U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR SHARES NAME WITH COMPANY THAT BOUGHT PADDOCK’S PLANE IN 2013

October 5th, 2017

Update: Volant, LLC, Volant Associates, LLC, Volant Associates?

Look at the domain contact. Hmm. If they’re different organizations, this is a spectacular coincidence.

Whois volant-associates.com:

Well, well, well.

FlightAware:

Are Volant LLC and Volant Associates, both in the CIA’s backyard, completely different organizations, as some are sure to say? Maybe. But I think they’re close enough for government work, especially CIA cut out work, and easily appropriate for the Coincidence category.

Main Las Vegas Shooting post.

Via: Political Vel Craft:

Looking closely, the first thing you will notice is that the shooter, Stephen Paddock, had a pilot license and owned two planes. This is well-established fact. The tail number of one of those planes is N5343M, a Cirrus SR-20. You can see that this was owned by Paddock by going to the website Flightaware.com. But Paddock doesn’t own this plane anymore. It was grounded three years ago, and it’s now in the hands of none other than Volant LLC, which there is little information on.

However, Volant Associates is none other than a Department of Defense contractor. Meaning Paddock’s plane has been in the hands of the United States government for the past three years and grounded since – if Volant LLC is being used as a way to hide information. Considering what Volant Associates does, that wouldn’t be so far fetched. But the plane’s information is all easily verified here on Flightaware.com. It’s been in Roanoke, Virginia since April 25, 2014.

Volant’s describes it’s mission on their website as providing “the industry’s preeminent professionals to discriminating U.S. government and intelligence-and-defense-industry customers.”

Research Credit: EB

2 Responses to “U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR SHARES NAME WITH COMPANY THAT BOUGHT PADDOCK’S PLANE IN 2013”

  1. dt Says:

    ??? indeed. If he was a patsy, why not use a clean skin? If he was in on it, what was in it for him?

    This might be a little out there for most, but the thing that springs to mind is some kind of double-cross operation where one shady organization was up to something mildly nefarious, which was then hijacked by a much, much shadier organization to commit an atrocity. The beauty of the scheme being the mega-shady organization necessarily enlists the slightly-shady organization in its cover up. By ‘mildly nefarious’ I mean, say drug-dealing, kidnap, murder of four or less people.

    I suspect 9/11 to have been something of this nature where a staged hijacking was itself hijacked by something unimaginably more deadly and audacious.

  2. Kevin Says:

    I forgot to close comments on this post. Please post comments on the main thread.