Inconsistencies of Flight 93 Landing At Cleveland Solved

Inconsistencies of Flight 93 Landing At Cleveland Solved

The following is a response to Woody Box from the comments section to the article posted by 9/11 Bogger titled "CASE STUDY - ACARS UAL UA 93"

I finally figured out the inconsistencies of Flight 93 landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport:

If the Associated Press reporter had called UAL at or after 9:03 (Flight 175 impacted the south tower at 9:03), then the AP article would have included a mention of that crash. It didn't, which proves that the AP reporter was talking to UAL BEFORE 9:03 about Flight 93. Well, Flight 93 was only known to have had a problem at 9:28, which proves that a UAL flight landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport that was to be designated Flight 93 in case something went wrong with the primary Flight 93 at Newark Airport.

Remember, my source said that Flight 93 landed under another flight number at Cleveland Hopkins Airport, which means that that flight was the standby Flight 93 in case the primary Flight 93 at Newark Airport didn't make it off the ground, due to a mechanical failure, sick passenger/disruptive passenger, or a flight delay caused by other aircraft that were delayed.

Last year I commented here on 9/11 Blogger that I believed that Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 took off from military airfields because military airfields could control for unforeseen complications as discussed above. However, using standby aircraft would do the job just as well. For example, if Flight 77 couldn't take off from Dulles Airport, then the standby aircraft at another airport would take its place.

When you think about it, the planners of the 9/11 attacks would have had to have employed standby aircraft at different airports just in case the aircraft at the primary airport couldn't take off.

This solves the quandary of a second Flight 93 and the landing of the standby Flight 93 at Cleveland Hopkins Airport.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC