Michael Connell died in a plane crash last night...

[Drudgewire]

Let's not get too far off the mark and make every thread about 9/11. If this had something to do with 9/11 it would be in the other forum. To reset:

1) Connell felt threatened by Rove
2) Connell was preparing to testify about his first hand knowledge about voter fraud and missing Justice Dept emails (both extremely serious offenses)
3) Connell's attorney asks for an immunity request 4) Connell is dead from a plane crash
5) Rove will enjoy a very Merry Christmas

If it makes you "skeptics" feel any better, Rove is simply the luckiest man on the planet.

Again, if you want to play in fairyland that's fine. But here's what we really know:

1) Connell felt his wife was being threatened by Rove.
2) Connell didn't go to the mainstream press with any information, but a blogger says he went to him instead
3) Connell's attorney asked for an immunity request which would be standard for anyone who thinks they're the target of an investigation

4) Connell is dead from a plane crash

These are facts that can not be put together rationally to suggest murder except in the mind of a conspiracy theorist. Speculate? Sure. But anything more than that requires the downward-spiral-into-paranoia thinking which starts with Rove being the most evil man of the 21st century based mainly on reports by people who hated the administration going in (Carvelle had the same reputation, Clinton has a body count list too. Doesn't mean there's anything resembling legitimacy to it).

Thinking it's a possibility is fine and dandy. Hoping more evidence is unearthed would be a good next step. Seriously assuming for a single second you have anything resembling the evidence to connect any dots beyond that is fantasy-based silliness. And it only comes from a delusionally-skewed view of reality that has been festering and growing for years, until "nothing is as it seems" becomes all the evidence necessary... which lifts incidents like this from the deserved area of "anything is possible" to the insane level of "it's almost positively the case and most people except me are too stupid to see it."

 

[doobiedoright]

Seems to me a air bubble in the heart would be far less complicated and way less risky!

 

[RedIbis]

Again, if you want to play in fairyland that's fine. But here's what we really know:

1) Connell felt his wife was being threatened by Rove.
2) Connell didn't go to the mainstream press with any information, but a blogger says he went to him instead
3) Connell's attorney asked for an immunity request which would be standard for anyone who thinks they're the target of an investigation

4) Connell is dead from a plane crash

These are facts that can not be put together rationally to suggest murder except in the mind of a conspiracy theorist. Speculate? Sure. But anything more than that requires the downward-spiral-into-paranoia thinking which starts with Rove being the most evil man of the 21st century based mainly on reports by people who hated the administration going in (Carvelle had the same reputation, Clinton has a body count list too. Doesn't mean there's anything resembling legitimacy to it).

Thinking it's a possibility is fine and dandy. Hoping more evidence is unearthed would be a good next step. Seriously assuming for a single second you have anything resembling the evidence to connect any dots beyond that is fantasy-based silliness. And it only comes from a delusionally-skewed view of reality that has been festering and growing for years, until "nothing is as it seems" becomes all the evidence necessary... which lifts incidents like this from the deserved area of "anything is possible" to the insane level of "it's almost positively the case and most people except me are too stupid to see it."

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and guess you were a two time Bush supporter. True?

 

[Donal]

2) Connell was preparing to testify about his first hand knowledge about voter fraud and missing Justice Dept emails (both extremely serious offenses)

We don't actually know that. You have to take the blogger's word on it.

And you are missing something important from your list. Actual evidence of foul play.

 

[Drudgewire]

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and guess you were a two time Bush supporter. True?

One time. Voted libertarian in 2004 because I wanted to waste my vote.

But shots in the dark are direct hits in your world so whatever.

 

[DavidJames]

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and guess you were a two time Bush supporter. True?

You see Red, this is a perfect example of why you really should seek the advice of a mental health professional.

I thought Drudgewire's post was spot on. I have no clue what his/her political bias is but I voted against Bush twice and believe he may go down as the worst president in U.S. history. If I thought it would help the country I would have supported his impeachment.

You are perfectly willing to accuse people of cold blooded murder, without a shred of genuine evidence. It should be clear that you aren't able to assimilate information in a logical way.

Please take a step back Red, and consider what I suggested.

 

[Donal]

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and guess you were a two time Bush supporter. True?

Does it matter whether he was or not?

There are plenty of people that don't buy into this conspiracy crap and yet think Bush is the worst president ever.

 

[Drudgewire]

Seems to me a air bubble in the heart would be far less complicated and way less risky!

Or running him over. Or hotshotting him and leaving him with a dead hooker. Or having him drown in the bathtub.

But in the mind of a conpsiracy theorist, not making the conspiracy unnecessarily complicated takes all the fun out of it for the bad guys.

 

[RedIbis]

Please take a step back Red, and consider what I suggested.

No thanks. I'll continue to be suspicious of someone who has proven in the past to be without scruples.

When someone of high profile dies in suspicious circumstances it's routine to look first at his enemies and those who would benefit from his death.

 

[Drudgewire]

No thanks. I'll continue to be suspicious of someone who has proven in the past to be without scruples.

When someone of high profile dies in suspicious circumstances it's routine to look first at his enemies and those who would benefit from his death.

You're not looking. You're convicting.

That's the difference between being open-minded and being a conspiracy loon.

 

[GStan]

No thanks. I'll continue to be suspicious of someone who has proven in the past to be without scruples.

When someone of high profile dies in suspicious circumstances it's routine to look first at his enemies and those who would benefit from his death.

If an investigation shows that there is no evidence of a direct or indirect connection between Rove and this plane crash, will you relieve yourself of these suspicions?

 

[Donal]

No thanks. I'll continue to be suspicious of someone who has proven in the past to be without scruples.

When someone of high profile dies in suspicious circumstances it's routine to look first at his enemies and those who would benefit from his death.

There has been nothing yet to say the circumstances are suspicious. If an investigation can't find any logical way for the plane to have crashed from either pilot error or mechanical problems, then yes, that would be suspicious.

When someone high profile dies, its routine to first determine the cause of death. You don't immediately jump to who would want them dead.

And their profile should have nothing to do with whether or not you think they were murdered. Everyone is going to die eventually for various reasons. Not all of us are famous.

 

[Cicero]

Seriously, try putting it in a list of probable causes, ranked high to low. E.g.:

1) Aircraft technical problem - fuel leak, component failure, etc.
2) Maintenance error.
3) Weather problem.
4) Pilot error.
5) Navigation issue.
6) ...
...
98) Gubmint (Rove) did it.
99) Dr No's death ray.
100) Godzilla swatted him.


Conceivable, yeah. But really? C'mon!

The conspriacy theorist is incapable of rational thought and think Occam's razor is made by Gillette. So they are compelled to compile their list in reverse order, i.e.:

1) Gubmint (Rove) did it.
2) Dr No's death ray.
3) Godzilla swatted him.
4)...
5)...
....

95) Aircraft technical problem - fuel leak, component failure, etc.
96) Maintenance error.
97) Weather problem
98) Pilot error.
99) Navigation issue.

 

[stilicho]

Seems to me a air bubble in the heart would be far less complicated and way less risky!

Or just use political influence to prevent the issuance of the subpoena. Or pay Connell some money to destroy the evidence. Or just pay him to "take the fall"--if there is even a "fall" to take.

Every one of the bloggers that RedIbis and others have produced create the impression that Connell was a whistleblower. If it took a subpoena to get him to testify then it should be very apparent that he wasn't a whistleblower.

All the bloggers (and the Ohio attorney leading the case) make the assumption that Connell had and would reveal information harmful to Rove. This is a pretty big assumption.

The Ohio attorney, Arnebeck, is somehow associated with three of the bloggers whose "evidence" (read: rampant speculation) is repeated ad infinitum across the internet. That would be Larisa Whats-her-name, plus two of those associated with "Velvet Revolution". Of course Arnebeck is going to tell the people paying him that Connell was about the blow the lid off the "fraud".

Meanwhile, in the real world, we'll just wait for the NTSB and FAA investigations to be completed.

 

[apathoid]

OK, there doesnt seem to be much by the way of evidence for either side, yet. The conspiracy people find the death of this man just too conveniant, but admit there is no hard evidence. The skeptics dont see anything more than an accident, with absolutely no evidence of foul play. With the absense of evidence in mind, this thread nicely underscores the differing thought processes at work for skeptics and CTers.

I'll give my thoughts as a skeptic and aviation guy. If your goal was to make this man disappear and leave no chance of his survival and no evidence of foul play for the NTSB to find(and they will find it) - there probably wouldn't be a riskier way. First off, as I pointed out earlier; more often than not engine failures in light aircraft are survivable(in fact, they are more survivable in single engine aircraft than twins and that should tell you something), so basically that tells me enough. When the NTSB concludes that fuel mismanagement was the probable cause, rather than a mechanical defect like a loose fuel filter fitting, cracked line or inoperative fuel pump, that should dispel any any remaining doubt. Unless there was heavy chemtrail activity, that is....

ETA: The aircraft was a Piper Saratoga, the same type of aircraft JFK Jr was killed in....
A more "fancy" light single with multiple tanks, tank selector switches and fuel heat. Oh and a little bird tells me that of the 700+ cases of fuel exhaustion, all 6 of the previous Saratoga instances were non-fatal. Bad odds for Rove and the NWO.

 

[Roadtoad]

I need information. Not conspiracy theories.

I'll wait until someone has some solid 411.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here [...]

I guess that's what you do best, isn't it?

 

[Brainster]

Again, if you want to play in fairyland that's fine. But here's what we really know:

1) Connell felt his wife was being threatened by Rove.

Where is this established? I've seen the claim from fruitcake attorney Cliff Arnebeck, but even his letter to Mukasey does not mention his source.

 

[Bell]

ETA: The aircraft was a Piper Saratoga, the same type of aircraft JFK Jr was killed in....

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Either Rove had something to do with it or he's incredibly lucky.

False dichotomy fallacy. Only two extreme options are presented with no apparent consideration for possibilities between or outside the two.

Rove has no criminal record. There's no indication that he would do anything like this. Not killing Connell would be a continuation of his established behavior pattern.

Why no consideration for the possibility that this was just another partisan catfight that unnecessarily spilled over into the courts and that ended, but did not contribute to, a tragedy?