EPA, AVIRIS system results from WTC flyover

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As soon as you show me that the USGS site lied about the EPA requesting the flyby.

You're saying the USGS site lied about the EPA requesting a flyby?

All I've shown is data from NASA, stating Roger Clark from the USGS requested that NASA for a flyby with the AVIRIS. The report from NASA seems to speak for itself.

However, if you are saying the USGS lied about stuff, thats quite interesting. Are they part of your conspiracy too?

Originally posted by gavron
You're saying the USGS site lied about the EPA requesting a flyby?

No, you are the one stating the USGS lied about the EPA requesting the flyover since you keep refusing to admit that the EPA requested the flyover. I was wanting you to post your prove that the EPA DID NOT request the flyover.

Remember this question you keep refusing to answer?

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

[edit on 3-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, you are the one stating the USGS lied about the EPA requesting the flyover.

Why are you lying?

All I have ever stated is that Roger Clark from the USGS requested that NASA use the AVIRIS for the flyover. A fact that has been proven countless times on this thread. However, you are just too childish to admit it.

Nowhere have I mentioned anything about the USGS lying.

This just proves once again that when you are backed with real evidence, you have to resort to making things up.

Originally posted by gavron Nowhere have I mentioned anything about the USGS lying.

Then why do you refuse to agree that the EPA requested the flyover?
Why do you keep refusing to answer my question?

Did the USGS lie when they stated the EPA requested the flyover, YES or NO ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Did the USGS lie when they stated the EPA requested the flyover, YES or NO ?

All I have ever stated is that Roger Clark from the USGS requested that NASA use the AVIRIS for the flyover. A fact that has been proven countless times on this thread. However, you are just too childish to admit it.

Nowhere have I mentioned anything about the USGS lying.

Was the AVIRIS requested to search for radiation at the WTC locations?

Originally posted by gavron
All I have ever stated is that Roger Clark from the USGS requested that NASA use the AVIRIS for the flyover.

Then you are stating that the USGS lied about the EPA requesting the flyover?



[edit on 3-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Then you are stating that the USGS lied about the EPA requesting the flyover?

Are you for real? How old are you anyway?

Please read the following posts in this thread alone. they will answer your question:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

or you can continue to troll this thread, just to get your post count up. I can cut/paste my replies over and over and over again. It still does not change the fact I am posting the truth. You cannot hide from the truth ULTIMA1.


[edit on 3-8-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by gavron
You cannot hide from the truth ULTIMA1.

Well yes lets look at the truth.

FACT 1. The EPA requested the AVIRIS from the USGS, according to the USGS site.

FACT 2. The EPA assumed there was radiation at the WTC from DU on the aircraft.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
FACT 2. The EPA assumed there was radiation at the WTC from DU on the aircraft.

FACT 3: There was no request for the AVIRIS to check for radiation at the WTC location.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by gavron
FACT 3: There was no request for the AVIRIS to check for radiation at the WTC location.

Thanks for agreeing with the first 2 facts.

FACT 1. The EPA requested the AVIRIS from the USGS, according to the USGS site.

FACT 2. The EPA assumed there was radiation at the WTC from DU on the aircraft.



[edit on 3-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Thanks for agreeing to the third FACT:
FACT 3: There was no request for the AVIRIS to check for radiation at the WTC location.

Originally posted by gavron
There was no request for the AVIRIS to check for radiation at the WTC location.

Well since you have agreed to the fact that the EPA requested the flyover then there was a request to check for radaition, since the EPA believed there to be radiation there.

reply to post by ULTIMA1



Actually, there was no request, as proven by the NASA report.

Lets see what they say again:

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

So you see, Roger Clark from the USGS did not make any request to check for radiation, and the data from NASA shows nothing in regards to radiation.

You can keep trying though, ULTIMA1. The truth speaks for itself. No request for the AVIRIS to check for radiation.

Originally posted by gavron
So you see, Roger Clark from the USGS did not make any request to check for radiation, and the data from NASA shows nothing in regards to radiation.

As shown many times, that you keep ignoring the fact is the EPA requested the flyover from the USGS.

Are you calling the USGS liars?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As shown many times, that you keep ignoring the fact is the EPA requested the flyover from the USGS.

Are you calling the USGS liars?

Are you saying NASA and the JPL are lying? That report clarly states it was not requested to search for radiation.

You clearly are grasping at straws. The FACTs show that there was no request, evidence from NASA clearly shows there was no request. Maybe in your fantasy world there was a request, but here in the REAL world, there was not.

Originally posted by gavron
Maybe in your fantasy world there was a request, but here in the REAL world, there was not.

You must calling the USGS liars, since they stated the EPA requested the fyover.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You must calling the USGS liars, since they stated the EPA requested the fyover.

You must be calling NASA liars, since their reports and documentation show that the AVIRIS was not used to get information on radiation. Even the USGS site shows the results of the information requested from NASA:

pubs.usgs.gov...

So, USGS request specific data from NASA. NASA gathers info with AVIRIS and returns information to USGS. USGS and NASA both create reports with that data.

Odd...no mention of radiation still.

Originally posted by gavron
Odd...no mention of radiation still.

Whats really odd and very immature is how you keep leaving out the fact that the EPS requested the flyover.

reply to post by ULTIMA1



The reports and documentation show that the AVIRIS was not used to get information on radiation. Even the USGS site shows the results of the information requested from NASA:

pubs.usgs.gov...

So, USGS request specific data from NASA. NASA gathers info with AVIRIS and returns information to USGS. USGS and NASA both create reports with that data.

So this FACT proves your OP completely wrong. Lying in your OP to draw users in, and avoiding answering questions disputing that lie just to ge tyour post count up.

Originally posted by gavron
So this FACT proves your OP completely wrong. Lying in your OP to draw users in, and avoiding answering questions disputing that lie just to ge tyour post count up.