Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Sorry but you do not state the complete fact.

I guess i have to get the mods in here to settle ths since you refuse to be adult enough to see and admit to the facts as posted.

Unless you are stating that Roger Clark from the USGS did not contact NASA to request the AVIRIS flyover, then my facts and data is 100% correct. The NASA report/link I provided confirms that fact.

I'm just correcting the mis-information you are posting, saying that a request was made to NASA to check for radiation, when in fact there is zero evidence to back up that ridiculous claim.

Originally posted by gavron
Unless you are stating that Roger Clark from the USGS did not contact NASA to request the AVIRIS flyover, then my facts and data is 100% correct.

NO, your facts are not 100% correct. The USGS contacted NASA AFTER the EPA originally requested the use of AVIRIS.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Roger Clark contacted NASA because the EPA requested the AVIRIS through the USGS. As shown by the USGS site.

Thank you for confirming my data. The NASA site stated the following:

On the 14th of September Roger Clark of the USGS called to say there was a concern with asbestos contamination at the WTC disaster site.

Through the support of NASA HQ and others AVIRIS flew the disaster site on the 16th, 18th, 22nd and 23rd.

AVIRIS contributed in three areas
- Hot spot location and temperature determination
- Asbestos mapping
- Debris composition and distribution mapping

Funny how you keep avoiding the radiation issue. Seems NASA has no evidence of that request, and their data has no evidence either. Why is that, ULTIMA1?

Originally posted by gavron
Thank you for confirming my data.

I did not confirm your data, i showed that you are ony half right and that you will not admit that the EPA requested te AVIRIS.

Funny how you keep avoiding the radiation issue.

Funny and sad how you keep avoiding the fact that the EPA requested the AVIRIS. WHY IS THAT?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I did not confirm your data, i showed that you are ony half right and that you will not admit that the EPA requested te AVIRIS.

No, it is 100% right. It if was half right, that means Roger Clark contacted someone, or NASA was contacted by someone other than Roger Clark.

I stated that Roger Clark from the USGS contacted NASA, and backed that FACT up with documentation straight from NASA. You cannot deny that fact.

Funny and sad how you keep avoiding the fact that the EPA requested the AVIRIS. WHY IS THAT?

No, what is sad is that this thread was started with this quote from you:

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.

I have proven that NASA was not requested to check for radiation. Your original statement is a lie, and proven by NASA to be a lie.


[edit on 31-7-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by gavron
No, it is 100% right. It if was half right, that means Roger Clark contacted someone, or NASA was contacted by someone other than Roger Clark.

Its only half right becasue the EPA requested the AVIRIS throug the USGS.

I have proven that NASA was not requested to check for radiation.

The only thing you have proven is that you are too immature to admit the EPA requested the AVIRIS as facts show. The OP is 100% correct.


[edit on 31-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Its only half right becasue the EPA requested the AVIRIS throug the USGS.

But Roger Clark from the USGS contacted NASA. Proven fact. Not sure why you cannot understand that.

The OP is 100% correct.

The OP has no evidence to back up the ridiculous radiation claim. I have show reports from NASA stating

- The request from the USGS did not mention checking for radiation
- The data from NASA makes no mention of radiation

So, this is just another wild claim with zero evidence to back it up. Guess we should all be used to it by now though.

Originally posted by gavron
But Roger Clark from the USGS contacted NASA. Proven fact. Not sure why you cannot understand that.

But the point is that the EPA contacted the USGS to request the AVIRIS. Not sure why you cannot undertstand this?

The OP has no evidence to back up the ridiculous radiation claim.

But is does have evidence that the EPA requested the AVIRIS.

And the EPA suspected radiation at the WTC.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But is does have evidence that the EPA requested the AVIRIS.

And the EPA suspected radiation at the WTC.

However, the request to NASA for the AVIRIS was not to check for radiation. That is a FACT, proven by the report from NASA and its data.

Unless you can show us a report from NASA that the AVIRIS was used to check for radiation, then your claim is completely factless.

Please, ULTIMA1, show us the report from NASA where they did ANY checks for radiation.

We are waiting...

Originally posted by gavron
Please, ULTIMA1, show us the report from NASA where they did ANY checks for radiation.

Right after you admit that the EPA reqested the AVIRIS. By the way NASA was in charge of the flight not what was requested, that was the EPA.

We are waiting.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
We are waiting.

It is not our fault that your OP was shot down by data directly from NASA. I have proven the OP completely wrong in regards to the radiation remark. Just another baseless claim from a conspiracy theorist.

For someone searching for the truth, you seem to be making up a lot of stuff.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
NASA did not request the data the EPA, USGS and Department of Health did as shown i the OP source.

Are you for real? How old are you anyway?

Yes, the USGS did request NASA do the flyover, and that fact was shown in the data I provided. That is not questioned.

You do know that NASA was only responsabe for the flight but the data was requested by other agencis? Please read the bolded parts.

But no requests were made to NASA to check for radiation. A fact I have proven by noth NASA and the official AVIRIS site (which shows it was not designed to check for radiation).

Keep trying though.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by gavron
Yes, the USGS did request NASA do the flyover, and that fact was shown in the data I provided. That is not questioned.

No, the EPA requested the flyover through the USGS, that fact has been shown.

But no requests were made to NASA to check for radiation.

Because NASA was not in charge of collecting and analizing the data, only the flight, as facts show. Facts also show that the EPA believed radiation was at the site.

Originally posted by gavron
So, are you saying NASA and the JPL was lying when they wrote this report?

NO, you are saying that USGS lied when they stated that the EPA requested the AVIRIS.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
NO, you are saying that USGS lied when they stated that the EPA requested the AVIRIS.

Are you for real? How old are you anyway?

I've shown the link to the NASA website which dscribes their role in the AVIRIS flyover. It clearly states that Roger Clark of the USGS contacted them and requested the AVIRIS flyover.

Please show me where I stated the USGS lied.

Sounds like you are making stuff up ULTIMA1. Just because we have proven your OP wrong about the AVIRIS used to detect radiation, no need to cry about it and make things up.