Post by craiglamson on Sept 15, 2005 21:26:29 GMT -4
Jay, would you mind taking a look at this passage from Fetzers book on the Wellstone crash and comment on the accuracy?
Thanks in advance.
From the education forum...posted by Jim Fetzer...
Colby, true to form, continues to post misleading information (some
call it "misinformation"; when it is deliberate, called "disinformation").
The VOR was only minimally out of tolerance and even the NTSB
concluded it had not contributed to the crash. The closer you got
to the source, the less difference it would make. This guy is adept
at citing sources without explaining their meaning or import, as long
as it contributes to his (highly selective) efforts to build his case.
Another example. The plane was headed south when it crashed,
but the airport was almost due north. The plane was off course
in its general direction by 8 degrees, which may not sound like
much but extended over rate times time, could have put it very
far from the airport. As it was, when it crashed, it was about 2
miles south, very comparable to the experience reported by the
other pilot when he was attempting to land at Waukegan Airport.
The existence of weapons of this kind is not seriously indoubt, for
all the noise and shouting Colby is making over them. Here's a
section of AMERICAN ASSASSINATION concerning EM weapons,
which corresponds to pages 90-94 of the book in its 2nd printing.
The author holds a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electro-
magnetism. Unlike some, he actually knows what he's talking about.
Electromagnetic weapons
Since John Ongaro wondered whether his odd cell phone experience
might have been related to the use of a directed energy weapon,
it would be appropriate to provide some background about weapons
of this kind.
There are whole families of new radio frequency (RF) and
electromagnetic pulse (EMP weaponry, including high-energy radio
frequency (HERF) guns, some of which have been around at least since
the mid 1990s. But even Rees appears to be unaware of these advances in
technology. “I may be out of date," he wrote, "but last I knew a
nuclear detonation is required to produce an Electromagnetic Pulse. I
am unaware that such a force has been harnessed in an anti-aircraft
weapon, especially one small enough for assassins to skulk around in
swampy woods.”
Actually, Rees is quite “out of date“ with regard to EMP
weapons. EMP pulses are by-products of nuclear explosions, which
first led to their discovery. A google search turns up hundreds of
sources with more current information. One of Jim's collaborators on
Zapruder film research, John P. Costella, earned his Ph.D. in physics
specializing in electromagnetic theory. Jim asked Dr. Costella if he
could explain the general features of the use of devices of this kind in
language that a layman can understand. Here's what he had to say.
__________
The world around us is surrounded by electromagnetic waves. Some of us
may recall building crystal radio sets when we were young. Even then,
radio waves were strong enough to power the earpiece without the need
for a separate power source. Radar tracks aircraft and weather by
sending out beams of radio waves and measuring how much is bounced
back. Cell phones communicate with cable phone networks by means of
high frequency radio waves and internet carriers communicate with
satellites using powerful microwave transmitters, where radiowaves and
microwaves are different types of electromagnetic waves.
All electronic
devices can be disrupted if subjected to strong enough electromagnetic
waves. Your home music system may click or pop when a lamp is switched
on. Your TV may go fuzzy when someone plugs in a power drill.
Electromagnetic interference is a troublesome fact of life. And there
is an entire federal agency dedicated to making sure that all of our
modern electronic devices can function in the same house or work place.
Interference can be reduced by "shielding" a device in a metallic cage,
but the more metal a manufacturer uses, the more costly and weighty the
device becomes.
Today, aircraft systems are dominated by electronics.
The amount of "shielding" possible is limited by the need to keep the
aircraft light enough to fly. The most disastrous times for
electromagnetic interference to the control system is during takeoff
and landing, when there is little room for error nor time to correct
it. This is why you are told not to use cell phones, computers, or any
other electronic device when an aircraft is taking off or landing.
But
if a cell phone or a Gameboy could cause an aircraft to crash, what
about all the other electromagnetic waves flying about our modern
world? Both NASA and the FAA have performed detailed research on this
question in recent years. One NASA report is at
www-sdb.larc.nasa.gov/Air_Support/aries/papers/electromagnetic.pdf,
providing a chilling history of crashes caused by inadvertent
electromagnetic waves.
In the 1980s, for example, five different Black
Hawk helicopters dove into the ground and crashed when they flew near
radio transmitters. It was found that the rear stabilization control
system was vulnerable to electromagnetic interference. In the early
1990s, six F-111 fighers crashed or aborted their missions, due simply
to the radio transmissions of other US aircraft involved in the same
missions. Around the same time, the NTSB concluded that seven Piper
Malibu broke up in mid-flight because of electromagnetic interference
to the auto pilot, which had been reported by 300 other pilots of
similar aircraft.
A 1983 crash of a Tornado fighter was later found to
be due to the electromagnetic interference of a "Voice of America"
transmitter with its air data computer. In the early 1990s, four
different airline carriers reported widespread interference with
avionics systems in may flight in the Caribbean, which was traced to
high-power electromagnetic surveillance carried out by the US
military--both shipboard and airborne--to track drug traffic in the
region. It has even proposed that the crash of TWA 800 in 1996 might
have been due to electromagnetic interference.
The FAA has also
investigated in detail the risks of electromagnetic fields. A 1999
report is aar400.tc.faa.gov/acc/accompdocs/99-50.pdf. They
investigated in detail 893 "emitters" of electromagnetic waves--radio
and television transmitters, radar and satellite uplink transmitters,
and large microwave communication systems--around just the cities of
Denver, CO, and Seattle, WA. They report that there are some 50,000
similar major "emitters" of electromagnetic waves in the US and Western
Europe.
The FAA estimated the probability that a single flight into or
out of one of these cities would crash due to electromagnetic
interference. This involved estimating probabilities that the flight
path would come too close to an emitter, that an emitter would transmit
on just the right frequency and in the direction of the aircraft, and
that the interference would cause a catastrophic crash. The main
conclusions of the report address proposed new shielding levels for
aircraft, which are or appear to be appropriately safe, where the
average number of flights expected between catastrophic failures due to
this cause would be between 100,000 and 500,000.
Buried here, however,
are corresponding estimates for aircraft already manufactured under
less stringent guidelines. Reconstructing the figures from those
contained in the report, a flight in an aircraft manufactured after the
release of the 1989 standard would incur a catastrophe roughly ever
5,000 flights! For an aircraft manufactured according to 1984
standards, the figure drops precipitously to a catastrophe expected for
every 33 flights! These figures, of course, reflect approximately how
often the wrong conditions might be expected to be encountered by
aircraft merely by chance.
These estimates may be conservative and
there are many factors involved in determining whether this has
practical implications for any aircraft now flying. However, it does
highlight that completely accidental electromagnetic interference has
become a major safety concern in the modern world of burgeoning
electromagnetic communications. So if that is the score regarding
aircraft crashes merely by chance, then just how difficult would it be
to bring down an aircraft using an electromagnetic emitter on purpose?
This obviously depends on the resources available and the age and type
of aircraft under consideration. Flight paths are already designed to
avoid known electromagnetic emitters by some safe margin. If one were
simply to gain control of one of these emitters, aim it directly at an
aircraft, and transmit with sufficient power at the right frequencies,
the probability of catastrophic failure would skyrocket. If we move
into the realm of special purpose EM-weaponry--obviously possessed in
copious quantities by the military and another else with similar
desires--then literally the sky is the limit.
Some may be uneasy to
learn that today's aircraft--particularly, aging aircraft--should be so
vulnerable to relatively simple and inexpensive attack. The explanation
is that, most of the time--even almost all of the time--no one is
actively trying to cause an aircraft to crash. Regulatory frameworks
and agencies like the FAA attempt to ensure that such catastrophes do
not occur very frequently by chance. Any "cowboys" shooting
electromagnetic waves into the air at random, moreover, would quickly
be detected by the US military, either through ground-based detection
or through satellite surveillance.
It would only be in the case of very
carefully planned or specifically targeted use of EM-weaponry that the
culprits could escape detection by the US military, unless, of course,
the culprits were the US military itself. As 11 September has taught
us, the practicalities of economic life dictate that safety measures
are very finely balanced against commercial costs and corporate
profits. Anyone who could not conceive of an aircraft being brought
down by even a relatively small-sized EM emitter, therefore, ought to
pause the next time they continue to use their laptop computers or cell
phones when their planes are about to take off. It might turn out to be
their final flight.
___________
Costella's observations make it all too apparent that weapons of this
kind not only exist, but that the threats they pose to aircraft are
very real. These threats affect every passenger, every flight. This
means that even though most Americans are unaware of the potential of
these weapons--with former Air Force pilot Rees being an prime example--
it would be a blunder not to consider the possibility that EMP weapons
could have been employed in the Wellstone crash. Before we continue
our exploration of this technology and why we believe it is likely
that they may have been used to assassinate the Senator, we will first
analyze the official government account.
This post has been edited by James H. Fetzer: Yesterday, 11:39 PM
Thanks in advance.
From the education forum...posted by Jim Fetzer...
Colby, true to form, continues to post misleading information (some
call it "misinformation"; when it is deliberate, called "disinformation").
The VOR was only minimally out of tolerance and even the NTSB
concluded it had not contributed to the crash. The closer you got
to the source, the less difference it would make. This guy is adept
at citing sources without explaining their meaning or import, as long
as it contributes to his (highly selective) efforts to build his case.
Another example. The plane was headed south when it crashed,
but the airport was almost due north. The plane was off course
in its general direction by 8 degrees, which may not sound like
much but extended over rate times time, could have put it very
far from the airport. As it was, when it crashed, it was about 2
miles south, very comparable to the experience reported by the
other pilot when he was attempting to land at Waukegan Airport.
The existence of weapons of this kind is not seriously indoubt, for
all the noise and shouting Colby is making over them. Here's a
section of AMERICAN ASSASSINATION concerning EM weapons,
which corresponds to pages 90-94 of the book in its 2nd printing.
The author holds a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electro-
magnetism. Unlike some, he actually knows what he's talking about.
Electromagnetic weapons
Since John Ongaro wondered whether his odd cell phone experience
might have been related to the use of a directed energy weapon,
it would be appropriate to provide some background about weapons
of this kind.
There are whole families of new radio frequency (RF) and
electromagnetic pulse (EMP weaponry, including high-energy radio
frequency (HERF) guns, some of which have been around at least since
the mid 1990s. But even Rees appears to be unaware of these advances in
technology. “I may be out of date," he wrote, "but last I knew a
nuclear detonation is required to produce an Electromagnetic Pulse. I
am unaware that such a force has been harnessed in an anti-aircraft
weapon, especially one small enough for assassins to skulk around in
swampy woods.”
Actually, Rees is quite “out of date“ with regard to EMP
weapons. EMP pulses are by-products of nuclear explosions, which
first led to their discovery. A google search turns up hundreds of
sources with more current information. One of Jim's collaborators on
Zapruder film research, John P. Costella, earned his Ph.D. in physics
specializing in electromagnetic theory. Jim asked Dr. Costella if he
could explain the general features of the use of devices of this kind in
language that a layman can understand. Here's what he had to say.
__________
The world around us is surrounded by electromagnetic waves. Some of us
may recall building crystal radio sets when we were young. Even then,
radio waves were strong enough to power the earpiece without the need
for a separate power source. Radar tracks aircraft and weather by
sending out beams of radio waves and measuring how much is bounced
back. Cell phones communicate with cable phone networks by means of
high frequency radio waves and internet carriers communicate with
satellites using powerful microwave transmitters, where radiowaves and
microwaves are different types of electromagnetic waves.
All electronic
devices can be disrupted if subjected to strong enough electromagnetic
waves. Your home music system may click or pop when a lamp is switched
on. Your TV may go fuzzy when someone plugs in a power drill.
Electromagnetic interference is a troublesome fact of life. And there
is an entire federal agency dedicated to making sure that all of our
modern electronic devices can function in the same house or work place.
Interference can be reduced by "shielding" a device in a metallic cage,
but the more metal a manufacturer uses, the more costly and weighty the
device becomes.
Today, aircraft systems are dominated by electronics.
The amount of "shielding" possible is limited by the need to keep the
aircraft light enough to fly. The most disastrous times for
electromagnetic interference to the control system is during takeoff
and landing, when there is little room for error nor time to correct
it. This is why you are told not to use cell phones, computers, or any
other electronic device when an aircraft is taking off or landing.
But
if a cell phone or a Gameboy could cause an aircraft to crash, what
about all the other electromagnetic waves flying about our modern
world? Both NASA and the FAA have performed detailed research on this
question in recent years. One NASA report is at
www-sdb.larc.nasa.gov/Air_Support/aries/papers/electromagnetic.pdf,
providing a chilling history of crashes caused by inadvertent
electromagnetic waves.
In the 1980s, for example, five different Black
Hawk helicopters dove into the ground and crashed when they flew near
radio transmitters. It was found that the rear stabilization control
system was vulnerable to electromagnetic interference. In the early
1990s, six F-111 fighers crashed or aborted their missions, due simply
to the radio transmissions of other US aircraft involved in the same
missions. Around the same time, the NTSB concluded that seven Piper
Malibu broke up in mid-flight because of electromagnetic interference
to the auto pilot, which had been reported by 300 other pilots of
similar aircraft.
A 1983 crash of a Tornado fighter was later found to
be due to the electromagnetic interference of a "Voice of America"
transmitter with its air data computer. In the early 1990s, four
different airline carriers reported widespread interference with
avionics systems in may flight in the Caribbean, which was traced to
high-power electromagnetic surveillance carried out by the US
military--both shipboard and airborne--to track drug traffic in the
region. It has even proposed that the crash of TWA 800 in 1996 might
have been due to electromagnetic interference.
The FAA has also
investigated in detail the risks of electromagnetic fields. A 1999
report is aar400.tc.faa.gov/acc/accompdocs/99-50.pdf. They
investigated in detail 893 "emitters" of electromagnetic waves--radio
and television transmitters, radar and satellite uplink transmitters,
and large microwave communication systems--around just the cities of
Denver, CO, and Seattle, WA. They report that there are some 50,000
similar major "emitters" of electromagnetic waves in the US and Western
Europe.
The FAA estimated the probability that a single flight into or
out of one of these cities would crash due to electromagnetic
interference. This involved estimating probabilities that the flight
path would come too close to an emitter, that an emitter would transmit
on just the right frequency and in the direction of the aircraft, and
that the interference would cause a catastrophic crash. The main
conclusions of the report address proposed new shielding levels for
aircraft, which are or appear to be appropriately safe, where the
average number of flights expected between catastrophic failures due to
this cause would be between 100,000 and 500,000.
Buried here, however,
are corresponding estimates for aircraft already manufactured under
less stringent guidelines. Reconstructing the figures from those
contained in the report, a flight in an aircraft manufactured after the
release of the 1989 standard would incur a catastrophe roughly ever
5,000 flights! For an aircraft manufactured according to 1984
standards, the figure drops precipitously to a catastrophe expected for
every 33 flights! These figures, of course, reflect approximately how
often the wrong conditions might be expected to be encountered by
aircraft merely by chance.
These estimates may be conservative and
there are many factors involved in determining whether this has
practical implications for any aircraft now flying. However, it does
highlight that completely accidental electromagnetic interference has
become a major safety concern in the modern world of burgeoning
electromagnetic communications. So if that is the score regarding
aircraft crashes merely by chance, then just how difficult would it be
to bring down an aircraft using an electromagnetic emitter on purpose?
This obviously depends on the resources available and the age and type
of aircraft under consideration. Flight paths are already designed to
avoid known electromagnetic emitters by some safe margin. If one were
simply to gain control of one of these emitters, aim it directly at an
aircraft, and transmit with sufficient power at the right frequencies,
the probability of catastrophic failure would skyrocket. If we move
into the realm of special purpose EM-weaponry--obviously possessed in
copious quantities by the military and another else with similar
desires--then literally the sky is the limit.
Some may be uneasy to
learn that today's aircraft--particularly, aging aircraft--should be so
vulnerable to relatively simple and inexpensive attack. The explanation
is that, most of the time--even almost all of the time--no one is
actively trying to cause an aircraft to crash. Regulatory frameworks
and agencies like the FAA attempt to ensure that such catastrophes do
not occur very frequently by chance. Any "cowboys" shooting
electromagnetic waves into the air at random, moreover, would quickly
be detected by the US military, either through ground-based detection
or through satellite surveillance.
It would only be in the case of very
carefully planned or specifically targeted use of EM-weaponry that the
culprits could escape detection by the US military, unless, of course,
the culprits were the US military itself. As 11 September has taught
us, the practicalities of economic life dictate that safety measures
are very finely balanced against commercial costs and corporate
profits. Anyone who could not conceive of an aircraft being brought
down by even a relatively small-sized EM emitter, therefore, ought to
pause the next time they continue to use their laptop computers or cell
phones when their planes are about to take off. It might turn out to be
their final flight.
___________
Costella's observations make it all too apparent that weapons of this
kind not only exist, but that the threats they pose to aircraft are
very real. These threats affect every passenger, every flight. This
means that even though most Americans are unaware of the potential of
these weapons--with former Air Force pilot Rees being an prime example--
it would be a blunder not to consider the possibility that EMP weapons
could have been employed in the Wellstone crash. Before we continue
our exploration of this technology and why we believe it is likely
that they may have been used to assassinate the Senator, we will first
analyze the official government account.
This post has been edited by James H. Fetzer: Yesterday, 11:39 PM