EPA, AVIRIS system results from WTC flyover

Mods, since Gavron cannot be adult enough to admit the truth and have an adult discussion please close this thread since the OP has been proven.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Correct, it has been proven wrong. 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
Correct, it has been proven wrong.

The OP was proven correct.

MODS, please close the thread or have Davron at least be adult enough to admit to the facts shown.


[edit on 8-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The OP was proven correct.

Actually it was shown to be incorrect, in regards to the ridiculous radiation remark.

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.

For someone being ignored, I sure do get a lot of replies to my messages from you.

Originally posted by gavron
Actually it was shown to be incorrect,

So you are saying that the USGS lied about the EPA requesting the flyover.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you are saying that the USGS lied about the EPA requesting the flyover.

I'm saying that you lied when you stated that the AVIRIS was requested to detect radiation at the WTC location. It clearly was not.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by gavron
I'm saying that you lied when you stated that the AVIRIS was requested to detect radiation

So your still stating the USGS lied about the EPA requesting the flyover?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So your still stating the USGS lied about the EPA requesting the flyover?

Psstt, hey ULTIMA1.

Take a look a the post above yours. It tells you what you are lying about. For someone that is looking for the truth, you seem to be making up a lot of your information.

Originally posted by gavron
you seem to be making up a lot of your information.

Why do you beleive the USGS lied?

reply to post by ULTIMA1

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.

Why do you beleive the USGS lied?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Why do you beleive the USGS lied?

Actually the only person that lied, was you in the original post.

This is what you stated:

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
The EPA requested (through the USGS) NASA do a flyover of the WTC area using the AVIRIS system

Why do you believe the USGS lied?

[edit on 8-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Is one definition of insanity : doing the same thing over and over again , and expecting differing results?

Am I insane now? Cause after reading this thread..I feel like I need some STRONG medication.

J/k.. Gavron, This Ultima character is a troll... He is actually on our side. He is trying to make the "typical' truther look so bad..no one will take them seriously.

But you are taking him seriously.. Why? Let him work his magic with the newbs..They will hate his illogic sooo much they will begin to reflect within themselves..and begin to look at their personal fallacies with a more critical eye.


Good luck.

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

Am I insane now? Cause after reading this thread..I feel like I need some STRONG medication.

Hehe, I think I must be going insane, watchin the Olympics opening ceremonies and hearing bagpipes? The drums and floor show kinda cool.

I'm hoping the mods see his repeated, non changing post (which is a violation of the T&C here).

I honestly think he is causing more harm to his cause than helping it

[edit on 8-8-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
J/k.. Gavron, This Ultima character is a troll...

How am i a troll when i post facts and evidence? If anything the believers are trolls since they cannot post any evidence to support the official story that they believe in.

Its not my fault beleivers are to immature or closed minded to accept facts and evidence.

Lets look at the facts as proven with sources.

1. The EPA reqyested the AVIRIS throught the USGS.

2. The EPA believed there was radiation from DU at the sites.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How am i a troll when i post facts and evidence?

You might check your previous 4 posts.

Zero evidence, just repeated trolling. We cant help it if you have no evidence to back your OP.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
J/k.. Gavron, This Ultima character is a troll...

How am i a troll when i post facts and evidence? If anything the believers are trolls since they cannot post any evidence to support the official story that they believe in.

Keep up the good work, Ultima.. You are doing great!

Your incessant avalanche of illogic and continuous examples of internet gullibility are a *great* idea!

You make it seem as if you are actually falling for the ridiculous unverified claims, then championing them without any fact checking or allowing yourself ANY room for personal growth.

No wonder you are NSA. Brilliant!

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
You make it seem as if you are actually falling for the ridiculous unverified claims, then championing them without any fact checking or allowing yourself ANY room for personal growth.

But i have posted verified facts and evindece. Just like the fact that the EPA requested the flyover as proven by the USGS source.

I also have proven through a few sources that the EPA believed there was radiation in the form of DU at the sites.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I also have proven through a few sources that the EPA believed there was radiation in the form of DU at the sites.

But then you lied when you said the AVIRIS was used to detect radiation at the WTC. There was no request, a FACT I have proven countless times on this thread.