Mark Hosenball
A car bomb installed in an SUV and driven into a parking spot near New York’s Times Square around dinner time on Saturday was of relatively primitive design and construction. But if it had exploded, it could have created a "big fireball" and spewed out "a lot of shrapnel" which might have killed or maimed many people visiting the busy Manhattan entertainment district, a senior law enforcement tells Declassified. The person or people who constructed and planted the device are presently unknown and there was no advance warning, the official adds.
The official, who asked for anonymity when discussing an ongoing investigation, says that there are indications some trouble was taken to make it difficult for investigators to find the bombers. The vehicle in which the bomb was planted, a Nissan Pathfinder, carried Connecticut license plates. But quick checks on the plates showed that they did not match the bomb-carrying vehicle. When investigators went to examine the unique Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) which car manufacturers stamp on various parts of a vehicle, they found that it had been obliterated--a process which would take some effort, since the VIN is stamped or etched into metal parts. The SUV is now being examined thoroughly at a New York Police Department laboratory, which may be able to retrieve the VIN using scientific methods.
The law enforcement official said that police have retrieved closed circuit TV video showing the SUV being driven onto W. 45th Street from Broadway around 6:28 p.m. on Saturday. It was parked in a spot near Times Square on 45th Street between Seventh and Eighth Avenues--right off the heart of the Times Square crossroads between Seventh Avenue and Broadway. The identity of the driver--even the driver’s gender--cannot be determined from the available video, the official says.
On a Sunday morning talk show, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that there is currently no evidence that the bomb was "anything other than a one-off." But on another show, she said the event was being handled as a "potential terrorist attack ... We're taking this very seriously."
The first alarm call was raised by a horse-riding mounted NYPD officer around 6:34 pm. The report was that a car was filling with smoke.
Examination of the bomb showed its construction was "crude by some standards" though had it worked, it certainly could have done a lot of damage, the official says. The main charge was apparently composed of propane gas cylinders. These in turn were put next to 1-gallon containers of gasoline, which is highly explosive. Unspecified "timing devices" were rigged to send an electrical charge to a cluster of M-80 fireworks, which would have served as the initial detonator. The idea apparently was for the timing devices to trigger the fireworks, which would then ignite the gasoline, which would then detonate the propane tanks.
The bomb design appears to be at least loosely similar to two car bombs which failed to go off during an attempted London attack in June 2007. Somewhat eerily, those bombs were planted near Piccadilly Circus--the heart of a theater and entertainment district, the closest thing London has to Times Square. An Iraqi doctor was later convicted for that attack; he was arrested after he and an accomplice tried to drive a car bomb into Glasgow airport the day after the failed London attacks. The accomplice was killed in the airport-bombing attempt.
Hosenball, Mike. “Time Square Car Bomb Could Have Created ‘Big Fireball.” Blog.Newsweek.com. Newsweek. Web. 2 May 2010.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This article captivates it's audience through fear. It explains and elaborates upon what could have happened, without focusing at all on what actually did happen. Are we so desperate for something horrific and exciting like this that we have to spotlight things that haven't even actually happened?
ReplyDeleteThe article exemplifies the way modern discourse is written by the media perfectly. Details that writers think would be interesting to an audience are played up while pieces of information that are less intriguing are played down. Since the citizens of New York City were fortunate enough not to have been caught up in an actual explosion, Hosenball describes what could have happened and connects the situation to a similar attempted car bombing in London from about three years ago. If someone was reading the article to learn about the investigation surrounding the failed attack, they wouldn't have been able to gather much pertinent information because of the secrecy surrounding the ongoing investigation. The information the author gathered did provide some insight into the case, but the title implies that the focus is on a hypothetical situation rather than the slowly emerging details about potential suspects.
ReplyDeleteThis is how we're taught to write in school. Analyze the situation. Draw conclusions. Look at what could happen.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, this should be caught, convicted, and beaten. If it had worked, I would advocate more beating with a slow death following.
This article is a great way of portraying how the media affects our lives and the lives of those around us. This article is written such that the horrible consequences of what would have happened appear in the first paragraph, inviting and hooking the reader into the article. From here, the event is explained in as much detail as was possible at the time. The major problem with this was the inclusion of an unknown 'person or people.' Today, we can see the affect this piece of discourse had on the person involved in this incident. Since discourse is so eager to hear, report, and gossip about events such as the one described above, secret information about the investigation leaked out to the public. News reports were televised about a possible "Pakistani man" from origins in "Connecticut" that was a "person of interest" in the case. Obviously, the man saw these reports and attempted to leave the country. We would've almost lost the man responsible for an attempted terrorist attack. The media and discourse in general has no retention or privacy; everything must be told even if the criminal is watching and tries to run away. Modern discourse has no restrictions as clearly shown by this article.
ReplyDelete