Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

phiwum said:
Quite right. My apology to Dan.
Click to expand...

Your appology is accepted. I hope the mods aren't too hard on you.


I'm afraid I just let the dismissive tone get to me. I didn't like the insinuation that the poster was much cleverer than the professional investigators. Despite some issues here and there in the thick of the moment, I thought that the police did a commendable job in identifying the suspects and preventing further harm
Click to expand...


There is no question that American law enforcement professionals on average are leagues ahead of what can be found in other parts of the world. But there have been some significant contradictions presumably comming from official sources so it cannot be blindly assumed that everything we here is the absolute truth. The best we can do is put together the best pieces of information available and see what falls out as a consistent narative. This used to be the job of the investigative news reporter but they don't seen to be able to find their place in today's instant news cycle.
 
Belz... said:
I don't see that. They are not 'common' in the sense that they are rare, but they are criminals. I think treating them differently is dangerous because you run the risk of skipping due process.
Click to expand...


I can appreciate that concern, given the US government's track record. There's actually a very clear due process either way you treat a terrorist attack. The US Government just hasn't shown a willingness to adhere to due process in the past.
 
quadraginta said:
One of us is confused, and I'm pretty sure it isn't me.

I'm not redefining anything, and I have no idea what war you are referring to.
Click to expand...


Yes, you are. If you argue that all terrorist attacks are criminal, you're redifining the laws of war. Terrorist attacks (under US Civil Law) can be legitimate military actions.


quadraginta said:
Unless some new information has surfaced recently we are not currently at war either with Chechnya or Russia, nor are (or were) either of the two brothers members of the armed forces of either nation or any other recognized legal entity to which such laws would be relevant.
Click to expand...

I suggest you do some reading on fourth-generation warfare. The world recognised, many years ago, that wars aren't necessarily fought between nation states.


quadraginta said:
They are accused of crimes which quite clearly fall under the purview of U.S. statutes to which they are (or were) subject as resident aliens and naturalized citizens.
Click to expand...

This particular example, sure. Hubert Cumberdale's post (to which I was responding) was clearly talking about terrorism in general terms, not this specific incident.


quadraginta said:
Unless you have knowledge which the rest of us are not privy to there is no justification for treating them as combatants and every reason to treat them as simple criminals. Merely because the crimes they committed were singularly heinous and brutal doesn't change that, any more than it did for Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph.
Click to expand...

It appears that the elder brother acted in furtherance of a radical islamic agenda, and had support in the form of training from other radical islamic entities. This would make his act that of a Violent Non-State Actor. Fourth-generation warfare is fought not between two states, but between states and VNSAs.


quadraginta said:
Romanticizing common criminals as terrorists is both stupid and dangerous, as it idealizes and misrepresents the seriousness of the threat they represent.
Click to expand...

Bizarre. No one is romanticising or idealising terrorists here. The question is how serious the threat is. A "lone-wolf" attack by a single nutjob does not represent a serious threat. Terrorism employed as one of many tactics by a widespread ideology with global ambitions do represent a serious threat.
 
Dan O. said:
The early theory was that the bombs might have been triggered by cell phones. This theory was so prevalent that the cops were driving around blind because they we're instructed to turn off their phones out of fear of triggering more bombs. Suspect #2 was seen using a cell phone moments befor the detonations but not exactly at the time. this call was most likely coordinating their plan. It might also have been a telemarketer.

At least one of the bombers was on a common billing plan with 12 other phones. This is not a prepaid plan one would get for a throwaway phone. We haven't heard if this was the same phone they used on marathon day.

Just how many phones would be in the set that connected to the towers in that area? We don't have to settle for "I thinks" or "I beleves". We can actually apply science to come up with a reasonable approximation.

We can find estimates for the size of the crowd that attended the marathon. We can sample the crowd through photos to see what percentage are on their phones at any given moment prior to the blast. We might be able to reduce the estimate by finding statistics for the average length of a call; though for this to be accurate we would need the statistics for calls made at similar events. Our range would be widened by the resolution that the call and hang up can be determined and the accuracy of the timestamp on the video.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you are trying to convey here. Sure you can run exhaustive, exhausting analyses like that, and as I pointed out, investigators were indeed working on that angle. But it's not a quick process, and even after extensive investigation, you still might not identify your target, because the bombers' cell phones could have been disposables and/or the bombs could have been detonated by a device other than a cell phone (which is the current thinking). We're fortunate that the professionals used multiple strategies in identifying the bombers, and that one of them--the photographs--panned out.
 
blue sock monkey said:
I'm not sure what point you are trying to convey here. Sure you can run exhaustive, exhausting analyses like that, and as I pointed out, investigators were indeed working on that angle. But it's not a quick process, and even after extensive investigation, you still might not identify your target, because the bombers' cell phones could have been disposables and/or the bombs could have been detonated by a device other than a cell phone (which is the current thinking). We're fortunate that the professionals used multiple strategies in identifying the bombers, and that one of them--the photographs--panned out.
Click to expand...

Security camera video showed one of the suspects making a short call on his cell phone just before the bombs went off. Cell tower records can be easily searched for phones making a call at that time of the proper duration. The result would identify some small number of phones, one of which is the phone used by the suspect shown in the video. The phone at the other end of that conversation would aslo be a top priority for investigation.
 
blue sock monkey said:
I'm not sure what point you are trying to convey here. Sure you can run exhaustive, exhausting analyses like that, and as I pointed out, investigators were indeed working on that angle. But it's not a quick process, and even after extensive investigation, you still might not identify your target, because the bombers' cell phones could have been disposables and/or the bombs could have been detonated by a device other than a cell phone (which is the current thinking). We're fortunate that the professionals used multiple strategies in identifying the bombers, and that one of them--the photographs--panned out.
Click to expand...


What is it with most people's aversion to doing science?

Here is the first piece to answering if the police could use cell tower data to identify the phone being used by the suspect before the bombings:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/arts-entertainment/blog/2013/04/11/boston-marathon-monday-guide/
"About 500,000 spectators line up along the 26.2-mile course each year to watch the marathon"
 
Latest "facts" I read is that they used remote control toy car parts for the detonators, and fireworks stuff for the explosive. This was from a MSM news outlet.
 
casebro said:
Latest "facts" I read is that they used remote control toy car parts for the detonators, and fireworks stuff for the explosive. This was from a MSM news outlet.
Click to expand...

I don't get the fireworks either.

Now, granted, I grew up in Oklahoma, which has rather different values when it comes to guns. But is it hard to buy black powder in MA? There are plenty of stores that show up when you search "black powder supplies boston".

Are there laws regarding the sale of black powder that make fireworks a reasonable option?

ETA: You need a Firearms ID card in MA to buy black powder, according to this page. And now I wonder what watchlists I'm on after googling that here in Boston.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
It is a bit confusing. Fairfield looks like a residential street, so not the site of an ATM. There is (according to Google) a few Bank of America ATMs not too far, the nearest at Bigelow near Nichols.

You're right that I misread -- the car was left in the residential neighborhood, according to the article, and they then went to an ATM in Watertown Center (not Bigelow, I think, but perhaps the one on Main near Arsenal). It was there that the cop car drove by.



Beats me what their plans were. Ditching the SUV as soon as possible seems reasonable, and they could have done so right where the Honda already was -- a quiet, residential street. So why they were in separate cars at the gunfight is really hard to guess.

The whole thing looks more bizarre the more we learn. They had only one gun, which means that the cops fired a remarkable number of shots (and the injured officer might have been friendly fire, per a Globe article today). They actually stopped to pick up a CD rather than listen to the radio and hear the news. They have no sense that they should be making distance at all.
Click to expand...


This article/blog post summarises what we've been discussing above and has a nifty graphic that shows the brothers' erratic course across town:

One week ago, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed a police officer, engaged in a massive shootout that wounded another and left Tamerlan dead, and set off a manhunt that put Boston on lockdown. Many of the initial reports were a confused jumble, and we're only now able to recreate the Tsarnaevs' movements and actions on that final day with any precision.

The picture that emerges from reports by both local and national media, and from the criminal complaint filed against Dzhokhar, does not suggest a pair of experienced criminals executing a master plan. It shows disorganization—a police officer murdered for his gun (the brothers had only one), a vague idea of exploding more devices in New York City, and a meandering drive in and around Boston that couldn't help but alert authorities. In short, two scared, unprepared, and dangerous young men.

The Boston Bombing Suspects' Final Day on the Run: A Reconstruction
Click to expand...


Something this clarifies for me is the 7-Eleven robbery that the Tsarnaevs were initially connected to, I guess because it was near MIT and shortly before the MIT police officer was killed. It appears they were never there and the CCTV footage of Dzhokhar that night was from the Shell gas station where the carjacking victim escaped.
 
Magenta said:
Something this clarifies for me is the 7-Eleven robbery that the Tsarnaevs were initially connected to, I guess because it was near MIT and shortly before the MIT police officer was killed. It appears they were never there and the CCTV footage of Dzhokhar that night was from the Shell gas station where the carjacking victim escaped.
Click to expand...

Right! That was something I learned only the last day or two, also.

The 7-11 robbery was totally unrelated to anything, but the CCTV footage from the Shell station was mistakenly attributed to the 7-11.

Coincidentally, by the way, I drove past Franklin St. today (scene of the boat). There are a few barriers to keep the looky-loos out, but you could drive right past them I think.

I didn't bother, of course.

I really don't know Watertown well, and thought that I was close to the shootout scene, not the boat scene. I was kinda surprised to see the Franklin St. sign. I guess I passed Dexter, also, but I didn't notice it.
 
casebro said:
Latest "facts" I read is that they used remote control toy car parts for the detonators, and fireworks stuff for the explosive. This was from a MSM news outlet.
Click to expand...


The only remote control car part I recognize is the battery pack. The blue circuit card looks very similar to to a common microprocessor project card that any college engineering student could program up in minutes. I haven't placed the green circuit card yet but there are features such as the large electrolytic capasitor and the precission reesistors that make it not likely from an RC car.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Right! That was something I learned only the last day or two, also.

The 7-11 robbery was totally unrelated to anything, but the CCTV footage from the Shell station was mistakenly attributed to the 7-11.

Coincidentally, by the way, I drove past Franklin St. today (scene of the boat). There are a few barriers to keep the looky-loos out, but you could drive right past them I think.

I didn't bother, of course.

I really don't know Watertown well, and thought that I was close to the shootout scene, not the boat scene. I was kinda surprised to see the Franklin St. sign. I guess I passed Dexter, also, but I didn't notice it.
Click to expand...

Franklin looks like a nice leafy street. I looked at a couple of videos (shot from the same house, I think) of the shootout and then the boat being towed away. In the week between the two it looked like spring had arrived.
 
Dan O. said:
The only remote control car part I recognize is the battery pack. The blue circuit card looks very similar to to a common microprocessor project card that any college engineering student could program up in minutes. I haven't placed the green circuit canard yet but there are features such as the large electrolytic capasitor and the precission reesistors that make it not likely from an RC car.
Click to expand...

There's a green circuit canard flying around too? Will we ever get to the truth on this affair? :cool:
 
phiwum said:
I don't get the fireworks either.

Now, granted, I grew up in Oklahoma, which has rather different values when it comes to guns. But is it hard to buy black powder in MA? There are plenty of stores that show up when you search "black powder supplies boston".

Are there laws regarding the sale of black powder that make fireworks a reasonable option?

ETA: You need a Firearms ID card in MA to buy black powder, according to this page. And now I wonder what watchlists I'm on after googling that here in Boston.
Click to expand...

Much easier, and probably quite a bit cheaper, to drive up to New Hampshire and buy some large-scale fireworks.
 
Arisia said:
Much easier, and probably quite a bit cheaper, to drive up to New Hampshire and buy some large-scale fireworks.
Click to expand...

Why would it be cheaper? Does a Firearms ID cost a lot in MA?

According to this page (different town, but shouldn't matter), the costs are only $100 plus a Firearms Safety Certificate.

I could see that the process is a pain in the ass, and maybe leaves a paper trail when you buy the black powder (do they keep records of such purchases?), but I'd bet the mark-up on fireworks is more.

Boy. If my redneck family only knew the hoops gun-owners have to jump through in this state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom