Sunday, July 31, 2016

Arrow Air 1285 and the ‘Lucifer Directive’: Part 3, The Rest of the Story

Robert O'Dowd

Something went wrong as can happen in a covert mission; the mission was scrubbed.  Casualties occurred with as many as three Special Force troopers killed.  Deveraux wrote that the interior of the plane was engulfed in flames almost immediately after take-off at Gander, the apparent consequences of two bomb components: one containing an explosive incendiary triggers adjacent to a second holding a napalm-like substances.  The remote detonation instantly ignited and spread ad deadly conflagration throughout the body of the aircraft.”  Deveraux sources suggested that soda cans “placed next to each other among cases of soft drinks” contained the incendiary trigger and napalm-like substance.  The crew and troopers on the aircraft never had a chance.  This has to be one of the most horrible cases of cold-blooded murder of innocent Americans in the 20th Century.[i]
US Special Forces Mission, Not Repeat Israeli Bombing
The US government offered to use Special Forces to destroy an Iraqi nuclear weapons research facility.  This was a CIA/NSC inspired operation in conjunction with Israeli intelligence, according to Deveraux.  The Israelis had planned to use aircraft to bomb the Iraqi facility like the successful Operation Opera carried out on June 7, 1982, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17 kilometers southeast of Baghdad.  But, US officials objected and suggested that US ground forces deploy nuclear backpacks to destroy the facility. Deveraux said there was intense disagreement within the CIA over the covert operation.[ii]

The Israelis were extremely nervous about Saddam Hussein acquiring a nuclear weapon and using it on them.  The Iran–Iraq War (1980 - 1988) was on-going; the US was supplying HAWK and TOW missiles to Iran as part of the secret Iran/Contra guns-for-hostages’ exchange; the use of Israelis IDF forces to destroy the Iraqi facility endangered the guns-for-hostages exchange and increased the risk of an expanded Middle East war.  The easy answer for some aggressive covert operators was to use Special Forces to deploy nuclear backpacks and blame the Iraqis for blowing-up their own facility. 
However, this would have been the first use of a nuclear weapon since WW II and there was a major disagreement within the CIA over the use of US forces to deploy a nuclear weapon to destroy the Iraqi facility. There was no Presidential Finding supporting the mission but the CIA/NSC ‘cowboys’ proceeded on their own authority, according to Deveraux.  The mission was aborted and a number of Special Forces killed. A number of disgruntled Special Forces were on Arrow Air 1285 with a nuclear backpack. The CIA ‘cowboys’ were ordered to destroy the aircraft with the disgruntled Special Forces team on it, according to both Don Deveraux and Charles Byers. 
 An Explosive Ordinance Team (EOD) team from Andrews AFB flew to Gander the same day as the crash and were told to use their nuclear protection gear, according to the Don Deveraux.  They were told to treat the crash site “as a nuclear accident.”  The EOD team used dosimeters. The readings ranged from “very low” where the aircraft first hit the ground to “much higher readings” where the crash came to a halt. The EOD team found a CIA team on the ground when they arrived at Gander.  The CIA team had to be have been on the ground when the crash occurred and may have been the ones who set off the incendiary device on Arrow Air 1285; Canadian firemen who were not warned of the radiation exposure from the nuclear backpack became sick from radiation exposure.[iii]
It's not hard to believe that there was real anger among the Special Forces team.  This was an extremely well trained and highly motivated military force and the loss of three or more of their team members (the aircraft had six wooden crates on board) had to go down hard.

Deveraux received an explanation of why a CIA may have been at Gander for Richard “Rick” Sherrow who had worked for the Army as a demolition expert and “retired after some additional years of contract work for the CIA and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms:
If a U.S. military unit was engaged anywhere in the world in the covert transport of a nuclear device, acting completely outside the usual and legal procedures for nuclear shipments, special CIA and/or military teams would be placed at all refueling stops along the flight path to deal with any contingencies which might arise. [iv]
That’s one explanation of why the CIA team was at Gander.  The other is that a CIA team may have been ordered to detonate the incendiary devices planted on the aircraft.  Whoever ordered the take down may have   concluded that there was a high risk that Special Forces team members would leak information on the illegal covert operation to the media when they got back to the US.  Family phone calls were made among some member of the US force that their lives were at risk and a number suspected that they could not get back to the US alive.  This was an extraordinary mission that went bad with Special Forces team member killed and the mission aborted; if made public, this would have had severe political repercussion. Political repercussions would be their least concerns since everyone involved in the deliberate destruction of Arrow Air 1285 could be charged with murder.

Sergeant Todd Jennings, age 20, who was killed in the crash, wrote a poem to his mother were he cited top secret terms “Lucifer Directive” and “Omega Deception.”  Deveraux contacted one of his confidential military intelligence sources who “expressed amazement” that the young sergeant had used such top secret terms.

One possibility is that Sgt. Jennings would have recognized troopers wearing the green Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) worn in Germany and elsewhere compared to the Desert Camouflage Uniform (DCU) worn in the Saini.  We know that the backpack nukes were stored in Europe and Special Forces were trained in their deployment as part of the tactics to slow up an invasion from overwhelming Russian conventional forces. There was no need for them in the Sinai and it’s unlikely that any were kept in the peacekeeping arsenals.

Sgt. Jennings may have known some of the incoming troopers from jump school.  We don’t know but Sergeant Todd Jennings may have recognized one or more of the men as a member of Task Force 160 and connected the dots to a covert operation.  

The source told Deveraux that “Lucifer Directive” was an order to deploy a “weapon of mass destruction” (clearly a nuclear bomb) while “Omega Deception” meant “to shift the blame away from those who actually used it.” Deveraux concluded that Sgt. Jennings use of these terms “seem to apply to [the] covert mission to take out an Iraqi nuclear weapons plant.”[v] It’s a logical conclusion.
Deveraux discussed the terms “Lucifer Directive’” and “Omega Deception” with Dr. J. D. and Zona Phillips, the parents of a son killed in the plane crash and founders of Families for the Truth About Gander:
The Phillips had assisted and appeared in the segment on the Gander crash aired by “Unsolved Mysteries.”
A high-ranking U.S. Army officer who had served in the Sinai Peninsula just was visiting the Phillips in mid-July 1993 as a follow-up to the broadcast, probably dispatched by the Pentagon as damage control.
Claiming not to be familiar with an “Omega Deception,” he at least did acknowledge to the Phillips knowing what a “Lucifer Directive” is, although he declined to talk about it as “a national security matter.”
He assured the Phillips, however, that there were “no nukes” in the Sinai Peninsula in 1985, let alone on the Arrow Air flight.
Tash Force 160, moreover, was not sent to the Sinai for covert operations purposes, he said, but simply to improve the helicopter maintenance program of the multinational peace-keeping force which had fallen into disarray.[vi]
As Deveraux noted in follow-up with others familiar with the operations of this unit, the 160th are trained for spook operations, not for improving the maintenance levels of other Army helicopter squadrons. The high-ranking Army officer’s attempt to lie about the use of the 160th in the Sinai was total nonsense.  Deveraux provided examples of the effective use of the 160th in very hot situations.  These included their use against Iranian gun boats in the 1987 Persian Gulf War, and in the firefight in Mogadishu in October 1993.[vii]
A search of the internet in June 2016 found that the 160th was involved in multiple operations, including: Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada, Operation Prime Chance        Persian Gulf 1987–1988; Operation Mount Hope III (recovery of Mi-24 Hind helicopter), Chad 1988; Operation Just Cause, Panama 1989; Operation Desert Shield, Iraq 1990; Operation Desert Storm, Iraq 1991; Operation Restore Hope, Somalia 1993 and others.
General David Nathan Steiner, a retired Israeli officer, told the story of an aborted covert mission to use a nuclear weapon or “small nuke” to destroy an Iraqi nuclear weapons facility and the crash at Gander included a nuclear device on the aircraft being returned to the US, according to Deveraux.  Steiner told this story to friends in the American Southwest in March 1994. He was killed in a plane crash in the Arizona desert in August 1994.  Before his death, Steiner described the small nuke as looking like “a large flower pot” and “extremely dirty, with some of the radioactive contamination even blowing Iran’s way.”

Steiner’s description matches the that of a B-54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM), a backpack nuke carried by Special Forces:
For 25 years, during the latter half of the Cold War, the United States actually did deploy man-portable nuclear destruction in the form of the B-54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM).[viii] Special Forces used the delivery container pictured above to protect bombs during parachute jumps. The container and the weapon inside were extremely heavy, adding about 58 pounds to a parachutist load.
The Special Forces team had the legal right to disobey an illegal order to use a nuclear backpack without a presidential authorization under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  There’s no question that if actions were taken by the team to deviate from orders to return on Arrow Air 1285, they could have expected senior Army officers to threaten them with courts martial.  As it turned out, the suspicions of some that their lives were at risk turned out to be accurate.
There are connections between Vice President George H. W. Bush, the NSC, the CIA, and the use of Arrow Air charters to ferry weapons in the bellies of aircraft for the Contras and the Iranians.  This is speculative but it’s not beyond reason for the former CIA Director to order the use of Special Operations forces to use a nuclear backpack to blow-up an Iraqi nuclear research facility as a quid pro quo to the Israelis for their assistance in the guns-for-hostages’ exchange with the Iranians, to offer an alternative to an Israeli bombing of the facility and the risk of an expanded war in the Middle East. 

The Islamic Jihad terrorists had the motive and access to the Cairo airport to plant a bomb on Arrow Air 1285; they could have planted the incendiary device, if it somehow became available on the international arms market.  However, Deveraux reported evidence of incendiary packets were found in an airport dumpster at Cologne. That would support Devereux’s hypothesis that non-Arabs planted the incendiary device and remotely blew-up the aircraft in Gander.  The threat of a leak to the media by Special Forces of the aborted covert operation to rescue hostages and use a nuclear weapon in Iraq is possible, but it’s a stretch. Covert operations are inherently dangerous. Special Forces are an elite, highly skilled military organization. They had to know that casualties are inevitable in any covert operation.  Special Forces could have leaked this information to a US or UK news bureau in the Middle East; they didn’t have to wait until arriving in the US to do it. Still, this wouldn’t prevent an order to destroy the aircraft at Gander to eliminate any risk of leakage to the media.     
The family of Captain Kyle Edmonds of Hartsville, South Carolina, sought help for Democratic Congressman Robin Tallon of South Carolina who had no problem with running interference with the Republican administration to obtain answers about the crash from an administration that seem willing to leave it to a split CASB in determining what caused the crash of Arrow Air 1285 and the tragic death of 256 Americans.  Tallon took make a good-faith effort to solve the puzzle:  he held a press conference; put the list of unanswered questions in the Congressional Record; asked the House Armed Services Committee to hold a hearing; appeared on the ABC news show 20/20; and persuaded 103 members of Congress “to co-sign a letter to President George Bush to initiate a formal investigation into the crash.

Tallon was unsuccessful in obtaining a clean copy of the FBI report on Gander.  The FBI report had 239 pages out of 280 pages redacted.  At the December 1990 Congressional hearings “the evidence suggested there was” a systematic repression of the evidence.  Congressman Tallon asked: “Why was the possibly of sabotage not investigated by our government? Why was the U.S. government so willing to accept the CASB’s version of events if there was so much evidence to the contrary?”  
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Tallon] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TALLON. Mr. Speaker, I am coming before my colleagues today to bring to their attention a serious matter that has been ignored by our government for the past four years.
I am talking about the tragic plane crash that killed 248 American Soldiers and 8 others at Gander, Newfoundland, in December 1985. We all remember that crash because it was the worst military crash in American peacetime history. Canadians remember the crash because it was the worst air disaster in their history.
The official version of the crash states wing icing, mechanical failures, and human error as the causes of the crash. The Canadian and United States Governments continue to uphold this theory despite contradictory evidence indicating that it could have been the result of a terrorist act.
Even though it was a tragedy of terrific magnitude for both countries, the United States Government deferred all responsibility for the official investigation and report on the crash to the Canadian Government. And yet, the National Transportation Safety Board, the U.S. Army, and the FBI did investigate the scene.
Keep in mind that we are talking about an U.S. civilian plane that was chartered to carry American servicemen and women to an American destination.
At the very least, the official report should have been a joint effort between the Canadians and the Americans. I want to know why it was not.
Why was there such a cynical disregard for the loss of American military lives by the appropriate Federal agencies? And why has there been a callous reluctance to respond to the families of these victims when they have asked U.S. agencies for answers to their many questions?
Recently, too many credible sources have spoken out in support of the theory that the plane may have been the target of a terrorist attack. Allow me to give some examples.
In December 1988, the Canadian Air Safety Board finally released the official report which ruled that the crash was caused by ice contamination. This conclusion was by no means unanimous.
Four of the nine members of the board released a dissenting opinion from which I will quote:
. . . We cannot agree--indeed, we categorically disagree--with the majority findings . . . The evidence shows that the Arrow Air DC-8 suffered an on-board fire and a massive loss of power before it crashed . . . The fire may have been associated with an in-flight detonation from an explosive or incendiary device.
The Airline Pilots Association which re-examined the flight recorder information said that the Canadian report was based on `manufactured data.' I quote from the association's report:
This study, contracted by the Canadian Air Safety Board, represents technical dishonesty at its highest.
Many, many other allegations into the faulty investigation and possible coverup by Canadian and American officials have been addressed in the press. I will list just a few which have followed this story: U.S.A. Today, the Army Times, Counter-Terrorism and Security Intelligence, the Ottawa Citizen, the St. Petersburg Times, and Jack Anderson.
It's not only the press that is involved in getting to the bottom of this mess. The Labor Party in Canada has charged that the Canadian Board is involved in a coverup and has demanded a judicial review to include all available evidence and testimony.
The Pennsylvania Senate unanimously passed a resolution on June 28 of this year calling for the United States and Canadian Governments to reopen the investigation.
The bottom line--the Gander crash remains a mystery to the Canadian and American public. Families of these soldiers have suffered too long and have heard too much evidence to indicate that their government is either hiding something from them or is just plain lying to them.
I am submitting for the record a list of over 30 questions written by Mrs. Zona Phillips, of St. Petersburg, FL, the leader of the group Families for the Truth About Gander. I believe that the appropriate U.S. Federal agencies should address these questions with candor and clarity.
I have also written to Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and Attorney General Richard Thornburgh requesting their full cooperation in answering questions. I am submitting for the record a copy of these letters.
No words can express my gratitude to Constance Farmer and Dana Edmonds, of Hartsville, SC, for bringing this matter to my attention with a very detailed and moving letter which I will also submit for the record. They lost their son and brother Capt. Kyle Edmonds and it is for them and for the other families that I am bringing this matter to my colleagues in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 12, 1989.

Hon. Richard Cheney 
Secretary of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, DC.
Dear Dick:
Last week I had a disturbing visit from two constituents who four years ago lost a family member in the tragic crash of the charter plane over Gander, Newfoundland.
The mother and sister of Captain Kyle Edmonds have joined with other families of the 248 peace-keeping soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division who were also killed in an effort to garner more information on the circumstances of the crash. Yet, to this date they have received little response from the government.
Their demand for a full accounting of the investigation comes after several independent investigations have yielded piece-meal, yet substantial evidence which indicates that the plane was the target of a terrorist mission.
Some of the most compelling arguments for this theory come from four members of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board (CASB) who had dissented from the Authority's official report stating that the crash was caused by ice contamination and possibly flight weight and a balance problem. These board members cite physical evidence of an explosion and additional intelligence evidence of the involvement of the alleged terrorist group Islamic Jihad. A recent Washington Post column even opens the theory that the chartered plane may have had some role in the events surrounding the Iran-Contra scandal.
Dick, I am sure that you agree that the relatives of these soldiers deserve to have answers to such questions. It is the responsibility of the government to provide a thorough explanation of the crash that killed their loved ones.
I am requesting from you that the channel of communication be opened between the D.O.D. and these people. It is the very least we can do for the soldiers who died in that tragic crash.
Looking forward to working with you on this very sensitive matter, I am
Robin Tallon
Member of Congress

House of Representatives
Washington, DC

 July 13, 1989
Hon. Richard Thornburgh 
Department of Justice
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Thornburgh:
 I am writing to you regarding the tragic December 1985 crash of the chartered plane carrying 248 American soldiers in Gander, Newfoundland.
Last week the mother and sister of Captain Kyle Edmonds, of Hartsville, South Carolina, who died in the crash, visited my office. My constituents along with the other families of victims have had little success in obtaining information about the crash from the United States government.
Their determination to learn more about the crash has intensified recently with allegations that point to the possibility that the crash may have been caused by a terrorist act. The United States official conclusion concurs with the report by the Canadian Air Safety Board (CASB) that the crash was caused by wing ice contamination and a flight weight and balance problem. However, four of the nine members of the CASB have dissented from their own report.
In addition, a recent Washington Post column further suggests an association of the Gander crash with the Iran-Contra Scandal. In light of these new allegations, the families of these soldiers deserve accessibility to all relevant information about the death of their loved ones.
It is my understanding that the F.B.I. has a report that is largely censored on the Gander crash. I am requesting the pertinent contents of this report be made available to the families. At the very least, I expect that the Justice Department will open the lines of communication with these families and to work with them to see that their many questions are answered once and for all.
Looking forward to working with you on this very critical matter, I am
Robin Tallon 
Member of Congress

1. Why were air charters used rather than military craft? (Who makes that decision and why is it done?)
2. Why was there such lax security on the plane in Cairo and Cologne? (Why leave it to the charter for security?)
3. If charter flights are to be used why not fly them into military bases rather than into regular airports?
4. Why was the baggage security so lax?
5. What was on the cargo manifest (what did the Army load on the plane)? Why wasn't the cargo manifest released (members of the C.A.S.B. did not have it made available to them.) What is the U.S. Army trying to hide? (What was in the boxes?)
6. How many passengers were onboard the Arrow flight? (One stewardess and pilot who flew the Cairo to Cologne leg, stated that the plane was full. The papers reported for some time after the crash 250 soldiers killed. The autopsy reports listed 258 numbers assigned to bodies and there were two bodies missing from their numbers. This was never adequately explained. Given the time of year, before the holidays, it would seem logical the plane would be full. The soldiers were waiting to get home and some would have been on stand-by, in the event anyone, for any reason, did not take that flight. Where is the passenger manifest?) Who were the other two people on the plane? (256 or 258?)
7. Why did the plane stop in Gander to refuel? Isn't that an unnecessary diversion? Was it to `tanker' fuel and save Arrow air money at the cost of the U.S. Army? Why didn't they fill up in Cologne? Was it because the fuel there is more expensive?
8. Why wasn't the plane maintained more properly?
9. Why all the delays in take-off time?
10. Why weren't the ground crews and maintenance crews questioned in Cairo and Cologne? Who worked on the plane? Who had access to the plane? Were they regular employees or terrorists? Was someone on the plane that should not have been?
11. Why did certain men write or call home and seem upset about something, before the crash? What was wrong? What did they know?
12. Why weren't more Arrow Air pilots questioned? Is it true that Arrow Air was flying into Tehran and Honduras? What for? Were they shipping arms to Iran and the Contras? Where did these arms come from? Were they stockpiled in the Sinai? What was going on at the base in the Sinai?
13. What was the C.I.D. officer bringing home with him? Why did the Pentagon change their story on this man and say that he was only `touring' not assigned in the Sinai, when he was in fact assigned there? Why were members of the 160th task force in the Sinai?
14. Why did Major [General] Crosby order the bulldozing of the crash site the day after the crash, before all the fires were out and all the bodies had been recovered? Was this ordered by the Pentagon? Did the C.A.S.B. or investigators question this request?
15. Why was Arrow Air representatives denied access to the crash site for 9 hours after the crash? Why hasn't the C.A.S.B. commented on this? What was wrong at the crash site they did not want them to see or know?
16. What were the explosions at the crash site after the crash? If there was no arms or explosives aboard, what was it?
17. Why did this particular DC-8 have two additional fire bottles installed in the wheel wells? Was it because the plane was hauling explosives?
17a. Why were the F.B.I. forensic experts denied access to the crash site the entire time they were in Gander? Why did the F.B.I. then say all they did was fingerprint identification and yet they did conduct an investigation (on what was a routine crash) and ask questions pertaining to terrorism. A report was issued some 277 pages long with most blacked out. What is all this about?
18. Why did the C.I.D., D.I.A., C.I.A. and U.S. Army investigate? What did they find? Where is their report? Why wasn't it given to the Canadian investigators and the C.A.S.B.?
18a. If the N.T.S.B. followed along behind the Canadian investigators why didn't they issue a report. They deny one was done. Why didn't they share their findings with the C.A.S.B.?
19. The F.A.A., the D.O.T. the D.O.D. and others did investigations and reports. Where are they? Why didn't the C.A.S.B. see these? Why all the secrecy if it was a routine flight and ice or mechanical failure caused the crash?
20. Why the cause of ice as the cause of the crash? There are twenty witnesses to prove no ice. Weather readings were taken from data 200 miles away from Gander. Planes that took off and landed before and after the Arrow crashed did not de-ice. They did not crash.
21. Why didn't investigators question people at the crash site? Why did they wait days to do it? Why weren't all witnesses called to testify? Why did they treat witnesses in such a casual manner and dismiss their testimony as statistically unfounded? (imagination?)
22. Why weren't ground crew personnel questioned at the public inquiry? Why weren't their testimonies important? Was it because it had already been decided `ice' would be used as the cause?
23. Why were the claims of responsibility (by terrorists) for the crash, dismissed by the U.S. and Canadian Governments before they investigated, two hours later while the fires were burning? How could they know? Wasn't the claim made by one caller even more astonishing, due to the fact he knew the plane was delayed in Cologne? Why such an obviously fast denial? What were they hiding? Who else besides the F.B.I. investigated this? Why did the State Department alert Egypt Air after the crash telling them to watch out for terrorists? (Egypt Air flies them from the camp to Cairo.)
24. Who investigated the possibility of terrorism in Canada? What expertise do they have in terrorism and bombs? Where is their report? Why didn't the C.A.S.B. have access to it?
25. Why was the critical evidence withheld from the C.A.S.B. board? (F.B.I. report, autopsy report, cargo and passenger report, aerial photographs of the crash site, and many others.) How can a thorough investigation be done like this? How can it be done without the reports by the American agencies involved? Especially a military plane.
26. The autopsy reports that were done in Canada were based on questionable data. Many leading forensic pathologists disagree on their findings. The toxicological reports did not prove one way or another that there was or was not . . . a precrash fire or explosion aboard the aircraft. Dr. Sheppard in London, a leading forensic pathologist disagreed with A.F.I.P. findings and those in Canada. His report was never considered. Much mystery and many questions lie unanswered concernings the autopsy reports and the toxicology reports.
27. What happened to the cockpit microphone recording? Was it really turned off or did they not want to reveal what was on it?
28. Why did they fabricate the information given to Dayton, Ohio for computer simulated studies? Were they still trying to prove the ice theory? (This has been proven by the U.S. Airline Pilots Association, it was fabricated.)
29. One fire bottle extinguisher was found to have been discharged before impact and the master fire warning lights were found to be on at time of impact. Why was this key piece of evidence excluded from the investigation? Didn't the fact that the pilot had activated the fire extinguisher and turned on the fire warning light tell them anything?
30. If #4 engine did go in to reverse thrust after takeoff why did C.A.S.B. investigators dismiss it? Why did they dismiss all the data on this theory that fit the actual pattern of impact perfectly? Was it because they were afraid that the manufacturers would then be involved in the investigation and discover that an explosion caused the engine to go into reverse thrust?
31. Why was Mr. Irving Pinkle's report dismissed outright? (He is a world renowned explosives expert and N.A.S.A. specialist with startling credentials. Why weren't the metal tests done that he ordered? Did R.C.M.P really expect to find residue on the metal after the plane burned for 20 hours? The plane parts were left in a hanger in piles. Mr. Pinkle still found a section of aircraft that showed definite signs of an explosion. How could they not consider this if this investigation was thorough? Why didn't they put the plane back together? Why did they bury the wreckage before the investigation was completed? Why did they haul plane parts to Scott Airforce Base in Illinois? Why didn't they tell anyone about this? What did they do with these parts there? Where are the reports on this? Why wasn't C.A.S.B. told? Why Scott Air Force Base? Is it because it is M.A.C. headquarters? What reports did M.A.C. issue? Where did they go? Where are the plane parts now?
32. Why was the project to reconstitute the captain's air speed card, that was found on the yolk in a burned condition cancelled in 1987 by the director of investigation? Was he worried that the results would not fit his icing . . . ?
33. If the plane landed as they said it did, rather than blow up, where were the ground scars from the tail section and landing gear? They never found them. Why was the tail section lying in a clump of trees with all the trees around it standing perfectly straight? (If it landed as they said it did.) There was a tree pierced through the tail section that was still standing straight. Part of the fuselage was laying behind the tail section--doesn't that seem odd?
34. In January of 1986, the Army came back and found another body. This after stating that they had found everyone. They collected every scrap they could find, put it all into bags and left. They never came back or were heard from again. Why didn't the investigators examine all of this? In the Pan Am 103 they examined every shred of evidence. They painstakingly checked every fragment. They reconstructed everything they could. Why not in this case? What was different about this crash, that it should have been handled in this way?
35. Firefighters who worked at the crash site and became ill were studied and found to have `post-traumatic stress disorder'. They suffer from headaches, nausea, blood and liver problems, and yet they never tested their blood, urine or did x-rays of these people. Why not? This study did nothing for these people nor did it determine what might have been on the plane or caused the crash. Was this another cover-up? You bet. If not this is one more doctored report.
36. Why do the members of the Conservative Party and the Minister of Transportation continually refuse to order a full `judicial inquiry' into the cause of the crash? This was the worst crash in Canadian history. They have called for judicial inquiries in past accidents they had the less loss of life. With the tremendous amount of public pressure and political pressure on them to do so, you have to wonder, why? The truth should fear no trial. The answers are obvious--cover-up.
37. Why the lack of interest in our own Government? No one seems to care and no one wants to be bothered. No one wants to know? They already know. Now we want to know.
There are many more questions. The mystery continues and more doubts surface daily. As an American you have to ask yourself, why 256 Americans died in a foreign land, possibly murdered, wouldn't the President want to know sooner than 3 years later? Would he leave it to the Canadians to muck around for all that time to get the result? Or had it already been decided what the cause would be, so the answers really did not matter . . . we believe so. One small statement sums it up perfectly, `It was an orchestrated litany of lies and fabrication'. (Quote: Mr. Ross Stevenson) This was a Canadian and American tragedy, that became a Canadian and American disgrace. Why?
(Dr. and Mrs. J.D. Phillips, founders of Families For Truth About Gander.)[x]
Arrow Air 1285 was destroyed by a fire and explosion, not icing as reported by both Canadian and US governments:   
Scenario #1:  Islamic terrorists (Islamic Jihad or others) destroyed the plane by a bomb planted at the Cairo airport, where a 30-minute blackout occurred during loading and where Egyptian luggage handlers were unsupervised by Americans. One month after the crash, the American embassy in Mauritius received a signed letter "Sons of Zion."  It described how the Arrow Air jet was "sabotaged" by "cold-blooded, premeditative act...a few hours before take-off with the complicity of several Egyptian and Libyan mechanics," according to Roy Rowan, Time, April 27,1992.  (Gene Wheaton’s theory).
Scenario #2: The CIA destroyed the plane by remotely donating incendiary devices and napalm planted in soda cans on the aircraft in Cologne.  The interior of the plane was engulfed in flames almost immediately after take-off at Gander, the apparent consequences of two bomb components in soda cans: those containing explosive incendiary triggers adjacent to others holding napalm-like substance. The detonation of the first instantly ignited and spread a deadly conflagration throughout the body of the aircraft (Don Deveraux’s theory). 

Robert O'Dowd served in the 1st, 3rd and 4th Marine Aircraft Wings during 52 months of active duty in the 1960s. He teamed up with Tim King to write about the environmental contamination of two USMC bases (MCAS El Toro and MCB Camp Lejeune), the use of El Toro to ship weapons to the Contras and cocaine into the US, and the murder of Col. James E. Sabow and others who were threats to blow the whistle on illegal narotrafficking activity in Betrayal: Toxic Exposure of US Marines, Murder and Government Cover-Up (2014).

[i] Interview with Don Deveraux and detailed explanation contained in Deveraux’s memorandum for the file, “Possible Copy-Cat Bombing, dated November 19, 2015.
[ii] Telephone interview with Deveraux, June 2016.
[iii] Deveraux, op. cit. p. 9-10. 
[iv] Ibid, p.10.
[v] Ibid, p.6-7.
[vi] Ibid, p. 7-8.
[vii] Ibid, p. 8.
[viii] Colin Schultz, “For 25 Years, U.S. Special Forces Carried Miniature Nukes on Their Backs: The B-54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition was a nuclear bomb the size of a backpack,”, February 10, 2014,
[ix] Congressional Record, “Gander, Newfoundland, Crash Remains a Mystery to Canadian and American Public (House of Representatives - July 20, 1989),”

[x] Ibid.

No comments:

Post a Comment