Posted to Dailykos September 28, 2011, 9:00 Pacific Time
Here's the article released two hours ago in the N.Y.Times on line:
Man Is Held in a Plan to Bomb Washington with this first paragraph:
BOSTON — A 26-year-old man from a town west of Boston was charged Wednesday with plotting to blow up the Pentagon and the United States Capitol using remote-controlled aircraft filled with plastic explosives.
This section about the AP article was added to this diary on 9AM on the 29th, after most comments were posted.
This S.F. Gate article, printed the A.P. Report, that while similar to the Time's provided more accurate information and clearly conveyed that these were model planes.
The Times article in describing what was given to the alleged terrorist stated, "and even
an F-86 remote-controlled aircraft. "And even" means surprisingly or exceptionally, not appropriate for describing a $100 item available at a hobby store. In addition the introduction in The Times was in the editorial voice describing was was prevented as , "to blow up the Pentagon and the United States Capitol" while the AP article expressed this using the subjects own words conveying how they were unrealistic and even deranged: "Ferdaus allegedly said he was skilled in operating remote vehicles, and wanted to hit the Pentagon and blow the Capitol dome to "smithereens." The AP article also had a paragraph on the endemic issue of entrapment.
Also explored on comments here are those that argue that this case is more solid than other previous ones. Note those below by user, "G2Geek with expert description of the technology and severity of the damage of such miniature planes.
I've sent an email with this link to the N.Y. Times public editor, and will post any reply.
Let's look at some of the text of the Times article:
The arrest was the result of an undercover F.B.I. operation that included a cooperating witness with a criminal record, according to Richard DesLauriers, the special agent in charge of the F.B.I. office in Boston.......
His alleged plan to attack the Pentagon — detailed on two thumb drives that he delivered to the undercover agents, the affidavit said — involved using three remote-controlled planes, similar to military drones, guided by GPS equipment.-not in AP story
-snip
In what seems an elaborate operation, undercover F.B.I. agents who had been talking to Mr. Ferdaus for months provided him with some of the necessary components for his planned attack, including six assault rifles, three grenades, 25 pounds of C-4 plastic explosives and even an F-86 remote-controlled aircraft. The explosives and guns were provided on Wednesday just before his arrest, law enforcement officials said.
I know a little about drones, and never heard of an F-86 model. The only F-86 that I knew about was a Korean war vintage jet, that had mechanical avionic controls and could never be adopted for a remote control operation.
I did know, from articles and a PBS Frontline episode that the vast majority of early reports of prevented terrorist attacks with descriptions of the great potential devastation, after years of pre-trial detention, the accused was often released or tried for greatly reduced crimes. Could we still be doing this?
What about "the F-86 remote-controlled aircraft" one of three that was going to be supplied. I googled "F-86 drone." And here's what came up with.
It turns out that there were F-86 drones used as target planes during the 1970s. To operate them required a ground crew of several highly trained technicians, and it is doubtful that any of these plaines are still functional if they exist. Here's a video of them in operation.
However, this makes the caption in the Times photo that a "real version" of the model was conveyed to the accused more plausible.
To compound the error by the Times, page three of the press release on this by the DOJ (available on this site)never said that the plane (real or model) was given to the accused, but that he purchased it himself. This press release was the only information that news agencies had about this investigation and indictment.
It looks like what we are talking about are model airplanes weighing 13.8 pounds. (see diagram in 7th picture in the link above) Yes, given that they might be able to carry five pounds of plastic explosive they could cause damage, and possibly even deaths, but to "blow up the Pentagon and the United States Capitol" as the first paragraph states, well that doesn't seem possible.
Read the article. It looks like the reporter and the editor did believe that this was a full size aircraft. Note also the photo in the article of a model plane with this caption:
U.S. Department of Justice, via Reuters
A model of an F-86 drone, a real version of which was reportedly given to the suspect.
Maybe we will get some clarification when the day shift reports to the Times tomorrow.
-----------------
-----------------
It appears based on my observations and by those with expertise in this field, mainly G2Geek comments below, that this Times report was confusing and misleading. I wrote to the Time's Ombudsman, or Public Editor and received no answer in a weeks time, not even that they erred, and are taking steps to prevent such errors in the future. There has been no correction in the on line article. Here is the substance of the two letters that I wrote to him :
----------
9-29-2011
Arthur S. Brisbane
Public Editor
N.Y.Times
Dear Sir,
As a long time subscriber, I have to note the defects of this article when compared to the same story from the same sources by the AP
I expressed it in this blog article, FBI at it again, Drone or Model Plane?, which lays out the case clearly. This would have been a good article to have had comments appended, as some of the enhancements that appeared in my blog article would have been available to the Times readership.
Here was the most trenchant comment from someone who had worked in this field:
it would seem that NYT just shot itself in the foot in terms of credibility with people who know anything about the subject matter. And here I'm not talking about SMEs (subject-matter experts), but anyone who knows anything about this stuff.
If that story isn't retracted or updated or something new published that admits the error, then one or both of two things:
a) Some part of the low-information public becomes convinced that this guy was going to fly a full-sized aircraft into a building by remote control.
b) Some part of the low-information public gets hyped about the case and then when they get the actual news, they get all "disappointed" or whatever you call it, and get a tendency to dismiss further such cases as crying wolf.
Neither of those is a good outcome.
What we want the public to understand is that this is a significant type of threat, but by no means the size of threat that would be involved if real aircraft were being used.
That said, a real aircraft can be outfitted with remote control equipment and flown remotely. And if you were to load that up with any decent explosive, yes it would be a large mass-casualty attack, on the order of hundreds of fatalities depending on targeting. For example aim for the glass dome over a large shopping mall the day after Thanksgiving. And hitting a shopping mall on that day would also kill the Holiday Shopping Season and plunge the retail sector into a recession, with ripple effects throughout the economy.
The necessary answer to all of these types of threats is the swiftness and sureness of detection, prosecution, conviction, and lengthy prison sentences. Anybody who looks forward to martyrdom should instead be given to understand that they will die of old age, behind bars, a complete failure.
I look forward to a prompt reply
Al Rodbell
Encinitas CA