He then seen to proceed inside, killing 26-year-old Belgian museum employee Alexandre Strens and 66-year-old French volunteer Dominique Sabrier.
The attack lasted just 84 seconds.
Prosecutors said Mr Nemmouche’s DNA and fingerprints were found on the weapons, a handgun and a Kalashnikov, which he was carrying in a bag when he was arrested six days after the shooting.
He had a laptop with an audio recording claiming responsibility for the attack.
His alleged accomplice, Nacer Bendrer, testified that Mr Nemmouche asked him to supply weapons but Mr Bendrer said he did not deliver them.
Mr Nemmouche was also identified by French journalists as one of the Isis fighters who detained and tortured them and Syrian hostages in 2013 in Syria.
But the defence said the evidence was ‘bogus” and “a comical sketch”, accusing police of fabricating evidence.
During the trial’s seven weeks defence lawyers talked about a conspiracy insinuating Mossad was responsible for the atrocity.
Mr Nemmouche’s lawyers said he was innocent because his fingerprints were not found on the museum’s entrance door. They argued the shooting was a conspiracy and the victims were killed because they had worked for Israeli intelligence.
The Riva couple were “more than accountants,” they claimed.
“Several months before the attack, they were in Berlin. This doesn’t mean they are criminals but that is where Mossad sends its agents in Europe,” said lawyer Sebastien Courtoy.
In a closing argument that lasted seven hours, Mr Courtoy accused Shia Muslims working either for Iranian or Lebanese intelligence of setting his client up, but did not offer any evidence.
He said these agencies recruited Nemmouche and then planted evidence to incriminate him.
“I’m not going to hand out a photo-fit of those who did it,” Mr Courtoy said. “I don’t want to have an 80-second incident in my home,” he added, a reference to the museum attack’s 84-second duration.
The jury was expected to deliver its verdict later on Thursday.
Other lawyers involved in the trial said they were stunned by the defence team’s arguments.
“He talked for seven hours but didn’t say anything relevant to the case and the evidence,” Jewish associations lawyer Michèle Hirsch told the JC.
“I guess his line of defence using conspiracy theories is in line with his client’s ideology of hatred.
“But this trial was crucial because it showed Nemmouche was part of a terrorist network. He wasn’t a lone wolf but part of a pack of wolves.
“Had he spoken about those who ordered the attack and other attacks committed later in Paris and Belgium, things could have turned differently.”
Lawyers and prosecutors had never seen a defence like it, said Yohan Benizri from the Belgian Jewish umbrella group CCOJB.
“Their arguments were unacceptable, ridiculous and completely baseless. We were also disappointed that the suspect refused to testify,” he said.
“Of course they used this theory because their case is weak, so they chose to use fear and conspiracy theories.
“But [we] want to show them we will not cave in or be deterred. Belgian institutions, Belgian Jews and the whole Belgian nation: we will show resilience.”
Charged with four “terrorist assassinations”, Mr Nemmouche faces a life sentence if found guilty.
