It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flight 93 landed because of bomb threat on 911

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight.

wcpo.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">More at Web Archive


Is this when they put the bomb onboard, and reprogrammed the computer? Or were they just getting the strawmen off the plane? Lots of opportunity to do something conspiratorial.

[Mod Edit: fixed link to source]

[edit on 5/4/2006 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Your link does not work.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
The link worked for me. Another story in the same archive mentions the flight that actually crashed.
Flight 93?

Look at the dates and time of both articles. I think there is a simple typo involved.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
The link worked for me. Another story in the same archive mentions the flight that actually crashed.
Flight 93?

Look at the dates and time of both articles. I think there is a simple typo involved.


Just becasue one story was released first does not mean the events happened in that order.

They were quoting the Mayor of Cleveland so I doubt it was a mistake.

Likely it was copied directly from a press release.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Makes sense. I was not aware that 93 had been involved in another incident. Intersting stuff.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I think your getting Flight 93 and Delta Flight 1989 mixed up. Thier was a point on the radar where they crossed over each other and had no transponder to identify either 1. It was Flight 1989 that landed with a bomb threat.

External Source: 256.com...

[edit on 4-5-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I think your getting Flight 93 and Delta Flight 1989 mixed up. Thier was a point on the radar where they crossed over each other and had no transponder to identify either 1. It was Flight 1989 that landed with a bomb threat.

External Source: 256.com...

[edit on 4-5-2006 by ULTIMA1]



...the Delta flight 1989 she was on was initially thought to be flight 93 since they were very close in the sky at the time that 93 was hijacked.


I guess we can close this thread now.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I think your getting Flight 93 and Delta Flight 1989 mixed up. Thier was a point on the radar where they crossed over each other and had no transponder to identify either 1. It was Flight 1989 that landed with a bomb threat.

External Source: 256.com...


Originally posted by Malichai

...the Delta flight 1989 she was on was initially thought to be flight 93 since they were very close in the sky at the time that 93 was hijacked.


I guess we can close this thread now.


Sorry to be the 1 to do it. I am researching alot of what happened that day, and usually find more things wrong with the official story.

Mod Edit: Un-compounded Compoud Quote

[edit on 12/5/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I think your getting Flight 93 and Delta Flight 1989 mixed up. Thier was a point on the radar where they crossed over each other and had no transponder to identify either 1. It was Flight 1989 that landed with a bomb threat.

External Source: 256.com...

[edit on 4-5-2006 by ULTIMA1]


How often does it occur that both planes experience having no transponders and the fact that pass over one another? Let alone the fact that they passed over one another, planes aren't suppose to get that close and from the sounds of everything it's not like they were miles above/below each other.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I think your getting Flight 93 and Delta Flight 1989 mixed up. Thier was a point on the radar where they crossed over each other and had no transponder to identify either 1. It was Flight 1989 that landed with a bomb threat.

External Source: 256.com...

[edit on 4-5-2006 by ULTIMA1]


Are you saying that United mistakingly identified their own Flight 93 for a Delta plane?



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
United had nothing to do with identifying their flight. They were told that flight 93 landed with a bomb threat by controllers, who got the two mixed up. With all the confusion that happened that day I'm not surprised this happened. I remember listening to the radio that day and there were reports of planes missing, and more planes being hijacked all day, until after they landed them all at last.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
How often does it occur that both planes experience having no transponders and the fact that pass over one another? Let alone the fact that they passed over one another, planes aren't suppose to get that close and from the sounds of everything it's not like they were miles above/below each other.


On 9-11 all the planes hijacked had thier transponders turned off by the hijackers.

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/5/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
How often does it occur that both planes experience having no transponders and the fact that pass over one another? Let alone the fact that they passed over one another, planes aren't suppose to get that close and from the sounds of everything it's not like they were miles above/below each other.


They WEREN'T directly over or THAT close to each other, but when you're looking at a 2 foot across radar screen that is showing you 50-100 miles scale, 5-10 miles is very close together.

You'd be surprised how often planes have transponder issues. It's not uncommon for a transponder to hiccup, just that usually they can reset them, and they're still in radio contact with ATC. On 9/11, they were deliberately turned off however.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Thanks for the info on Delta 1989 being confused with "Flight 93", I always thought it was pretty strange that United 93 "landed" on another airport and then the media would say later that it crashed
Thanks for clearing it out though, peace!



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Hmm. I thought it was reported in the local Akron newspaper and other sources that both planes were landed at the airport due to bomb threats. This deserves to be looked into. Even Cleavland Mayor Michael White said that the hijacked plane landed in Ohio after bomb threats.

[edit on 12-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
United had nothing to do with identifying their flight. They were told that flight 93 landed with a bomb threat by controllers, who got the two mixed up. With all the confusion that happened that day I'm not surprised this happened. I remember listening to the radio that day and there were reports of planes missing, and more planes being hijacked all day, until after they landed them all at last.


Can you show a link that says it was the CONTROLLERS that told United which plane it was?

I too thought it was understood that TWO planes landed. If there was only ONE, why was there no clarification of that fact AFTER the newspaper article?



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.

United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight.

wcpo.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">More at Web Archive


Is this when they put the bomb onboard, and reprogrammed the computer? Or were they just getting the strawmen off the plane? Lots of opportunity to do something conspiratorial.

[Mod Edit: fixed link to source]

[edit on 5/4/2006 by 12m8keall2c]


I beleive it was a mistake when they said it was Flight 93 that had landed in Ohio. Flight 93 did not originate from Boston, it took off from Newark. Now could you also say that they made a mistake when they said Flight 93 took off from Boston when it infact took off from Newark? Yes, of course you could make a similar argument. My opinion is that the plane was misidentified in Ohio, and United Flight 93 crased in PA with all passengers aboard.


[edit on 12-5-2006 by stealthyone]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I found this after my post, and tried to edit and add it but for some reason it doesn't show up in the post, but it does in the preview. Mods, feel free to move this quote into my previous post.



From - The 9/11 Comission Report

Right after the Pentagon was hit, NEADS learned of another possible
hijacked aircraft. It was an aircraft that in fact had not been hijacked at all.After
the second World Trade Center crash, Boston Center managers recognized that
both aircraft were transcontinental 767 jetliners that had departed Logan Airport.
Remembering the “we have some planes” remark, Boston Center
guessed that Delta 1989 might also be hijacked. Boston Center called NEADS
at 9:41 and identified Delta 1989, a 767 jet that had left Logan Airport for Las
Vegas, as a possible hijack. NEADS warned the FAA’s Cleveland Center to
watch Delta 1989.The Command Center and FAA headquarters watched it
too. During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports
of hijacked aircraft. The report of American 11 heading south was the first;
Delta 1989 was the second.155
NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft
from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it. The flight never turned off its
transponder. NEADS soon learned that the aircraft was not hijacked, and
tracked Delta 1989 as it reversed course over Toledo, headed east, and landed
in Cleveland.156 But another aircraft was heading toward Washington, an aircraft
about which NORAD had heard nothing: United 93.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Hmm def interesting supposedly the terrorists said they had a bomb on board. So maybe it did land in cleveland so then what crashed in PA?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join