Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

EPA, AVIRIS system results from WTC flyover

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please be adult enough to answer the question truthfully.

Did the USGS site lie when they state the EPA requested the AVIRIS flyby, YES or NO ?


...right after you admit that the AVIRIS was not used to detect radiation at the WTC site, and is not even designed to do that.




posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
...right after you admit that the AVIRIS was not used to detect radiation at the WTC site, and is not even designed to do that.


Please be adult enough to answer the question truthfully.

Did the USGS site lie when they state the EPA requested the AVIRIS flyby, YES or NO ?



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please be adult enough to answer the question truthfully.


Why should anyone answe any of your questions, ULTIMA1? Do obviously dont feel the need to answer questions asked of you. Or evidence for that matter.

I've asked repeatedly for you to show evidence that the AVIRIS was used to search for radiation at the WTC location, which you stated in your OP. If you arent adult enough to back that up, maybe you should be posting on the Nickelodeon Jr kids forum.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Why should anyone answe any of your questions, ULTIMA1?


You keep stating that the USGS contacted NASA to do the flyover. Why do you keep avioding the fact that the EPA requested the flyover through the USGS?

Why do you keep avioding the question?

As far as searching for radiation i have shown evidence and can show more evidence that the AVIRIS can search for radaition, You just will not accept it.

I will keep posting more facts and evidence that the AVIRIS can search for radiation.

modis.gsfc.nasa.gov...

An AVIRIS image was obtained at Lake Tahoe on 9 August 1990, along with in situ data. Profiles of percent transmission of monochromatic light, stimulated chlorophyll fluorescence, photosynthetically available radiation,




[edit on 2-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

modis.gsfc.nasa.gov...

An AVIRIS image was obtained at Lake Tahoe on 9 August 1990, along with in situ data. Profiles of percent transmission of monochromatic light, stimulated chlorophyll fluorescence, photosynthetically available


Are you for real? If you did any research, you might realize how immature that last statement of yours was.

What is Photosynthetically Available Radiation?

Photosynthetically Available Radiation (PAR) is the amount of light available for photosynthesis. PAR stands for photosynthetically active radiation. It is the amount of light in the 400 to 700 nanometer wavelength range, which is what plants use for photosynthesis.

My god, they brought down the WTC towers with photosynthesis


[edit on 2-8-2008 by gavron]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Some more evidence that the EPA was looking at raditaion at WTC.

www.historycommons.org...
October 11, 2001: EPA Says No ‘Significant Public Health Hazard’ near Ground Zero The New York Daily News reports, “[EPA spokeswoman Bonnie] Bellow says none of the agency’s tests for the presence of asbestos, radiation, mercury and other metals, pesticides, PCBs or bacteria have shown any evidence of any significant public health hazard.” [New York Daily News, 10/11/2001 ]
Entity Tags: Bonnie Bellow, Environmental Protection Agency
Category Tags: Government statements, Government tests, Key Events

Still waiting for you to be adult enough to answer the question, since i have answered yours several times.


[edit on 2-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Some more evidence that the EPA was looking at raditaion at WTC.


They may have been looking for radiation, but that is not what the USGS requested to use the AVIRIS for. I have proven that fact, and linked the NASA report stating who requested their use and what to look for.

Show us a document that states that the AVIRIS was used to detect radiation at the WTC. I can show proof it hasnt....

Show us, ULTIMA1.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by gavron]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Show us a document that states that the AVIRIS was used to detect radiation at the WTC.


Right after you are adult enough to answer the question.

Did the USGS site lie when it stated the EPA requested the AVIRIS flyby. YES or NO ?



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The evidence I posted speaks for itself. A report from NASA explaining who contacted them, and what was requested of the AVIRIS.

You have shown nothing.

I have proven your OP claiming the AVIRIS was used to detect radiation at the WTC site a lie.

I can keep posting the evidence and keep showing everyone your lie. Doesnt bother me at all.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
The evidence I posted speaks for itself. .


Yes the evidence does speak to the fact that the EPA requested the flyover through the USGS.

Thanks for showing us that you are not adult enough to answer a question.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes the evidence does speak...


yes it does, here it is again, for those joining late in the game:

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


AVIRIS Contribution at the WTC
- 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


NASA report speaks for itself.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
for those joining late in the game:


Yes, the USGS report speaks for itself.
pubs.usgs.gov...

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.


You have just shown everyone that you are too immature to see that the EPA requested the flyover and that you cannot answer a question.

I would really like to know why you think the USGS site is lying.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


How odd. The USGS link you provided doesnt say it requested the AVIRIS flyover to check for radiation, but it does mention thermal radiation (aka heat). Do you think fire may have played some role in the towers coming down? *gosh*


Wonder if investigators knew that.



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
How odd. The USGS link you provided doesnt say it requested the AVIRIS flyover to check for radiation, but it does mention thermal radiation (aka heat).


I notice you left out the fact that the USGS link states the EPA requested the flyover, why is that ? Are you saying the USGS site is lying about that ?

Also the fact remains that the fires in the buildings alone may not have casued the thermal hotspots.

[edit on 2-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I notice you left out the fact that the USGS link states the EPA requested the flyover, why is that ? Are you saying the USGS site is lying about that ?


I noticed you left out the fact that there was no request for the AVIRIS to search for radiation, why is that? Are you saying that NASA is lying about that?



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
I noticed you left out the fact that there was no request for the AVIRIS to search for radiation, why is that? Are you saying that NASA is lying about that?


I never stated that NASA was lying. Just that the EPA requested the flyover and have proven that the EPA was worried about radiation and had requested the flyover. The thermal radiation found by AVIRIS could be what the EPA was looking for.

You are the one who keeps refusing to state if the USGS is lying about the EPA requesting the flyover. Why wont you answer?

[edit on 3-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The thermal radiation found by AVIRIS could be what the EPA was looking for.


The EPA was wondering if there were hot spots? To check for thermal radiation?

So, then whats all the talk you were going on about DU then? You do know the difference between thermal radiation and the radioactivity from DU?

Why not just say the AVIRIS was used to check for hotspots....like my NASA report stated?



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
The EPA was wondering if there were hot spots? To check for thermal radiation?

So, then whats all the talk you were going on about DU then? You do know the difference between thermal radiation and the radioactivity from DU?


Gee, are you actaully agreeing that the EPA requested the flyover?

The EPA believed there was radiation caused by DU from the aircraft.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The EPA believed there was radiation caused by DU from the aircraft.


But the AVIRIS flyover was not requested to check for radiation. Show us the request for the AVIRIS to check for radiation.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Show us the request for the AVIRIS to check for radiation.


As soon as you show me that the USGS site lied about the EPA requesting the flyby.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join