It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ref. 1 : It is a sad commentary that the words “9/11 Commission” are not found once throughout both NIST reports [NCSTAR 1-5 and NCSTAR 1-5A]. And if a word search is done on the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission for the words “Lamont” or “LDEO” or “8:46:26”, the answer is the same: nothing. This appalling lack of attention to detail is inexcusable and can be viewed by some as highly sinister.
NIST suffers a lack of credibility for its issuance of the false 8:46:30 “impact” time for AA Flt 11. It is an unreal time and is not an impact. What is needed from NIST are: (1) the names of the four television stations whose data was used, (2) the actual times of impact from these four stations, and (3) the procedures used by each station in the regular synchronization process to UTC.
Regarding UAL Flt 175, a question remains: What are the main specifics that the Commission based its time of 9:03:11on, those that go to the heart of their Note 130?
The Commission based it on something, as one doesn’t just come up with such a precise number out of thin air. “FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic” needs to be elaborated upon. Something is behind this time, and if this something is credible, this would confirm once and for all the large time-gap between seismic and impact, and would be another conclusive demand for a new investigation. Nevertheless, until the specifics become known, the 9:03:11 remains the official 9/11 Commission time of impact, and this by itself demands a new investigation.
Regarding AA Flt 11, there still remains a huge 11 - 14 second time-differential between the precision times of seismic & impact. This time-gap, along with the many corroborating WTC1 basement eyewitnesses and fire department personnel, demands a new investigation now, and this can not be emphasized or stressed any stronger.
Originally posted by LaBTop
Are you really insinuating that?
Did you read my work at ALL?