>...one source intentionally gave a false story, another described an unrelated attack, and the third merely commented on the technical possibility ... Yep, th

>...one source intentionally gave a false story, another described an unrelated attack, and the third merely commented on the technical possibility ... Yep, that is very likely for 3 sources, but they (assertedly) had 17. It is really hard to believe to the story, still, besides the journalists/authors there are editors and I cannot believe that - given the relevance of this story - it was not double/triple checked and approved for publishing only after a throroughful review.