So you are changing your story now? Post 6 you said, “The authors of the book did the investigation”, now you say, “the logical exposition of the conclusions the NTSB has made”
When you settle on a position, maybe we can move the discussion forward. I’m not going to interact with a moving target.
The authors did indeed do the investigation of the crash as I said, and they also considered what the NTSB had to say about the crash evidence that both groups had at their disposal for possible conclusion. As for your claim of the authors making (inappropriate) accusations, note carefully that it's nonsense to somehow claim the authors should not have pointed out (time and again) that the NTSB misconstrued unmistakable evidence. They did it with such regularity and bravado when any qualified aviation investigator would quickly have seen their conclusions were false. If you wish to suggest the authors went beyond propriety to bring such facts forth, I suggest you're missing the service these authors have done for the Republic. I don't believe the authors have in any way been inappropriately accusatory. Their conclusions are the result of careful investigation and consideration of the evidence. Then, seeing what the NTSB did with the evidence, by contrast, they engaged in a logical exposition that the NTSB conclusions were more than problematic or trifling among vagaries. As long as we can understand that NTSB aviation investigators and their support personnel are extremely well-qualified in the aviation field, we have a clear problem, inasmuch as the contradictions they repeatedly resolved incorrectly would have to show extreme incompetence, which is just not possible, given their previously demonstrated expertise.
Since the authors have for this partial portion brought forth the evidence and merely showed that the NTSB conclusions were repeatedly contradicted by the evidence, something that capable investigators would not be able to mistake, my saying so does not make me a moving or changing target.
The excerpt (there, fixed it for you) does not make a final (or otherwise) determination about whether outside influences caused the skewed NTSB results or whether one or more self-interested employees determined to work the mischief. I might have an opinion about that--and do-- but I don't believe the authors have said the evidence on that is clear or sufficient to definitively point to the source.
On the other hand, it's difficult to imagine (though that's hardly the evidence that would be required) how one or more NTSB employees would find it in his or her interest to coordinate cover-up mischief with say, a Medical Examiner or the Maui County Fire Department, or an FAA Assistant Administrator. How does an NTSB employee cause a USCG rescue swimmer to not do CPR on Ms. Fuddy before the NTSB investigation has officially (or otherwise) begun?
How does an NTSB employee arrange for a $2B nuclear submarine with a squad of contractor divers to appear within seconds of the ditching and cause them to supply hardware, underwater network electronics and communications gear to link with a circling, data-receiving aircraft whose 3,000' airspace reservation 24,000' up was made with the National Transportation Manager some ten hours in advance? How does that or those NTSB employees see to bringing special life jackets for the 73+ year-old couple from Illinois? The list could go on and on.
Though that suggests outside influence, it's still a hypothesis to suggest who otherwise sits high enough on the governmental food chain to have arranged authorized and coordinated all of this inter-agency mayhem. Doesn't it? Would you care to make your accusatory stab at--or ahem, come to a logical conclusion as to--who's responsible?