not to be a crime scene.  And then you’re constrained to investigate only accident-compatible alternatives, which is exactly what the NTSB did. 

 

So I considered the possibility that the crash was brought down by the plane, some mechanical problem, or the weather causing difficulties in flight, or by the pilot from lack of competence.  However, the more research I did, the more implausible it became that either the plane, the pilots, or the weather were responsible.  The plane was something like the Rolls Royce of small aircraft.  It was a
King Air 8100 with a marvelous maintenance history.  It’s a plane that practically flies itself.  The weather was not bad, even though Wolf Blitzer and other national commentators were suggesting that there was snow and freezing rain, those of us in the vicinity – and I was in Duluth at the time and  these events were taking place, oh, 60 miles north in the Eveleth Minnesota vicinity -- knew that the weather wasn’t that bad.  I would eventually get photographs from a pilot on the ground who was out because he was in real estate taking pictures across lakes, and not only was there no freezing rain, there was no rain.  There weren’t even any ripples on the surface of the water.  So this was a complete charade even though eminences like Wolf Blitzer were propagating this false information.  A local anchor in Duluth by the name of Benny Anderson who is also a pilot was repeatedly correcting these false reports about the weather.  So it turns out that neither the plane nor the weather were, you know, could be considered not remotely plausibly to be responsible here, which was a conclusion that the NTSB would eventually reach itself when it  would release its report about a year after the crash. 

 

But the pilots – so if ‘ya gotta choose between the weather, the plane or the pilots.  Well O K, if the plane is great and the weather wasn’t bad, it looks like the pilots are going to be held responsible.  And yet the chief pilot, Richard Connery, had 5200 hours of experience.  He had an air transport pilot’s license, and he had passed his FAA flight test just two days before, which means that by the government’s own standards, and given the governments own criteria of evaluation, this guy was well qualified to fly the plane.  Although it’s not required, there was a second pilot aboard, Michael Glass, who had experience – he wasn’t as qualified as Connery – but he was a competent pilot, and there’s no reason to suppose that coming in to this airport, which other pilots have told me is really very user friendly, very accessible airport, that there shouldn’t have been any problems.  But if you were forced to choose between the plane, the pilot and the weather, and the situation is that the plane is terrific and the weather wasn’t bad, you’re going to gravitate toward the pilots -- for inexplicable reasons.  And that’s basically what the NTSB did.  They said for inexplicable reasons, basically, that the pilots got confused or whatever and they allowed the plane to crash. 

 

Well, I thought that was fairly ridiculous because the course of my investigation was turning up other possible causes or explanations for what had happened, but, while it took me a long while to appreciate that the NTSB wasn’t even considering them, they included, you know, based upon conjecture or speculation and hypothesis, information right off the bat that they could have included a gas canister or a small bomb or some kind of high-tech weapon.  I mean if you don’t consider the full range of alternative possible explanations, since much of science proceeds by process of elimination, how can you be sure if you’ve eliminated alternatives that the one you’re left with in the end must be the truth?  This is the principle that Sherlock Holmes enunciated, Arthur Conan Doyle, when you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.  Well if you simply sweep out all of the non-accident-compatible alternatives as the NTSB did, because the attorney general didn’t declare it to be crime scene or even a potential crime scene, then of course you’re going to be guaranteed you’re going to have an accident-compatible alternative. 

 

And I conducted investigation on this with other scholars and experts including a Native American scholar from Northern Arizona University with both a Ph.D. and an Ed.D.  We published a book together called An American Assassination – The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone.  And we lay out the evidence we turned up there that indicated to us that what had actually happened here was that the plane was brought down by use of a high-tech weapon that imparted a surge of energy to the plane that overwhelmed the electrical system and caused these switches, these solenoids, and the props to turn on to idle. 

 

Today, I’m talking about scientific research in relation to 9-11 and the desire and the tendency to restrict the range of investigation so that in fact the true hypothesis, what actually happened, may be excluded from consideration from scratch on the basis of some kind of ideological or propagandistic reasoning that is very cleverly contrived but that ultimately can be exposed.

 

Now based upon some remarks I made yesterday about the way in which the research community can be contained, I mentioned two ways.  One is the passivity approach where you have meetings and watch videos, but you never have debate, discussion or take any actions.  That’s one way of containing a 9-11 research movement. Convert it in to a passive mode of operation.  People will come.  They will be motivated.  They may be idealistic, energetic, full of ideas, but they’re going to be turned off by this passivity of merely watching DVDs, hearing things over and over, stuff they may have already figured out for themselves because that’s why they were motivated to get into the movement.  It becomes boring, tedious, uninteresting and ultimately accomplishes nothing.  And that might seem very strange unless your objective is to control the movement by having meetings that are tedious and boring and uninteresting that accomplish nothing because you want to accomplish nothing.  So that’s one modus operandi in relation to activism.

 

The other modus operandi of disinformation in relation to research, here thereby dividing the issue in terms of these two different modes of operation that apply one to activism and the other to research is to artificially constrain or contrive the range of hypotheses that are under consideration.

 

I experienced this up close and personal when I did research into the death of Senator Paul Wellstone, whose plane crashed on 25 October, 2002.  It was just about ten days before the election.  He had been climbing out of a 7 or 8 point lead after giving a speech denouncing the Bush administration with regard to the war on Iraq, and as I got deeper and deeper into doing research on this subject, I discovered that the NTSB’s own investigation was a charade because it turns out that unless the attorney general declares a crash scene to be a crime scene that it can’t be investigated as a crime scene, and which meant that you’ve got a perfect mechanism here for getting your political enemies – bring them down in a plane crash and then have a complicit or compliant attorney general declare it not to be a crime scene.  And then you’re constrained to investigate only accident-compatible alternatives, which is exactly what the NTSB did. 

 

So I considered the possibility that the crash was brought down by the plane, some mechanical problem, or the weather causing difficulties in flight, or by the pilot from lack of competence.  However, the more research I did, the more implausible it became that either the plane, the pilots, or the weather were responsible.  The plane was something like the Rolls Royce of small aircraft.  It was a
King Air 8100 with a marvelous maintenance history.  It’s a plane that practically flies itself.  The weather was not bad, even though Wolf Blitzer and other national commentators were suggesting that there was snow and freezing rain, those of us in the vicinity – and I was in Duluth at the time and  these events were taking place, oh, 60 miles north in the Eveleth Minnesota vicinity -- knew that the weather wasn’t that bad.  I would eventually get photographs from a pilot on the ground who was out because he was in real estate taking pictures across lakes, and not only was there no freezing rain, there was no rain.  There weren’t even any ripples on the surface of the water.  So this was a complete charade even though eminences like Wolf Blitzer were propagating this false information.  A local anchor in Duluth by the name of Benny Anderson who is also a pilot was repeatedly correcting these false reports about the weather.  So it turns out that neither the plane nor the weather were, you know, could be considered not remotely plausibly to be responsible here, which was a conclusion that the NTSB would eventually reach itself when it  would release its report about a year after the crash. 

 

But the pilots – so if ‘ya gotta choose between the weather, the plane or the pilots.  Well O K, if the plane is great and the weather wasn’t bad, it looks like the pilots are going to be held responsible.  And yet the chief pilot, Richard Connery, had 5200 hours of experience.  He had an air transport pilot’s license, and he had passed his FAA flight test just two days before, which means that by the government’s own standards, and given the governments own criteria of evaluation, this guy was well qualified to fly the plane.  Although it’s not required, there was a second pilot aboard, Michael Glass, who had experience – he wasn’t as qualified as Connery – but he was a competent pilot, and there’s no reason to suppose that coming in to this airport, which other pilots have told me is really very user friendly, very accessible airport, that there shouldn’t have been any problems.  But if you were forced to choose between the plane, the pilot and the weather, and the situation is that the plane is terrific and the weather wasn’t bad, you’re going to gravitate toward the pilots -- for inexplicable reasons.  And that’s basically what the NTSB did.  They said for inexplicable reasons, basically, that the pilots got confused or whatever and they allowed the plane to crash. 

 

Well, I thought that was fairly ridiculous because the course of my investigation was turning up other possible causes or explanations for what had happened, but, while it took me a long while to appreciate that the NTSB wasn’t even considering them, they included, you know, based upon conjecture or speculation and hypothesis, information right off the bat that they could have included a gas canister or a small bomb or some kind of high-tech weapon.  I mean if you don’t consider the full range of alternative possible explanations, since much of science proceeds by process of elimination, how can you be sure if you’ve eliminated alternatives that the one you’re left with in the end must be the truth?  This is the principle that Sherlock Holmes enunciated, Arthur Conan Doyle, when you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.  Well if you simply sweep out all of the non-accident-compatible alternatives as the NTSB did, because the attorney general didn’t declare it to be crime scene or even a potential crime scene, then of course you’re going to be guaranteed you’re going to have an accident-compatible alternative. 

 

And I conducted investigation on this with other scholars and experts including a Native American scholar from Northern Arizona University with both a Ph.D. and an Ed.D.  We published a book together called An American Assassination – The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone.  And we lay out the evidence we turned up there that indicated to us that what had actually happened here was that the plane was brought down by use of a high-tech weapon that imparted a surge of energy to the plane that overwhelmed the electrical system and caused these switches, these solenoids, and the props to turn on to idle. 

 

Go to

Interesting Transcript of 2007 Dr. Fetzer radio show  Part 3 of 4 parts