The shooters were also driving the green sedan on the left. They had the back passenger door open and were going back into the car where they had additional supplies (assumingly, more ammunition and explosives). They also had backpacks at their feet where they also had additional supplies.New? Didn't know the suspects took separate vehicles that night. We were told they both carjacked a Mercedes. But it makes more sense because otherwise how did they get all their ordnance in the carjacked car if approaching on foot?
Actually the entire explanation of the events of April 18th leading into the 19th remains somewhat murky. According to the criminal complaint filed by the FBI the two brothers together did not carjack the car driven by the non-American, that was likely Black Hat acting alone, who had the guy drive around awhile to eventually rendezvous with White Hat at a pre-determined location, which comports with the cellphone video above showing two cars--presuming that after the hostage escaped they went back and dropped White Hat with the old car. But the criminal complaint says nothing about killing the MIT officer.
So why does the carjackee now say the men said they were going to New York only to "party" and why does the mainstream news somehow equate this to clubbing on Broadway as opposed to more killing? Does the hostage have any idea what the two men said in a 'foreign language' he claimed they were speaking? Did he understand it or did they tell him in English about New York? What country is the hijackee from since he claimed he was spared because he wasn't an American?
And how about the guns? New York Times said they had two handguns and an M4 carbine, found in the boat. NBC and other outlets say only one gun. Did White Hat fire on the police with an automatic weapon, causing the 50-75 rounds of return fire into the boat hull? Or was the M4 actually left in the boat by a distracted police officer and mistakenly attributed to the terrorist? Where would they get an M4 anyway, unless that explains why the murdered the MIT officer? Why did the media initially report that the boat owner's wife went out to the shed and found bloody clothing and saw the tarp moved, but that the boat and house had been checked by police during the lock-down? How does something like that get created if untrue?
All interesting and mysterious, but in the end just process. There are some major questions as to what the FBI knew and when they knew it, similar to the lead-up to the Benghazi attack, but it's prudent to operate on the premise that any dropped balls represented human failings as opposed to the super-powerful government deliberately setting up a false flag, per Alex Jones. That thing about hindsight applies.
No, the irrefutable truths here that cannot be overlooked despite a fog of war are these: 1) the two brothers committed these terrorist acts. This was not damn false flag or Hollywood mock up, 2) whether home grown and self-inspired or backed by an international arm, they were Islamic jihadists fighting for Allah, no different than the 9/11 hijackers or the slew of domestic perps seen in America since 2001, and 3) our president has been downplaying the terrorism-radical Islam threat since entering office and he still won't call this what it was.
For the umpteenth time it was NOT a tragedy, it was an attack. Obama should know the difference but it appears he's either in denial or perpetrating a fraud on the public for political reasons. If denial it might explain his often boorish treatment of George W. Bush, who seems as clear-eyed as ever these days. Actually both may explain it. He doesn't want to focus on it, fine, but pretending it doesn't exist and hoping it goes away isn't a strategy.