Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did Flight 93 land in Cleveland!?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
From

Grand Theft Country

The morning of 9/11 a report came out from WCPO-TV that told of a plane being forced to land at Cleveland Hopkins Airport in Ohio at 10:45am. United Airlines had identified the plane as one of their own--Flight 93. The Mayor of Cleveland, Michael R. White, told reporters in a press conference that the emergency landing was due to concerns of a bomb on board, and that air traffic controllers heard screams as well. The flight held 200 passengers which remained on the plane after it landed, but were taken off by authorities a half-hour later. The airport and surrounding areas were subsequently evacuated. Later that day the original report was removed from the WCPO website. Luckily, local Ohioans were posting online reports of the news regarding this incident as they heard it that day on the radio and television.



I think it's possible. My guess is that once in Cleveland passengers were told to call their families--just a guess (nothing to back this up).

If it's true that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland-Hopkins and the passengers were evacuated, then the mystery is, what happened to the passengers?


[Mod Edit - Quote formatting. Please review the following links;

Posting work written by others. - New Site Tag For Quoting External Sources - Jak]

[edit on 24/3/06 by JAK]




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I have read that and it sound very plausible but the passengers. Well Money's no object the governent may have relocated them. Something like the witness protection program but that brings in way too many people to keep quiet. And would their relatives be let in on it or not? I quess you just have to take them of to an immigrant detention facilty and detain them indenfinitely or just crash them with the plane. It everyones patriotic duty to sacrifice for the good of the state.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
My guess is that they killed them and sent bits and pieces back to the families. Maybe some of them got sucked into some mind-control program...pure speculation on my part.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I read about this a while ago & there was actually a report of 2 planes landing at approximetly the same time, the times were so close together that reports of the 2nd plane were actually thought to have been reports of the 1st plane in the media during the confusion of the attacks.
Here is a link to the story.

inn.globalfreepress.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Yep, that site mentions that too...a Delta flight.

That map that's shown...that sharp curve is right over where Cleveland-Hopkins would be. I've been to that airport a few times, and I'm about an hour south of it!



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Right after 9-11, there was a company on Ebay that was offering converted Jumbo Jet houses, they would come out to your property and rig up a big hollowed out and converted Jumbo Jet on a rotating Spire. I didn't think much of it at the time, but that would be one hell of a way to get rid of some aircraft. I remember the reports that 93 had landed, they vanished very quickly from the mainstream media. They were supposedly 'mistaken' later, but how the hell does Air Traffic Control mistake the Airline and the Flight number?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
There were also reports of an airliner landing at Allegheny County Airport in Pennsylvania. I think that this might be part of the confusion of that day. I am willing to bet that some of these airports were contacted to see if they were up to the task of handling some of the many airliners that were diverted when everything was grounded. These inquiries were leaked to the media and erroneously reported.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
The confusion was caused by the fact that Flight 93, and the Delta flight were flying right next to each other when they lost contact with Flight 93. They thought initially that the radio transmisisons from 93 were from the Delta flight.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by polanksi
I have read that and it sound very plausible but the passengers. Well Money's no object the governent may have relocated them. Something like the witness protection program but that brings in way too many people to keep quiet. And would their relatives be let in on it or not? I quess you just have to take them of to an immigrant detention facilty and detain them indenfinitely or just crash them with the plane. It everyones patriotic duty to sacrifice for the good of the state.


Is it fair to the families of these passengers to have all the memorials all year around at that site, and show all the greiving relatives?
Is this some kind of sick play that the government puts on for the relatives of all these victims? What threat would they be?
IF I were one of the passengers, I would risk death and torment to get the truth out..if secreted away.
IMO, it happened just as was said..
I do have one problem in that they buried the site? and nobody investigated by tearing that field up. If it was any of mine, I would insist they dig down to hell if necessary to bring up the plane and remains.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
inn.globalfreepress.com...
this is an article regarding flight 93. With all the disinfo, we will probable never know.
The book 9/11 Reavealed is a good review of the whole fiasco.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I heard somewhere that the tail registration numbers for one of the planes was switched and that one of the 9/11 plane numbers was still in use until about a year ago when someone mentioned something to FAA and it disappeared from records.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about by any chance?



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
It wasn't switched, but United didn't remove the registration numbers for their two planes from 9/11 until either last year, or 2004.

[edit on 4/7/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
icc. which means if it really did land on 9.11 instead then that means it's possible that the plane was still being used as of up to last year.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
How sad...imagine having someone you love on that flight and then having to hear this...


They were probably killed.

Life is traumatic.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
No, it simply means that someone at United didn't file the paperwork to remove the number. It's happened before. Agentsmith showed several examples in another thread. Many times a plane was lost in a crash, but the registration certificate was updated every year. There was one where the plane went down in 2000, and the latest certificate was from 2005.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
still doesn't account for all the reports that the flight landed in Cleveland. It was even reported on Fox News in that local area which is an interesting fact.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Because they confused flight 93 with Delta flght 1667 (IIRC). The two flights were right on top of each other when flight 93 turned off the transponder. It was initially reported that the radio calls from flight 93 came from the Delta flight.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   
ok , lets try to interject a bit of logic here ,

IF and thats BIG if , they were going to " switch the planes " and kep it flying - isnt a change in serial number and registration certification the FIRST thing you would think off

admittedly there is no precedent i can think off gor such " plane ringing " - but it is distressingly prevalant in shipping circles

and as for cars and commercial vehiles - heck " car ringing " is the number one industry in some towns
.... like liverpool ;;; cough ;;;

and EVERYTIME - the first thing they do is change the number plates , VIN plate and give it a respray


why would anny attempt to ring a plane be an different ????

as has been noted - planes lost in mundane crashes pree 9/11 stayed " on the book " for years after .

so why do you expect the 9/11 planes to have been treated differentlt ???

the most innocent explaination for this policy that springs to my mind is - is it a tax scam ?? or accounting trick - to keep a lost plae listed as an asset ?? for as long as possinle ?

any one with accounting experience confirm or deny this ?



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I work for American Airlines and I was working at Cleveland Hopkins on 9/11. The aircraft that diverted was a Delta Airlines 767 and its true that they thought it had been hijacked but it turned out to be a false alarm



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Because they confused flight 93 with Delta flght 1667 (IIRC). .


I beleive it was Flight 1989 that 93 was confused with.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join