[gmat]

Originally posted by bigben2k

Look back at JFK, where the records have been sealed for 75 years in the government archives.

Watergate archives has gone public this year, and they shed some light on JFK affair (along with a lot of interesting points). That was not 75 years indeed. Can this duration vary according to the "explosiveness" of contents ?

Considering the heat involved with burning 20 tons of kerosene, I'm not surprised that there would be nothing left. There may have been some molten metal left, but who really wants a picture of that?

But what about titanium engine parts which *should* identify the plane without a doubt ? IIRC titanium doesnt melt at burning kerosene temps. And *NOTHING* out of a 80t aircraft ?

In fact, the pictures aren't detailed enough to establish a sequence of events.

You have high-res versions on the DoD site. All pictures are timed...

Who's interest would it be in, to make it all look like the plane wasn't swapped for a smaller one, and crash it into a newly rebuilt section of the Pentagon?

Who ? Either the governement, or FBI, or both. Why ? One cannot know for sure. This was not my question here (i'm just exploring the "what") but you can get a good sample of ideas by browing links from the aforementioned sites. (many ppl here liked the 'witness protection program' idea)

The size of the ball of flame should give us a fair idea of how much fuel ignited, and if you look at the cam shots, that's a pretty large ball of flame. I doubt that any smaller aircraft would carry enough fuel to produce a ball of fire that large.

Now that is interesting. Since we know the impact location, one can estimate rather precisely the volume of the ball of flames. Give me figures

The few witnesses that saw the plane should have been able to recognize the model, as the Boeing 757 has a much different engine configuration than smaller planes.

Unfortunately, that's a sore point. The same day (1st-hand accounts, the ones that are important...) are all pointing to a "small plane" of the 8-10 passenger category, passing by "very low" in a "strange noise, not unlike a fighter aircraft". Oddly, absolutely *no one* mentioned a boeing.
Since it passed by at quite a high speed, i'll understand they didnt identify the model precisely. But still, a boeing has quite a characteristic shape, and again there's a scale problem. A 757 doesnt quite fit into the "small airplane" or "8-10 passenger" category...

which would correspond to the jet blast of the engines blowing off something from the ground. A small plane wouldn't do this.

Oops. Even smaller jet engines do this, and to great extents. Sorry but you wont get that one.

There's also a color/paint scheme to the airliner that is unique to the airline, and easily recognizable. It's hard to tell from the photos though.

Indeed. But consider it passed by at very low altitude, and very fast. People couldnt identify the plane model exactly, let alone the company. What came out from the witnesses wasn't even close to a boeing though...
As for the ground camera, it did show a white object. Let's put that on poor video quality, sun reflections and so on - since AA jets are metallic grey....

Ah and at no time i did mention a "conspiracy". That's maybe a bit strong. Lets say "choice of information displayed to the public'", or "[government/FBI] odd silences".
(cynical mode on)But of course, FBI never hides any information to the public, and US presidents always tell the truth...(cynical mode off)

(edit) as you bring the building solidity again, i'll make the following point:
- WTC was less "sturdy" so it "swallowed" the aircrafts. Yet, the ensuing blast projected airplane parts all around.
- Pentagon was built with top-secret ultra-resistant materials, if we follow you. So a plane hitting such a hard surface wouldnt have been "swallowed" entirely. Yet, the blast failed to project plane parts around although the plane hadnt entered the building... And my mechanics courses leftovers tell me at least some parts should have bounced off, ya know kinetic energy distribution etc.