Itavia 870 accident, 27 June 1980 (warning:long)

H3llR4iser

Hello fellow aviation enthusiasts,

I wish to hear your opinions about this event which was just brought back to my attention. Last night, upon coming home, I took a look on YouTube and found a few episodes from Season 13 of "Air Crash Investigation" were available to view. Scrolling through the titles, episode 6 caught my attention as it's an aviation incident I am extremely familiar with.

See, I was born in Italy in 1980, therefore "la strage di Ustica" (the massacre of Ustica) is something that has "always been there" for me; Essentially, for as long as I have memory I have been hearing about the events that took place on June 27, 1980, the relevant investigation(s), the court proceedings and so on. In Italy, it has been regularly in the news for the last 30 odd years.

So I sit down and watch the episode; What I was about to hear was quite a bit of a shock. Just like the vast, vast, vast majority of the Italian public, I thought I knew a few proven facts about what happened to flight IH 870, carried by DC-9 I-TIGI:

1. The airliner was brought down by an abrupt event;
2. Such abrupt event was the detonation of an air-to-air weapon, either on contact or close proximity of the airliner;
3. The scenario involving the detonation of an explosive device on board the DC-9 was proven wrong beyond doubt by a technical inspection on the wreckage, which also found out an explosion happened outside the plane;
4. There are radar records showing a number of smaller aircraft maneuvering in the area at high speed around the time ATC lost contact with IH 870;
5. The smaller aircraft were proven to be, beyond possible doubt, NATO interceptors (French Dassault Mirages and US Navy F16s) engaged in a dogfight with one or more Lybian MiG-23s;
6. One of the MiG-23s pilots tried to put the DC-9 between himself and the interceptors, using the airliner's radar return as a cover for his own;
7. One of the interceptors, most likely a Mirage, launched a missile which was mistakenly locked on IH 870 rathen than the MiG-23;
8. That a Lybian MiG-23 was found crashed on a mountain in southern Italy on July 18, 1980; Upon inspection of the wreckage and the pilot's corpse, it was determined the jet fighter was shoot down and crashed about three weeks earlier, putting it in the aerial dogfight described above;
9. That notwithstanding all the facts above had emerged, it is to this day impossible to positively identify who authorized the military operation, the specific airplanes involved, which plane fired the missile that hit I-TIGI and what type of missile it was, as a military coverup had taken place to keep these details hidden;

All of a sudden, after 44 minutes of a TV show, a couple of guys are telling me everything I and another 50 odd million people know is, in fact, wrong; Most likely the result of a fatal combination of technical incompetence, populism and media sensationalism. Reality stands as such:

1. DC-9 I-TIGI was indeed brought down by an abrupt event;
2. That such event was the detonation of an explosive device in the aft lavatory;
3. That hard, factual, scientific evidence from the analysis of the recovered wreckage and passengers bodies is compatible with the "bomb in the lavatory" scenario and categorically excludes the possibility of an external explosion;
4. There is no such thing as a radar record showing other aerial activity around the DC-9;
5. There were no F-16s, Mirages nor MiG-23s involved;
6. Of course, no Lybian MiG-23 tried to use the airliner as a radar shield;
7. No missile was ever fired during the occurrence;
8. The MiG-23 wreckage on the mountains has no relation with the incident and in a completely separate occurrence;
9. That there has been indeed some sort of cover up but it had gone the exact opposite way than everybody thinks: it was dedicated to deny the bomb scenario and try to blame the US or French military for the accident;

My initial reaction was of skepticism; I had been following the whole investigation and proceedings since I was 10 or so, I heard anything and everything about it, and that surely the show was trying to be sensationalistic. Then I got a bit more information about this Frank Taylor guy from ACI; Turns out he's the real deal, investigated the Lockerbie bombings, no less.

At this point my curiosity is prickled up and I go searching for records and documentation. Frank Taylor and his team seem to be quite right: there is little or no actual evidence for the missile strike scenario. Almost every single piece of hard evidence, from the damage patterns on the fuselage to the type of injuries on the passengers, points directly to the "bomb on board" possibility, with striking similarities to other events of the same type - including Lockerbie. The MiG-23 wreckage had nothing to do with the airliner's doom; In fact, there were over 20 eyewitnesses who saw the military jet crash and start a small fire on July 18th; The local fire department received reports of the fire the same day and that the autopsy of the pilot, conducted on July 23rd, confirmed beyond doubt he had died about 5 days earlier, not three weeks.

Another thing that seems to be quite clear from many of the documents is that, with the exception of Taylor and his team, the investigation was mostly conducted by officials with no expertise whatsoever regarding aviation incidents.

In the end, most of the proven facts make the "missile strike" scenario sound like perfect food for conspiracy theorists; Almost on level with the "chemtrail" bullcr@p. Yet the Italian press, Courts and Government embraced it fully, covered their ears when they were told "you are wrong", and ultimately forced it on everybody with rulings.

I would be really curious to know what is thought about the whole incident outside of Italy, what kind of news were available and how they were related.

There is also the burning question about "why try to deny a terrorist act?" standing, but that's open for a bit too much speculation, I'm afraid.

Sorry about the extremely long post, but there was no way to make it short without leaving important bits out.

keith16

I watched this episode recently too. Without knowing anything about the incident, my gut armchair analysis was that the Italian government may have been pushing the "shot down" theory as it suited then politically?

EchoIndia

The recent TV programme gave what seemed to be a dispassionate account of the event and what happened subsequently. The conclusions drawn by external experts who had no stake in a particular outcome seemed quite convincing, especially as they had obtained so much of the wreckage and were able to use well-known techniques to attempt to assess what sort of explosion was involved.

FWVT

My substantial experience of Italy has taught me that it is one of the most corrupt countries in the western world, and the media are extremely quick to paint pieces of info as "facts" long before any investigations are conducted. I've nothing against Italy (I'm married to an Italian) but unfortunately I see it as on a par with some eastern European or African countries and would be very sceptical of any official or judicial proceedings.

That is my opinion in answer to thebOP's question.

cml387

They were dark times in Italy.
1980 was also the year of the Bolgna station bomb.

H3llR4iser

keith16 wrote: »

I watched this episode recently too. Without knowing anything about the incident, my gut armchair analysis was that the Italian government may have been pushing the "shot down" theory as it suited then politically?

And that would be a reasonable explanation; However, the reasons for it are beyond obscure as the "shot down" scenario also casts a lot of shadows on the Italian Air Force, which has been extensively probed, accused of coverup and whatnot, and even the Government itself.

most importantly, the theory of the missile was initially proposed by the public - journalist Andrea Purgatori above all, whose articles about the whole proceedings are unprofessional at best: to this day he keeps openly mocking Taylor and his team, calling him "Mr. Lockerbie", belittling any of his previous accomplishments with no basis whatsoever and generally dismissing any hard evidence as "just coverup". It was Purgatori who ended up whipping up the victim's families on the "missile" idea, up to the point that they won't accept any other possibility.

In a nutshell, the really amazing thing in this case is that the conspiracy theory, proposed by what would normally be brushed off as lunatics, became the official explanation!

EchoIndia wrote: »

The recent TV programme gave what seemed to be a dispassionate account of the event and what happened subsequently. The conclusions drawn by external experts who had no stake in a particular outcome seemed quite convincing, especially as they had obtained so much of the wreckage and were able to use well-known techniques to attempt to assess what sort of explosion was involved.

And one that I now, after reviewing a lot of documentation, agree upon.

One interesting detail that wasn't shown in the program was that many of the "facts" that are used to discredit the bomb scenario are not facts at all; More clutching at straws.

An example above all, many commentators (including Andrea Purgatori) claim the bomb scenario is impossible because the toilette seat was found intact at the bottom of the ocean. Furthermore, there was supposedly a woman with a leg cast sitting in the last row near the toilette and the cast was intact on her body. So, in their minds, an explosive device that made enough structural damage to bring down a plane could not possibly leave a plastic toilette or a cast intact. Assumptions that are completely arbitrary and ignore a few facts:

- All the damage needed to bring down an airliner is a compromised aft bulkhead (as the inspection found), not a catastrophic blast that incinerates everything in a 20 meters radius;

- It is a known fact that objects considered fragile have been found intact or nearly so on the scene of other aviation accidents; Sheets of paper, personal effects and even passports laying unscathed in the middle of a blazing inferno that incinerated metal and human flesh alike. Not frequent, but hardly unheard of;

- Last but certainly not unlikely, somebody might have been sitting on the toilet at the moment of the explosion, shielding its seat from it...

sully2010

Italys justice system has a terrible reputation internationally, they are known for dithering, cover ups, false imprisonments, people in power getting away scot free from big crimes..the list goes on. As the guy said at the end of the programme, "Italy is probably the world place in the world to be in a plane crash"

I would say it is one of 2 things. They wanted to save face for making a complete balls of the investigation and continue blaming the missile for bringing it down or they had something to do with the bomb for some other agenda they may have had. We have to remember here the mafia are connected to the highest levels of power in Italy, even today so corruption is as rife now as it was 100 years ago. There was rumours that the bologna bomb that year had connections to the Italian secret service who no doubt have big connections with the mafia.

As much as I love Italy I would dread the day that I had to face authorities of any kind for any reason while there, horror show.

folbotcar

I saw the same programme recently. Prior to that I knew little about the crash. So had no pre conceptions. The conclusion of the final investigation with the British investigator is compelling and probably exactly what happened.

But by then it was all too late. The more 'sexy' conclusion that it was a missile hit had gained to much credibility in the excitable world of Italian politics and media.

I don't think so much that it's a cover up of a terrorist bomb. After all at the time there was a spate of terrorism in Italy. So it would have fitted with the general situation at the time.

The dogfight idea lacks plausibility anyway.

What is interesting is the finding of the crashed Mig and pilot in Italy. What was the story with that? That seems to be lost in fog of confusion surrounding the topic. Was he shot down by NATO? Maybe he was defecting and shot down by his own. There is a story there alright.

ChicaneAuto

I read this theory once on it.
Hard to confirm reports of declassified Libyan files though!

http://www.shoah.org.uk/2012/08/27/botched-1980-gaddafi-assassination-kills-all-aboard/

folbotcar

Difficult to that website seriously when other stories on the page tell us that the Saudi royal family is Jewish and the attack on the soldier in London was a hoax.

Their relationship with the truth is shaky to say the least.

H3llR4iser

folbotcar wrote: »

I saw the same programme recently. Prior to that I knew little about the crash. So had no pre conceptions. The conclusion of the final investigation with the British investigator is compelling and probably exactly what happened.

But by then it was all too late. The more 'sexy' conclusion that it was a missile hit had gained to much credibility in the excitable world of Italian politics and media.

I don't think so much that it's a cover up of a terrorist bomb. After all at the time there was a spate of terrorism in Italy. So it would have fitted with the general situation at the time.

The dogfight idea lacks plausibility anyway.

What is interesting is the finding of the crashed Mig and pilot in Italy. What was the story with that? That seems to be lost in fog of confusion surrounding the topic. Was he shot down by NATO? Maybe he was defecting and shot down by his own. There is a story there alright.

It's a story almost as long as the one for IH 870; Trying to make it short, the MiG-23 wreck was discovered by a farmer on July 18th, but those who propose the "missile scenario" claim the fighter jet actually crashed on June 27th, either shoot down by a NATO interceptor or because of a maneuvering error while trying to avoid detection by flying low, the Italian Air Force knew, removed the pilot's body preserving it in a freezer and then placed it back on the scene just in time for the discovery to be made.

It all sparks from the fact the autopsy reports on the pilot's body was extremely confusional and the testimony of a few conscripts who claimed they'd be tasked to guard the crash site on June 28th.

The official reports from the crash site reports the airplane as sporting a camouflage paint scheme, carrying no ordnance nor auxiliary fuel tanks, and that only a very small fire was present as the main fuel tanks were empty; In contrast, after some time officers and member of the public claimed the aircraft was actually light blue/grey, it carried weapons and that it was clear it had been shoot down due to some caliber 20 bullet holes and the fact it still had fuel on board.

Obvious the doubts stand: how could a crash site, with a 16 meters long jet laying in it, remain undiscovered for over 20 days in an area that, albeit sparsely, was populated? And how would the Air Force first remove and then plant the pilot's body again without anybody seeing? Moreover, can a fighter jet really crash with fuel and weapons on board without causing a raging fire?

keith16

EchoIndia wrote: »

The recent TV programme gave what seemed to be a dispassionate account of the event and what happened subsequently.

It's one aspect of the show that I admire. They are only interested in presenting the truth. Highly respectable in their presentation.

The show that covered the Polish Presidents crash was handled brilliantly IMO. At the start of the program, they presented the context of the Katyn WW2 massacre and it was done in very good taste.

The episode was premiered in Poland (another nice touch) but they didn't sugar coat it.

There was outrage in certain Polish political parties in reaction to the show, with some even claiming the show was funded by Moscow in order to divert attention away from their favoured theories (that the Russians effectively assassinated the Polish president).

Thankfully, those notions were kept well away from the official investigation and the Russian and Polish teams worked well together.

I guess with this aircraft crashing in Italy (and not another country) meant the investigation could be more readily compromised.

H3llR4iser

keith16 wrote: »

...The episode was premiered in Poland (another nice touch) but they didn't sugar coat it...

There is a channel airing Air Crash Investigation in Italy, I found out in December while I was there. An episode I watched one evening was the Everglade crash of the L1011, which I think was from a few years ago. It'll be some time before they air S13e06, and I would be curious to see if they:

A. Air it at all;
B. Modify the plot in the dubbing, making it so that the missile theory surfaces with no criticism;
C. Leave it as it is;

I think scenario A is the most likely; C would probably cause an uproar, with Parliamentary inquests and the victim's families suing National Geographic...