Comments by "Arthur Mosel" (@arthurmosel808) on "Full special report: New York governor confirms no terrorist attack in U.S-Canada crash" video.

I am not convinced by her speech. Obviously, she later says there is an ungoing investigation, so it is not a final evaluation. No license plates, and the car incinerated, so how do they know one of the names? Lets keep people calm is the real purpose of this briefing.
27
@Thomas-jl3gn No, not crying disaster is upon us; rather, give an honest we don't know answer and we are investigating. One time during a training exercise, I had the simulated reporter pushing a report that the briefer was told about. The report was erroneous but the briefer made up an answer. If the event was had happened the briefer apologizing for the event would have been hard pressed to change the narrative. When you. Don't know for sure, the correct answer is some variation of I will check or its under investigation. Bdon't push a narrative that will under mine your credibility later.
2
@alysonturcin-weller7443 There is danger in this however; 1. People believe her and become complacent and thereby ignore warning signs 9f an arrack; 2. A complete lose of faith in her comments if this turns out to be a terrorist attack or another attack. My own opinion right now is on it was either an attack or an part of a planned attack (either gone wrong or yet to have occurred). Reason for my comment: 1. No license plates (they could get them off a camera or video shot of the car. 2. The violence of the explosion (large explosions usually require an oxygen (air) mixture with the gasoline; so, while I could be wrong (unless the fuel air mixture was by chance righ), fuel leakage and fire should have resulted n an explosion later after an initial fire. Reasons for delaying acknowledgement is if they got the license plate number from video or still camera shots; there would be no reason for withholding the name (unless family notification was delayed, which I would doubt in this case). By withholding the name, it prevents people from reviewing his electronic accounts until they can view scrubbed allowing the authorities to control the narrative. Also, by ot acknowledging it as a terrorist activities gives the authorities a chance to find others who might have been involved.
1
@ndo533 It does matter, the car incinerated means the bodies were exposed to blast from forces and severe fire which normally makes identification a matter of DNA or dental analysis which can take days. So either on the initial stop there was a match between the driver's license and the driver or they used the license plate information (since it has been claimed there were no plates), exactly how did they get the driver's name? In an accident, unless notification of next of kin is involved, their is no reason not to release the name. So. How they got the name is important, as well as it not being released. She also did not mention the name not being released due to notification concerns. This raises questions. Additionally, why was the car ordered over for closer inspection and why did the driver try to speed away? Other questions that shape events that really don't fit strictly a. Non-terrorist event. The car was entering the US from Canada, so smuggling is also on the table; and could provide a reason for the behavior but not the explosiveness of the event.
1
@ar4203 The car went airborne be cause of something it hit. As to not saying it was a terrorist event; she said just the opposite in her opening remarks. Given the fact that New York City has been warned to watch out for terror attacks, and the US in general has been acknowledged to be under a higher than normal terrorist risk; it is irresponsible to say anything one way or another. Perhaps, saying the event is still under investigation at this time and providing no clear statement one way or another would have been a better comment; than saying that it wasn`t and then later really saying they weren't sure.
1
She opened pushing it wasn't a terrorist attsck; then later weasel worded in that they weren't sure if wasn't a terrorist attack and it was still under investigation. There are better ways of saying that. You don't push either narrative at this time.
1
@Thomas-jl3gn We don't share the same opinion. While subsequent facts lend credibility to the non-terrorist narrative there is behavior that makes to sense. I still feel she opened too strongly with it not being terrorist related before she said still under investigation. Now, we are being told a man and a woman were in the car, how was that determined since the car was completely burned. Was it by some video or camera check when it was first stopped (original reports) or by a document check at a check point. Looking at the remains of the vehicle there couldn't be much of the bodies to check? I am still not convinced that we have an accurate account.
1