Posted on 12/02/2017 12:55:48 PM PST by rx
These are the partial findings of an investigation into the claimed catastrophic engine failure that was said to have occurred within a couple minutes of take-off of a commuter airline Cessna Grand Caravan that carried a pilot and eight paying passengers off Moloka'i, Hawai'is Kalaupapa Peninsula on Wednesday, December 11th, 2013. The multi-media report's findings are generally limited to the NTSB's crash investigation. Found were several instances of fraudulent and likely criminal activity by NTSB employees or others participating closely with the NTSB investigation.
The NTSB is the US Transportation System's investigative agency, uniquely chartered to be insulated from outside influences. Rightly so, as influences that could skew investigative results could otherwise have far-ranging, inappropriate effects both domestically and internationally.
The results of NTSB investigations affect the activities and profitability of many multi-billion-dollar and smaller (for these purposes, aviation-related) corporations. FAA determinations and Airworthiness Directives related to this crash event cost thousands of dollars from each (US and ICAO) owner of the aircraft involved (and some other users of the same engine) in this crash, to the FAA-estimated tune of $60,000+ each. Shareholders of the Grand Caravan's Type Certificate's corporate manufacturers (engine: Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC); airframe: Cessna Aircraft Corporation and parent company, Textron Aviation) were implicitly made to suffer via degraded reputation of the the Cessna Grand Caravan product, if not in other ways as well.
Were outside influences that penetrated the NTSB's independence primarily responsible for the misbehavior evidenced inside this NTSB investigation? Or does the evidence show that false investigative activity took place entirely from within the NTSB by self-interested personnel?
If the instigation of misbehavior came from outside the NTSB, does uncovered evidence suggest the source--or at least characteristics that could help identify the source--of such external influence(s)? Given the downside potential of career-ending professional evaluation for complicity, criminal charges and possible prison time, what could nonetheless have enticed one or more NTSB employees to come to purposely false conclusions regarding one of the NTSB's larger, multi-man-year investigations?
Strikingly, clear evidence suggests not only did one or more NTSB employees write multiple false conclusions into the NTSB report for this incident, but such employee(s) may be responsible for the proven evidence falsification that has had the effect of framing engine manufacturer P&WC as culpable for this ditching, related hardships, injuries and a claimed, passenger death. Prior to any results of this partial finding report being published, P&WC saw it within its interest to settle two lawsuits that had been filed in Hawaii by the ostensible fatality's family and the Deputy Director of the Hawaii Department of Health. The plaintiffs' attorney for those cases declared to the media that he was pleased with the settlements.
Some of the answers as to why the NTSB would allow its investigation to become tainted lie outside this multimedia partial report, while additional evidence and information has been brought to light by the full investigative report in recently published book form, called "The Fuddy Hoax," by Hugo Feugen and Nellie Ristvedt. (An electronic form is also available.)
Where is the name ending in -ton?
Oh, now I understand what you’re saying. The redacted name is not Milton.
What do you think of her posts?
Searched the internet for the postal code, and the street name and companies on it came up.
In the batch of emails you posted, Zola said her name ended in -ton.
The redacted name could be the company for which she worked.
No, that company doesn’t fit what “she” described for the company owned by “her” parents. All the money she wanted with which to destroy me, all the IT people, all the expert witnesses...
But “she” didn’t mention the ability to delete at the ISP level the one email that the FAA’s attorney would then try to use to justify the destruction of records...
Nor did she directly mention how she was able to know who I was in online postings before I used the name butterdezillion, though her claims did suggest that she acquired that ability at the beginning of Obama’s so-called presidency or shortly before (”over 5 years” as of Feb of 2014, which means sometime before Feb of 2009 but probably not as early as Feb of 2008 or she would have said 6 years).
“...No, that company doesn’t fit what “she” described for the company owned by “her” parents. ...”
What company owned by “her” parents —did— “she” describe?
I also worked for them - Evendale from 1987 to 1994. I worked as an engineer in the stealth group in the basement of building 100. At least I think that was the building number, it’s been a while.
I’d have to dig through the posts again, but unfortunately, I have to deal with the fallout of having one car’s engine go out with no advance warning, and another car’s transmission going out with no advance warning - both within 3 days of each other and of when Bruce Briley noticed our book and called us liars (Briley is the guy whose wife had a phallus-shaped electronics communications device between her legs underwater, probably to go along with the electronic “fishes” in the water. I’ve read about military contractors making those kinds of things to improve underwater communications for extractions like this one... Briley is also the guy who said the ground was squishy there, and who said we’d need a good lawyer if we were going to try to make anything of all this...)
I guess I’m just really unlucky. In any event, we have to have cars to drive. At least there’s no sparking near the engine this time.
Why was post 30 deleted?
I documented the threats and the claims by Zola/interested bystander that she has sockpuppets here on FR.
For some reason, the moderator removed that post. I’m waiting to hear the reason.
Yes, it probably should have its own thread. I have a sneaking hunch it wouldn’t be allowed, for some reason.
Right after I was gagged at FR during the “Part Two” thread, “interested bystander” bragged on fogbow about giving his/her “sockpuppets” at FR a rest from that thread.
That's all pretty interesting, butterdezillion, as that just happens to the paradigm of how a certain very malicious group conducts their threats against people before they then execute the threat if the person doesn't cease the behavior that was pointed out. Their belief about that rationale--if it could be called that--is to flip the blame of actually executing the threat onto the recipient rather than the doer of the threat/punishment.
Such an executed penalty wouldn't exonerate a perpetrator within our Constitutional justice system, but it purportedly does within their group. Using that threat paradigm is a characteristic calling card of the group.
The collusion of multiple government agencies involved in this hoax is very important, of course, so I'm especially glad you have all the relevant documentation for this.
Yes, I saw that. Did you know that anybody can write anything on the internet, even if it's just made up?
It's true, really. You of all people should know that.
For some reason, the moderator removed that post. I’m waiting to hear the reason.
Did you ask? Me, I'd guess it revealed some personal info somehow.
I couldn't read all of it, the formatting gave me a seizure.
Yes, it probably should have its own thread. I have a sneaking hunch it wouldn’t be allowed, for some reason.
Give it a shot, fortune favors the bold.
Probably the “fogblow moderator” removed it. Or maybe Deep State hacked FR and did it. I’d complain straight to Jim Rob. He needs to hire an expert sleuth like you to investigate his Mod staff. LOL
“[T]o FIT the paradigm” it should have said.
Gee, now, why would that be on the lips of an innocent passenger in an airplane that had an accident?
If you're going to research a plane crash, then be sure you have a good lawyer (not just a mediocre one, mind you) to defend your disclosure of the things you find out! Hmmm. Just who would think research results would not be good for everyone to hear?
That passenger apparently reflexively thought such disclosure would be actionable. It happens all the time in a civil society, maybe, but it surely smells fishy (as you pointed out) to me!
Anybody can claim they have sockpuppets and moderation powers, just as anybody can claim unlimited IT power and money. But when the threats are carried through it is more than just talk.
It’s a little bit like Zola saying she has her sockpuppets get close to me and feed me disinformation. Why would anybody who claims to be interested in truth ever want to spread disinformation? This person is admitting to lying, supposedly to make me tell the truth. Who the heck thinks like that?
People who truly care about the truth do not lie. They do not try to feed disinformation. To admit that you do those things is to admit that you are on the side of lies, and you lie because the truth is not what you want people to know.
Love,
Fogbow.
Very mature response. Why does it not surprise me?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.