Experts cast doubt on credibility of JFK terror plot

An alleged plot to blow up fuel tanks and pipelines at New York's JFK airport had little chance of success, according to safety experts, who have questioned whether the plot ever posed a real threat Full Story »

Posted by Dwight Rousu
Tags Help
Subjects: World, U.S.
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Dwight Rousu - Jun 5, 2007 - 10:58 PM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Kaizar Campwala - Jun 6, 2007 - 5:41 AM PDT

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Member_photo_thumb
3.9
by Kaizar Campwala - Jun. 6, 2007

Should have included a response from the government, explaining the strong statements by the US Attorney.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Silhouette_sml
2.6
by Benjamin Buttons - Jun. 6, 2007

It's laudable that story names its "expert" sources. It's not so laudable that the prosecutor is the only person to be contrasted with the experts claiming the plot's severity is "overblown." That gives a perhaps intentionally misleading notion that no one other than someone personally invested in the outcome would take this case seriously. It implicitly casts the prosecutor's "nonexpert" opinion as being totally contradicted by transportation "expert" opinion, by the rhetorical ... More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Member_photo_thumb
4.4
by Dwight Rousu - Jun. 5, 2007

After days of shouting "terrorists" and loud thumping of chests, somebody consulted experts. Good sources and clear story.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.2
by Mario Lozada - Jun. 6, 2007
See Full Review » (6 answers)
Silhouette_sml
1.0
by Terry Hinshaw - Jun. 6, 2007

The lesson one could take from this story is: Let's abandon attempts to prevent terrorist acts and just get involved AFTER they succeed.

See Full Review » (3 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.8

Good
from 5 reviews (confidence not calculated)
Quality
3.9
Facts
3.7
Fairness
3.8
Information
4.2
Sourcing
4.5
Style
4.0
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
2.7
Context
3.2
Popularity
3.5
Recommendation
3.2
Credibility
3.0
# Reviews
2.5
# Views
1.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!