It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Did Flight 93 Land in Cleveland Almost 2 Hours After Its Alleged Crash in PA?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:33 PM
I just finished watching a documentary on Netflix that examined a lot of aspects regarding 911. I apologize that I do not know the name of the film as my partner pulled it up and was watching it when I joined her. I will find out and add the name to this thread at a later time.

The general premise of the film was relatively non-biased, but basically examined footage including that which was nixed by networks shortly following the event.

One of the main points made near the end of the film was a report that came in from Cleveland Hopkins Airport at 11:43 AM. This report was from Liz Foreman and Channel 9 News in the area stating that Flight 93 landed safely at Cleveland Hopkins Airport, but was suspected to have a bomb on board. The plane was immediately moved to a safe area and the passengers evacuated.

View the report here:

The 911 Timeline meticulously put together by Paul Thompson states that the official NORAD time of the Flight 93 crash in Shanksville, PA was at 10:03 AM. View that timeline here:

How is it that this plane was possibly offloading passengers in Cleveland almost 2 hours following it's officially reported crash? Please share your thoughts.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by glitchinthematrix]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:54 PM
reply to post by glitchinthematrix

First of all, that 'rense' report has many errors, and makes erroneus assumptions.

Here, this from the link to 'rense':

Reported by 9News Staff
Web produced by:Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

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.

Note the date and time --- of the report, not the time stated of the event!

Secondly, United AIrlines 93 was NOT a Boeing 767, and it did NOT originate in Boston, Massachusettes.

I have found 'rense' to be far less than reliable information.

Furthermore, they go onabout serial numbers, based on some circumstantial, un-verified and un-sourced "report"...

The serial numbers of the ORIGINAL planes are SAME serial numbers of the planes that ARE STILL FLYING. 591UA and 612UA.

Dulce argues, that though N-number can be transferred, the manufacturer serial number CANNOT be transferred.

According to some spot-witnesses, Boeing 757-222 SERIAL NUMBER 28142 is flying around Chicago under the alias 594UA.

According to the FAA, N594UA Boeing 757-222 flies now with a DIFFERENT serial number, namely 28145.

This is also incorrect.

Both N-numbers, 'N591UA' and 'N612UA' (FAA registrations for the airframes that were destroyed on 9/11, UAL 93 and UAL 175, respectively) have never been re-assigned, as of yet. United Airlines has paid the fees to keep the numbers "reserved" (for reasons known only to them).

Please note the S/Ns (serial numbers) in the "Deregistered" area of the reports.

There IS a model 757-222 Boeing still owned and operated by United Airlines with N-number 'N594UA' and S/N 28145:

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:03 PM
Maybe the planes that crashed were actually holograms? Just a thought could be way off.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:04 PM
Most likely the report was in error; the flight was not 93, but some other flight. In the mad media scramble to get and report info, there are bound to be mistakes made. If I'm not mistaken, this report was retracted soon afterward due to admission of error, and not for any clandestine reason.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:09 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Thanks for the information regarding Rense. I wasn't aware that it wasn't the best of sources. I couldn't find the report used in the documentary, so that was the closest one to what I saw in the film.

Also, I appreciate the information you provided. I will look into this further.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by glitchinthematrix

Interesting link to the timeline by Paul Thompson. As usual, eyewitness accounts conflict, and should be taken with a grain of salt....

However, I can clear this part up rather easily:

The 911 Timeline meticulously put together by Paul Thompson states that the official NORAD time of the Flight 93 crash in Shanksville, PA was at 10:03 AM.

There IS a three-minute discrepancy, and here is why.

From the seismic records, and also the FAA ATC radar, the actual time when radar contact was lost was ~1006 EDT.

The Recorders (both CVR- Cockpit Voice Recorder - and FDR - Flight Data Recorder) stopped at time index 1003 EDT (or, more correctly, 1403 UTC).

Absent the equipment for GPS updating, which was not installed on UAL 93, the Recorders both get their time reference fromt he ADC (Air Data Computer) which, in turn, receives its time from the Captain's clock. The clock is set manually, by the crew. It can be somewhat laborious, at times (and frustrating, much like setting a VCR clock can be). Also, it may have been set by the maintenance personnel (mechanics) when they first prepped the airplane that morning. Either way, it was a few minutes off. Sometimes, that happens.

If we're going to fly an extended over-water route, then accurate times are more important (and just about all have GPS nowadays, anyway, so it is accurate automatically). The Captain's clock does not report outside the airplane; for that there is what's called the ACARS. It automatically reports the Out, Off, On and In times (among other things) for Flight Following requirements, per FAA regulations.

The BIG question still hangs us up, as it sits out there --- Was There a Shoot-Down, contrary to reports.

I don't know, since I wasn't there to witness, obviously. However, based solely on the CVR and FDR data there is no indication. There ARE signs of erratic control movements, possibly to disorient the passengers who were attempting to break into the cockpit. But, interestingly, the FDR shows no disruptions in the electrical, hydraulic, fuel or pressurization systems that would be indicative of either F-16 wing cannon fire (20mm rounds) or a missile.

It has been my understanding that any F-16s scrambled that day would NOT have been loaded with missiles, but would have had at least "training rounds" in their Vulcan cannon.

Would like some verification on that.

In any event, there are comments by the hijackers, in Arabic, about putting it down, or "finishing it". This seems to show their intent to not allow a passenger take-over.

A shoot-down, if it occured, seems would have been perfectly accepted by the public, since it is known that authorization was given.

Either way, the airplane was never going to make its intended target.....

That's how I'm still viewing this thing.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:51 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Both N-numbers, 'N591UA' and 'N612UA' (FAA registrations for the airframes that were destroyed on 9/11,

N591UA and N612UA were not destroyed according to the FAA registration page.

Reason for Cancellation: Cancelled

[edit on 25-3-2010 by REMISNE]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:07 PM
reply to post by REMISNE

You are stating a non-sequitor, "REMISNE". And, I think you are aware of this deception of yours.

I personally know of a Cessna 150 that is destroyed. My family owned it. It was crashed, by a pilot who had rented it (that was our business, an FBO and flight school).

The pilot crash while practicing takeoffs and landings, he collapsed the nose gear, the airplane slid on the runway, and the carburetor (which is located on the BOTTOM of the engine used in the Cessna 150) sheared along the runway concrete, causing sparks and a fire, fed from the fuel in the wing tanks.

The airplane burned up (the pilot escaped injury).

Cessna 150, manufactured 1966, N-number N8282F. I had a lot of hours in that airplane, it was one that I learned to fly in, way back when.

Here is the FAA resigstry info:

Note, please, the status as reported in this FAA registry. They do not always note, in the N-number registry, what happened to the airframe.

American Airlines did, with both flights 11 and 77.

BUT, not with their flight 587, for some reason:

Recall, please that AA 587 crashed in Queens, NY in November 2001.

I challenge anyone to look up any number of other crashed and destroyed airfames from US-registered aircraft, and reference their N-numbers through the same FAA database. You will see variations, eithr listed as "Cancelled" or "Destroyed". Can't say what the reason for that is, perhaps someone knows?
Hey, on edit, here's the NTSB report for the Cessna N8282F:

(I never thought to look this up before. Couldn't even remember is was that far back, 1975! Man, wish I was there again, and knew what I know now....!)

[edit on 25 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:52 PM
If that flight had actually landed elsewhere and didn't crash, don't you
think that just ONE of those people would be here today walking around
alive. If they did land instead of crashing, and the passengers were
evacuated, where did they all go? How could they just disappear off the
face of the earth. Did some shadow government whisk them off to an
underground bunker somewhere where they are all alive and thriving
today? What total nonsense. That plane crashed and all of those people
are dead and gone. This is beyond conspiracy. It is lunacy.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:59 PM
False....Well documented and proven NOT to be flight 93. Move on people nothing here worth talking about.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:19 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You are stating a non-sequitor, "REMISNE". And, I think you are aware of this deception of yours.

No, you stated that both N-numbers were destroyed on 9/11 as shown on the registration page (THIS IS A DECEPTION). Please show on the registration page were it states they were destroyed.

I would suggest if you are going to state something as fact you should post something that will support it as fact.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by REMISNE]

top topics


log in