WRAL.com56%

Video shows unfazed passersby during fiery attack on New York federal building by ex-soldier 21%

By JAIMIE DING — Associated Press0%

7/22/2026, 11:58:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 19.6% saturation with 115 hits. Analysis detected 764 faulty-reasoning hits from 587 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.3% and a BS Rank of 21% (17,282 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.00% of the article peer group.

Some bystanders appeared to barely bat an eye when a man set off a fountain of fireworks then started a blazing fire outside a federal building in Lower Manhattan, according to security camera video released Wednesday. 
The surveillance footage from the U.S. 
Attorney's Office offered the most complete look yet at the bizarre episode Monday morning outside 26 Federal Plaza, which didn’t seriously injure anyone but led to arson charges against Andrew Arrabaca, a former U.S. 
Army soldier. 
Prosecutors say Arrabaca, 43, confessed to carrying out the attack and has been jailed without bail. 
The video shows Arrabaca, who arrived at the building with a little wagon filled with supplies, setting up a large fireworks dispenser, capable of rapidly firing off dozens of rockets. 
He ignites it, and rockets start shooting out into the air  then everywhere as the tube shooting off the projectiles topples over. 
One hits his wagon and explodes. 
Others shoot down the sidewalk and into the street as cars drive past. 
New Yorkers are famed for their ability to coolly ignore outlandish things happening in front of them, but the reaction of some passersby showed an Olympic level of minding your business. 
One pair calmly walks past Arrabaca and the spewing fireworks as if nothing is happening, even as a rocket narrowly misses them and explodes right next to them in a shower of red sparks and smoke. 
But they dash for cover when Arrabaca pulls out a weapon that looks like a rifle  authorities said it was a pellet gun  and points it toward them. 
Finally, Arrabaca dumps out a bucket full of what appears to be bottles, lighting up a large blaze on the sidewalk that engulfs the steps leading to the building's entrance. 
At one point during the commotion, a person rides by on a bicycle. 
The building houses offices for U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the FBI and other federal agencies and has been a hub of protests against President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. 
Officials said Arrabaca was toting an anti-ICE sign and made “anti-government and anti-American statements” as he was being arrested. 
He also had with him two axes, three fixed-blade knives, a hammer and a machete. 
Three people sustained minor injuries, including a person who had an immigration court hearing at the building. 
According to federal prosecutors, Arrabaca plotted the attack for months and considered striking other New York City targets. 
He went to upstate New York to buy weapons and Pennsylvania to buy fireworks, prosecutors said. 
Outside the Manhattan building, he was tackled by a security officer after authorities say he dumped gasoline outside an employee entrance and set the sidewalk on fire. 
At Arrabaca's hearing Tuesday, U.S. 
Magistrate Judge Robyn F. 
Tarnofsky said he was “quite clearly ill." 
Arrabaca was living in his car and slept in a park the night before the attack, prosecutors said. 
In 2020, he was prescribed medication for a mental health condition, but he stopped taking it about a year later. 
His defense attorney suggested that he be sent to a locked ward at a Veterans Health Administration facility for a mental health evaluation, but he was ordered jailed then evaluated there. 
Arrabaca repaired Patriot missile systems while in the Army from 2001 to 2004. 
He also served a year in the New York Army National Guard. 
He had no deployments and left the Army as a specialist, an Army spokesperson said. 
___ 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.7%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 4.2%WRAL: 3.4%Confirmation Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 5.1%WRAL: 3.0%Availability Heuristic15.3%This article: 5.3%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 3.5%WRAL: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic5.3%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.8%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 16.8%WRAL: 7.5%Framing Effect13.8%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 2.1%WRAL: 7.7%Negativity Bias6.3%This article: 2.6%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.9%WRAL: 2.9%Self-Serving Bias2.6%This article: 5.3%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 2.2%WRAL: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error5.3%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 1.3%WRAL: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.6%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 6.5%WRAL: 2.5%Appeal to Authority19.6%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.3%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 3.5%WRAL: 3.1%Hasty Generalization5.3%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 6.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.6%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 1.5%WRAL: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.6%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.3%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 1.8%WRAL: 0.1%Composition/Division5.3%This article: 12.3%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 4.1%WRAL: 1.7%Anecdotal12.3%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.4%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 1.5%WRAL: 1.7%Unattributed Quote4.4%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.5%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 15.4%WRAL: 3.4%Biased Writer Voice17.5%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 1.3%WRAL: 1.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%JAIMIE DING — Associated Press: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

587 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers3.7%attributed speech565writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageRobyn F. Tarnofsky • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coveragean Army spokesperson • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

an Army spokesperson

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words68% of attributed speech47% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.2 ptsWriter: 18.2%an Army spokesperson: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%an Army spokesperson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.