The Five Dancing Israelis: September 11th Foreknowledge and Possible Complicity Corroborated by Evidence from FBI Investigation and Other New Information

Keith Maart

January 1, 2014

Introduction

Section A – Information Known to Date on the Dancing Israelis (“DIs”)

Primary Sources:

09/11/2001 – East Rutherford Police Reports

09/12/2001 – The New Jersey Bergen Record

12/12/2001 – Fox News Investigation

03/15/2002 – Marc Perelman of The Forward

06/21/2002 – ABC 20/20 Investigation

09/15/2004 – Gerald Shea Memo to 911 Commission

03/07/2007 – Christopher Ketcham of Counterpunch

Section B – The FBI Investigation and Other New Information on the Dancing Israelis

FBI Cover-Up Begins Two Weeks after 9/11 and Continues with the Release of the FBIR The Facts, Fallacies, and Flaws of the FBI’s Foreknowledge Assumptions and Analysis Incriminating Evidence Found in the DIs Van Possibly Tying Them to the 9/11 Operation UMS: Likely Israeli Front Company with Pre-9/11 Growth and Potential 9/11 Connections The Doric: Perfect Views of North Tower Attack and Hub of Other CI and UMS Activity The DIs’ Associations with Israeli Intelligence and Other US Intelligence Investigations Other Israeli Moving Companies in NY/NJ Area – Operational Responsibilities in 9/11 Attacks? Geographic and Timeline Nexus’ of DIs/Israeli Groups and Hijackers in NY/NJ Area FBI’s Nexus between the DIs and Israeli Art Students – Nationwide Israeli Operations on 9/11 Zim Shipping: Apparent Early Foreknowledge of Attack Date and Other Potential 9/11 Connections

Conclusion

References and Endnotes

Exhibits:

I. Maps (2) of Israeli Groups and Hijacker Cells in New Jersey / New York

II.Terrible Transparency: Missing FBI Documents and Excessive FBI Redactions

III. Cover-Up Investigation: Dropped FBI Leads and Critical Unanswered Questions

IV.Examples of Excessive FBI Redactions

The Five Dancing Israelis: September 11th Foreknowledge and Possible Complicity Corroborated by Evidence from FBI Investigation and Other New Information

Within minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center’s North Tower, a woman in Union City, New Jersey, looked out her apartment window and witnessed bizarre and puzzling behavior by three men in her parking lot. While an unexplained catastrophe of epic proportions was unfolding and thousands of Americans were in the process of losing their lives, she saw the three men taking photos and apparent video of the WTC tower burning while they smiled, high-fived and hugged one another. Their jovial and celebratory behavior was subsequently confirmed by the FBI who arrested them and two other associates later that day, confiscating and developing the film from one of the suspect’s camera that was coincidently purchased just the day before the attacks.

All five men happened to be relatively new employees of a moving company in Weehawken, New Jersey, called Urban Moving Systems (“UMS”), which the FBI later characterized as a “probable fraudulent operation with little evidence of a legitimate business venture.” The five men and the company owner also happened to be from a Middle East country, the region of the world that many intelligence officials tended to assume that the perpetrators came from. One ex-employee of the company told the FBI that he was not surprised that a certain senior employee of UMS was in trouble with the authorities, because he always spoke badly of the United States. Another ex-employee told the FBI that he had quit because of the high amount of anti-American sentiment expressed at UMS and that one employee once told him, “Give us 20 years and we’ll take over your media and destroy your country.”

So who were these men who took apparent pleasure in the destruction of American economic symbols and the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and who worked for a company where anti-American sentiment ran so high? They must have been Islamic fundamentalists, probably connected to the 9/11 hijacker cell that operated out of nearby Paterson, New Jersey, right? Wrong! When these five men were pulled over later that day and forcibly pulled out of their van by East Rutherford, New Jersey police, the driver blurted out, “We are Israeli, we are not your problem, your problems are our problems, the Palestinians are the problem.”

The five individuals and the UMS company owner were indeed Israeli citizens, as were many of the employees who worked at UMS, which coincidently saw a sizable increase of workers in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks. One US newspaper, citing an FBI official, stated that the FBI subsequently discovered that some of the apprehended Israelis had connections to Israeli intelligence and that two of the five were in fact Mossad operatives. The men were held by US authorities for approximately two and a half months before high-level negotiations between US and Israel officials resulted in their release. UMS owner, Dominik Suter, fled back to Israel two days after being questioned by the FBI on Sept. 12, 2001, abandoning the alleged business he just grew in the months before 9/11. Suter and his wife were subsequently placed on an FBI 9/11 watch list report that included Osama Bin Laden, the 19 hijackers, and others believed to be associated with the 9/11 attacks.

The above story is often referred to as the case of the “Dancing Israelis” or “Dancing Israelis,” so nicknamed because of the Israelis’ displays of jubilation and celebration of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers. Although the story was mostly ignored by US mainstream media, with the exception of a feature by ABC 20/20 and a broader Israeli investigation by Fox News, there have been a number of other very credible reports of the story to date. Section A of this investigative report discusses what is known to date about the Dancing Israelis (“DIs”) with most of the information coming from seven sources from Sept.11, 2001 to March 2007. It should be noted that just about all the information contained in these earlier reports has proven to be true based on information from an FBI counterterrorism investigation of the DIs.

Section B focuses on new information about the DIs with a significant portion of new information and evidence coming from the subsequent FBI investigation/report (“FBIR”).[1] Although the FBIR is missing a significant number of documents, is heavily redacted, and primarily consists of approximately the first two weeks of the DIs’ two-and-a-half month incarceration and investigation, its 579 pages provide some valuable and insightful new facts that draw the DIs and Israel’s potential connections to the 9/11 operation much closer. This paper is without question the definitive source on the Dancing Israelis and includes many new substantive facts about the DIs and UMS’s possible connections to 9/11 that have not been discussed anywhere else before. The paper is very detailed and well referenced containing about 138 references/endnotes and another 160+ additional references to the FBIR.

Although the DIs’ case is only one of about a dozen potential Israeli/Zionist connections to the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent cover-ups, it is the only connection where an actual government investigation was pursued. And although the investigation was little more than an official government/FBI cover-up that suffers from poor transparency issues, it still provides significant new facts and evidence that ties the DIs and other Israelis closer to the 9/11 attacks. Among other important findings, this report shows the following ten crucial facts and findings:

FBI Headquarters abruptly and prematurely ordered the FBI Newark investigation of the DIs to be closed on Sept. 24, 2001 while it was still on-going and before the DIs’ foreknowledge and/or involvement in 9/11 could be definitely established. Despite the order to close the case, the DIs were held and investigated for another two months before high level negotiations between US and Israeli officials secured their release. An obvious FBI cover-up of the facts and evidence exists to this day. The FBI investigation includes dozens of missing key documents, excessive and unnecessary redactions, 25+ dropped FBI leads, and many unanswered critical questions of the investigation. The investigation was apparently quashed by higher level officials to conceal any involvement by the Israelis in the 9/11 attacks. The assumptions and analysis used by the FBI in concluding that the DIs did not have foreknowledge and/or involvement in the attacks were deeply flawed and erroneous. In addition, the FBI ignored substantial factual and circumstantial evidence and at least four eyewitness testimonies that indicate that the DIs had, at a minimum, foreknowledge of the attacks. Based on other information in the FBIR and other outside sources, it is possible that the DIs and other Israelis had a deeper involvement in the September 11th attacks. There was evidence of explosives in the DIs’ van (but lab tests were supposedly never completed), and other items were found in the van potentially implicating them more deeply in the 9/11 operation. Several media reports stated that UMS was an Israeli intelligence front company and an FBI search team leader characterized UMS as “a possible fraudulent operation with little evidence of a legitimate business operation.” UMS coincidently grew quite a bit in the several months before 9/11, and had several other potential connections to the September 11th attacks, with its owner, Dominik Suter, abandoning the business he recently expanded and fleeing back to Israel on Sept. 14, 2001. A media report stated that at least two DIs were Mossad operatives, and the FBI investigation shows that at least two, and probably three DIs, were associated with Israeli intelligence and/or were the subject of previous US intelligence investigations. The DIs’ affiliation with Israeli intelligence is heavily redacted and no reasonable explanation has ever been provided as to why Israeli intelligence agents were working for a New Jersey moving company in the run-up to 9/11. The FBI and other US intelligence agencies opened up an investigation in April 2002 to determine if there was a nexus between the DIs and the so called “Israeli Art Students”, who also seemed to be in the US for nefarious reasons, and which was still on-going as of July 2003. The DIs lived among the Paterson, NJ hijacker cell and the largest concentration of Israeli Art Students just happened to live among the highest concentration of alleged hijacker cells in Southeast Florida. There were several other Israeli related moving companies in the Hudson/Bergen County area, one of which (Classic International Movers) was under investigation by the Miami FBI in conjunction with a move of the one of the hijackers. Another Israeli related mover, Moishes Moving Systems, was situated at the mouth of the Holland Tunnel across the Hudson River from the WTC and had an Israeli employee profile similar to UMS. There were timeline and geographic connections between the alleged Paterson, New Jersey hijacker cell and the DIs and other Israeli groups in the New Jersey/New York area (Note: the FBI’s timeline and geographic connections analysis is omitted from the FBIR). This paper will also discuss a new and potential Hamburg (Germany) connection between various Israeli groups and hijacker groups. New information shows that Zim American-Israeli Shipping, the Israeli shipping company that vacated the WTC around Sept. 4, 2001, apparently had at least foreknowledge of the specific attack date as much as six months in advance. A CIA assessment of Israeli intelligence states that Zim Shipping has been utilzed for various Israeli intelligence functions including providing non-official cover for Israeli intelligence agents.

A. Information Known to Date on the Dancing Israels (“DIs”)

The apprehension of the five DIs on September 11th was a big event that involved dozens of law enforcement personnel, caused the closing of a major New Jersey roadway, and the evacuation of a hotel because of concerns of explosives in the DIs’ van. The police and FBI believed they had suspects in the attacks and this should have been a significant news story despite the attention given to the carnage in New York and Washington.

But the US mainstream media totally ignored the story and the only newspaper to initially pick it up was the New Jersey Bergen Record, which ran their story on Sept. 12, 2001. The first mainstream media report to discuss a possible Israeli connection to the attacks was Fox News, which in December 2001, ran a four part investigation on various potential Israeli spying operations in and on the US. It wasn’t until March 2002 that The Forward newspaper of New York published the first significant piece relating specifically to the DIs, which was then followed by another CI specific investigation by ABC News 20/20 in June of that year. The next important piece on the DIs came in September 2004 from a retired corporate attorney named Gerald Shea in a detailed Memo to the 911 Commission that also included several other Israeli associations besides the DIs. Finally, investigative journalist Christopher Ketcham, writing for Counterpunch, published the next and last substantial “investigative report” on the DIs in March 2007.

The aforementioned sources probably account for approximately ninety percent of the relevant facts about the DIs known to date (i.e., before the FBIR). These seven sources, listed below, are the primary sources for the information contained in this section:

09/11/2001 – East Rutherford Police Reports (“Police Reports”)[2]

09/12/2001 – The New Jersey Bergen Record (“Bergen Record”)[3]

12/12/2001 – Fox News Investigation (“Fox News”)[4]

03/15/2002 – Marc Perelman of The Forward (“The Forward”)[5]

06/21/2002 – ABC 20/20 Investigation (“ABC 20/20”)[6]

09/15/2004 – Gerald Shea Memo to 911 Commission (“Shea Memo”)[7]

03/07/2007 – Christopher Ketcham of Counterpunch (“Ketcham Article”)[8]

Having an understanding of what is known to date about the DIs is an important foundation to the new information that will be presented in Section B. Thus, following are the key facts and information known to date relating to the DIs’ case (Note: Primary references/sources noted in parenthesis):

* Three of the five DIs were spotted filming and celebrating the “first” WTC crash shortly after impact by a woman in Union City, NJ (filmed from apartment parking lot). The woman (Maria) reported the incident to the FBI and when police pulled their van over later that day they found five men (ABC 20/20).[9]

* The DIs’ van was stopped around 4:30 PM on Route 3 East, just east of the New Jersey Turnpike. The van was travelling more slowly than the rest of traffic and after not exiting the van promptly, the occupants had to be physically removed, handcuffed, and placed on the grass on the shoulder of the road (Police Reports).

* The five men immediately identify themselves as Israelis and were taken into custody by the FBI and investigated for possibly having foreknowledge of the attacks. The five DIs are Paul Kurzberg, Sivan Kurzberg (Paul’s younger brother), Oded Ellner, Yaron Shmuel, and Omer Marmari (Police Reports and The Forward). The three DIs filming and celebrating were Sivan Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, and Yaron Shmuel.

* Explosives were detected in the van by bomb sniffing dogs and the FBI seized the van for further explosives testing (Police Reports and Bergen Record).

* At 5:30 PM the police evacuated the nearby Homewood Suites Hotel and at 10:00 PM a hotel guest said she could see at least two officers searching the van while a crowd of officers kept their distance (Bergen Record).

* Others items of interest found in the van included box cutters and $4,700 in cash. One CI had an Israeli passport and also a passport from another unidentified country (The Forward and ABC 20/20).

* CI Yaron Shmuel told an obvious lie to the police regarding his whereabouts during the attacks when he stated he was on West Side Highway (Manhattan) at the time, while another CI said they were staying with a roommate in Brooklyn but he did not know the address (Police Reports).

*The New York Times reported on Sept. 13, 2001 that the alleged hijacker teams were aided by associates in Newark, Boston, and Virginia, who were responsible for logistical support, including money, rental cars, credit cards and lodging and that the DIs were suspected of assisting the hijackers.[10]

* The FBI found that deciphering the truth from the five DIs proved to be difficult. Paul Kurzberg refused to take a lie detector test for 10 weeks – then failed it. Kurzberg was reluctant to take the test because he once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country (ABC 20/20).

* The five men all worked for an Israeli moving company in Weehawken, NJ, called Urban Moving Systems. UMS had few discernable assets, and its owner, Dominik Suter, was interviewed by the FBI on Sept. 12, 2001 and fled back to Israel on Sept. 14, 2001, abandoning his business. Although the FBI wanted to re-interview Suter, he apparently never returned to the US for further questioning (The Forward and ABC 20/20).[11]

* UMS was immediately closed and Suter’s name subsequently showed up (May 2002) on the same FBI 9/11 watch list report as the 19 hijackers and their suspected associates (Shea Memo and Ketcham Article).[12].

* While being investigated on counterterrorism issues, at least two of the DIs’ names appeared on FBI databases that show potential association with Israeli intelligence services (The Forward and ABC 20/20).

* Two weeks after their arrest an immigration judge ordered the DIs deported but the FBI and CIA put a hold on the case. At that point, the nature of the investigation changed to a foreign counterintelligence investigation (The Forward and ABC 20/20).

* The five DIs were held for two and a half months and were subjected to an unusual number of polygraph tests and interrogated by a series of government agencies including the FBI’s counterintelligence division, which by some reports, remains convinced that Israel was conducting an intelligence operation (The Forward).

* The five DIs were placed in solitary confinement for 40 days and some men were given as many as seven lie detector tests (ABC 20/20).

* Paul Kurzberg’s attorney said his client had trouble with one seven hour polygraph but did better on a second try. It was Kurzberg’s attorney’s belief that Attorney General John Ashcroft had to personally sign off on Kurzberg’s release.[13]

* Despite the Israeli denials, sources told ABC there is still debate within the FBI over whether or not the young men were on a mission for Israeli intelligence (ABC 20/20).

* According to one former high-ranking American intelligence official, the FBI came to the conclusion at the end of its investigation that the five DIs were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and UMS served as a front company (The Forward).

* A former American official stated that after the authorities confronted Israel on the issue at the end of 2001, the Israeli government acknowledged the surveillance operation and apologized for not coordinating it with Washington (The Forward).

* Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two prominent New York congressmen helped in efforts to release the DIs, and they were eventually sent back to Israel around November 20, 2001 (Ketcham Article and Haaretz 10/26/01). According to ABC sources, Israeli and US government officials worked out a deal for the DIs’ release (ABC 20/20).

* The DIs refused to answer ABC’s questions about their detentions and what they were doing on September 11; however, three of the DIs went on an Israeli talk show shortly after their return home, where one of them stated (Oded Ellner), “Our purpose was to document the event” (ABC 20/20).

The four part Fox News investigation by Carl Cameron and Brit Hume focused on various Israeli spying operations in and on the US, including a group of about 200 hundred Israeli Art Students (“IAS”) who had been reported, detained, or arrested before and after 9/11.The Fox report also looked at two Israeli communication companies doing business in the US who were suspected of possibly aiding illegal operations in the past, including the 9/11 investigation. The IAS are discussed in Section B.8 below, as the FBI and other US intelligence agencies opened up an investigation in April 2002, looking into a nexus between the DIs and IAS. The Fox report also revealed how reluctant and hesitant intelligence case agents are to take on an investigation involving Israel because of political pressure from the top.[14] Following are some of Fox’s other key findings:

* Since September 11th, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained and some of the detainees failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the US. The majority of those questioned, stated they served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept, or explosive ordnance units (Fox News Part 1 – Israeli Art Students).

* Numerous classified documents obtained by Fox indicate that as many as 140 other Israelis have been detained or arrested in a sprawling investigation prior to 9/11 in what the documents describe as an organized intelligence gathering operation, designed to penetrate government facilities (Fox News Part 1).

* Fox found no indication that the IASs were involved in the 9/11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are “tie-ins.” But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, “Evidence linking the Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about information gathered, it’s classified” (Fox News Part 1).

* When Brit Hume asks Carl Cameron about the question of advance (Israeli) knowledge of what was going to happen on 9/11, Cameron replies, ”It’s explosive information, obviously there’s a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected – none of it necessarily conclusive. It’s more when they put it all together; a bigger question they say is how could they not have known? Almost a direct quote” (Fox News Part 1).

* Fox found that a half dozen of the approximately 60 Israelis detained (10 percent) after 9/11 worked for an Israeli based private communication company called Amdocs. Virtually all call records in the US are maintained by Amdocs, a potentially valuable source of information via data mining. In recent years, the FBI and other government agencies have investigated Amdocs more than once with the NSA issuing a Top Secret report in 1999 warning that records of calls in the US were getting into foreign hands – Israel’s, in particular (Fox News Part 2 – Amdocs).

* Fox has documents relating to a 1997 drug trafficking case in Los Angeles involving Israeli organized crime in which phone information, the type Amdocs collects, was used to completely compromise the communications of the FBI, DEA, and LAPD. The problem was the bad guys had the cops beepers, cell phones, and even home phones and used them to avoid arrest. When investigators tried to find out where the leaks came from they looked to Amdocs, which denied any leaks despite investigators still fearing the firm’s data was getting into wrong hands (Fox News Part 2).

* When Hume asks Cameron about a report that Mossad sent representatives to the US just before 9/11 to warn that a terrorist attack was imminent, and how it leaves room for a lack of a warning, Cameron replies, “Investigators are saying that the warning from Mossad was nonspecific and general, and they believe that it may have had something to do with the desire to protect what are called sources and methods in the intelligence community” (Fox News Part 2). Note: Both Israeli and US governments denied any such warning and is likely Israeli disinformation given the successful attacks.

* A second Israeli communication company operating in the US, Comverse Infosys, provides wiretapping computers and software to US law enforcement that are tied into US phone networks to intercept, record, and store wiretap calls and transmit them to investigators. Comverse works closely with the Israeli government (which reimbursed Comverse for up to 50 percent for R&D costs). A complaint about it is that its system is a potential back door through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by unauthorized parties. Sources told Fox, that while various FBI inquiries into Comverse have been conducted over the years, they’ve been halted before the actual equipment has ever been thoroughly tested (Fox News Part 3 – Comverse Infosys).

* What troubled investigators the most in the counterterrorism investigation of 9/11 is that in a number of cases, suspects they had sought to wiretap immediately changed their telecommunication procedures. They started acting very differently as soon as those supposedly “secret” wiretaps went into place. Investigators within the FBI, DEA, and INS have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying through Comverse is considered career suicide (Fox News Part 3).

The last five primary sources in Section A all believed to varying degrees of certainty, that Israel was conducting a secret surveillance operation on US soil without the government’s approval in the run up to September 11th. However, all of those reports took the most Israeli-favorable assumption that it was probably a friendly operation and that Israel was most likely just spying on unfriendly Arabs in the US. However, Fox News, Gerald Shea, and Christopher Ketcham also suggest that Israel could have learned information about the attacks from its spying endeavors but did not share it with the US government. Marc Perelman of The Forward stated the FBI concluded that at least two of the DIs were Mossad operatives and the FBI came to the conclusion that the five Israelis were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and their employer, UMS, served as a front company.[15] ABC 20/20 also referenced The Forward article and stated The Forward’s aforementioned conclusions.

In his Counterpunch article, Ketcham describes the pressures to close the FBI investigation because of Israel’s involvement. ABC sources told him, “FBI investigators chafed at the denials from their higher-ups that the DIs had foreknowledge of the attacks or were working for the Mossad. They felt the higher echelons torpedoed the investigation into the Israeli New Jersey cell.” Intelligence expert and author James Bamford told Ketcham that people he talked to at the CIA were outraged at what was going on. CIA agents thought it was outrageous that there hadn’t been a real investigation and that the facts were hanging out there without any conclusion. The former CIA counterterrorism officer told Ketcham, there was no question that the order to close down the investigation came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this was basically going to be a cover up so that Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11.

B. The FBI Investigation and Other New Information on the Dancing Israelis (“DIs”)

Section B confirms just about all the important findings in Section A while adding substantial new facts and evidence in the DIs’ case despite its terrible transparency and obvious cover-up. Although the majority of the information in this section comes from the FBIR – released August 2011 as a result of a FOIA Request – it will also draw from other government reports (including FBI Hijacker Timelines, FBI 911 Watch List, DEA Report, etc.), very credible and well-referenced media sources, as well as the author’s own research and inspection of various points of interest. Section B is divided into a ten subsections, each adding significant new narrative to what’s already known about the DIs’ case. The last two sections in Section B on the Israeli Art Students and Zim Shipping primarily include new and important information outside of the FBIR. However, this new outside information does potentially connect some of the additional dots raised in the FBIR.

The FBIR is primarily the product of the Newark FBI Field Office (“NK-FBI”) which carried out a Counterterrorism investigation that focused on whether the DIs had foreknowledge or involvement in the attacks. The New York Field Office (“NYO-FBI”) was called in around Sept. 16, 2001 to assist in a counterintelligence investigation when it appeared that some of the DIs had connections to Israeli intelligence services (Note: the NYO-FBI opened its own counterintelligence investigation around that time which is not included in the FBIR). Both the NK-FBI and NYO-FBI investigations were basically closed down by the FBI’s National Security Unit (“HQ-FBI”) in Washington on Sept. 24, 2001. However, the DIs were held and investigated for another two months and there is some sparse documentation in the FBIR after Sept. 24, 2001 that shows the counterterrorism investigation may have disjointedly and informally continued past that time (Note: only about a half dozen pieces of relatively insignificant evidence came in after Sept. 24, 2001).

1. FBI Cover-up Begins Two Weeks after 9/11 and Continues with the Release of the FBIR

Although the FBIR provides a number of new and important facts relating to the DIs, it suffers from the same transparency issues of just about all other 9/11 intelligence related reports. Besides not including most of the additional two months of the investigation, it omits approximately 1,280 investigation pages including about a couple of dozen key documents, is full of excessive redactions, and includes another two dozen dropped FBI leads (see Exhibits II and III).[16] Most of the key FBI documents were classified in their current redacted form until September 2035. Thus, such crimes as the DIs may have committed will be concealed by the US government for 34 years after their commission. If Israel is one of our greatest allies and has nothing to hide in this instance, then why has the FBI covered-up and concealed so much of the investigation?

As Christopher Ketcham pointed out in his Section A article, FBI and CIA case agents felt the DIs investigation was “torpedoed” by higher-ups and that there had not been a real investigation as the facts were hanging out there without any conclusions. Ketcham’s sources could not have been more correct as their thoughts and feelings about the case being sabotaged by senior officials are clearly substantiated by the documentation in the FBIR (Note: References drawn from the FBIR will be listed by section and page in parenthesis. For example, a reference from FBIR section 1, page 39, will be FBIR_S1P39).

There’s now no question that FBI Headquarters, National Security Unit, abruptly and prematurely ended NK-FBI’s investigation of the DIs. On Sept. 23, 2001 NK-FBI prepared an 11-page Case Summary that had many open leads, including the results of the test of the van for explosive material, and ended by stating, “The polygraph examiners’ reports for three of the polygraph subjects are still outstanding” (FBIR_S5PP43-53). On Sept. 24, 2001 NK-FBI then sent HQ-FBI a Routine Case Update ending with the statement, “Investigation at the Newark office continues” (FBIR_S5PP54-57). Exhibit III summarizes over two dozen potential leads that were open as of Sept. 24, 2001 and apparently never pursued by the FBI or included in the FBIR.

The NK-FBI Counterterrorism Unit’s Sept. 24, 2001 Case Update did not conclude that the DIs did not have foreknowledge of the attacks; however, one vague and ambiguous entry stated that NK-FBI’s Foreign Counterintelligence Unit (“FCI”) conducted their own investigation and interviews (apparently without NK-FBI’s Counterterrorism’s Unit records), and that FDI’s investigation revealed that the five Israelis “most likely” did not possess prior knowledge of the WTC events and that they opined that the Israelis “probably” arrived at the parking lot between the first and second attacks on the WTC (FBIR_S5PP55-56).[17]

Despite the apparent lack of information that FCI had in making their determination, using qualifiers like “most likely” and “probably” in its conclusion, and then ending the Case Update by stating that the “investigation at the Newark office continues,” HQ-FBI sent a “Priority” letter back to NK-FBI later that day basically ordering that the case be closed and telling NK-FBI to advise the INS that the FBI no longer has an investigative interest in the DIs (FBIR_S5PP58-59). The letter was two short paragraphs (i.e., excluding standard case information) with the key paragraph stating, “Both the Newark and the New York Divisions conducted a thorough investigation which determined that none of the Israelis had any information or prior knowledge regarding the bombing of the World Trade Centers. Furthermore, Newark and New York determined that none of the Israelis were actively engaged in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States” (FBIR_S5P58). The investigation was obviously not completed at this time, and that’s apparently why the DIs were held and investigated for another two months.

The NK-FBI investigation was still in full swing when HQ-FBI prematurely shut it down on Sept. 24, 2001 as many important leads were not followed up or properly concluded. With HQ-FBI’s two sentence statement, the counterterrorism case against the five DIs was officially closed despite the fact that the DIs were held for an additional two months and a haphazard investigation of them obviously continued (Note: Despite HQ-FBI also ordering the closing of the NYO-FBI counterintelligence investigation, it appears this investigation remained opened). There are documents and entries in the FBIR that substantiate that the NK-FBI continued to collect some additional evidence after Sept. 24, 2001, but the investigation was obviously put into low gear with relatively little new evidence past that date. Confirming Christopher Ketcham’s sources, the higher-ups at HQ-FBI almost certainly torpedoed the DIs investigation with a direct hit amidships.

To appear to put an official stamp to the cover-up, the NK-FBI issued a Case Closing Memo in July 2003; twenty months after the DIs were basically exonerated by the FBI and sent back to Israel (FBIR_S6PP38-51). Why did the FBI take so long to issue this closing memo and could they have found the DIs anything but innocent given the DIs were long gone and living in a country where UMS owner Dominik Suter fled back to and a country that has been trying to get convicted spy for Israel, Jonathan Pollard, released from prison for nearly three decades?[18] This carefully worded memo is vague and is open to interpretation on certain important points including foreknowledge. For example, the Memo states that NK-FBI “Found no factual or substantive circumstantial information to corroborate eyewitness accounts the five Israelis videotaped the attacks ……or that the five Israelis were on top of a parking garage videotaping prior to the first strike…. Numerous circumstantial facts strongly support the five Israelis traveled to the parking roof after learning of the attacks on the radio and internet. None of the pictures developed from the film found inside the 35 mm camera depicted the WTC prior to attacks” (FBIR_S6PP38-39).

Firstly, the FBI is only talking about “videotaping” and does not include still photos in its memo’s language. Secondly, by stating that “circumstantial facts” support that the DIs traveled to the parking lot after hearing about attacks on radio and internet, the FBI basically admits it has no hard physical/factual evidence. As the next section will show, there are clearly many more circumstantial facts to support that the DIs were at The Doric (i.e., the apartment complex from where DIs filmed the attacks) before the first plane crash. Thirdly, by stating that “none of the pictures developed from the film inside the 35 mm camera depicted the WTC prior to attacks,” it does not take into consideration that the photos may have been taken prior to a feasible time for the DIs to have been at The Doric. Fourthly, it excludes the results of all the other film that was found in the DIs’ van and ignores the fact that the DIs had over seven hours to dispose of any other film that could have implicated them. Lastly, the next section will clearly show that the FBI was wrong in concluding the DIs did not have foreknowledge and there is both factual and substantial circumstantial evidence that the FBI ignored that clearly shows that the DIs did have at least foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

2. The Facts, Fallacies, and Flaws of the FBI’s Foreknowledge Assumptions and Analysis

The FBI’s one photo helicopter analysis in determining whether the DIs had foreknowledge of the WTC attacks would almost be comical if not for the serious consequences of its erroneous and apparent cover-up conclusion. The FBI knows the DIs are lying to them and in the Sept. 24, 2001 Case Update to HQ-FBI, NK-FBI even states, “The number of discrepancies in the statements made by the Israeli’s continue to increase” (FBIR_S5P56). Despite this strong indication of the DIs lying, HQ-FBI had the audacity to send back a priority memo later that day saying that NK-FBI had done a thorough investigation and determined that the Israelis did not have foreknowledge of the attacks (FBIR_S5PP58-59). Unfortunately, there appears to have been even greater discrepancies and contradictions within the FBI (Note: this intricate 5 page section is divided into 5 subsections, as the devil is in the detail and the devil appears to be wearing a badge and The Star of David).

After acknowledging that the DIs told lies and inconsistencies about their timelines for the morning of September 11th, the FBI basically tries to manipulate one of the DIs story so it gives the DIs a possible explanation if all the stars in the galaxy line up for them.[19] However, the FBI even admits their analysis is “unscientific” and “does not provide a precise time when the DIs were at The Doric. Furthermore, the FBI analysis basically ignores five eyewitness testimonies from individuals at The Doric and UMS that contradict the DIs’ timeline(s) and show that the DIs did in fact have at least foreknowledge of the attacks.

The FBI’s analysis of the DIs’ foreknowledge is riddled throughout with fallacies and flaws that do not stand up to even the lowest standards of common-sense judgment and logic. Besides contradicting physical and eyewitness evidence, there is also substantial circumstantial information that suggests the DIs had foreknowledge of the attacks. Following are four important questions the FBI does not address:

Why were the DIs happy and celebrating shortly after the first WTC crash? At this point in the attacks, no one knew with any degree of certainty that it was a terrorist attack, including the President of the Unites States who was privy to dozens of terrorist warnings prior to 9/11 and thought it was pilot error.[20] Why did the DIs coincidently bring camera(s) to work on 9/11 in the first place, with the “primary” camera used to film the attacks being purchased just the day before?[21] The FBI does not address the fact that the DIs had over seven hours to dispose of any film or video footage that could have positively implicated them in foreknowledge of the attacks. The DIs made at least two stops after being spotted at The Doric, one at UMS and another at White Glove Moving.[22] Why didn’t the FBI take this fact into consideration when weighing all the evidence? Why did all three DIs lie about how, when, and under what circumstances they got to The Doric on the morning of September 11th? If they were innocent and had perfectly good explanations of their timelines that brought them to The Doric, then why did all three give different stories, with at least two of them being easily confirmed blatant lies (including one drastically changed story)?

The Three DIs Lies and Contradicting Timelines along with an FBI Contradicting Timeline

The three DIs filming from the apartment complex parking lot on September 11th were Oded Ellner, Sivan Kurzberg, and Yaron Shmuel, and each of their individual stories for the morning of September 11th, is found in S5P45-46 of the FBIR.[23] Consequently, none of the DIs’ stories match, meaning at least two of them, and possibly all three, are still lying about exactly how and when they came to be at The Doric on the morning of 9/11. In fact, Sivan Kurzberg’s story is an outright lie as he stated that the DIs went to The Doric sometime between 10:00 AM and noon (FBIR_S5P45Par3). Oded Ellner stated that he got a call at UMS from a friend around 8:00 AM about the crash (the first impact was 8:46 AM) and that the three went to The Doric after stopping at an out-of-the-way Gulf gas station (FBIR_S5P45Par2).[24] First off, Ellner’s estimate of the call time was obviously mistaken, and if the three DIs went to The Doric after receiving a call at 8:46 AM then the gas station stop would have made it impossible for them to get to The Doric before Maria and other Doric witnesses saw them there.

The only CI story that may give them a possibly legitimate timeline for the morning of 9/11 is Yaron Shmuel’s, who initially told the police a deliberate lie on September 11th when he said the van was on 8th West Side Highway (Manhattan) at the time of the WTC attack (FBIR_S1PP86-87). However, for whatever reason, there are two versions of Shmuel’s story in the FBIR, meaning one is a lie or that the FBI is lying to fit the story to the evidence. Following are Shmuel’s two versions of his story (Note: Sivan Kurzberg’s and Oded Ellner’s individual FBI interviews are not included in the FBIR and it is not known if their FBI interview timelines also differ from their Case Summary timelines):

Shmuel’s Version 1 Story – 9/15/01 FBI Interview (FBIR_S5PP85-87): [25]

* Shmuel arrived at UMS between 8:00 to 8:30 AM and got a call from a friend shortly after first explosion.[26]

* (Redacted, but S. Kurzberg & Ellner) got on internet at UMS and began reading CNN & YNIT.

* A few minutes later, (S. Kurzberg & Ellner) went outside to look at WTC and suggested go take photos.

* (Redacted, but S. Kurzberg & Ellner) got in the van and drove to a parking lot fronting the Hudson River.

* Unsure of exact location of lot, but it took only 5 minutes to get there and then got on the van’s roof.

* After spending a few minutes at the lot, drove back to UMS and got on roof and took more photos.

* On the way to the parking lot, Sivan Kurzberg stated, “I’m glad I brought my camera today.”

Shmuel’s Version 2 Story – 9/23/01 FBI Case Summary (FBIR_S5P45Par4): [27]

* Shmuel arrived at UMS at around 8:20 AM and found out about first WTC crash from co-worker.

* Shmuel got into van with the other two DIs and they traveled to a nearby parking lot to take photos.

* They were in the parking lot for approximately 10 minutes sometime between 8:30 to 9:00 AM.

* Returned from the Doric to UMS before 9:00 AM

It is hard to understand why the FBIR presents two different versions of Shmuel’s timeline for the morning of September 11th; but in any case, neither is plausible. Shmuel’s two timelines are not even compatible with each other, with Version 2 being impossible for the DIs to spend 10 minutes at The Doric and being back at UMS before 9:00 AM. It will be shown in the next subsection that Shmuel’s Version 1 is also practically impossible given Maria’s and other eyewitness’s timeline testimonies. To understand better, following are some important events and times:

First Plane Crash 8:46:30 AM

Second Plane Crash 9:03:02 AM

Crash 1 and 2 Window Period 0:16:32 minutes

Drive from UMS to the Doric[28] Approximately 4 to 5 minutes

FBI Analysis of Photos in Possession[29] Approximately 8:50 to 9:00 AM

DIs Maximum Time at The Doric[30] Approximately 8:53 to 9:03 AM

Note: Not one UMS employee interviewed by the FBI confirmed that the three DIs were at UMS between 8:00 AM and 8:50 AM, the approximate time the three DIs eventually stated they were there before going to The Doric. There are only 3 or 4 current UMS office employees interviewed in the FBIR, and only one was apparently asked if and when they saw the DIs the morning of 9/11 and her testimony conflicts with the DIs’ stories (See Eyewitness 4 testimony below).[31]

Comparing Yaron Shmuel’s Story(s) to Maria’s (Eyewitness 1) – The Impossible DIs Timeline

The FBI’s Version 2 of Shmuel’s story conveniently leaves out many of the time consuming activities from Shmuel’s Version 1 story. Specifically, Version 2 states that Shmuel hears about the first crash from a co-worker and gathers everyone and drives to The Doric, while Version 1 states that Shmuel got a call from a friend about the first crash, then Oded Ellner and Sivan Kurzberg got on the internet to check it out, then a “few minutes later” (redacted and redacted) went outside to look at WTC and suggested to go take photos at a parking lot that is 4 to 5 minutes away. Compare that time to Maria and her friend’s FBI interviews/timelines:

Maria’s Friend FBI Interview on Sept. 17, 2001 (FBIR_S3P67):

* Maria’s friend at Doric was watching TV when she heard a strange noise.

* She went to the window to investigate and saw a small cloud of smoke coming from one WTC tower.

* She immediately called Maria and told her smoke was rising from WTC and to look out her window.

Maria’s FBI Interviews from Sept. 12 to 17, 2001 (FBIR_S1P32-33, 63-65, 83, S3P4, S5P51-52):

* Maria receives call from friend “immediately” after first crash to “approximately” 9 AM

* Maria went to window and also saw smoke and ended the call.

* Maria got binoculars and walked back over to window and saw van in parking lot at south end of lot.

* Saw one man holding a video camera and all others appeared happy and joking around.

The exact time that Maria got the call from her neighbor is critical but still a little vague despite “at least” three FBI Interviews. Although one interview states she receives the call “at approximately 9 AM” (FBIR_S1P32), and another states “shortly before 9 AM” (FBIR_S3P4), the Sept. 23, 2001 Case Summary states the “neighbor’s call came immediately after the first explosion at the WTC” (FBIR_S5P51). Another entry on FBIR_S1P65 states, “Maria is certain that the first fire at the WTC had just started.” Maria and her friend’s testimony together appear to be the best indicator of the time the DIs were spotted, which would have been no more than two or three minutes after the first plane crash.

Maria appears to be generalizing and approximating the time in the first two cases, and 8:50 AM to most people would definitely fall in the “approximately 9AM” to “shortly before 9 AM” frame of reference (Note: Oded Ellner was 45 minutes off in his estimate of when he received a call after the first plane crash). Maria also states that it appeared the DIs noticed her (FBIR_S1P64), which is probably what prompted them to then leave the parking lot. Given Maria and her friend’s timelines, Maria almost certainly spotted the DIs at The Doric between 8:48 to 8:50 AM which would have made it impossible for the DIs to get from UMS to The Doric in that timeframe.

Other Doric and UMS Eyewitness Testimonies Implicating the DIs that was Ignored by FBI

There were at least two other eyewitnesses at The Doric who appear to have seen the DIs or the van at the building either before, or very soon after the first crash. A UMS employee also appears to have seen at least two of The Doric DIs back at UMS before 8:58 AM, which would have basically meant that the three DIs were at The Doric before the first crash. Another UMS employee told the FBI that she did not recall seeing the van in its usual spot on 9/11, but the FBI forgets to ask her the time. Following is a summary of the four other eyewitness testimonies:

Eyewitness 2 (Doric): At approximately 8:15 AM on September 11th, while leaving the apartment complex, a Doric resident observed a white van parking in the rear of the parking lot (Note: given the time the DIs’ van passed through the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel at 8:48 AM, this would have approximated the time they would have arrived at The Doric if they drove straight there). The eyewitness described the driver as a male individual appearing to have a brown but not dark complexion, round face, dark hair, and approximate age 30’s (Note: the driver’s description fits Oded Ellner very closely).[32] Although no passengers were visible, the van had no windows and the other two DIs could have been in the back of the van or they could have already gotten out preparing for filming. The eyewitness also recalled writing on the side in red, and she assumed it may have been an electric company van. When the resident returned at approximately 9:20 AM the van was gone (Note: It seems that the same eyewitness testimony occurs in the following entries: FBIR_S1P33, S2P82, and S5P29).

It should be noted that the DIs’ van did not appear to have red writing on its side based on a distant but unconfirmed photo of the van.[33] However, an All-Points Bulletin (“APB”) based on Maria’s complaint to the police and a Boston WBZ 4 news broadcast stated that the DIs van had writing on the back stating “Urban Moving Systems.”[34] Although the FBIR does not state whether the van did or did not have writing on it, an FBI interview with a UMS employee on Sept. 20, 2001 revealed that the company has magnetic panels with UMS lettering on it (FBIR_S3P85). Thus, these panels could have been on the van the morning of 9/11. In addition, one or two UMS vans spotted in the Boston area on 9/11 had UMS writing on their side (see Section B.4 below and FBIR_S1P22, 23, 30).

In the instance the van did not have red writing on its side, the eyewitness may have just mistakenly thought it was on the side instead of the back of the van or just assumed there was writing on the side since she usually associated utility vans with such lettering (Note: Maria actually stated that the van appeared to be a phone company van. FBIR_S1P64). This is a relatively minor detail compared to identifying a white van at 8:15 AM at The Doric whose driver closely fit the description of one of the DIs. There is no evidence that the FBI showed this eyewitness a photo of Oded Ellner to see if she could positively identify him as the driver of the van she spotted at The Doric at around 8:15 AM on 9/11.[35]

Eyewitness 3 (Doric): Eyewitness 3 was painting a Doric apartment when less than 5 minutes after the first plane hit, (redacted) came to the apartment and informs (redacted) of the disaster. (Redacted) then stands up from the baseboard, looks out the window, and notices three men taking video and still photos from the roof (deck top) of The Doric parking lot. He also sees a white utility van next to the men and a brown van further behind. He “believes” this occurs between 9:00 AM and 9:10 AM (note: this appears to be another “approximation” that does not fit the timeline if he looked out the window “less than” 5 minutes after the first crash). He exits the apartment to go to his apartment (at The Doric) which takes approximately 5 minutes and he looks out the window and sees both buildings on fire (which implies he left first apartment sometime between 8:58 to 9:03 AM and that he saw the DIs before this time). After about 6 to 7 minutes he goes to another window and sees that the men and both vans are gone (FBIR_S5P25).

If Eyewitness 3 is told in less than 5 minutes after the first crash and then looks out the window shortly thereafter and sees the three DIs, then he would have spotted the DIs shortly after 8:50 AM. That would have made it virtually impossible for the DIs to have first been at UMS and then driven the 5 minutes to The Doric. Thus, they would have either have been there before the crash or within a timeframe that was impossible. It should be noted that this eyewitness also saw the DIs using a video camera, something the FBI fails to bring up when discussing Maria’s testimony of the same.

Eyewitness 4 (UMS): An FBI interview of a UMS employee on Sept. 17, 2001 states that she entered UMS the morning of 9/11 and apparently saw two DIs in the local dispatch area, and possibly a third on the internet in the office area. She continues on and clocks in at 8:58 AM. The two DIs she apparently notices when she walks in are Sivan Kurzberg and Yaron Shmuel (FBIR_S5P21-22).[36] This is very significant testimony because it means that the DIs would have had to leave The Doric no later than 8:54 AM to get back to UMS by 8:58 AM. As the above analysis showed, the earliest the DIs could have gotten to The Doric was around 8:53 AM (Note: Shmuel stated the DIs were at The Doric for about 10 minutes). Thus, it is clear that the DIs were at The Doric at a time which was impossible for them to have been there given their testimony and the FBI assumptions in determining foreknowledge.

The FBI obviously knows the grave implications this evidence has in showing that the DIs definitely had foreknowledge of the attacks, so how to cover-up this fact? In the Sept. 23, 2001 Case Summary, the FBI states, “Unfortunately, the second interview of this employee was not conducted for the purpose of verifying the employees earlier statements. Instead the interview only produced additional background on UMS” (FBIR_S5P52). Thus, it appears that the FBI is ignoring this critical fact just because they did not have a chance of verifying it through a second interview. This is a huge dropped FBI lead that could only be explained by a purposeful cover-up, as there is no evidence in the FBIR that this UMS employee was ever interviewed again or that the FBI acted on this information.

This eyewitness also saw a still picture of a plane hitting one of the WTC’s on a computer screen in the dispatch area right around the time the second plane hits the WTC (Note: the dispatch area is where she apparently spots the two DIs when she first got to work. FBIR_S5P21). Although the second plane crash was captured on a number of commercial and private videos, having a still photo of one of the plane crashes at the time of the second plane crash on a computer screen is very questionable. Although one of the DIs appeared to be on a computer in the dispatch area, it is not known if the computer screen of the still photo was on a computer that the CI was using.

Eyewitness 5 (UMS). It should be noted there were no eyewitnesses at UMS who saw the three DIs at UMS between 8:00 AM to 8:50 AM on 9/11, the time they allege that they were at the warehouse. There are three to four FBI interviews of “current” UMS employees and none of them confirm that the DIs were there at the time the DIs stated (FBIR_S3P85, S5P18-20, 21-22, 39). In fact, one employee stated that she did not recall seeing the company’s one van in its usual parking space on the side of the building (FBIR_S3P85). Shockingly, the FBI does not confirm the time that she noticed not seeing the van in its usual parking spot, nor do they ask the employee what time she arrived at UMS or if she saw the DIs at UMS at the time they were allegedly there. The FBI actually interviews more White Glove Moving employees than UMS employees.

The FBI’s Determination of Foreknowledge Centers on One Unscientific Helicopter Photo

The NK-FBI’s determination on Sept. 24, 2001 that the DIs “most likely” did not possess prior knowledge of the WTC events basically ignores all the prior facts and evidence discussed in this section and relies pretty much solely on a helicopter photo analysis (FBIR_S5P56). Even the FBI characterizes this analysis as “unscientific” and only verifies that the DIs were at The Doric between 8:50 and 9:00 AM but does not provide a preDIse time at which the photos were taken (FBIR_S5P63).

Given all the DIs lies and inconsistencies, the FBI tries to independently determine the time that the photos were taken to assess the time the DIs may have been at The Doric (Note: This was only the film that was in the DIs’ possession when apprehended and does not take into consideration they had over seven hours to destroy or hide other incriminating film). To accomplish this, the FBI obtains Air Traffic Control (ATC) radar tapes that show aircraft in the vicinity of the WTC during the time that “one” CI photo was taken (i.e., the third photo from one roll of film. FBIR_S5P51). Taking into consideration the position of where the DIs’ photos were taken relative to the WTC, the FBI identifies a helicopter in the DIs’ photo as “most likely” being FAA N8BQ (Metro Traffic). This helicopter arrives around 8:50 AM and stayed at this position until 9:00 AM (FBIR_S5P62-63). At this time, there are “at least” 5 other helicopters around the WTC (FBIR_S5P40).[37]

The assumptions and conclusions of the FBI’s analysis are filled with qualifiers such as, “most likely” and “approximately.” However, the FBI increases the resolution of the one photo and compares it to the burn progression of the WTC as taken from video from helicopter N8BQ and “opines” that the photo depicts the scene at “approximately” 9:00 AM, immediately before the helicopter leaves the area. However, the Sept. 23, 2001 Case Summary further states, “Although the results of this analysis verified the DIs were at the parking lot between 8:50 to 9:00 AM, it did not provide a precise time.” (FBIR_S5P51). Indeed, if the photo showing the helicopter was taken around 9:00 AM as assumed by the FBI (which was only photo #3 on the film roll and presumed to be taken very shortly after the DIs arrived at The Doric), and the DIs were at The Doric for around 10 minutes as claimed by Shmuel, then they would have certainly been at The Doric when the second plane crashed at 9:03 AM, which is contrary to all the other evidence in the FBIR. The FBI once again finds itself in a web of lies and contradictions, trying to fit cherry picked evidence to only parts of the whole story and CI timelines.

Eyewitness 4 above states that she saw the DIs back at UMS by 8:58 AM which means they would have had to leave The Doric by 8:54 AM, thus disproving the FBI’s unscientific helicopter analysis based on one photo. In addition, Shmuel stated the DIs were at The Doric for approximately 10 minutes, which means there should have been a series of photos for the FBI to have analyzed, that should have included an approximate start and end time (Note: There were a total of 76 photos from film taken from the DIs when they were apprehended). By looking at the duration of the photos taken at The Doric, the FBI could then determine approximately how long the DIs were at The Doric and if there was any possible way for them to have gotten back to UMS by 8:58 AM. It should be noted that neither the one photo nor the helicopter video are included in the FBIR, even though they basically constitute the only pieces of evidence supporting the FBI’s conclusion that the DIs did not have foreknowledge of the attacks.

Paul Kurzberg’s unexplained Whereabouts the Morning of 9/11 and Other Dropped FBI Leads

The FBI also tried to determine the time the three DIs were at The Doric by determining the accuracy of the time/date readout on the Canon EOS LCD screen (FBIR_S3P72). The camera’s time/date readout was not set properly and the FBI’s intent was to adjust for the differences to try and determine when the three DIs were at The Doric. However, there is no follow-up information in the FBIR on the FBI’s analysis and results. This is an abject failure on the part of the FBI to accurately determine the time of the photos on, perhaps, the most important case (i.e., 9/11) in their agency’s history. The FBI also obtained a video from a gas station very close to UMS’s warehouse to see if they could determine when the DIs’ van drove past it. Although the video showed two white vans drive by between 8:29 to 8:31 AM, it seems the identification with the DIs’ van was not conclusive (FBIR_S5PP64-66, PP69-71).

The FBI obtained the van’s EZ Pass records from the State of New York and determined that the van passed through the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel at 7:48 AM (FBIR_S5P51). Given this time, the DIs could have driven either to The Doric or UMS before the first WTC plane crash; however, they would have had to drive through either the Holland Tunnel or Lincoln Tunnel to get to either (Note: The Holland Tunnel was slightly more convenient to The Doric while the Lincoln Tunnel was somewhat more convenient to UMS). Although Yaron Shmuel stated in his interview that they drove through the Lincoln Tunnel and then to UMS (FBIR_S5P85), there is no confirmation of this fact from any other source.[38] The van’s EZ Pass records were supposed to be attached to an FBI document dated Sept. 17, 2001, but they were not (FBIR_S1P135).

Information from the FBIR suggests that Paul Kurzberg may have driven in from Brooklyn with the three Doric DIs on the morning of 9/11 but was obviously not at The Doric himself (Note: Paul Kurzberg’s FBI interview is not in the FBIR and there is no explanation of his whereabouts the morning of 9/11). An FBI document titled “Israeli Five” shows at least four of the five DIs with Brooklyn addresses (FBIR_S3PP69-71), and Yaron Shmuel’s FBI interview states that he rode to work with two co-workers (apparently Sivan Kurzberg and Oded Ellner), and they stopped and picked up another UMS employee (FBIR_S5P85). Omer Marmari further stated in his FBI interview that all five DIs were together in Brooklyn on the evening of Sept. 10, 2001 (FBIR_S3P100).

Did Paul Kurzberg drive in with the three Doric DIs, and if so, where did he go when the other three DIs went to UMS and/or The Doric? If Kurzberg was not the other UMS employee that was picked up that morning, then who was it and how come they were not interviewed by the FBI confirming the DIs story that they drove to UMS first? [39]It should be noted that Marmari also does not have any eyewitness as to where he was during the attacks. Marmari states in his FBI interview that he left his Manhattan apartment around 8:05 AM and did not arrive at UMS until 9:15 to 9:20 AM (FBIR_S3PP61-660). Although he took the subway and a bus to work, it seems like a somewhat long time to go the 13 miles from his apartment to UMS, despite the one public transportation change.

Both HQ-FBI’s Sept. 24, 2001 Case Closing Order (FBIR_S5P58) and NK-FBI’s July 2003 Case Closing Memo (FBIR_S6PP38-41), state that there’s no basis to suggest the DIs had any prior knowledge relating to the attacks on the WTC. Unfortunately for the FBI, this section clearly shows many facts and evidence to the contrary and that there is physical, factual, and substantial circumstantial evidence that clearly show that the DIs had, at the very minimum, foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. The following eight sections will now confirm further that the DIs had foreknowledge and may have even had a deeper involvement in the 9/11 operation.

3. Incriminating Evidence Found in the DIs Van Possibly Tying Them to the 9/11 Operation

Although box cutters would be expected in a moving company van, per the FBIR, “Oddly, equipment typically used in a moving company’s daily duties were not found in the DIs van, including work gloves, straps, ropes, dollies, rollers, etc.” (FBIR_S1P34). However, the one moving company tool that was found in the van was box cutters, the same tool used by the alleged hijacker cell for UA 93 who had just spent the last 5 days at nearby Newark Airport hotels. At least three news organizations reported that box cutters were found in the DIs’ van, including ABC 20/20, The Forward, and the New York Times (Section A sources). Although the FBIR does not specifically state that box cutters were found in the van, there were approximately 20 items found in the van that were not listed in the FBIR.[40] Thus, it appears that the FBI purposely omitted or redacted out the box cutter evidence from the FBIR.

Per the Bergen County Record, bomb sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives in the van and the FBI seized the van for further testing. The FBIR definitely shows that the FBI detected evidence of, and tested the DIs’ van for explosives, as they took several residue samples from a blanket and fabrics in the van, as well as special agents’ gloves and bomb suits (FBIR_S1P7). There’s no doubt that the FBI suspected explosives as they also vacated the Homewood suites hotel while the DIs pulled over van stood out front. Per the Bergen Record, as late as 10 PM on September 11th, two officers were seen searching the van while other officers kept their distance.

Nearly two weeks after the potential explosive samples were taken from the DIs’ van; the results were allegedly still not completed. The Sept. 23, 2001 NK-FBI Case Summary states, “Swabs of the vehicle’s interior were taken, and those samples were sent to the FBI laboratory for further analysis. Final results are still pending.” (FBIR_S5P44) On Sept. 24, 2001 HQ-FBI ordered that the investigation of the DIs be closed and the next time the explosives tests are mentioned in the FBIR is in the July 2003 NK-FBI Case Closing Memo, which simply re-stated the first sentence from the Sept. 23, 2001 Case Summary that, “Swabs of the vehicles interior were taken, and those samples were sent to the FBI laboratory for further analysis” (FBIR_S6PP42-43). Somewhat strangely, FBI lab results of video footage taken from a gas station near UMS’s warehouse were sent to the FBI’s Explosive Lab Unit on Oct. 18, 2001 (FBIR_S5P70).

Why the explosive tests were not completed in two weeks, let alone two years, is absurd and a crime itself. There is no rational or explainable reason for the FBI not to have completed the explosive tests in a timely manner unless they were purposely covering-up the results because they would implicate the DIs and Israel.

According to the FBIR, “Seizure of the individuals’ property yielded airline tickets with immediate travel dates to destinations worldwide” (FBIR_S1P34). The DIs were all looking to make a quick getaway after September 11th, with at least one, and possibly two DIs, having a round trip ticket arriving in New York on June 15, 2001 and returning to Israel on Sept. 12, 2001. The FBIR includes a travel itinerary and a plane ticket that shows Olympic Air flights from Tel Aviv to New York on June 15, 2001 and returning Sept. 12, 2001 (Note: Itinerary and ticket are from two different Israeli travel agencies, suggesting possibly two reservations). The FBIR also notes a July 11, 2001 visa application to Australia which appears to belong to Yaron Shmuel (FBIR_S3P60). Lastly, a Palm Beach Post article on Nov. 18, 2001 stated that one of the DIs had a Sept. 13, 2001 ticket to Bangkok, Thailand.[41] The DIs also stopped at White Glove Moving to pick up one of the DIs’ skis shortly before they were apprehended on 9/11, indicating their plans of high-tailing it of the country very soon.[42]

Perhaps nothing shows foreknowledge more clearly than getting the camera you’re going to use to film a big event the day before. The FBIR also suggests that there were two or more cameras found in the van, with the primary camera, a relatively expensive Canon EOS SLR 35 mm camera, being apparently purchased the day before by Paul Kurzberg for his brother Sivan.[43] There are at least two other entries in the FBIR that suggest more than one camera was found in the van; although, the additional cameras are never mentioned again. S5P62 of the FBIR states that, “at the time of their arrests, individuals had several cameras in their possession.” In addition, S1P9 of the FBIR shows that film from a Pentax P550 was taken from the van, implying the camera was also there, while also listing a potential third camera. Although the FBI confiscated and developed 76 photos from film found in the van and cameras, none of the photos were included in the FBIR (FBIR_S1P3). So why did the DIs coincidently bring their cameras to work on 9/11?

Several of the primary sources in Section A stated that one of the DIs had two passports, but what they all failed to mention, whether they knew it or not, was that the second passport just happened to be from Germany (FBIR_S1P7, P34). A German passport has potential ramifications because it was Hamburg Germany where three of the key pilot hijackers attended school and where the 9/11 plot took form in late 1999/early 2000.[44] In fact, there were fifteen individuals on the FBI’s 9/11 Watch List from Hamburg.

The German passport appears to belong to Yaron Shmuel. Shmuel received his German passport in Israel in March 1999, which the FBI confirmed as being legitimate (Note: It appears that Shmuel’s Israeli passport expired in August 2000 and was not renewed. FBIR_S3P69). Although some German citizenship conditions require German residency for eight years, it’s not known what citizenship conditions Shmuel may have met and when or if he resided in Germany.[45] It’s is not stated in the FBIR if Shmuel ever lived in Germany and there is no evidence that the FBI checked with German intelligence regarding Shmuel’s potential German residency or whether they looked into a possible nexus with the 9/11 Hamburg cell.

The FBI confiscated two student identity cards and presumed them to be fake, apparently because none of the DIs were students (FBIR_S1P34). The two student cards were from International Student Identity Cards (S1P99, “ISIC”) and International Youth Travel Card (S1P118, “ISTC”), and are basically membership cards that give students travel discounts throughout the world. The FBI Timeline for Lebanese pilot hijacker Ziad Jarrah shows that he received an ISIC card in September 2000 in Hamburg, Germany. Coincidently, the DI’s ISIC card was also issued in September 2000, but it does not show where it was issued and the DI’s school name is redacted. However, the help line number on the card is a United Kingdom number which might suggest that it was issued in Europe. Was the CI student card possibly issued to Yaron Shmuel while he was in Germany and was there a potential nexus with hijacker Ziad Jarrah?

In what is yet another Israeli / hijacker coincidence, Ziad Jarrah’s Lebanese cousins, Ali and Yusuf Jarrah, were caught spying for Israel in 2008, with Ali working with Israel since about 1983. The New York Times reported in February 2009 that Ali traveled often to Syria and South Lebanon where he photographed roads and convoys that might have been used to transport weapons to Hezbollah. Ali confessed to spying for Israel as he held an Israeli passport and traveled to Belgium and Italy where he was debriefed at length.[46] The fact that Israel turned Ziad Jarrah’s cousins as spies / operatives, should be raising all kinds of red flags in connection with Ziad Jarrah, Israel, and the 9/11 attacks.

The FBI obviously went overboard in its redactions of the investigation documents, and in no case is that more obvious than a complete redaction of an entire email except of its “subject line” and date (it also noted that the e-mail was from a female to a male). The email was found in the van and was dated July 10, 2001 with the subject line of, “Dear God.” The e-mail was approximately 1/3 of a page long and was likely sent to one of the DIs from a woman in Israel (FBIR_S3P59). Another document in the FBIR to the Israeli government dated Sept.12, 2001, is a “priority” request to provide the name of an individual associated with a redacted email name (FBIR_S5P112-114), and appears to be related to the “Dear God” sender. No response from Israel is included in the FBIR. Why the FBI found it necessary to redact the entire email is highly questionable.

Although most items found in the van were not listed in the FBIR, other potentially incriminating items confiscated and listed by the FBI included:

* Among eight random developed photos in the van was one of the World Trade Center lit up at night, suggesting one of the DIs took a relatively recent photo of the target (FBIR_S1P96).

* Per the Bergen Record, police found maps in the van and one source stated, “There are maps in the car with certain places highlighted, it looks like they’re hooked in with this (9/11 attacks). It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty Park.” The NK-FBI did find several maps that they sent for further analysis (FBIR_S1P7). However, the results of the analysis are not included in the FBIR.

* An April 30, 2001 postmarked envelope and letter addressed to a motel approximately five miles from NSA headquarters in Laurel, MD (FBIR_S1P112). The guest name and room number are redacted, but likely to be to one of DIs in the van. Although the letter was in Hebrew and sent for translation, the translation results are not included in the FBIR. Coincidently, several of the hijackers stayed in a motel equal distance from NSA headquarters for two weeks in August 2001 (FBI HJT 8/15/01 to 8/28/01).[47]

* One of the DIs had a number in his notebook that matched the telephone number of an individual in South America with ties to Islamic militants in the Middle East. However, in what are lottery-like probabilities, the FBIR appears to conclude this number was related to the bank account of a DI’s friend (FBIR_S6PP40-41).[48]

UMS: Likely Israeli Front Company with Pre-911 Growth and Potential 9/11 Connections

The FBI’s search team leader summed up Urban Moving Systems effectively on Sept. 13, 2001 when he characterized the company as “a possible fraudulent operation with little evidence of a legitimate business operation found” (FBIR_S1P36). Sources also told ABC 20/20 that they believed UMS was providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation and The Forward stated that the DIs were conducting a Mossad surveillance operation and UMS served as a front. In addition, in a UK Channel 4 interview with an ex-Mossad agent, the agent stated, “Urban Moving Systems was a front company for Israeli intelligence and that some its workers were spying illegally in the US.”[49]

Based on this information, there should be little doubt that UMS was an Israeli intelligence front company. The obvious and crucial question also remains, why would an innocent person with nothing to hide (i.e., UMS owner Dominik Suter), suddenly abandon a legitimate business he just worked so hard to grow in the months before 9//11? Even the FBI surmised on Oct. 16, 2001 that Suter apparently abandoned UMS to avoid criminal prosecution (FBIR_S5P90).[50] Coincidently, just as the alleged hijackers’ operations were growing and becoming more active in the US in the months leading up to 9/11, so too were UMS’s. In an FBI interview of a UMS employee on Sept. 19, 2001, the employee stated that “UMS expanded quite a bit in recent months” (FBIR_S5P18). Ironically, it appears that the likely Israeli intelligence front company UMS may have funded their 2001 employment growth with a $498,750 US government backed SBA loan in June 2001.[51]

Reflected in UMS’s rapid growth was the recent addition of the DIs. The same interviewed UMS employee apparently states that at least four of the five DIs started working at UMS between May and July, 2001 and one of the DIs appears to be a consultant to the company (FBIR_S5P19).[52] All the other DIs work positions are redacted but it appears that they have office jobs (not movers) and get special treatment at UMS. According to the employee, “none of the DIs punched in as instructed and one CI filled out all the time cards based on instructions from (redacted, possibly Suter).”[53] Although the company keeps personnel files on most employees, she does not believe files were kept on three of the DIs. She also believed one of the DIs worked as a computer programmer and met (redacted) for the first time on 9/11 (FBIR_S5PP18-20). Coincidently, two ex-UMS employees told the FBI that (redacted, apparently Suter) does not normally let his workers take his vehicles home like he did on Sept. 10 and 11.[54] FBI interviews with acquaintances of the DIs stated some became withdrawn after starting work at UMS.[55]

It’s clear that the DIs’ backgrounds did not fit their very short term positions at a US moving company. The Forward stated that at least two of the DIs were Mossad operatives, and although the FBIR does not confirm the Mossad associations (or omits or redacts it), two or three DIs definitely had some sort of Israeli intelligence associations.[56] It also appears that DI Yaron Shmuel probably had a background in explosives. Shmuel’s employment history on Linkedin.com shows that he worked for Octagon Explosives and Security as a project manager from January 2008 to January 2011. Octagon is a small company (1 to 10 persons) that appears to specialize in explosive detection but also has an Explosion and Pyrotechnics Division that provides live explosives and pyrotechnics for simulation and exhibition and an area for execution and measurement of the explosives.[57]

Surprisingly or not, there were several examples of anti-American sentiment at UMS, including possibly by Dominik Suter. One UMS employee told the FBI that he was not surprised that (redacted, possibly Suter) was in trouble with the authorities because he always spoke badly of the US,[58] and added that non-Jewish employees were never invited to join in meetings at UMS (FBIR_S5P41-42). Another former employee also contacted the FBI and told them that he had quit due to the high amount of anti-American sentiment present among UMS’s employees. One Israeli employee once remarked to him, “give us twenty years and we’ll take over your media and destroy your country” (FBIR_S1P36-37). At least one other UMS employee appears to have experienced anti-American sentiment at UMS and may have had useful information to the investigation but the interview is too heavily redacted to be absolutely sure.[59]

It seems that the business growth of UMS was so significant in the run-up to 9/11, that the company even opened up a new warehouse in Bayonne, NJ, several miles south of the WTC and an unobstructed block or two west of the Hudson River (FBIR_S3P32). The warehouse was opened around July/August 2001 and had convenient access to the WTC and would have allowed for great views of the WTC South Tower crash from its easily accessible roof (Note: the South Tower plane came in from the south and would have provided a similar “approach view” as The Doric’s North Tower crash view). The warehouse was also only several blocks from the Port of New Jersey, one of the four ship ports servicing the NY/NJ area. It is not known why UMS rented this warehouse and it does not appear that this warehouse operated “commercially” pre-or-post 9/11. When this author visited the warehouse, the current occupant stated they moved in around late 2001/early 2002.[60]

When the FBI searched the UMS Weehawken warehouse on Sept. 13, 2001, they seized 15 computers and a network server, noting the unusually large number of computers relative to the number of workers (FBIR_S5P46). Unfortunately, it appears that the results of the computer analysis were not completed until January 2002 after the DIs went back to Israel (FBIR_S5P117).[61] In addition it appears that the FBI missed some key evidence in its September 13th search. A Weehawken Police Department search of the UMS warehouse on Oct. 12, 2001, found 57 CD-ROMs, 35 floppy discs, and 2 zip files (FBIR_S5P128-129, 131). Why the FBI missed these items and whether they subsequently analyzed them is not included in the FBIR.

Although there were some media reports that suggested the FBI also searched for explosives at the Weehawken warehouse, there was no mention of this in the FBIR.[62] Given that explosives were suspected in the DIs’ van and the results were not completed at the time of the warehouse search, it would make logical sense that the FBI would also test for explosives at UMS’s two warehouses. There’s also no evidence that the FBI searched the Bayonne warehouse for explosives even though a witness told the FBI he was not allowed to view the second floor by UMS employees (FBIR_S3P32). Interestingly, the Weehawken warehouse is an older functionally obsolete building in a somewhat secluded area that remains empty to this day.

The DIs’ UMS vehicle was only one of several that turned up in some of the hottest spots in the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, UMS trucks were also spotted in Boston and Pennsylvania, driving towards Shanksville.

UMS van(s) were also spotted twice in the Boston area on September 11th, which just happened to be the city where the two planes that hit the WTC had departed. The first vehicle was spotted at 6:45 AM in Plymouth, MA, approximately 40 miles south of Logan Airport where the two planes that crashed into the WTC took off within minutes of 8:00 AM. The vehicle was a white cube van with double doors in the back and the company name, Urban Moving Systems in gold lettering (FBIR_S1P23). Another entry in the FBIR states that law enforcement officials in New England reported a vehicle displaying markings for Urban Moving Systems had stopped somewhere between New York and Boston on September 11th for the purpose of asking for directions to Boston (Note: Plymouth is between Boston and New York). The occupants of this vehicle were also identified as Israeli nationals and it might be the same truck (FBIR_S1P30).

A second UMS van was spotted at 1:00 PM on September 11th, in Nashua, NH, approximately 50 miles northwest of Logan Airport. Three dark-skinned men were observed driving a white van bearing New Jersey license plates that had a sign on the side saying “Urban Moving Systems.” Per the report, the driver of the van appeared to be lost (FBIR_S1P22&30). According to UMS personnel, the van was assigned to complete a multi-state delivery of residential goods where it would have been coming empty from St. Louis, with a scheduled pick-up in Nashua and the subsequent delivery in Lawrence, MA, approximately 20 miles southeast of Nashua (FBIR_S5P39).

The Nashua van’s activity is strange for two reasons. First, it would be somewhat unusual to use a van for multi-state deliveries, and secondly, why would a New Jersey based moving company be used to make a local Boston area pick-up and delivery? It appears that there were two separate UMS vans in the Boston area on 9/11, as the Nashua van would had to have been “terribly lost” to have ended up in Plymouth earlier that day. It should also be noted that one current and two ex-UMS employees stated that the company just had one van (FBIR_S3P85, S5P30, 33); however, based on the UMS employees schedule for this Boston vehicle, it appears that there were at least one and possibly two other UMS vans on 9/11. Could these Boston van(s) have been rented with UMS magnetic panels on their side?

Another UMS truck was stopped in Pennsylvania on both Sept. 10, 2001 and Sept. 12, 2001. The truck was stopped the first time by Pennsylvania State Police around 10:30 PM on Sept. 10, 2001 for a traffic violation. At the time, the vehicle was identified as a Penske box truck leased to Urban Moving Systems on Sept. 5, 2001 (FBIR_S1P27). The driver had a Florida driver’s license and the truck was occupied by two Israeli nationals who said they were bound for Columbus, Ohio. , Per the FBIR, the truck was stopped while traveling in the direction of the Shanksville plane crash that would allegedly happen about 12 hours from the time they were pulled over (FBIR_S1P36).[63] When the FBI later questioned (redacted, possibly Suter) of UMS about the vehicle’s presence in Pennsylvania, he could not offer an explanation (FBIR_S1P30).[64] An interview of the president/owner of UMS (i.e., Dominik Suter) revealed that the occupants’ delivery schedule for the morning of September 11th did not include any pickups or deliveries outside of New Jersey (FBIR_S1P36).

On Sept. 12, 2001, the same truck and occupants were stopped again while traveling eastbound in Pennsylvania. During questioning by Pennsylvania State Police, the Israelis said that they weren’t in New York on 9/11; however, a gasoline receipt was found dated Sept. 11, 2001 for gas purchased in NJ on that day. The two Israelis were taken into custody and held at the York County Detention Center and were questioned by the FBI on Sept. 17 and 21. Similar to the DIs’ recent US entry, the truck’s driver arrived in the US from Israel on a 6 month visa on March 21, 2001, while the other truck occupant entered the US around July 2000 and stayed in New York. Both occupants also spent decent amounts of time in southeast Florida, the home of the largest concentration of Israeli Art Students and alleged 9/11 hijackers (FBIR_S5PP72-75, PP79-82).

The driver of the truck was identified as Roy Barak and his passenger as Motti Butbul. FBI agents grew suspicious when box cutters were found in their van, and the FBI polygraphed Barak who spent his second week in solitary confinement.[65] It also appears that Barak may have been associated with an on-going FBI investigation or had some potential intelligence connection, which may explain why he was detained for so long and given polygraph tests.[66] Although the FBI concluded that the two occupants did not have foreknowledge of the attacks, they did not explain or investigate the New Jersey gas receipt from September 11th, or why the truck and occupants were not scheduled for out-of-state activity on September 11th. In addition, one of the occupants stated they made a delivery in Chicago, while the other one denied this fact. Instead of investigating and reconciling the two different stories, the FBI just assumed that one occupant did not understand the question because his English was not too good (FBIR_S5P72-75, P79-82).

The FBIR basically confirms that Dominik Suter and his wife were on a May 2002 FBI 9/11 watch list report when the FBI started investigating Antiwar.com in April 2004 for posting the report on its website around July 2002 (FBIR_S6PP62-70).[67] The FBIR states that FBI Counterterrorism sent out a communication to all FBI field offices on March 24, 2004 advising that “The post-9/11 ‘watch list,’ ‘Project Lookout,’ was posted on the Internet (by Antiwar.com) and may contain names of individuals of active investigative interest.” (FBIR_S6P63) The May 2002 Post-9/11 Watch List included, among others, Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, all 19 hijackers, and 15 Arab individuals from Hamburg, Germany. Out of over 300 names, those of Suter and his wife are two of just a few that are not Arab names.[68]

Although it appears that Dominik Suter and his wife were of investigative interest to the FBI, their apparent investigation was not included as part of the FBIR. To date, neither the FBI nor Dominik Suter has explained why Suter and his wife appeared on the Post-9/11 Watch List report. In a twist of irony that could only happen in America, Dominik Suter and his wife appear to be back in the USA as if nothing ever happened. The apparent Linkedin.com resumes of Suter and his wife show them holding several jobs in New York / New Jersey area over the last several years.[69] For some strange reason, Suter forgets to include his five year ownership in UMS on his Linkedin.com job history (i.e., from around 1996 to Sept 14, 2001 when he abandoned his US business).

The Doric: Perfect Views of North Tower Attack and Hub of Other DIs and UMS Activity

The FBIR identifies The Doric parking lot at 100 Manhattan Ave., Union City, NJ, as the place where the DIs filmed the attacks. Consequently, it’s now understood by this author why the DIs chose to film the WTC North Tower attack from The Doric after seeing it in person. The Doric sits on one of the highest bluffs just off the west bank of the Hudson River in Union City, NJ, allowing for magnificent unobstructed views of New York City. The more popular town of Hoboken is actually to the east and lies beneath The Doric’s bluffs.

The Doric was a mere 3 miles north of the WTC’s, allowing for another 20 seconds or so after the plane flew past The Doric before it crashed into the WTC. Indeed, the DIs could not have chosen a better place to film the first jet roaring south down the Hudson River descending onto the WTC North Tower. As Yaron Shmuel stated in an interview with the FBI, the parking lot “gave them a view of the entire length of both towers” (FBIR_S5P86). Thus, if it were not for the DIs realizing that they were spotted filming and Dancing by Maria, they would have been strategically positioned for a good view of the second plane crash also.

An FBI interview on Sept. 14, 2001 with the apparent manager of The Doric found that he did not recognize any of the DIs, but had heard of Urban Moving Systems just five days prior. A tenant called him on Sunday Sept. 9, 2001 and stated that he and his wife would be moving out of the building at 9:00 AM the next morning and that UMS would be their movers. The manager thought this was odd because the tenant was paid through the end of September and had not given an earlier notice to move. The manager also stated the apartment was owned by (redacted) who moved out approximately two years earlier and is possibly (redacted) and his wife was from (redacted) FBIR_S1PP71-72. Why does the FBI need to redact where the unit owner and his wife were from? Is there any other country besides Israel that it would make any difference?

In an FBI interview with a tenant of the building that same day, the tenant confirmed that UMS moved the tenant out on Monday Sept. 10, 2001, but that none of the five DIs were the movers (FBIR_S1P73). Another Doric resident told the FBI that the tenant who abruptly moved out used to take the Path Train to work each morning, which was a train that went either to the WTC or to mid-town Manhattan (FBIR_S1PP73-74). Thus, this tenant very likely missed his train to the WTC on the morning of 9/11. Strangely, it does not appear that the FBI regarded this tenant as a person of interest and there’s no evidence that the FBI pursued this individual to determine if he had any foreknowledge of the attacks or connections to UMS and/or the DIs.

On Sept. 12, 2001, the FBI canvassed The Doric asking about a dozen residents if they ever saw any of the DIs around the building (FBIR_S1PP-66-85). Although many of these tenants said one or two looked similar to someone they “may” have seen around the complex or neighborhood before, only one resident “positively” identified one of the DIs as being at The Doric previously. This resident saw one of the DIs (redacted, possibly Sivan Kurzberg) at The Doric around 3 PM on Sept. 10, 2001 and in the lobby in the late afternoon of Sept. 7 or 8.[70] On Sept. 10, the tenant observed the CI entering the elevator in the lobby along with another individual. They appeared to be conversing possibly Spanish and the manner in which they were speaking suggested that they knew each other. The Spanish-speaking man exited the elevator on floor 3 while the CI exited on floor 9. Oddly, the CI identified himself as a construction worker, working in the building until 7 PM that night (FBIR_S1P61-62, S3PP5-6, S5P46, with a significant redaction in the S1 entry).

Thus, it appears that the DIs had more of a connection at The Doric than just knowing its parking lot had great views of both Twin Towers. So who lived in the 9th floor unit, did it also have a great unobstructed view of the WTC’s, and could another Israeli have been in that apartment taking undisturbed video of the attacks on 9/11? Unfortunately, there are no documents or entries in the FBIR indicating that the FBI followed up on this lead and searched and found the Spanish-speaking individual on the 3rd floor or tried to determine what apartment the CI was visiting on the 9th floor.[71] (Note: although a completely redacted Doric guest log is provided in FBIR_S5P127, an entry in S5P131 states there are no guest logs available for 9/11/01 or prior?).

Unfortunately, the FBI resident interviews do not appear to have been especially exhaustive. When this author visited the property several months ago, he met a tenant who was living at The Doric on Sept. 11, 2001. This tenant had never heard of the CI incident and was never interviewed by the FBI. In addition, the parking lot appeared to have key card or sticker access at the time of the author’s inspection, but it is not known what kind of special access, if any, was required on 9/11. Although an entry in the FBIR states that the FBI intended to check to see if a garage surveillance camera recorded the van entries, there is no indication that this was ever done (FBIR_S1P40). Coincidently, The Doric had just completed a $6 million renovation in June 2001, of which about $3 million was for the garage alone, potentially suggesting there should have been secured parking.[72]

The DIs’ Associations with Israeli Intelligence and Other US Intelligence Investigations

Since its establishment in 1948, Israeli intelligence has had a well-documented history of spying on the US as well as conducting false flag operations against US and other countries. The FBIR and other publicly available information in Section A confirm that at least two of the DIs had Israeli intelligence associations. The question remains, what were Israeli Intelligence operatives doing working for a New Jersey moving company for the several months before 9/11 (and planning to leave immediately afterward), and did this strange coincidence, along with other facts and evidence, suggest they had foreknowledge and/or some operational involvement in the attacks?

Israel is unquestionably one of the biggest counterintelligence threats to the US. The Jonathan Pollard/Israel spy case is one of the most damaging in US history, with Pollard giving his Israeli handlers 360 cubic feet of military documents including a 10 volume code breaking manual that contained parameters of every known signal and how the US collects the signals anywhere in the world, some of which found their way to the Soviet Union.[73] A CIA internal poll in 2010 showed Israel came in dead last in intelligence cooperation with the US and was ranked third in how aggressive they were in spying operations on US soil (only China and Russia were worse).[74] In July 2012, the Associated Press reported that the CIA considered Israel its number one counterintelligence threat in the agency’s Near East Division, the group that oversees spying across the Middle East.[75] A 2001 Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) report called the Israeli armed forces a 500-pound gorilla that had been known to disregard international law to accomplish its mission. Of the Mossad, SAMS said: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”[76]

There have been several confirmed Israeli false flag attacks against US interests and a number of other suspected attacks that have largely been covered up by the US government and its controlled mainstream media.[77] One confirmed false flag attack was the Lavon Affair, where undercover Israeli intelligence agents bombed several US and British facilities in Egypt in 1955 in hopes of framing Egyptian Arabs and keeping the British from withdrawing from Egypt.[78] Several accomplices were arrested including Egyptian Jews and undercover Israelis. Another suspected false flag attack was the Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty in 1967, where Israeli fighters, bombers, and torpedo boats bombed a clearly identified and defenseless US communication ship for several hours.[79] Israeli military leaders gave orders to sink the ship and make sure there were no survivors, and in the end, 34 US sailors were dead, 171 wounded, of the total 300 man crew. The USS Liberty incident is believed by some to have been a failed Israeli false flag attack meant to draw the US into a Middle East war against Israel’s enemy Arab countries.

A 1979 CIA analysis of Israeli intelligence basically confirms that one of Israel’s primary goals is the stealing of US scientific secrets and that one of its operational practices is recruiting Arabs as Israeli spies/operatives (particularly from Lebanon and Egypt where two of the pilot hijackers came from).[80] [81] It also confirms that Israel has carried out false flag attacks on US interests and that Israel trains and uses “deep cover” spies that they plant several years prior to a mission becoming operational and productive.[82] The CIA analysis basically shows that Israel’s intelligence apparatus had the means and experience to turn one or more of the alleged 9/11 Arab pilot hijackers as deep cover intelligence operatives or as patsies in the 9/11 attacks. Given Israel’s known history and practice of utilizing Arabs in deep cover intelligence operations, it’s naïve and ignorant to discount the fact that some of the 9/11 pilot hijackers could have been used in such a capacity. It also cannot be denied that the Israelis could have been used as covert handlers for the hijackers and/or to help run cover for them along with the vital Israeli communication companies operating in the US.

As previously discussed in Section A, it was the general presumption among the primary sources that Israel was conducting a secret nationwide surveillance operation in the run-up to September 11th. However, all sources assumed the most Israel-friendly conclusion suggesting that Israel was only spying on unfriendly Arabs in the US. Mark Perelman of The Forward even said an American official told him that US authorities confronted Jerusalem at the end of 2001 and that the Israeli government acknowledged the surveillance operation and apologized for not coordinating it with Washington. Disinformation at best! Although the FBI concluded that there was no evidence the DIs were involved in any covert operation that appears to be another lie and cover-up. The rest of this section will show that at least two DIs were associated with Israeli intelligence and were the subject of other FBI investigations and were probably involved in a covert operation.

There are numerous entries in the FBIR that strongly suggest several of the DIs, and possibly Dominik Suter, were associated with Israeli intelligence and/or other active intelligence investigations.[83] One such entry stated, “Captioned investigation (i.e., DIs counterintelligence investigation) was initiated after the criminal investigation indicated possible/undefined intelligence affiliations with an Israeli Intelligence Service” (FBIR_S6P38). Regarding Suter, the FBIR states, “An interview of owner of the company (UMS) is pending a separate lead,” which may possibly suggest that Suter was already under investigation in another case (FBIR_S1PP22-23)? In addition, Suter’s name appeared on the May 2002 FBI Post-9/11 Watch List which may also indicate he was possibly under continued FBI investigation after he fled back to Israel.[84]

Sept. 14 and 15, 2001 FBIR documents provide additional evidence of the DIs Israeli intelligence and/or prior investigations. A Sept. 15, Case Update states, “Agents of the NYO-FBI were subsequently requested to lend assistance based on their knowledge of past investigations,” followed by a full one and a half page redaction (FBIR_S1P37-39). The fact that the