Chicago Indymedia :
Chicago Indymedia

News :: [none]

Connecting the Dots on the Wellstone Assassination

That leaves us with only one reasonable explanation left. As Sherlock Holmes said, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

In this case, the only reasonable explanation left is sabotage. And not just any old kind of sabotage, but a very sophisticated job indeed. It must have involved not only alteration of the plane prior to take-off at the Twin Cities Airport but also coordination with someone on the ground near the crash site. How else could they have
controlled the timing of the crash so precisely? Dot 9.
From: "cosmicdot" <cosmicdot (at)>

Subject: [thenewbushwhackerbrigade] the missing black box

To: thenewbushwhackerbrigade2 (at)

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Sherlock Holmes

Connecting the Dots on the Wellstone Assassination

By: David Spring - 11/03/02

One can hardly blame folks for thinking there was a Bush conspiracy to cause or permit the 911 attacks. After all, the majority of the hijackers received their pilot training at a flight school in Florida started by friends of Bush Senior. Then when FBI agents from 5 different states tried to investigate these suspicious characters the

summer before 911, the agents were told to "back off" on orders coming directly from the White House. Curiously, Bush Junior already had his response to the 911 attacks, the plan for the War on Terrorism, sitting on his desk the morning the attacks occurred. I know. This was all just a coincidence. As was the fact that he and his corporate cronies had an "America's most rich and powerful guys"

reunion planned that very day at some military base in the middle of nowhere. We are supposed to believe it was just a stroke of luck that none of Bush's buddies were in Washington or New York that day. But try if you can to set aside all those 911 dots for a few minutes. Because there are some rather disturbing dots emerging from the so-

called "plane accident" in Minnesota. Dots that deserve your attention.

The corporate press would have you believe Wellstone's death was an open and shut case. Bad weather, an early winter snowstorm, created icing on the wings and the plane crashed. Happens all the time with those dangerous small planes. Wellstone the gambler had pushed his luck too far and paid the price. End of story.

Unfortunately the facts of Wellstone's convenient death just don't fit their convenient story. Let's start with the snowstorm. Eyewitnesses said it was cold and overcast with occasional light snow showers. The winds were calm to non-existent. The freezing rain described in some press reports, if it occurred at all, happened several hours later. Even that weather could more accurately be

described as a light mist or drizzle. The snowstorm was evidently the wishful thinking of whoever the spin-doctors were who made up this story and fed it to the national press as the truth. But this ready-made and gross distortion of the weather had to come from somewhere.

Let's call that place Dot number one.

So what about the icing on the wings? There were reports of a thin layer of ice at 9,000 feet around the time of the crash. But Wellstone's plane had not just one but two separate and highly effective de-icing systems. These systems had been inspected and were both working fine just a couple of months earlier. Even more to the

point, three smaller and less able planes had gone through this thin layer of ice and landed without any icing problems around an hour before the crash. And if that were not enough, Wellstone's own plane was still behaving normally fully eight minutes after passing through

the ice layer as was evident when they were cleared for their final landing approach to the small airport while at an elevation of 5000 feet. This according to the air traffic control records readily available to any reporter who wished to take the time to read them. Add to this the fact that local pilots refused to buy the "icing"

story. More than one described it as ludicrous.

Somehow their interviews never made it to the national press. So where did the icing story come from? Good question. For now, let's just call it Dot number two. Kind of like that War Plan that was already sitting on Bush's desk the morning of 911.

Well, if it wasn't icing perhaps it was engine failure. After all, we all know how unreliable those small planes can be. Again the facts get stubbornly in the way. This wasn't your usual small airplane. Statistics show it to be one of the safest and most reliable small planes ever built. Not a single fatal crash in the entire US in the

past four years. I guess Wellstone wasn't quite the risk taker the press would have you believe. As for engine failure, eyewitnesses said the plane's engines were still working when it hit the ground. And just in case those eyewitnesses were unreliable, the shape of the

propeller proved beyond a doubt that the engines were still working when the plane hit the ground. So much for engine failure. Dot 3.

Maybe it was pilot error. After all, pilot error is a leading cause of plane crashes. And we all know how much those Democrats like to drink, especially when they are on the way to a friends funeral. Again the facts tell a different story. There was not one but two pilots flying the plane that morning. Both were certified as commercial pilots. The senior pilot, Captain Richard Conry, 55 had

the industry's top certification. The National press is currently circulating a story that Mr. Conry was some sort of arch criminal. He was involved in an illegal construction company billing scheme about 15 years ago. For this, he served over a year in prison and has been

clean ever since. There's also a side story being circulated about the co-pilot.

Michael Guess was evidently one of the people who tipped the FBI off about the accused hijacker trained in Minnesota. But both pilots had been working at their current job for a year and a half without incident. It is curious that the press is so willing to put out these

obvious "red herring" stories while refusing to even consider the elephant in the closet described below. Dot 4.

So if it wasn't icing, engine failure or pilot error, the three most common causes of small plane crashes, then what's left?

Documented accounts of the crash itself, taken from the air traffic control records and eyewitness accounts yield some important clues or dots if you would prefer.

According to air traffic control records, at 10:18 am, the plane had been cleared to land. They were at about 5000 feet. Well below the almost non-existent ice layer, but still above the lowest thin and broken cloud layer which was at 700 feet. Visibility was at least three miles. Some reports said it was unlimited. The small airport,

which these pilots had landed at before, was almost certainly within their sight. The pilots were using instruments. But these instruments were merely back-up at this point of an extremely short and uneventful flight. They had only been in the air 40 minutes and the

plane had performed normally during this entire time. They were heading directly on vector for a landing they expected would occur in the next couple of minutes.

Suddenly, with absolutely no warning, at 10:19 things went

desperately wrong. So wrong that they appeared to lose total control over the plane. The plane veered away from the runway and within a minute was 90 degrees, or perpendicular, to the path it was on 60 seconds earlier. Dot 5.

Air traffic control lost sight of it at 10:21 descending rapidly at 1,800 feet. Curiously, even though the plane had been out of control for about two minutes, there is no evidence of the pilot making an emergency call to air traffic control. This is an extremely important

point, one I'll get back to in a minute. For now, let's call this point "Dot 6". After all, in mathematics there is very little difference between a dot and a point.

The rest of the story can be drawn from the accounts of eyewitnesses, who described the crash in vivid detail. They said the engines were roaring as the plane came down, implying the pilot was desperately trying to regain control of the plane. The plane hit the ground at an extremely steep angle.

This was later claimed by the press to be about 25 degrees. But eyewitnesses described it as a "near-vertical plunge". The impact area was about the size of a football field, which would tend to support the near vertical plunge. So perhaps the press was wrong on this account also. Dot 7.

The crash was quickly followed by an extreme post-crash fire, which obliterated almost everything not made of metal. While fires are not unusual following plane crashes, this one was particularly intense for some as yet unexplained reason.

So what can we draw from all of this? For one thing, it wasn't icing. Icing makes it difficult for planes to fly but it doesn't cause them to suddenly lose control and come plunging to the ground. Even a stalled engine would not bring a plane to the ground that fast and at that angle. And whatever the explanation is it must account not only for the crash but for the failure of the pilots to radio for help.

I have been thinking about this for over a week now. I can come up with only two possibilities. Either there was a sudden and massive failure of many of the plane's control systems or the plane was sabotaged.

Let's first examine the odds for a sudden failure of the plane's control systems. As noted earlier, this model of plane has had a remarkable safety record. This particular plane was well serviced. Even on its final flight, it hadn't exhibited the slightest of problems right up until two minutes before it crashed. So what are the odds of all the control systems suddenly failing all at once and

without warning? Almost non-existent. Dot 8.

That leaves us with only one reasonable explanation left. As Sherlock Holmes said, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

In this case, the only reasonable explanation left is sabotage. And not just any old kind of sabotage, but a very sophisticated job indeed. It must have involved not only alteration of the plane prior to take-off at the Twin Cities Airport but also coordination with someone on the ground near the crash site. How else could they have

controlled the timing of the crash so precisely? Dot 9.

Then there's the issue of the mysteriously missing Black Box. The FAA says the plane was required by law to have one. The National Transportation Safety Board investigating the accident has flip flopped between saying they couldn't find one to insisting there never was one on the plane to begin with. Given the FAA requirement and the quality of this plane, it is hard for me to believe there was

not a black box on that plane. And if there was a black box? It would have been a smoking gun, recording the voices of the pilots trying to control the plane. It would have eliminated all doubt about icing, engine failure or pilot error. It would have shown the pilots trying to radio the air traffic controllers. How convenient it was to have

something this crucial just come up missing. So somehow, those who sabotaged the plane also sabotaged the radio and got rid of the black box. Unlike with those dots on 911, this dot, number 10, has simply no other reasonable explanation. Coincidence and even bad luck do not

cause radios to suddenly stop working.

So who could possibly be capable of pulling off such a complex killing?

Certainly not some lone wacko NRA nut. They might have been able to blow the plane up in mid-air, but then that would have been too obvious. This assassination was clearly the work of an organization with very sophisticated, high tech weapons at their disposal. Those who carried out this mission must have had plenty of experience in this kind of thing. Moreover they would have needed a lot of contacts

with the corporate controlled media. Like with 911, the spin doctoring occurred so rapidly that it must have been prepared and put into place well in advance of the hit.

Given the clearness (no matter how poorly reported) of both the motive and method, the group who pulled this off must have felt confident they had so much control over the media and the police that they would never be caught. This group must have so much power that they no longer even care about conspiracy buffs connecting dots. In assassinating Wellstone in broad daylight, they clearly felt like they were above the law. Perhaps they felt this way because they now are the law. Dot 11.

And if you still don't have enough dots, here's number 12, a quote from The Nation, May 2002: Paul Wellstone is a hunted man. Minnesota's senior senator is not just another Democrat on White House political czar Karl Rove's target list, in an election year when the Senate balance of power could be decided by the voters of a single state. Rather, getting rid of Wellstone is a passion for Rove, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the special-interest lobbies that fund the most sophisticated political operation ever assembled by a presidential administration. "There are people in the White House who wake up in the morning thinking about how they will defeat Paul Wellstone," a senior Republican aide confides. "This one is political and personal for them."

Truer words were never spoken. Perhaps we should be taking another look at the Carnahan crash a couple of years ago. That plane went down in a snowstorm too, at east "according to the press". Maybe we can get the Justice Department to look into it for us. Now there's a reassuring thought. I bet those guys are experts at connecting dots.

David Spring is a contributing writer for Liberal Slant.


LIBERAL SLANT Web Publications.

All rights reserved.

liberalslant (at)




Account Login

Media Centers


This site made manifest by dadaIMC software