Cleveland Airport Mystery

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Nutter

 

The story that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland is a lie....

Reporting that it was reported that flight 93 landed in Cleveland is not.

You use it to push your theories about Flight 93 not crashing in Shanksville....makes you more guilty than the reporters that screwed up and corrected their mistake.

That's funny. Since I believe flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, why would I be pushing my theories about flight 93 landing in Cleveland and not crashing in Shanksville?

Originally posted by Nutter

The one that spent the time to report accurate information.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Nutter]

That option was available to you. You could simply have ignored the news for a couple of days while the more erroneous stories were filtered out.

Bet you didn't.

What's the point that LC are trying to make then?

We all know that it was reported. That's not at all in dispute.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
That option was available to you. You could simply have ignored the news for a couple of days while the more erroneous stories were filtered out.

Bet you didn't.

You would lose that bet.

I didn't watch ANY news about 9/11. Not even ON 9/11 itself.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What's the point that LC are trying to make then?

We all know that it was reported. That's not at all in dispute.

The point would be: Why did they even report that it landed there to begin with?

Or did they report every other plane that landed in Cleveland that day?

Obviously not, since they didn't report this NASA plane that it was supossedly "mistaken" with.

Can you show other reports of other planes that landed in Cleveland on 9/11? If not, why is it not a coincidence that flight 93 was reported?

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What's the point that LC are trying to make then?

We all know that it was reported. That's not at all in dispute.

The point would be: Why did they even report that it landed there to begin with?

There's two possible answers:

1 They were mistaken

2 It did land there.


You've just said that LC are not claiming 2, so it must be 1.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Again you missed the point:

Were all other flights reported to have landed in Cleveland when they did?

If not, then why was flight 93 reported as landed?

It's original destination was San Francisco, so if it had landed at Cleveland I suppose that would have been anomalous and worth reporting.

But I don't understand what you're driving at. You yourself don't think it landed, Loose Change according to you don't say that it landed, I don't think it landed and neither does the original reporter. It's hardly something to get excited about.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It's hardly something to get excited about.

True. Very true.

I am just curious as to why it was reported in the first place. A timeline of events per say.

Also, I'm really not interested in what the LC guys say. Like I've said, if they are pushing that it did indeed land at Cleveland, then I agree they are at fault for libel too.

Fair enough.

I certainly agree that it's curious, but I think LC are trying to imply something that a more than cursory glance at the evidence doesn't really show.