EPA, AVIRIS system results from WTC flyover

Originally posted by gavron But then you lied when you said the AVIRIS was used to detect radiation at the WTC.

NO i have not lied, i have proven that the AVIRIS can be used to search for radiation and the EPA believed there was radiation at the WTC and Pentagon.

Why do you lie about the fact that the EPA requested the flyover and the EPA believed there was radiation at the site, that is 1 of the reasons they requested the flyover?

[edit on 9-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Why do you lie about the fact that the EPA requested the flyover and the EPA believed there was radiation at the site, that is 1 of the reasons they requested the flyover?

You have no evidence that they requested the AVIRIS to fly over the WTC to check for radiation.

I have posted evidence showing exactly what NASA was requested to have the AVIRIS fly over the WTC and check for.

Please, ULTIMA1, show us the request for the AVIRIS to check for radiation. Prove me wrong.

We know you can't.

Originally posted by gavron
You have no evidence that they requested the AVIRIS to fly over the WTC to check for radiation.

Why do you lie about the fact that the EPA requested the flyover and the EPA believed there was radiation at the site, that is 1 of the reasons they requested the flyover?

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Why do you lie about the fact that the EPA requested the flyover and the EPA believed there was radiation at the site, that is 1 of the reasons they requested the flyover?

You have no evidence that they requested the AVIRIS to fly over the WTC to check for radiation.

I have posted evidence showing exactly what NASA was requested to have the AVIRIS fly over the WTC and check for.

Please, ULTIMA1, show us the request for the AVIRIS to check for radiation. Prove me wrong.

We know you can't.

Originally posted by gavron
Please, ULTIMA1, show us the request for the AVIRIS to check for radiation. Prove me wrong.

Right after you show me why you lie about the EPA requesting the flyover.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Right after you show me why you lie about the EPA requesting the flyover.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The EPA requested (through the USGS) NASA do a flyover of the WTC area using the AVIRIS system to check for hotspots, and toxic or radiation in the area.

This statement is false. There was no request for the AVIRIS to check for radiation. Here is the USGS request for the NASA flyover, and what they requested:

trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov...

Here is Robert Greens and Roger Clarks from USGS report, on request to use AVIRIS and results:

popo.jpl.nasa.gov...

As you can see, the evidence is clear. No request for the AVIRIS to check for radiation.

Originally posted by gavron
This statement is false. .

Yet another fact that the EPA was worried about radiation at WTC. How much evidence do i have to keep showing that the EPA requested the AVIRIS and that the believed there was radiation?

www.epa.gov...
EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced today that the most detailed results to date of ongoing monitoring of drinking water in New York City provide additional reassurance that city residents are not being exposed to dangerous contaminants including asbestos, radiation, mercury and other metals, pesticides, PCBs and bacteria.

IF YOUR NEXT POST DOES NOT ADMIT THAT THE EPA REQUESTED THE FLYOVER THEN IT WILL SHOW TO EVERYONE HOW IMMATURE AND CLOSED MINDED YOU ARE.


[edit on 9-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yet another fact that the EPA was worried about radiation at WTC. How much evidence do i have to keep showing that the EPA requested the AVIRIS and that the believed there was radiation?

Then why are you so scared to show the request, ULTIMA1?

I'm curious, why?

Perhaps because it doesnt exist?

Here is a report from NASA, explaining what was the AVIRIS was asked by the USGS to check for:

trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov...


Please, ULTIMA1, show us all where it says the AVIRIS was requested to check for radiation.

(btw, nice report on water, with no mention of the AVIRIS whatsoever.)

[edit on 9-8-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by gavron
Then why are you so scared to show the request, ULTIMA1?

I have shown who requested the flyover and why.

Why are you so scared to admit the EPA requested the flyover?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have shown who requested the flyover and why.

I have shown the report from NASA, outlining what it was asked to have the AVIRIS look for:

trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov...

Click on the link, ULTIMA1, and tell us all what it says was requested for the AVIRIS to look for. Please, tell us.

I would have thought a NSA analyst would do better research than that. No wonder the gov't "lets things happen", with employees like yourself at their disposal.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by gavron
I would have thought a NSA analyst would do better research than that.

I would have thought someone who is supposed to be an adult would not lie about who requested the flyover after its been shown on the USGS site.

Please look at the USGS site and tell me who requested the flyover.

pubs.usgs.gov...


[edit on 9-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Nice way to ignore my post. That pretty much confirms that you work for NSA alright

You can puff your chest all you want to, ULTIMA1. Fact is, I caught you in a lie.

Your OP says the AVIRIS was requested to check for radiation. I have proven that a lie. Then you lied about getting a mod involved, and lied again saying you had me on ignore.

For someone looking for the truth, should you be lying so much?

Originally posted by gavron That pretty much confirms that you work for NSA alright

I have and can prove who i work for.

I caught you in a lie since you refuse to admit that the EPA requested the flyover.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I caught you in a lie since you refuse to admit that the EPA requested the flyover.

Thats it, keep avoiding the radiation lie.

I can continue to post the link showing you lied. Doesnt hurt me at all. Actually I find it quite entertaining seeing you caught in a lie.

Plus, unless the USGS didnt contact NASA for the flyover, what I have always stated is the truth.

Originally posted by gavron
what I have always stated is the truth.

Why do you lie about the EPA requesting the flyover?

Everyone on here can see that you are lieing.

In response to requests from the EPA through the USGS, NASA flew AVIRIS on a De Havilland Twin Otter over lower Manhattan at mid-day on September 16 and 23, 2001. For these deployments, the Twin Otter was flown at altitudes of 6,500 and 12,500 feet.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Actually, the request to NASA from Roger Clark of the USGS was for the following:

- Hot spot location and temperature determination
- Asbestos mapping
- Debris composition and distrubution mapping.

trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov...

No request to have it check for radiation. Maybe in your fantasy world, but not here in the real world.

Originally posted by gavron
Actually, the request to NASA from Roger Clark of the USGS

In response to requests from the EPA through the USGS, NASA flew AVIRIS on a De Havilland Twin Otter over lower Manhattan at mid-day on September 16 and 23, 2001. For these deployments, the Twin Otter was flown at altitudes of 6,500 and 12,500 feet.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
In response to requests from the EPA through the USGS, NASA flew AVIRIS on a De Havilland Twin Otter over lower Manhattan at mid-day on September 16 and 23, 2001. For these deployments, the Twin Otter was flown at altitudes of 6,500 and 12,500 feet.

Actually, the request to NASA from Roger Clark of the USGS was for the following:

- Hot spot location and temperature determination
- Asbestos mapping
- Debris composition and distrubution mapping.

trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov...

Bold type or not, it is what was requested.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by gavron
Actually, the request to NASA from Roger Clark of the USGS was for the following

NO, actaully the request for the AVIRIS was from the EPA. Please read the first part from the USGS quote.

In response to requests from the EPA through the USGS

[edit on 9-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]