| Experts doubt validity on jfk airport plot { June 5 2007 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active) http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=0c27f0a8-5526-471b-b9ea-34bddc324affhttp://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=0c27f0a8-5526-471b-b9ea-34bddc324aff
Experts cast doubt on airport plot Officials accused of pandering to hysteria Agence France Presse
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
NEW YORK - 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.
U.S. authorities said Saturday they had averted an attack that could have resulted in "unfathomable damage, deaths and destruction," and charged four alleged Islamic radicals with conspiracy to cause an explosion at the airport.
But according to the experts, it would have been next to impossible to cause an explosion in the jet fuel tanks and pipeline. The plotters also seem to have lacked the explosives and financial backing to carry out the attack.
John Goglia, a former member of National Transportation Safety Board, said on Monday that if the plot had been carried out, it would likely have sparked a fire but little else, and certainly not the mass carnage authorities described.
"You could definitely reach the tank, definitely start the fire, but to get the kind of explosion that they were thinking that they were going to get ... this is virtually impossible to do," he said.
The fuel pipelines around the airport would burn, rather than explode, because they are a full of fuel and unable to mix with enough oxygen.
"We had a number of fires in the U.S. All that happens is a big fire," he said. "It won't blow up, it will only burn."
Even if the attackers had managed to blow up a fuel tank, the impact would be limited, he said, citing the example of North Vietnamese forces attacking U.S. fuel dumps during the Vietnam War.
"There is a difference between just exploding the tank and a huge explosion. The tank may explode and blow up some metal, but that certainly wouldn't go very far," he said.
His comments contrasted with those of U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf, who insisted that "the devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable."
Jake Magish, an engineer with Supersafe Tank Systems, also cast doubt on the credibility of the plot, saying: "The fantasy that I've heard about the people saying 'They will blow the tank and destroy the airport,' is nonsense."
"There are people there responding to hysteria, I think. ... If someone is successful in blowing a hole into a tank, they will just have a fire from one tank. There is no way for the fire to go from tank to tank, that's nonsense."
Besides the alleged plotters' capability, other questions have focused on the main source in the probe -- a convicted drug dealer who infiltrated the group and whose sentence was pending on his co-operation with police.
Neal Sonnett, a former federal prosecutor, told the New York Times there was also a danger in overstating how serious or sophisticated a plot really was.
"There unfortunately has been a tendency to shout too loudly about such cases," he said. "To the extent that you over-hype a case, you create fear and paranoia," he said.
© The Edmonton Journal 2007
|
|