Crash in Gander
December 12, 2006 8:54 AM   Subscribe

Twenty-one years ago today a plane crashed in Gander, Newfoundland. The flight carried American soldiers heading home for the holidays, returning from a mission in the Sinai. Called the worst aviation disaster on Canadian soil, the crash killed the 248 soldiers and 8 crew members aboard. On December 16th, mere days after the crash, President Ronald Reagan gave a speech at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, to comfort the victims' families. As time passed, however, some of the families demanded answers from the US Government regarding the circumstances of the crash. In 1989, Robin Tallon, member of congress from South Carolina, assisted the families' by bringing the matter before Congress - and also sending a letter to then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (scroll down page). In 1992, a Time Magazine article addressed forensic evidence which supported the idea of an on-board explosion prior to impact, as well as the flight's connections to Iran Contra and the terrorist group Islamic Jihad. This article also discusses the book written on the crash by Les Filotas, a dissenting member of the air safety board. The question was brought forth again in 1993, with a bill introduced requesting that a commission be formed to further investigate the circumstances of the crash. As with any disaster with unanswered questions, conspiracy theories abound. To this day, many of the questions surrounding Flight 1285 remain unanswered. While the crash may never be fully explained, one certainty remains - for the families whose loved ones never came home for Christmas, the twelfth day of the twelfth month will never be forgotten.
posted by SassHat (22 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
 
What is it about airline crashes that they nearly always generate a conspiracy theory? Even when the NTSB comes out with an official finding it seems there is always "doubt"...
posted by UMDirector at 9:05 AM on December 12, 2006


Probably because there are so many things that COULD go wrong, it's difficult for some people - natural skeptics, distraught relatives - to completely accept any explanation.
posted by davidmsc at 9:17 AM on December 12, 2006


Human nature? Perhaps a deliberate attack lends meaning to deaths which are otherwise caught-up in a "meaningless" act of wicked fate.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:27 AM on December 12, 2006


What is it about airline crashes that they nearly always generate a conspiracy theory?

See also TWA-800.

It's because plane crashes are the largest non-natural disaster that happen with any regularity in the modern world. But dumb people are used to smart people figuring everything out. No plane would crash because "they" (smart people) design them perfectly, or maintain them perfectly, or fly them perfectly.

Bridges and buildings don't collapse on their own anymore. And nobody seriously thinks there's a conspiracy to cause earthquakes or hurricanes or tornadoes.

But planes may crash for the tiniest most ridiculous reason. It's a giant, 150 ton metal box with thousands upon thousands of moving parts that has to travel 350mph just to stay in the air. Otherwise it reverts to its natural state of being a sleek rock.

Things happen. Sometimes bad things happen.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:28 AM on December 12, 2006


Why are so many people willing to believe the official story when the evidence points to sabotage? The Time article makes it pretty clear that the official story if full of holes.
Is it possible that due to some sort of negligence or design flaw that this plane spontaneously blew up in the sky? Sure, but the offical story is ice on the wings, which doesn't match the evidence.
posted by doctor_negative at 9:40 AM on December 12, 2006


What is it about three paragraph front page posts that always generate conspiracy theories? Obviously, to win the xbox, you've got to have a loooong frontpage post.

Still, I am continually surprised at the weird detritus that keeps gurgling to the surface, years after the cold war "ended." And by detritus, I am referring to Iran/Contra hijinks, operations in Cuba hithertofore unheard of, etc. not the deaths of soldiers.
posted by mecran01 at 9:41 AM on December 12, 2006


Good post, SassHat.

Matt needs to add the "More Inside" option to the blue so that we can all stop bitching about how the post looks on the page.
posted by briank at 9:44 AM on December 12, 2006


Sorry. I'm tired of every shady event being written-off as a nutty conspiracy theory.

The term has successfully been equated with something only a lunatic would concoct.

Evil people exist, as do naive people.

Google news "gander 1985" and see what pops up-- almost nothing. No mention in the news. This was an event that for some reason has gone under-reported.

I had never heard of this crash until this post.

And anything Dick Cheney or "Mr. Aspartame" is involved with immediately raises a red flag.
posted by wfc123 at 9:44 AM on December 12, 2006


Why are so many people willing to believe the official story when the evidence points to sabotage? The Time article makes it pretty clear that the official story if full of holes.

No. The Time magazine article parrots the view of the author of the book hyped in the article. Furthermore, the Time article is 7 years after the fact, and by then, the only people talking about the incident would have been arguing on behalf of the conspiracy theory. Everyone else would have moved on. And would not be generating new "news" about the event.

The evidence does not point to sabotage. The evidence suggests there were weapons, ammo, etc on board. They could just as easily have gone off accidentally.

And I don't believe the official story. I actually do not care one way of the other. I have no vested interest in something that happened 21 years ago.

Now let me ask a question: suppose the truth is that Iran brought that plane down in 1985. What would your reaction be? What do you think the reaction then should have been? If that is the truth and the US govt knew it at the time, are you willing to give the Reagan administration credit for being calm and temperate, and trying to diffuse the situation as best they could to avoid what would certainly have been a popular outcry for military retaliation against Iran? Do they deserve condemnation for "covering-up"? Are they cowards because they were afraid to challenge Iran?

If you believe these theories you have to follow them through to their consequences, and then compare that to what actually happened.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:08 AM on December 12, 2006


And anything Dick Cheney or "Mr. Aspartame" is involved with immediately raises a red flag.

Is Mr. Aspartame some knock at Rumsfeld? Do you have some info about aspartame, the most extensively tested food additive in history, that you'd like to share with the rest of us?
posted by Pastabagel at 10:10 AM on December 12, 2006


Pasta, why would Iran, to whom we were giving weapons for their war with Iraq, do something to the plane? I mean they didn't wuv us, but if someone were actually bombing the shit out of you, why would you do some sort of smarmy attack on the people offering you parts for your F-14's?

More to the point, I read an article a while back where civilian contractor was killed in military plane crash in 1960's/70's. Government says "secret secret, hush hush, national security, etc." Later on daughter finds out from guy who worked with dad that noting they were doing was particularly secret much less a matter of national security so she tries to find out what really happened... And is told "secret secret, hush hush, national security, etc."

If all the truth were out on this, it would probably be no worse than the Value Jet crash in Florida, where someone was shipping oxygen generators improperly. But now we're dealing with people who have the power to say "secret secret, hush hush, national security, etc." and have spent the last 30 years demonstrating their belief that America will buy any bullshit they care to shovel at us. Why would they ever take responsibility for anything?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:24 AM on December 12, 2006


Wow. I googled "Mr. Aspartame."
That stuff's as dangerous as soybeans!
posted by Floydd at 10:24 AM on December 12, 2006


Because America will buy any bullshit that anyone shovels at them. The government is the only entity that remains around long enough to be held responsible.

Things are designated secret or classified or national security for very mundane regulatory and procedural reasons. If you're a contractor working on designing a new spy plane, and you requisition some pencils, that requisition is going to be classified. It's just stupid pencils, but the rules say it has to be classified because everything relating to your work is classified. So we have top secret Ticonderogas

My guess is that anything dealing with moving soldiers around and what is being moved around with them gets some level of secrecy. Just because the plane crashes doesn't mean it's somehow not secret anymore. The authories aren't allowed to reveal classified info after a crash anymore than they are after the flight arrives safely. Furthermore, just because someone on the flight may have security clearance, it doesn't mean their wife or next of kin does.

And if something is secret, and the public finds out about it anyway and challenges the govt on it, just because the govt says "I can't talk about it" does not make it a cover up. They are not legally permitted to reveal information that is designated as classified or secret or whatever even if everyone knows about it.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:38 AM on December 12, 2006


Yeah, the official story looks somewhat shaky, and people are prone to question anything if anyone seems to be trying to hide something (walk past some people with your hands cupped closed like you’ve got something, and keep peering at it, and don’t let anyone else see, people will be all over you trying to figure out what it is - when really, it’s nothing).

But - motive? That “who benefits” question points both ways. Who would benefit from this? The only Ollie North angle I can see is if some of the delta guys were aware that the hostage rescue was sabotaged (lotsa ‘givens’ there). But most of those guys are so bound it wouldn’t matter, commit suicide on command practically, so why try to silence them?
I don’t see the angle - other than perhaps how pastabagel layed it out. But that doesn’t really fit either.
And people who have been on missions have been reported as dying in a number of ways (accident, suicide, etc. etc.) so no honor is accorded them (there are some secrets that must be kept) which might not sit well with the folks at home, but there are men willing to do it. As to who benefits from that, typically it’s foreign relations and it’s a crime if it benefits a group other than the country, but if that’s the case here...dunno.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:51 AM on December 12, 2006


If I remember correctly, Arrow Air operated under some sort of military exemption from the black box requirements that was repealed after this crash.
posted by dhartung at 10:55 AM on December 12, 2006


Google news "gander 1985" and see what pops up-- almost nothing. No mention in the news. This was an event that for some reason has gone under-reported.

How many news archives from 1985 are available online? It would be another ten years before any kind of internet connectivity would be available to the masses, and a few years yet beyond that before the WWW started including images since connections were so damned slow.

Now, search archives at brick-and-mortar newspapers before announcing that, and I will accept it.
posted by Doohickie at 11:24 AM on December 12, 2006


Why are so many people willing to believe the official story when the evidence points to sabotage?

Given that, why are we blethering about a piddly-ass plane crash given much greater threats?

Mars Polar Lander: lost.
Mars Climate Orbiter: lost.
Beagle 2: lost.

Once is bad luck, twice is a coincidence.

But three times is enemy action. BOMB MARS NOW.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:04 PM on December 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


See also TWA-800. ... No plane would crash because "they" (smart people) design them perfectly, or maintain them perfectly, or fly them perfectly.

Wait a minute. The TWA 800 conspiracy theories weren't borne of Man's eternal search for meaning in a chaotic world. They were caused by the fact that, an hour after the plane crach, a hundred bystanders were telling news cameras that they'd seen a missile streak toward the plane before it exploded in mid-air.

Now, maybe they didn't see exactly what they thought they'd seen, and maybe there was no missile; but it's not an example of an after-the-fact conspiracy brewed to fill the void by people who refused to accept the official explanation.
posted by cribcage at 12:07 PM on December 12, 2006


I visited the memorial this summer while passing through Gander. It can get eerily quiet there on that hillside.
posted by oaf at 3:11 PM on December 12, 2006


Perhaps it was insurance against aspects of Iran-Contra becoming known in the future. Lord knows that the dirty fucks in the CIA value human life less than cigar butts.
posted by Sukiari at 4:24 PM on December 12, 2006


I first became aware of Gander after 9-11. Several transAtlantic flights were grounded there when air traffic halted, and so hundreds, I think, of Americans enjoyed an extended stay hosted by Newfoundlanders. As part of that I learned that Newfoundland used to be a very common stop on transAtlantic flights, in the days before jets could carry enough fuel for nonstop flights from one side of the world to the other.
posted by Miko at 6:22 PM on December 12, 2006


I've read accounts of Gander's hospitality during 9/11. The same situation happened after the crash in 1985 - Gander hosted the Americans who arrived to assist with the investigation and cleanup of the crash site. Some family members of the victims were hosted by families in Gander because there wasn't lodging available in town.
posted by SassHat at 8:25 PM on December 12, 2006


« Older Vintage Christmas 1945-70.   |   Saved the world with Used Books? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments