Proof Number Two:
Example 2: Editing (censoring) of report after the fact to conceal information or hide evidence of tampering.
Basic Presumptions: 1) That in any official cover up, someone will usually review any public documents and attempt to censor content to both insure it conforms to intended deceits, and to insure that it provides no clues as to the existence of a cover up; 2) That in a report as large as 300-plus megabytes, some errors or failures in such a process will exist; 3) Where there is simultaneous instance of possible tampering with key evidence along with evidence of concealment of material facts which might reveal the tampering, a heightened suspicion and concern is justified.
An additional example not unlike the one in Example Two of seeming identical
plots tends to raise new questions. So identical is the implied copy-and-paste
match in this case, that an overlay shown here is a perfect match, pixel
for pixel, even at 400% magnification. In the demonstration, it was necessary
to offset by one pixel in each direction in order for any trace of the
plot beneath it to be evidenced, here, as seen easiest in the darker connecting
line just barely seen behind the powder-blue counterpart and the darker
blue edge at the left-hand vertical of the triangles, most visible at the
corners. The reason these two plots, for pieces A451 (page 7, Exhibit 22B,
not numbered) and A734 (page 9), came under scrutiny was because of a search
for other duplicate plots. When it was noticed that one of the pieces was
a 'horizontal stab faring', some attention was drawn to the piece because
various early media accounts talked of a wing component being one of the
early-off pieces, variously described as a 'wing faring', 'wing slat',
and 'wing leading edge'. That a relatively nondescript and potential wing
piece (A451 might have been earlier so described) came off the aircraft
in the same relative time frame as a lower cargo bay structure (A734) and
fell very near to the same location might be a telling clue.
Therefore, because of the remarkable copy-and-paste match discovered, it was decided that a review of the support documentation and the ballistic coefficients was in order. Remarkably, the search reveals that A734 can be found on page 83, and also in the tabular table summaries at page 98 -- but the critical wing piece, A451, has no supporting data whatsoever available anywhere in the report. NTSB has prepared what seems a methodical report which includes thorough supporting documentation. Yet it seems that someone may have altered the final content to conceal questionable results by removing key supplemental supportive material included for other elements in the presentation, information which might make or break the case for either or both the matter of possible tampering and the actual NTSB argument for CWS failure. A casual inspection finds numerous supporting documents within the report for which there is no main presentation material, and numerous main presentations for which there is no supporting documentation. This is not a comforting find, even if due to innocent errors. That these errors seem to coincide with potentially critical evidence further suggests foul play was intended.
Summary: There are instances within the NTSB report suggestive of censoring of potentially sensitive information. This is suggestive of a cover up.
Conclusion: There are enough examples of concealment, tampering, and after-the-fact editing of the NTSB report to find it fraudulent in intent and content.
END PROOF TWO: NEXT PROOF
RETURN TO INTRODUCTION