Another reason why the NYT is a disgrace

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

2861U2

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
4,321
Location
watching the Cubs
NEW YORK TIMES BURIES JFK PLOT STORY


A major terror plot to blow up fuel tanks and a pipeline feeding New York’s JFK airport and nearby residential communities made front-page news this weekend across the nation. The terror story also led all the major network and cable news shows.

But The New York Times didn’t think the story was so important.

In fact, on Sunday the country’s leading liberal daily carried a simple one-paragraph reference to the story on its first page, buried in the news brief section. The Times brief said the plot posed "no imminent danger.”

The front-page brief referred the reader to a full story on Page 30 in the "New York Metro" section of the day’s paper.

Interestingly, the Times story acknowledged the seriousness of the threat, noting that one of the four suspects in the plot, Russell Defreitas, had boasted that the destruction at the airport would be so vast that "even the twin towers can’t touch it.”

The Times reported: "Officials said the four men determined to carry out their attack, having conducted ‘precise and extensive’ surveillance of the airport using photographs, video . . . and satellite images downloaded from Google Earth.

"They said the men had also traveled repeatedly to Guyana and Trinidad in recent months, seeking to obtain the blessing and financial backing of an extremist Muslim group based in Trinidad and Tobago called Jamaat al-Muslimeen, which was behind a failed coup attempt in Trinidad in 1990.

But in downplaying the story, the Times stressed that the airport was "never in imminent danger because the plot was only in a preliminary phase.”

What did the Times deem fit to print on its front page? The two featured stories on the page were headlined: "A legal debate in Guantanamo on boy fighters” and "President’s push on immigration tests GOP base.”

********

Don't tell me the NYT is not trying to downplay the war on terror. There is no excuse for this. It sure looks like the main newspaper of the city home to 9/11 and mere minutes away from JFK doesn't think this story is important enough.

And page 30? I cant imagine many people read all the way to page 30 of a newspaper as thick as the NYT.
 
Interesting point. This was a big deal, but as you know the NYT is a liberal paper and to give credence to a gov't they don't care for would be beyond them.
 
odowdpa said:
but as you know the NYT is a liberal paper and to give credence to a gov't they don't care for would be beyond them.

:rolleyes:

How much of a story is a thwarted attack? How much evidence of this attack do we have? Do you know how many thwarted attacks have turned out to almost completely bogus or exagerated at the very least?
 
2861U2 said:


Don't tell me the NYT is not trying to downplay the war on terror. There is no excuse for this.

Maybe if they would print those satellite images you have they would be a much more respectable paper.
 
How much of a story is a potential attack on the fuel lines of one of the busiest airports in America? Not important at all, I suppose. You're right, I'll take my seat.
 
Thank goodness for the wisdom of the Patriot Act, and that it still exists:up:

I'm sure porn lovers and other online degenerates may have an issues with and struggle with the benefits of national security implemented by the Patriot Act:up:

dbs
 
odowdpa said:
How much of a story is a potential attack on the fuel lines of one of the busiest airports in America?

Did you read my whole post? How much evidence of supposed attack did Fox or any other news outlets have?
 
But thats what makes it a great story. Dig, report, find out whats going on here. I personally dont care what FOX or whatever cable outlet is saying. Just report what is going on. JFK is obviously a very important hub in NYC and a lot of people have these types of fears. it's good to put all of the info out there instead of burying it or not considering its news-worthy. You know the WSJ took a different stance, but thats to be expected.
 
odowdpa said:
But thats what makes it a great story. Dig, report, find out whats going on here. I personally dont care what FOX or whatever cable outlet is saying. Just report what is going on.

Just the straight information

nothing sensational, exaggerated-
to serve an agenda

and certainly don't bury it
or under report it
because it could help someone you don't support?
 
diamond said:


They surveilled them for a year Einstein.
Where have you been?

dbs

Read my question again, I asked for specifics, hence the word "exaclty".

"Surveillance" isn't an answer. Surveillance can be used without the Patriot Act. I haven't seen any specifics as to what means were used, but obviously you do, so please share.
 
deep said:


Just the straight information

nothing sensational, exaggerated-
to serve an agenda

and certainly don't bury it
or under report it
because it could help someone you don't support?



:up:

these very lines are posted in *every* cubicle in FoxNews HQ.

right along with the Citibank terrorist threat that magically happened the day after Kerry announced Edwards as his running mate.

(and, praytell, what are the other reasons why the NYT -- widely considered the finest newspaper on earth -- is a disgrace?)
 
diamond said:
Thank goodness for the wisdom of the Patriot Act, and that it still exists:up:

I'm sure porn lovers and other online degenerates may have an issues with and struggle with the benefits of national security implemented by the Patriot Act:up:



and, deep down, i always knew you were a liberal -- you trust government to know what's best, and to do what's best, and to never, ever grant themselves powers that they would never, ever misuse for political purposes. since we're on the topic of expanding the powers of government to decide what's best for people, tell me, what part of socialized health care excites you the most?
 
If you are a patriot and you love America
this is the type of reporting we need!!!


Plot To Blow Up JFK Could've Been Worse Than 9/11


NEW YORK CITY - Federal authorities announced Saturday they had broken up a suspected Muslim terrorist cell planning a "chilling" attack to destroy John F. Kennedy International Airport, kill thousands of people and trigger an economic catastrophe by blowing up a jet fuel artery that runs through populous residential neighborhoods.

Three men, one of them a former member of Guyana's parliament, were arrested and one was being sought in Trinidad as part of a plot that authorities said they had been tracked for more than a year and was foiled in the planning stages.

"The devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable," U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf said at a news conference, calling it "one of the most chilling plots imaginable."

In an indictment charging the four men, one of them is quoted as saying the foiled plot would "cause greater destruction than in the Sept. 11 attacks," destroying the airport, killing several thousand people and destroying parts of New York's borough of Queens, where the line runs underground.
 
Irvine511 said:




and, deep down, i always knew you were a liberal -- you trust government to know what's best, and to do what's best, and to never, ever grant themselves powers that they would never, ever misuse for political purposes. since we're on the topic of expanding the powers of government to decide what's best for people, tell me, what part of socialized health care excites you the most?

my liberalism has too much moxie for you.:sexywink:

..and in my liberal thinking, the health care i want is the one that allows me as well as indivuals like you to have the freedom to choose which health care suits them the best, not some blanket program that is forced on somebody.

each person's situation is different, therefore freedom of choice re healthcare coverage is important.



frisky for a monday now aren't we?

dbs
 
Last edited:
If you are NOT a patriot and you care more about Muslims
and people that hate FREEDOM you like to read these kinds of articles!!!




Alleged plot's damage would have been limited

Jet fuel doesn't explode easily, experts say, and fire would not have spread along airport pipelines.


By Megan Garvey
Times Staff Writer

June 3, 2007

The premise is right out of a disaster movie: Ignite the massive fuel tanks required to keep an international airport up and running each day, stand back, and watch a chain reaction of explosions throughout the labyrinth of pipelines running underneath the tarmac.

But aviation experts cautioned Saturday that the alleged plot targeting John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York would have faced many hurdles, not least of which is the fact that jet fuel does not easily explode.

"The level of catastrophe that may be created is much more limited than most people would expect," said Rafi Ron, former head of security at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport. "The fuel that we are talking about is mostly jet fuel, which, unlike the gasoline most people put into their cars, is not that susceptible to explosion."

That difficulty apparently concerned one of the alleged plotters — an engineer who, federal authorities said in their complaint, explained to his associates that the tanks at JFK would probably require two explosions to provide enough oxygen to ignite the fuel.

But even then, aviation security experts said, fire would not have spread through the pressurized pipelines that bring fuel out to airplanes parked at gates.

"The probability that an explosion would travel through the pipeline and destroy targets along the tarmac is almost nil," said Ron, now president of New Age Security Solutions in Rockville, Md. "The exception would be pipelines that are not in use and contain vapor."

Jet fuel is similar to kerosene and, unlike gasoline, requires very high temperatures to burn. Unless it is in vapor or mist form — which can occur in a plane crash — jet fuel does not explode. Additives raise the flashpoint of jet fuel, further reducing the likelihood that it will burn, experts said.

Major airports worldwide use holding tanks and pipelines, usually underground, in a hydrant system that pumps fuel directly to the gates where airplanes are refueled. Readily available fuel is crucial to smooth operations.

A single long-range Boeing 747 jumbo jet such as those used to fly from Los Angeles to Melbourne, Australia, can hold more than 63,500 gallons. At Los Angeles International Airport, about 6 million gallons of jet fuel are stored on site and used daily, officials familiar with airport operations said. In addition, three pipelines carry off-site fuel to the airport.

The need to have so much fuel on hand has long created safety concerns. In Los Angeles, vulnerability to earthquake damage led to the creation of checks and balances for the airport's fuel supplies.

The LAX fuel line system is computer-controlled, with sensors constantly monitoring pressure and temperature. The tanks, which have internal bladders to ensure that oxygen does not reach the liquid fuel, are designed to contain ruptures. The tanks also spray fire-retardant foam if the temperature rises above a specified level. Changes in pressure along the pipeline would trigger an immediate shutdown of that segment, according to officials familiar with airport operations.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, airport security has added barriers to protect the fuel tanks.

LAX officials said Saturday that they had been in contact with international and federal law enforcement officials and were monitoring developments in the alleged JFK plot.

"We have added personnel and other resources according to established procedures until we learn more about the alleged terrorist plot," Los Angeles World Airports officials said in a statement. "Additional measures will be unnoticed by the public. There are no current threats against any LAWA facilities, and all airport operations are normal."

Ron, the aviation security expert, said that although the alleged plot was unlikely to have caused extensive damage, it should be taken seriously.

"For the last six years, most security has been focused at protection of aircraft and the screening of passengers," said Ron who helped revamp security at Boston's Logan International Airport after Sept. 11. "It's not enough to screen passengers — we need to protect the airports."
 
Deep,

are you saying Muslims hate freedom?

And even Hillary Clinton says were safer today since 911 and you can attribute that to Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, whether you want to or not.

Those 2 items did not exist Sept 10th 2001.

That said if these guys were "bumbler terrorists"" it still sends a message out to "professional terrorists" that it will be extremely difficult with the beefed up security that this administration has implemented.



dbs
 
Last edited:
the disgraceful NYTimes speaks:

[q]Papers Portray Plot as More Talk Than Action

By MICHAEL POWELL and WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
The plot as painted by law enforcement officials was cataclysmic: A home-grown Islamic terrorist had in mind detonating fuel storage tanks and pipelines and setting fire to Kennedy International Airport, not to mention a substantial swath of Queens.

“Had the plot been carried out, it could have resulted in unfathomable damage, deaths and destruction,” Roslynn R. Mauskopf, the United States attorney in Brooklyn, said in a news release that announced charges against four men. She added at a news conference, “The devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded are just unthinkable.”

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly then stepped to the lectern with a vision only a bit less grim.

“Once again, would-be terrorists have put New York City in their crosshairs,” he said. Mr. Kelly said a disaster had been averted.

But the criminal complaint filed by the federal authorities against the four defendants in the case — one of them, Abdel Nur, remained at large yesterday — suggests a less than mature terror plan, a proposed effort longer on evil intent than on operational capability.

(Ms. Mauskopf noted in her news release that the “public was never at risk” and told reporters that law enforcement “had stopped this plot long before it ever had a chance to be carried out.”)

At its heart was a 63-year-old retired airport cargo worker, Russell M. Defreitas, who the complaint says talked of his dreams of inflicting massive harm, but who appeared to possess little money, uncertain training and no known background in planning a terror attack.

“Capability low, intent very high,” a law enforcement official said of the suspects.[/q]
 
diamond said:
Deep,

are you saying Muslims hate freedom?

dbs

Don't be silly


Bush and Cheney proved they love freedom and democracy

Just look at Iraq, they had a democratic election and that solved everything, all their difference just melted away,
women have full equality, they have schools open every where. There is a true renaissance going on in Iraq.
And it is spreading throughout the middle-
East. Everything, Wolvewitz, Cheney and the NeoCons said was true.


It is kind of like when the Berlin Wall came down and Poland. All the Eastern Bloc communist regimes soon collapsed.

It was so obvious, it would go this way.
 
deep said:


Don't be silly


Bush and Cheney proved they love freedom and democracy

Just look at Iraq, they had a democratic election and that solved everything, all their difference just melted away,
women have full equality, they have schools open every where. There is a true renaissance going on in Iraq.
And it is spreading throughout the middle-
East. Everything, Wolvewitz, Cheney and the NeoCons said was true.


It is kind of like when the Berlin Wall came down and Poland. All the Eastern Bloc communist regimes soon collapsed.



It was so obvious, it would go this way.

Deep,

Please stay on topic and in the country and terrorist plot we're talking about.

Hillary Clinton says were safer today since 911 and you can attribute that to Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, whether you want to or not.

Those 2 items did not exist Sept 10th 2001.

That said if these guys were "bumbler terrorists"" it still sends a message out to "professional terrorists" that it will be extremely difficult with the beefed up security that this administration has implemented.



dbs
 
Irvine511 said:
the disgraceful NYTimes speaks:


and if you read the second article I posted

even if they executed,
what this old man was day dreaming about

it would not have even happened






something else, this process was driven by an informant that had serious charges reduced for getting involved


I really don't know what happened here

but this informant my have ginned up this whole process to have something to barter with.


This administration has over-charged and exaterated many cases to justify how they operate
 
Last edited:
deep said:

something else, this process was driven by an informant that had serious charges reduced for getting involved



tony_soprano.jpg




that's my theory as to what's going to happen next Sunday.
 
diamond said:
Thank goodness for the wisdom of the Patriot Act, and that it still exists:up:

I'm sure porn lovers and other online degenerates may have an issues with and struggle with the benefits of national security implemented by the Patriot Act:up:

dbs
My opposition to the USA PATRIOT act is seperate from my appreciation of erotica :sexywink:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom