Ha, kook!
No one ever said one couldn't see a missile contrial. They said the evidence didn't support that. Your first lie.
No one ever said that an explosion couldn't have been seen before the tail fell off that flight. They said the evidence didn't support that. Your second lie.
No one said the shuttle couldn't have been experiencing decay prior to arrival over Texas. The NASA guy was just saying that there are alternate explanations, such as plasma, and that max heating was occuring over Texas. For some reason he was talking about Hawaii anyhow, not California.
There's a facility called the "Air Force Maui Optical Site", or AMOS -- a set of high-resolution IR and visible cameras that look at re-entering bodies. The Shuttle would have been an obvious target. The Shuttle would have gone over the horizon for them just before it made landfall over California.
Gimme a break. I don't believe any of that shit.
I was trying to point out how ridiculous that statement by NASA was:
They said during the NASA press conference that most likely what was seen over California is plasma, not shuttle parts.
How can they make that statement based on no evidence whatsoever? It was irresponsible. Any account such as that should be investigated and verified. Because it would indicate a much earlier failure to the heat shiled and indicate an ongoing threat that the crew was obviously not aware of and would give investigators a point in time to look at when analyzing the telementry and data leading up to the failure. Which is the only evidence they have. Anything they find on the ground will give them no real clues.
Save your vitriole for someone else. I don't own any tinfoil headgear.