Question about Shanksville crash

[DiveCon]

Nice strawman you useless ****. Do you actually think you accomplish anything with that bullshit?

Accomplishment: He fully exposed you as the filthy fucking scumbag pussy liar you almost always are.

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.


(or is it you are sooooo fuxxing stoopid you still have not learned there are two main ways to commit the fallacy?)

there is no need to ignore the stupidity you post
it shows you dont even understand the concept

 

[Fizz]

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

hey jackass, why dont you get the part where it says an appeal to authority is valid if the person actually IS an authority!!!

from the link on the page YOU linked to. Fallacies of Relevance: Legitimate Appeal to Authority

Legitimate Appeal to Authority
Explanation:
Not every reliance upon the testimony of authority figures is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to evaluate and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met:

1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.
2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.
3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.




...and here's more shit to prove you dont have a fucking clue what you are talking about.


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority


A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:
A makes claim B;
there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter
therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.
Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.
Logical Fallacies Appeal to Authority


While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
experts in the field disagree on this issue.
the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.
The Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Authority<br><i>(argumentum ad verecundiam)</i>


An expert asserts A is true. Therefore A is true.
The expert, of course, may not be expert, but they are a touchstone that people use to avoid having their own expertise challenged.
You can also assert your own expertise. If the other person cannot challenge your credentials, then they cannot challenge your argument.
Appeal to Authority


"Not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy. 'These pills must be safe and effective for reducing. They have been endorsed by Miss X, star of stage, screen, and television.'"
(W.L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion. Humanities Press, 1980)
appeal to authority - definition and example of appeal to authority - logical fallacies


so jackass.... are you going to ignore this question again or will you finally answer it?

who is more qualified in a airline hijacking and crash than the FBI and the NTSB?

 

[Liability]

They are the only 2 crashes we are discussing in this twisted truther conspiracy thread.

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

It's even funnier you try to say that a testimony is "in effect" a fact. Ignore it all again Snitch Bitch.

Your ignorance is showing, bitch. No shock there. It always shows.

What I said was (ho hum) once again exactly correct.

Why do we accept testimony of witnesses, you shit for brains puddle fucker? Is that too hard for you? Stop sniveling, bitch. I'll give you the answer: It is to permit the "finders of fact" (i.e., the jury, a jury that wasn't THERE) to determine what the facts were.

You weren't at the Flt. 93 crash site, pussy drippings. So, like most of the rest of us, you have to base your assumptions on the observations (recorded in one form or another) of folks who WERE there and -- in some instances -- filter it through the expertise of people who properly grasp things like physics, etc.

The problem with scum like you is that you are so thoroughly biased, you adhere to your idiotic preconceived notions DESPITE the actual credible evidence; you fail to base your conclusions ON credible evidence and logic. You are a Troofer and therefore impervious to reason and hostile to truth. You suck the corn out of the shit of Satan as it comes out of his steaming anus in hell, you lousy excuse for a human being.

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

Mindlessly repeating yourself does not improve the absolutely invalid point you made before, asshopper.

Of course, in your case, mindlessly repeating yourself is entirely redundant.



You are such a total loser, even id-eots laughs at you.

 

[DiveCon]

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

hey jackass, why dont you get the part where it says an appeal to authority is valid if the person actually IS an authority!!!

from the link on the page YOU linked to. Fallacies of Relevance: Legitimate Appeal to Authority

Legitimate Appeal to Authority
Explanation:
Not every reliance upon the testimony of authority figures is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to evaluate and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met:

1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.
2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.
3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.




...and here's more shit to prove you dont have a fucking clue what you are talking about.


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority


A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:
A makes claim B;
there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter
therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit.
Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.
Logical Fallacies Appeal to Authority


While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
experts in the field disagree on this issue.
the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious
A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.
The Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Authority<br><i>(argumentum ad verecundiam)</i>


An expert asserts A is true. Therefore A is true.
The expert, of course, may not be expert, but they are a touchstone that people use to avoid having their own expertise challenged.
You can also assert your own expertise. If the other person cannot challenge your credentials, then they cannot challenge your argument.
Appeal to Authority


"Not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy. 'These pills must be safe and effective for reducing. They have been endorsed by Miss X, star of stage, screen, and television.'"
(W.L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion. Humanities Press, 1980)
appeal to authority - definition and example of appeal to authority - logical fallacies


so jackass.... are you going to ignore this question again or will you finally answer it?

who is more qualified in a airline hijacking and crash than the FBI and the NTSB?

i posted that link to the fucking moron
he clearly didnt read it

 

[CurveLight]

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.


You fuks are so stoopid and dishonest you still avoid the fact the fbi are not the experts for an aircraft investigation. Hell, you post the evidence proving your position is a fallacy and you still ignore it.

 

[DiveCon]

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.


You fuks are so stoopid and dishonest you still avoid the fact the fbi are not the experts for an aircraft investigation. Hell, you post the evidence proving your position is a fallacy and you still ignore it.

more troofer paranoid projections

 

[Fizz]

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.


You fuks are so stoopid and dishonest you still avoid the fact the fbi are not the experts for an aircraft investigation. Hell, you post the evidence proving your position is a fallacy and you still ignore it.

hey jackass.... you do know that the words "can be" are not the same as the word "is", right?

read the link on the page your provided, moron.

 

[CurveLight]

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.


You fuks are so stoopid and dishonest you still avoid the fact the fbi are not the experts for an aircraft investigation. Hell, you post the evidence proving your position is a fallacy and you still ignore it.

hey jackass.... you do know that the words "can be" are not the same as the word "is", right?

read the link on the page your provided, moron.

You focus on "can be" and ignore:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)


You didn't even do anything to verify the fbi's claim. Ever. How can you be such a sheetle? You posted the evidence why your reference to the fbi is a fallacy and you still don't get it.........

 

[DiveCon]

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.


You fuks are so stoopid and dishonest you still avoid the fact the fbi are not the experts for an aircraft investigation. Hell, you post the evidence proving your position is a fallacy and you still ignore it.

hey jackass.... you do know that the words "can be" are not the same as the word "is", right?

read the link on the page your provided, moron.

You focus on "can be" and ignore:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)


You didn't even do anything to verify the fbi's claim. Ever. How can you be such a sheetle? You posted the evidence why your reference to the fbi is a fallacy and you still don't get it.........

hey dipshit, tell us again how my phone has an airplane/flight mode

 

[CurveLight]

hey jackass.... you do know that the words "can be" are not the same as the word "is", right?

read the link on the page your provided, moron.

You focus on "can be" and ignore:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)


You didn't even do anything to verify the fbi's claim. Ever. How can you be such a sheetle? You posted the evidence why your reference to the fbi is a fallacy and you still don't get it.........

hey dipshit, tell us again how my phone has an airplane/flight mode

You're so awesome!

 

[Fizz]

You didn't even do anything to verify the fbi's claim. Ever. How can you be such a sheetle? You posted the evidence why your reference to the fbi is a fallacy and you still don't get it.........

you really have trouble seeing the big picture. you focus on one little tiny area and no matter how wrong you are proven to be you try to backpedal and still claim you are right. even if you went there yourself on september 15th and tried to verify the amount of debris yourself you wouldnt be able to do it because you are too much of a jackass to be an expert at anything. we must rely on qualified experts to evaluate situations for us.

so answer the fucking question you have been ignoring for days.

WHO IS A BETTER EXPERT THAN THE FBI ASSISTED BY THE NTSB IN A HIJACKED AIRLINER CRASH?

a link on your own page that you keep quoting goes to this statement:

Legitimate Appeal to Authority
Explanation:
Not every reliance upon the testimony of authority figures is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to evaluate and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met:

1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.
2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.
3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.

 

[CurveLight]

You didn't even do anything to verify the fbi's claim. Ever. How can you be such a sheetle? You posted the evidence why your reference to the fbi is a fallacy and you still don't get it.........

you really have trouble seeing the big picture. you focus on one little tiny area and no matter how wrong you are proven to be you try to backpedal and still claim you are right. even if you went there yourself on september 15th and tried to verify the amount of debris yourself you wouldnt be able to do it because you are too much of a jackass to be an expert at anything. we must rely on qualified experts to evaluate situations for us.

so answer the fucking question you have been ignoring for days.

WHO IS A BETTER EXPERT THAN THE FBI ASSISTED BY THE NTSB IN A HIJACKED AIRLINER CRASH?

a link on your own page that you keep quoting goes to this statement:

Legitimate Appeal to Authority
Explanation:
Not every reliance upon the testimony of authority figures is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to evaluate and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met:

1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.
2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.
3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)


(when you respond to that the discussion will move forward)

 

[Fizz]

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)


(when you respond to that the discussion will move forward)

and what form do non-fallcious appeals to authority take?

oh yeah. the same general form.

you are an idiot!!

 

[CurveLight]

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)


(when you respond to that the discussion will move forward)

and what form do non-fallcious appeals to authority take?

oh yeah. the same general form.

you are an idiot!!

Your fallacy is:

FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered.


They are not experts on aircraft investigations. The NTSB is the expert government agency. That is why (combined with the statement above) it is fallacious on both variations of the fallacy.

Your dishonesty reeks when you try to claim the "fbi and the ntsb" did an investigation. In the case of Stack's terrorist attack comparison that would be true because the ntsb and fbi did investigations with respect to their expertise. Stack's attack comparison was also ignored by you and your shitlicking pals. Oh, and terrorism was suspected for twa flight 800. Bitch.

 

[Fizz]

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)


(when you respond to that the discussion will move forward)

and what form do non-fallcious appeals to authority take?

oh yeah. the same general form.

you are an idiot!!

Your fallacy is:

FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered.


They are not experts on aircraft investigations. The NTSB is the expert government agency. That is why (combined with the statement above) it is fallacious on both variations of the fallacy.

Your dishonesty reeks when you try to claim the "fbi and the ntsb" did an investigation. In the case of Stack's terrorist attack comparison that would be true because the ntsb and fbi did investigations with respect to their expertise. Stack's attack comparison was also ignored by you and your shitlicking pals. Oh, and terrorism was suspected for twa flight 800. Bitch.

you are now claiming that the FBI and the NTSB did NO INVESTIGATION?!!!

 

[DiveCon]

You focus on "can be" and ignore:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)


You didn't even do anything to verify the fbi's claim. Ever. How can you be such a sheetle? You posted the evidence why your reference to the fbi is a fallacy and you still don't get it.........

hey dipshit, tell us again how my phone has an airplane/flight mode

You're so awesome!

i know

 

[CurveLight]

and what form do non-fallcious appeals to authority take?

oh yeah. the same general form.

you are an idiot!!

Your fallacy is:

FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered.


They are not experts on aircraft investigations. The NTSB is the expert government agency. That is why (combined with the statement above) it is fallacious on both variations of the fallacy.

Your dishonesty reeks when you try to claim the "fbi and the ntsb" did an investigation. In the case of Stack's terrorist attack comparison that would be true because the ntsb and fbi did investigations with respect to their expertise. Stack's attack comparison was also ignored by you and your shitlicking pals. Oh, and terrorism was suspected for twa flight 800. Bitch.

you are now claiming that the FBI and the NTSB did NO INVESTIGATION?!!!

That is not what I said but feel free to remain saturated in your dishonesty. What I pointed out was your false claim that the "fbi AND ntsb" did an investigation. It was the FBI's investigation. It's revealing how you ignored everything in the post by trying to deflect with a strawman. Grow the fuk up bitch.

 

[DiveCon]

Your fallacy is:

FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered.


They are not experts on aircraft investigations. The NTSB is the expert government agency. That is why (combined with the statement above) it is fallacious on both variations of the fallacy.

Your dishonesty reeks when you try to claim the "fbi and the ntsb" did an investigation. In the case of Stack's terrorist attack comparison that would be true because the ntsb and fbi did investigations with respect to their expertise. Stack's attack comparison was also ignored by you and your shitlicking pals. Oh, and terrorism was suspected for twa flight 800. Bitch.

you are now claiming that the FBI and the NTSB did NO INVESTIGATION?!!!

That is not what I said but feel free to remain saturated in your dishonesty. What I pointed out was your false claim that the "fbi AND ntsb" did an investigation. It was the FBI's investigation. It's revealing how you ignored everything in the post by trying to deflect with a strawman. Grow the fuk up bitch.

it is exactly what you've said
thats why everyone calls you a fucking idiot now

 

[Fizz]

That is not what I said but feel free to remain saturated in your dishonesty. What I pointed out was your false claim that the "fbi AND ntsb" did an investigation. It was the FBI's investigation. It's revealing how you ignored everything in the post by trying to deflect with a strawman. Grow the fuk up bitch.

either the FBI and the NTSB did an investigation or they didnt. my contention is they did. the FBI and the NTSB were both there investigating. the FBI was the lead investigating agency. the NTSB assisted them. do you wish to dispute that?

if not then shut the fuck up!! you are wasting bandwidth for something much more useful than silly rants..... like spam.

 

[SFC Ollie]

That is not what I said but feel free to remain saturated in your dishonesty. What I pointed out was your false claim that the "fbi AND ntsb" did an investigation. It was the FBI's investigation. It's revealing how you ignored everything in the post by trying to deflect with a strawman. Grow the fuk up bitch.

either the FBI and the NTSB did an investigation or they didnt. my contention is they did. the FBI and the NTSB were both there investigating. the FBI was the lead investigating agency. the NTSB assisted them. do you wish to dispute that?

if not then shut the fuck up!! you are wasting bandwidth for something much more useful than silly rants..... like spam.

Sounds like you got it exactly right. End of discussion, The investigation was completed by the best people we had to do such an investigation. NEXT!