Not a god damn thing.

Meh.

Maybe CD.com is just trying to get people guessing and get attention for themselves at the same time.

As for the Cleveland sighting of Flight 97, that's easy to explain. Flight 1989 from Boston was originally reported as a hijacked plane, but it wasn't. It kept its beacon on, and Cleveland flight control was in contact with it. It eventually landed in Cleveland. This flight originally was thought to have been hijacked, but wasn't. James is right, that mayor of Cleveland said the plane landed, which it did. But Flight 93 did not. Flight 93 and Flight 1989 were in the same airspace, adding to the confusion. As James also said, it was reported that 1989 was hijacked, and AP reported it but retracted it when they realized it was wrong.

Here's a report on the NORAD tapes associated with any shootdowns and Flight 1989.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat … ntPage=all

Here's an account of how Flight 1989 was originally reported as hijacked.

http://blogs.scripps.com/wcpo/staff/200 … story.html

If you work in the media, as I do, this is totally how things work. When something happens, such as the TWA flight that blew up outside of NYC over the Atlantic, the AP sends out a one-sentence bulletin alerting newspapers around the country that something has happened. I happened to be working that night, so I remember this clearly. When they get more info, they send more info, such as something called a "write-thru", which is when details are added. After the Flight 1989 "bulletin" that day, the AP sent a "kill" advisory, meaning something they reported was incorrect and all newspapers receiving it were to disregard it.

I don't have time to do anymore research, but it's out there. Any conspiracy not based on facts can be refuted by conclusions based on facts.