Irrespective of how poorly the manufacturer-sent engine was admitted to have been maintained--and we can probably agree they were (knowingly?) misconstruing the MORE guidelines/requirements, the fact will remain that the engine that went into the water attached to the CGC wasn't the engine that was sent to that manufacturer. (They had big budget gubmint schemers planning this one.)
Somehow the twice-sued, multiple-failure-admitting commuter airline now has 4x the space on expensive airport land and many more approved routes, too. How does that happen?
(old above, new below)
The catastrophic-engine-failure-induced-then-week-long-in-salt-water-immersed, originally-logged-to-be-with-the-a/c engine was thrown down at the site where the CGC with a smoothly-running engine contacted the water. That is to say the plane ditched with a perfectly good, smoothly-running engine. What passenger or pilot would want it it any other way?
Even though it took more than dozens of people to pull off the plane-load of hood-winking falsehoods, not everyone had a "need to know" how involved the big picture was. Several may have thought they were simply doing their patriotic duty in a training exercise, for which there was plenty of taxpayer money to go around, even to this day.
But when this misappropriated piece of highly classified US military hardware
(which would be used thusly by a SEAL)
shows up, camouflaged to resemble a fish, within minutes of a claimed catastrophic engine failure where a high state official is about to die, everyone with a brain will see it as a ruse.
I've got a retired NTSB IIC, several senior FAA guys and other life-time aviation professionals say there's no valid reason to reject my claims. Deal with the facts and stop trying to throw around inuendo, like your use of that tar-baby, "conspiracy."