I didn’t suggest that the investigation was of the NTSB.
YOUR except clearly shows that the agency was targeted, and makes accusations of criminal misconduct:
“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”
The presentation, as I see it, is not of the authors' accusations, but of the logical exposition of the conclusions the NTSB has made on the basis of facts that show to the contrary of their conclusions. Such would not reasonably be considered accusations of the authors, but of the evidence.
Your characterizations of "target[ing]" and implied inappropriate personal responsibility merely for pointing out the NTSB's false conclusions and falsified evidence (contrary to presented, real evidence) as if such author activity should be inherently constrained or considered tainted simply by investigators' involvement should only be considered on the basis of proof or at least evidence, both of which I note you haven't bothered to provide.
Your pejorative use of the terms "BS" and "bloggers," as if such use should sweep away facts in evidence, is not reasonable, but nonetheless characteristic of your statements here.