David Heagney

But he still makes a cogent point: both buildings fell from the top down.

Here's a salon.com article that fairly well dissects and chops up Kennedy's assertions. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/...edy/index3.html It seems Kennedy has written his article in the tradition of many CTs: Cherry-picking and deliberate misinterpretation of the data to fit a pre-determined conclusion.

And there has been found to be noticable traces of it in rainwater!

You know, Jack could be right about them being "chemtrails". After all, they are known to contain that deadly chemical known as "Dihydrogen Monoxide"!

I wouldn't call it "negligence", so much unpreparedness, but I don't suppose it helped NORAD that the FAA was giving them incorrect information.

Um, Jack. Planes landing and taking off wouldn't form contrails because they aren't high enough in the atmosphere to make them.

Jack, Question, are either of these two guys 'offical NASA spokespersons', capable of speaking to and of NASA photo library? I'm not sure about Evan, hell he may be a pilot or a baggage handler, who knows -- this Heagney from San Mateo (a nice place, I lived there for 10 years, grew up 10 miles north of there) he collects and sells hubcaps, I expect he's a amateur photg at best - I'd questioning anyone sanity that cruises Hwy 101 looking for hubcaps -- so my question is: why bother with them? They certainly don't know the difference between EVIDENCE and a STUDY... For what its worth I wouldn't bother answering ANYTHING from those camps... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LOL! I leave the trolling of 101 for hubcaps to CalTrans and the people helping with the adopt-a-highway plan. As for my photography skills, yeah, I'm an amatuer when it comes to photography. That doesn't mean I am stupid. When someone tells me that it is impossible to take a photo a certain way, I am quite capable of testing that assertion empirically to determine if it is true. When someone tells me that a piece of something in a photograph shouldn't be there, and that the explanation given for what it is is "ludicrous", but does nothing to actually prove what the piece actually is, that doesn't mean I have to believe him simply because he has claimed he's an expert in analyzing pictures. Particularly when I can do a simple google search and determine that the official explanation for what it is is very logical. But let's flip this around for a second, shall we? If Mr. White is the expert he claims to be, then how is it I, amateur that I am, am able to take a picture that he claims is impossible to take on two different grounds? What do you mean the difference between evidence and a study? Mr. White uses his "studies" AS evidence!

This a a great case of the pot calling the kettle black. Mr. White, I have tried to discuss things wwith you rationally. Yet it was you who resorted to name calling (calling me a phony). Furthermore, I do not know how my questions are "ill-informed" and "abusive". Do you consider it impossible for you to have ever made an error in your photographic analysis that any evidence shown to be contrary to your work beyond your consideration? I have a picture here: That directly refutes two assertions you have made in your Apollo work: 1) That my shadow should go down to the center of the picture 2) It is not possible to have shadows seemingly pointing in different directions from only a single light source. How is asking you to explain this "abusive" and "ill informed"? I'd really like to know.

I live in San Mateo, Ca. where I own my own business dealing in hubcaps and wheels. I am not an educator really, but I do consider myself a bit of an expert as to my business (after 11 years, you get a good idea what fits what vehicle!). What interested me in this forum was the political conspiracies section, I found there are a couple of topics I would like to comment upon.