Did Flight 93 really land at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport? | |
Anders User ID: 33578 United Kingdom 10/19/2005 12:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
CS (OP) User ID: 33532 United Kingdom 10/19/2005 12:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Just possible a special exception was made for Olson given that she was the wife of an arch-Neocon Solicitor General. Perhaps they trusted her not to talk. And now she has become a loose cannon for some reason. But I, too, agree it more likely she´s dead. |
CS (OP) User ID: 33532 United Kingdom 10/19/2005 12:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 3096 United States 10/19/2005 12:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anders User ID: 33578 United Kingdom 10/19/2005 12:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | again, coupla sites have identified the type of jet it was, i belive not a lear jet, a thunderbolt or something like that... same jet was seen near the pentagon, again, checking up on things, many witnesses saw this small white jet in profile and assumed it was a 767a further distance away... and also, there is a huge runway right behind the pentagon, another theory posits a 767 did overfly the pentagon, was seen by witnesses, but an accompanying .mil jet fired a missile, as per Dumbsfeld´s admission, whilst the genuine jet buzzed the pentagon... just a few things to throw out there, of course, who knows what is disinfo put out by spooks to poison the well... |
CS (OP) User ID: 33532 United Kingdom 10/19/2005 12:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anders User ID: 33578 United Kingdom 10/19/2005 01:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | to paraphrase as a very famous NY author, talking about agents/publishers, and the chances of book ´success´... ´no-one knows nothing any more...´ good luck keep plugging it! |
CS (OP) User ID: 33532 United Kingdom 10/19/2005 01:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I think the two-plane scenario is the most likely. The Boeing 757 flew over the Pentagon and landed at a remote part of Regan Airport a mile or two behind it. People at ground level saw it and assumed it crashed, whereas it flew low and past the Pentagon. |
CS (OP) User ID: 33532 United Kingdom 10/19/2005 01:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anders User ID: 33578 United Kingdom 10/19/2005 01:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | now if THAT plane disappeared from Reagan (I thought it was a .mil airfield?), then also another plane disappeared from Cleveland, well we have a pattern emerging perhaps all planes except the PA one (which was shot down, something went wrong) landed, and the pax were put on a doomed plane that was crashed into or exploded off the atlantic? all except mrs olson and perhaps a select few... worth considering |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 3834 United States 10/19/2005 01:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
anders User ID: 33578 United Kingdom 10/19/2005 07:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anders User ID: 34124 United Kingdom 10/20/2005 10:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
hmmm User ID: 56979208 United States 04/17/2014 05:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No one noticed that after reporting on flight 93, the article goes on to day that United was also deeply concerned about another flight, flight 175. That's the plane that allegedly crashed into the south tower. Even if she got the first flight number confused, how likely is it she confused 2 flight numbers??? Add to that the strangeness of the plane appearance and the flashes that occur before the fuselage impacts anything and I'd say it is possible that there was a bait and switch. |
Bridge of Sighs User ID: 5177342 United States 04/17/2014 05:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No, you don´t understand. The plotters could not take remote control of a commercial plane. The pilot could have told the flight tower, contradicting the official story that Arab hijackers had taken over the plane. Instead, the plotters had to use a plane that looked like the ´hijacked´ plane but which had its electronics adapted to permit remote control. That was why Flight 93 could not be used. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33532 Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location. [link to www.flightglobal.com] "The Physical World is a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, coated in a conundrum, basted with a paradox and garnished with uncertainty" |
beeches User ID: 28167778 United States 04/17/2014 06:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |