Articles & Interviews
By Keith Maart
Israeli Connections to 9/11
Table of Contents
The Five Dancing Israelis: September 11th Foreknowledge and Possible Complicity Corroborated by Evidence from FBI Investigation and Other New Information
January 1, 2014
Section A – Information Known to Date on the Dancing Israelis (“DIs”)
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
References and Endnotes
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”). 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”)
09/12/2001 – The New Jersey Bergen Record (“Bergen Record”)
12/12/2001 – Fox News Investigation (“Fox News”)
03/15/2002 – Marc Perelman of The Forward (“The Forward”)
06/21/2002 – ABC 20/20 Investigation (“ABC 20/20”)
09/15/2004 – Gerald Shea Memo to 911 Commission (“Shea Memo”)
03/07/2007 – Christopher Ketcham of Counterpunch (“Ketcham Article”)
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).
* 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.
* 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).
* 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)..
* 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.
* 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. 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. 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). 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).
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? 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. 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.
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?
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. 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. 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). 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):
* Shmuel arrived at UMS between 8:00 to 8:30 AM and got a call from a friend shortly after first explosion.
* (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):
* 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 Approximately 4 to 5 minutes
FBI Analysis of Photos in Possession Approximately 8:50 to 9:00 AM
DIs Maximum Time at The Doric 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).
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). 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. 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.” 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.
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). 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).
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. 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? 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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).
* 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).
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.”
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). 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.
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). 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).” 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. FBI interviews with acquaintances of the DIs stated some became withdrawn after starting work at UMS.
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. 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.
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, 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.
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.
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). 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. 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). 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). 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. 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. 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). 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.
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. 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. 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. (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.
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. 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). 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. 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.”
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. 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. 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. 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).  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. 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. 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.
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 FBI opened up a counterintelligence investigation that would not be reported in the subject FBIR is found in this Sept. 14 entry, ”Connections between the detained DIs and other terrorism and/or intelligence affiliated persons is to be reported under separate cover” (FBIR_S1P31). The fact that the FBI opened up a separate counterintelligence investigation into the DIs was also confirmed by the ABC 20/20 investigation.
The bulk of the DIs Israeli intelligence connections and association with ongoing FBI investigations are contained in the following unfortunately heavily redacted 13 pages: FBIR_S1P34-35, 37-38, S5P48-49, 52-53, 93-95, S6P39-40. Although the NYO-FBI counterintelligence investigation is not even part of the FBIR, it does provide a heavily redacted Nov. 18, 2001 summary of a couple of interviews and polygraphs of one of the DIs (FBIR_S5P91-95), and appears to have contributed to the heavily redacted intelligence and prior investigation information on the July 2003 Case Closing Memo (FBIR_S6P38-41, P53-57). Although heavily redacted, the Case Closing Memo still gives a good indication that at least two, and probably three, of the DIs had Israeli intelligence connections. An associated document to the Closing Memo shows as many as 9 related intelligence investigations, of which eight were closed and one was still pending as of July 2003.
It appears that at least two, and probably a third DI, was part of the FBI-NYO counterintelligence investigation because of Israeli intelligence associations. The two most likely DIs associated with Israeli intelligence are Paul Kurzberg and Oded Ellner, with the third “probable” being Sivan Kurzberg. None of their individual NK-FBI interviews are included in the FBIR counterterrorism investigation since they are apparently part of the NYO-FBI counterintelligence investigation. Paul Kurzberg and Oded Ellner were most likely junior Mossad “operatives” as suggested by Marc Perelman of The Forward.
Corroborating the likely Mossad association, S1P34 of FBIR states, “(redacted, apparently Paul Kurzberg) also worked with the (redacted) when (redacted, apparently Paul Kurzberg) found Arabs that weren’t supposed to be in Israel. A subsequent entry on the same page states, “(redacted, apparently Paul Kurzberg) further advised that he had worked at the (redacted) in Elat, Israel, a town later determined to be located on the border where Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, meet.” Elat borders Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula which used to be an Israeli Occupied Territory and is still an important and strategic security area for Israel.
The March 1979 CIA Assessment of Israeli Intelligence states, “As further training, Mossad officers work in the Administered (Occupied) Territories for two years to sharpen their (Arabic) language skills before being posted abroad. During this period they usually serve in the Sinai and often run Bedouin agents into Egypt in conjunction with Israeli Military Intelligence.” In other words, Paul Kurzberg went through typical Mossad training and was likely a Mossad operative. So what were seeming Mossad operatives with at least likely foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks doing working for a New Jersey moving company and planning to leave immediately after the 9/11 operation was completed?
It also appears that one of the DIs also worked for The Jewish Agency, the largest non-profit organization in Israel which has been identified as a non-official cover (NOC) for Israeli intelligence. S6P54 of the FBIR states: “No factual evidence was found to suggest that (redacted, but apparently Paul Kurzberg) was operating in a covert or overt capacity inside the US for The Jewish Agency.” The 1979 CIA Assessment of Israeli Intelligence states that The Jewish Agency receives the same kind of effective support regarding operations as intelligence and security service agents,” and “An intelligence officer stationed in New York and assigned to The Jewish Agency is paid a salary and allowance by the Agency but loses neither seniority nor retirement status while serving in that capacity.
Lastly, the NYO-FBI was concerned that one of the DIs under their counterintelligence investigation (apparently Oded Ellner or Paul Kurzberg) could not provide a plausible account for the approximate one month he spent with his relatives whom he had just met on his present trip to the US (FBIR_S5P95). It appears the city may have been the 9/11 hot spot of Boston, as one FBI interviewee states that “she was unaware of (redacted, apparently Oded Ellner or Paul Kurzberg) ever travelling to Boston” (FBIR_S3P68). The witness added that (redacted) had travelled to Florida several years ago, but was not sure where.
The FBI’s conclusion that none of the DIs were acting in a covert capacity while in the US is undoubtedly as absurd and wrong as their conclusion that the none of the DIs had at least foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Several media reports show it to be wrong and the circumstantial evidence in the FBIR (i.e., the only evidence made available by the FBI) also suggests the FBI is lying and covering up again. Unfortunately, the FBI provides very little information on the counterintelligence investigation so the reader will have to use common sense and logic in seeing through the FBI’s deception and cover-up of the facts and evidence to the contrary.
Other Israeli Moving Companies in NY/NJ Area – Operational Responsibilities in 9/11 Attacks?
Is there a better surveillance front company, other than Israeli communication companies in the USA, than a moving and storage business? The windowless moving trucks make excellent mobile surveillance and cargo transporting vehicles while the moving and storage business has access to people’s personal belongings, including their computers and records in some cases. A moving and storage business would also have easy access to plant surveillance devices in people’s belongings and the moving trucks can be used to transport a multitude of items, including explosive as suspected in the DIs van. Like the Israeli communication companies that dominate certain areas of the US communications market, Israeli moving companies appear to dominate the New York/New Jersey moving business. And like the Israeli Art Students in southeast Florida (Section B.9), the Israeli movers in New Jersey may have served some operational function(s) in the 9/11 attacks.
It turns out that UMS was not the only Israeli related moving company operating in the Hudson/Bergen County areas, as there were at least three other Israeli moving companies in the area. Classic International Movers (“CIM”) was an Israeli moving company in Ridgefield, New Jersey that was under investigation by the Miami FBI field office in conjunction with the moving of one of the alleged hijackers (FBIR_S1P39). All four of the CIM employees had entered the US from various locations in South America and one of the DIs had CIM’s phone number in his notebook (FBIR_S5P50). It appears that the four CIM employees were apparently interviewed by the FBI on Sept. 14, 2001 at the Ridgefield Police Department as a 24 page “urgent” fax of the presumed interview was sent to the FBI Command Center at that time (FBIR_S1P134). A Sept. 17, 2001 FBI document to NK-FBI then references the CIM interview information (FBIR_S1P133). The 24 page interview was not included in the FBIR, and there is no additional information on CIM in the FBIR and the investigation by the Miami FBI; however, it appears that the company no longer exists and may have also shut its doors after 9/11.
White Glove Moving (“WGM”) is another Israeli related moving company that had an office/warehouse in Jersey City on September 11th. It appears that some workers from UMS also worked at WGM, including possibly one or more DIs (FBIR_S5P12). In addition, it appears that one or more of the DIs were roommates with individuals from WGM and that many were friends with each other. The DIs stopped at WGM to pick up some skis shortly before they were apprehended by the East Rutherford police, and on Sept. 21, 2001, the FBI received an employee roster from WGM (FBIR_S4PP6-7). It’s not clear why the FBI requested this employee roster and what they did with it; however, there were more employees interviewed by the FBI from White Glove than there were from UMS. WGM no longer occupies the warehouse they did on September 11th, and currently occupy a warehouse in Bayonne, New Jersey, just off the water and at the base of the Verrazano Bridge.
Moishes Moving Systems (“Moishes”) is yet another Israeli related moving company that sits at the mouth of the Holland Tunnel in Jersey City, leading directly to downtown Manhattan and the WTC. UMS’s auto insurer told the FBI that he had been insuring Moishes for about a year and that Moishes has about 6 to 12 young Israelis just out of the military working for them (FBIR_S2P87). Moishes became the largest independent moving company in the tri-state area (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) in the mid-to-late 90’s and is owned by Moishe Mana. Mana grew up in Tel Aviv, is of Iraqi descent, and is fluent in Arabic. His Arabic came in handy as his Israeli military service was in the Intelligence Corps on the Egyptian front (Sinai Peninsula), similar to one of the DIs in Section B.6 above (apparently Paul Kurzberg).
Dominic Suter appears to have worked for Moishes from 1993 to 1996 as Operations Manager in the storage warehouse (Note: it appears that Suter established UMS around the time he left Moishes). Upon inspecting Moishes offices at 227 Coles St. Jersey City, NJ, this author found a very highly secured two-story building that is more typical of a high tech company than a moving company. Coincidently, Moishes nearby warehouse facility appears to be a large shared eight story building with communication dishes all around it. Moishes also has offices/warehouses in Manhattan and Brooklyn, and Moishes’ main warehouse in Jersey City is only about three miles from the WTC. Coincidently, Moishe Mana’s home in Delray Beach, FL, just happened to be about 6 miles between two apartments of alleged 9/11 hijacker cells in the same town.
In what appears to be some sort of follow-up work to the Dancing Israelis’ case in July 2002, the FBIR includes two other questionable incidents involving Israeli movers in New Jersey (Note: moving company name redacted in each instance). The first incident relates to four Israelis who were arrested on August 14, 2001 in Mt. Holly, New Jersey for being in possession of two overdue rental trucks that were reported stolen. The arresting officers could not establish any legitimate reason why these individuals were in Mt. Holly, but noted they were only about a half mile from the residence of (redacted). (FBIR_S5PP118-119, S6PP33-34) The second incident happened on October 30, 2001 in the vicinity of the main terminal at the Mercer Airport, New Jersey. The Israeli driver stated that he could not provide an explanation for his presence at the airport, but paperwork in his truck showed deliveries of “framed artwork.” In the truck were receipts showing that he paid a toll at the same exit of the FAA Center in Pomona, NJ. He refused to provide an explanation as to why he traveled to that location and a 35 mm camera was also found in the truck. (S5P120-122, S6P30-31)
Geographic and Timeline Nexus’ of DIs/Israeli Groups and Hijackers in NY/NJ Area
On Sept. 15, 2001, the FBI compiled a list of the US entry dates and the current and prior addresses for the hijackers, their suspected associates, and the five DIs (FBIR_S5P28). Some of the information used to compile this list was obtained from two prior investigation databases further confirming that some DIs were involved in prior FBI investigations; however, the list is only referred to in the FBIR and it is not included in it. In a related example of poor transparency and/or cover-up, a Sept 21, 2001 response from the INS regarding their known whereabouts of the DIs was completely redacted (FBIR_S3PP83-84).
The FBI does not include its list of US entry dates for the DIs and the hijackers, but other information in the FBIR gives some indications of when the DIs came to the US and/or when they started working for UMS. Section B.3 showed at least four of the five DIs apparently started working at UMS sometime between approximately May to July 2001 (FBIR_S5PP18-19). From other information in the FBIR, the entry dates of at least three DIs are known, with CI Marmari coming in on July 10, 2001 (FBIR_S3P62), Shmuel coming in approximately six to twelve months before September 11th (FBIR_S5P85 & S3P60), and at least one, and possibly two DIs, coming in on June 15, 2001 (FBIR_S1P100-101). Coincidently, the 13 “muscle hijackers” entered the US from April 23, 2001 to June 29, 2001, right around the time the DIs were coming to the US and taking their new and very short term positions at UMS (FBI HJT 4/23/01 to 6/29/01).
Unfortunately, the FBI timeline and geographic analysis falls far short of what it should have included. With all the other Israeli moving companies in Hudson and Bergen County with similar profiles to UMS, the FBI should have ran the information on the other companies Israeli nationals as well. Despite the shortsightedness of the FBI investigation in not looking into other Israeli moving companies, there are still a number of close geographic associations in the New Jersey area that can be made between the Israeli and Hijacker groups from both the FBIR and other publicly available information. Following are some potential geographic nexus’ worth noting (See Exhibit I – Maps of Israeli and Hijacker Groups in New Jersey / New York).
Dominik Suter, Alleged Hijacker Paterson Cell, and Evidence of a CI in Paterson area. Dominik Suter’s home at 28 Harlow Crescent Road, Fair Lawn, NJ, was only 5 miles from the alleged Paterson hijacker cell at 486 Union Ave., Paterson, NJ. Although the exact date that Suter moved to this house is not known, it may have been around July 2000, when he changed the address on his company health insurance policy from his previous residence at 312 Pavonia Avenue, Jersey City, to UMS’s Weehawken address (FBIR_S1P59-60).
The FBI Hijacker Timeline shows the hijackers moving to Paterson in May 2001, about the same time several of the DIs were entering the NY/NJ area. However, this is not the first time the hijackers had been in the area. A military operation called Operation Able Danger, identifies hijackers Atta, Shehhi, Mihdhar, and Nawaf Hazmi, meeting at the Wayne Motel around September 2000, which was about 8 miles from Suter’s house. Mihdhar and Hazmi will both go on to be members of the Paterson Cell.
New Jersey State Police recovered several items near the van stop on September 11th, which appear to have belonged to the DIs (FBIR_S3PP12-13). One item discovered is a Shop Rite tag that belonged to a male from Brooklyn, and was opened on June 23, 2001 in Rochelle Park, NJ. The Rochelle Park Shop Rite is 6 miles from the hijackers’ Paterson cell and is about 3 miles from the Royal Park hotel in Elmwood Park where hijacker Omari stayed from July 1, 2001 to July 6, 2001 (FBI HJT 7/1/01 to 7/6/01). Thus, at least one of the DIs appears to have spent some time in the area of the hijackers Paterson cell and the Royal Park Hotel even though the DIs allegedly resided in Brooklyn.
Israeli Art Students Next Door to The Doric and Amdocs Jersey City Office. Two out of thirteen IAS who provided their addresses in the June 2001 DEA memo had Hudson County addresses. In another interesting coincidence, an Israeli stopped for questioning in a Fredericksburg, Maryland mall on April 11, 2001 identified herself as an art student from New York. Her name was Meirav Balhams and it just happened that she lived about 200 feet from The Doric at 354 Paterson Plank Road, Jersey City, NJ.
The second IAS living in Hudson County was Michael Gal who was detained and held on $10,000 bond in Dallas in late March 2001. The bond was placed by Ophir Baer, an Israeli who worked for Israeli company Amdocs in the Dallas area. The bond papers stated that Gal would be staying at 22 Palisades Terrace, Edgewater, NJ, which is about one mile south of the George Washington Bridge just off the Hudson River. Gal also lived about 2 miles from hijackers Hani Hanjour and Nawaf Hazmi’s Mailbox Etc at 96 Linwood Plaza, Fort Lee, NJ (FBI HJT 6/26/01).
Amdocs is an Israeli telecommunications which was discussed in detail in Part 2 of the Fox News investigation in Section A above. It just so happens that Amdocs had a regional office at Harborside Financial Center Plaza #5, Suite 2700, Jersey City, NJ. The subject building is conveniently located right across the Hudson River from the WTC, and it would have given Amdocs’ employees front row seats to the WTC attacks and subsequent collapses.
The Potential Brooklyn Connection. Per the FBIR, it looks like four of the five DIs stayed in Brooklyn with at least Sivan Kurzberg staying at 100 Lawrence Street in Brooklyn at the time of their apprehension (FBIR_S3PP69-71 and Police Reports). Following are several other Israeli associations in Brooklyn which were all located within a five mile radius of each other and within several miles of the Red Hook Port:
Red Hook Container Terminal (Zim Shipping’s Primary NY/NJ Port), Brooklyn, NY (Sec B.10)
1 or more DIs at 100 Lawrence St., Brooklyn, NY (Sec A.1 and FBIR_S3PP69-71)
4G Rental Trucks (two rental trucks at UMS on 9/17/01), 395 Kent Avenue, Brooklyn, NY (FBIR_S5P2)
Moishes Moving Brooklyn, 32 Grand Avenue, Brooklyn, NY (Sec B.7)
Red Hook Container Terminal is one of four NY/NJ shipping ports. It’s approximately four miles from the WTC and the terminal closest and most convenient to the WTC. In November 1996, Zim American-Israeli Shipping entered into an agreement with the City of New York, making Red Hook Zim’s primary shipping port in NY/NJ. Although the initial deal was only for three years, it was renewed and still appears to have been in effect on September 11th (See Section B.10 for more detail on Zim American Israeli Shipping).
Sivan Kurzberg gave the 100 Lawrence Street, Brooklyn address to the East Rutherford police when the van was stopped on 9/11. Based on other documents in the FBIR, it looks like 3 more DIs also lived in Brooklyn, but their addresses are redacted and not known (FRIR_S3PP69-71). Kurzberg’s Lawrence street address is approximately one and half miles from the Red Hook Port. When an FBI agent visited UMS on Sept. 17, 2001, they noticed two rental trucks from 4G Rental in Brooklyn, which is several miles from the Red Hook Port. Lastly, Moishes Moving’s Brooklyn warehouse also happens to be a couple of miles from Red Hook.
As will be shown in Section B.9, Zim Shipping likely had at least six months foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and it cannot be ignored that they could have helped shipped in the explosives that possibly took down the WTC. Indeed, Red Hook Port provided the most convenient access to the WTC out of all four NY/NJ ports and UMS (with 4G Rental Trucks) and Moishes moving trucks could have assisted in moving such explosives and explosive devices from the port to the WTC.
Lastly, hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan Shehhi coincidently ended up in the Norfolk/Virginia Beach area from April 1, 2001 to at least April 3, 2001 at the time Zim was under construction on their new Norfolk office building (FBI HJT 4/1/01 to 4/3/01).
Other New Jersey / New York Points of Interest for Israelis and Hijackers. Before moving to Fair Lawn, NJ, Dominik Suter lived at 312 Pavonia Avenue, Jersey City, NJ. This address shows up as one of his two addresses on the May 2002 FBI Suspect List and is an address listed on two of UMS’s trucks when inspected by the FBI on Sept. 21, 2001 (FBIR_S5PP1-5). This townhouse is located only a couple of blocks from Moishes Moving, another Israeli moving company where Suter apparently worked (Section B.4 and B.7).
Classic International Movers Ridgefield office/warehouse was within several miles of Jade East Hotel in South Hackensack where hijackers Sugami, Shehri, and Moqed stayed from May 16, 2001 to May 19, 2001 (FBI HJT 5/16/01 -5/19/01). Paterson cell hijackers Hani Hanjour and Nawaf Hazmi Mailbox Etc location in Ft. Lee, NJ (FBI HJT 6/26/01) is within several miles of the residences of CI Omer Marmari and Classic International Movers office in Ridgefield.
The Hamburg Nexus of Israeli Groups and Hijackers – Completing the Geographic Trilogy. Although not exactly a NY/NJ geographic connection, there is another potential and interesting nexus worth noting at this point. The 9/11 plans basically took form in Hamburg, Germany, around late 1999/early 2000 with three of the four pilot hijackers living there since at least 1996 (note: 15 individuals on FBI’s 9/11 Watch List report once lived in Hamburg). Section B.9 will show that 8 of 17 (44 percent) Israeli Art Students with known embarkation cities came in from Hamburg, Germany. Zim Shipping, an Israeli company that moved out of the WTC on 9/4/01, also had one of its four worldwide offices in Hamburg, Germany (Section B.10). Coincidently, the dual passport held by CI Yaron Shmuel was a German passport. Unfortunately, it is not known if, when, and where, Yaron Shmuel lived in Germany (Section B.3).
FBI’s Nexus between DIs and Israeli Art Students – A Nationwide Israeli Operation on 9/11
It may have taken them awhile, but it appears that the FBI finally realized there probably was a connection between the DIs and the couple of hundred so-called Israeli Art Students (IAS) who were observed or apprehended before and after 9/11. Unfortunately it was too little too late, as the DIs and all the IAS had been released and had returned to Israel by the time the FBI thought there may be a connection between the two groups.
The July 2003 Case Closing Memo references an April 2002 in-depth analytical inquiry initiated by personnel from FBI Headquarters and other members of the US Intelligence Community who traveled to Newark to review the DIs’ case file. The purpose of the inquiry was to determine if any nexus existed between the DIs and “other Israelis fitting a similar profile” (i.e., the IAS), some of whom were held in INS detention around the time of September 11th. The analytical inquiry further attempted to determine if the DIs were part of a clandestine human intelligence collection network. The Newark FBI further noted that the findings of the inquiry was not completed as of the time of the Closing Memo and that any additional findings related to suspicious activities of Israeli nationals be included as part of the ongoing investigation (FBIR_S6P56-57).
Information on the IAS can be found in the Fox News Report, The Forward, the Gerald Shea Memo, and Christopher Ketcham article in Section A, and the nexus between the DIs and IAS’s could not be more obvious. While Israeli movers were living next to the hijackers in New Jersey, the largest concentration of IAS were coincidently living among the remaining three hijacker cells in southeast Florida. Yaron Shmuel gave a Miami address when he was apprehended on 9/11 and a number of other Israeli New Jersey movers spent time in southeast Florida and had Florida licenses. Some IAS also had Hudson County addresses as just seen in Section B.8. The Miami FBI was also investigating an Israeli New Jersey moving company who happened to have moved one of the hijackers.
Most of the information about the IAS prior to September 11th comes from a report from the Drug Enforcement Administration. The strange and unexplained behavior of the IAS was first surfaced in a June 2001 report put out by the DEA’s Office of Security (Note: report leaked to media around December 2001). The DEA was concerned because there were over a hundred cases of IAS’s attempting to penetrate DEA field offices and agents homes. The incidents also involved several other law enforcement and Department of Defense agencies. The nature of the IAS conduct combined with intelligence and historical information regarding past incidents of Israeli organized crime, led the DEA to believe the incidents may have been a well-organized intelligence gathering activity.
Some of the other important findings from the DEA Memo include the following:
* Incidents began occurring since at least the beginning of 2000 with the number of incidents increasing in November/December 2000 and continuing to this date (June 2001).
* Although incidents are widespread, the majority have occurred in the southern half of US with the most active reported in the state of Florida. The Hollywood, Florida area seems to be a central point for these individuals with several having addresses in this area.
* Although most admit to serving in the Israeli military, a majority of those questioned stated that they served in military intelligence, electronic intercepts, or explosive ordnance units. P1 (Note: 5 of the 14, or 37 percent, of the Israeli’s who gave their military background in the DEA Report, had ordnance backgrounds).
* Some have been linked to high-ranking officials in the Israeli military, one was a son of a two-star general, one served as a bodyguard to head of the Israeli military, and one was in the Patriot Missile unit. That these people are now traveling in the US selling art does not seem to fit their background.
* The IAS team leader in Florida, Hanan Serfaty, had two apartments in Hollywood, Florida. One of Serfaty’s apartments at 701 S. 21st Ave, Hollywood, was approximately one-half mile from one of Mohammed Atta’s houses at 1818 Jackson St., Hollywood. Serfaty’s second apartment at 4220 Sheridan St, Hollywood, was approximately one-half mile from Atta’s Mailbox Etc at 3389 Sheridan St., Hollywood. Atta’s Hollywood house was a relatively long four miles from the Mailbox Etc location, which happened to be located in a shopping center (Park Sheridan Plaza West) with a number of Jewish retailers/restaurants and within about one mile of three Jewish synagogues/temples.
* On May 3, 2001, the DEA Orlando office detained IAS Peer Segalovitz and interrogated him for four hours with an FBI agent. Segalovitz admitted he was one of approximately 30 Israeli art students currently residing in Florida. Segalovitz would not admit what their purpose was in Florida, but did say they were “not” here for legitimate means. Segalovitz also admitted that he was a Lieutenant in the Israeli military and that he commanded approximately 80 men that specialized in demolition. Segalovitz stated that his main purpose was to clear mine fields for Israeli tanks and soldiers and acknowledged he could blow up buildings, bridges, cars, and anything else that he needed to (be blown up).
* After the interview, the FBI agent and Segalovitz tracked down Seglalovitz’s friend Akyuz Sagiv at a nearby supermarket. Sagiv stated he is scheduled to go back to Israel in May and that he has a cousin in Hollywood, FL and Coral Springs, FL (Note: Atta also stayed at a house in Coral Springs per the FBI Hijacker Timeline). According to the FBI agent, Sagiv was evasive with his answer and gave answers that contradicted Segalovitz and evidence found on the pair. Sagiv stated that he was in the Israeli military in 1995-96, was the personal bodyguard to the highest-ranking general in the Israeli Army and was also a demolition expert.
* On May 9, 2001, Ben Dor and Marina Glickman were detained at Dallas Airport after coming in from Paris, France. Dor worked for an Israeli software company called NICE, and served in the Israeli military in a unit that was responsible for Patriot Missile Defense. A search of his luggage revealed a computer printout that had some reference to a file named “DEA Groups” (Note: NICE has two US offices, one in Dallas area and another in Rutherford, Bergen County, NJ). Glickman worked as a computer programmer for Retalix and served as an intelligence officer in the Israeli military. Another Israeli on the flight, Zeev Miller, worked part time at Retalix and was an explosive ordnance/combat engineer while in the Israeli army.
* There were approximately seventeen Israelis named in the DEA Memo where the countries or cities they arrived from when they entered the United States are stated in the DEA Memo. It turns out that eight of the seventeen, or 44 percent, came from Hamburg, Germany (note: this statistic is from author’s personal review of DEA Report), the city where three of the pilot hijackers came from, and the 9/11 plot blossomed from early 2000. All eight individuals arrived in late March 2001 with one of the individuals having a US passport.
* Three of the IAS arriving from Hamburg stated their Israeli military background, as did an Israeli picking them up at the Dallas airport. Ofer Navon claimed to be a demolition/explosive specialist, Dilka Borenstein stated he was an Israeli Military Intelligence Officer, Yoni Engel was a company commander, and Michael Calmanovic (driver) was an electronic intercept operator who did “classified work for Israeli national security.” Calmanovic and another Israeli refused to answer further questions regarding their military service.
The first US mainstream media reporting on the IAS did not really come until late November, 2001. Both the New York Times (Nov. 21, 2001) and Washington Post (Nov. 23, 2001) ran articles on about 60 Israeli Jews who have been investigated in relation to September 11th, with many of them being held on the US government’s Invocation of National Security without bond. Although some were arrested on immigration charges, all the Israelis held were eventually released and sent back to Israel with no real investigation.
The case of the IASs basically came to the public’s attention when the DEA Memo was leaked in early December 2001 and Fox ran its four part investigation in mid-December. From there, investigative websites like antiwar.com and creativeloafing.com got a hold of the DEA Memo and started running the stories that the US mainstream media would not touch. The Washington Times Insight Magazine ran a story on April 1, 2002 with the DEA Memo as its main source while adding some of the following new narrative (Note: it’s later this month that the FBI finally decides to look into a nexus between DIs and IAS).
* A senior DOJ official briefed on an ongoing “multiagency” task force stated, “We think there is something sinister here but are unable at this time to put our finger on it.”
* Another federal law enforcement source added, “The higher ups don’t want to deal with this and neither does the FBI because it involves Israel.”
* The documents do not clearly label the activities of the so-called art students as a government-sanctioned spying operation; however, they do make clear there is a covert nature to the well-orchestrated activities.
* A DEA official told Insight, “This is very odd behavior under any situation. The patterns are clear and they pose a significant danger to our officers in the field.” Maybe (to) U.S. National Security.
* When newspapers (Washington Post and AP) picked up the story, the FBI officials downplayed it, telling reporters that no charges of espionage had been filed. The carefully worded statement left out any mention of whether spying was suspected.
Not only did the DIs and other Israeli New Jersey movers keep close company with the alleged Paterson hijacker cell, but southeast Florida IAS also found themselves in very close proximity with the three similarly located 9/11 hijacker cells, with the IAS Florida team leader almost sleeping next to head hijacker Mohammed Atta. Although the last five sources in Section A conclude that Israel was running some sort of surveillance operation in the US in the lead up to 9/11, the possibility that Israel was aiding, abetting, and possibly even participating in the 9/11 operation cannot be ignored, especially when the FBI goes to such great lengths to cover-up the CI investigation.
Zim Shipping – Apparent Early Foreknowledge of Attack Date and Other Potential 9/11 Connections
Although Zim American-Israeli Shipping (“Zim”) was not investigated as part of the FBIR, new information presented in this paper shows that Zim apparently had foreknowledge of the attacks, and at least six months in advance. In addition, Zim’s other potential connections to the 9/11 attacks are also important in tying together some of the other new facts and evidence uncovered in this paper relating to the DIs and IASs.
Zim American-Israeli Shipping was the predecessor company of the now existing Zim Integrated Shipping Services. Zim was the tenth largest shipping company in the world, and at the time of 9/11, was 49 percent owned by the Israeli government who sold their interest to the Israeli Ofer Brothers Group in 2004, who then became 100 percent owners of the company. On 9/11, Zim headquarters was in Haifa, Israel, and it had regional offices in New York/Norfolk, Hong Kong, and Hamburg, Germany, home of the Hamburg 9/11 Cell.
At the time of the attacks, Zim was one of only two Israeli companies with lease contracts at the WTC. The other Israeli tenant, Clear Forest, had a small office of 18 employees on the 47th floor of WTC 1. Clear Forest had only four or five employees at the WTC on 9/11 and all escaped uninjured. Although there were some slight discrepancies in the WTC tenant rosters between various media reports, it appears Zim and its subsidiaries occupied all of the 16th floor (approximately 50,000 square feet), 10,000 square feet of the 17th floor, and some of the 29th floor of WTC 1. It seems that Zim had roughly 250 employees at the WTC before its move-out, which would require about 60,000 square feet of office space.
Fortunately for Zim, the company moved out of the WTC around Sept. 4, 2001 and into a newly built office building in Norfolk, Va., even though they had a significant remaining lease obligation at the WTC. In fact, Zim picked this lucky move-in date about six months before they actually moved. An April 3, 2001 article in the Virginian-Pilot stated, “Zim expects to open the new building by Sept. 4 and will eventually employ 235 people.” Norfolk is home to the US Navy’s intelligence headquarters (Naval Network Warfare Command), and Zim’s new office is about four miles away. Although Zim is reported to have had about 10 employees remaining at WTC on 9/11 tending to the computer systems that still remained there, none were injured or killed.
Zim found its site and built its new 45,000 square-foot office building in Norfolk in approximately six months, which is about as fast as humanly possible for a commercial office project. This is so fast, they even have a special name for it in real estate jargon; it’s called “fast tracking”, as a typical development period would be closer to one year.  Fast track construction is utilized when a company needs to have their building completed in a short time as standard design and construction procedures are compressed to meet that goal. The added development challenges and construction risks of fast tracking was summed up by Zim’s real estate company in the April 25, 2001 Real Estate Weekly when they stated, “Since accepting Zim’s fast track project last month, Hunter has been involved in assisting with site location, selecting the development team of architects and general contractor, and developing strategic relocation plans for Zim’s employees……..It is a terrific assignment that presents many challenges, not the least of which is to ensure that the site is completed by move-in by September 2001.”
Zim’s remaining lease term had been a point of debate, with 9/11 conspiracy debunkers claiming there was no evidence that Zim’s WTC lease term extended beyond their move-out date. However, a FOIA request to the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey by the Let’sRollForums website resulted in a copy of the WTC tenant roster with lease expiration dates. The Port Authority document showed that Zim entered into a 10-year lease contract starting on March 1, 1996 and expiring on Feb. 28, 2006, or about four and a half years after Zim’s September 2001 move-out date. Confirmation that Zim’s remaining lease extended beyond their move-out date was further established by a Crain’s New York Business article on April 9, 2001 that stated, “Rising rent wasn’t an immediate concern (for Zim’s relocation decision), several years remain on Zim’s lease.”
Assuming Zim leased around 60,000 square feet at $30/square-foot at the WTC, its four and a half year remaining lease obligation would have approximated about $8 million. Why make the move to Norfolk to cut costs when it left such a costly obligation at the WTC? There was no evidence that Zim tried to sublease its WTC space in the five months it was building its new space in Norfolk, probably because Zim knew there would no longer be any space to sublease after 9/11. Although independent journalist Chris Bollyn tried to clarify the Zim lease issues with Zim, Larry Silverstein (new owner of the Twin Towers) and the Port Authority (previous owner of WTC), none would reply to his requests for information. Fortunately for Zim, their $8 million lease liability pleasantly disappeared when the WTC came crashing down on 9/11.
The burning question at this point is why did Zim have to fast track the development of their Norfolk office to guarantee its completion by Sept. 4, 2001 when it still had perfectly fine office space at the WTC with an existing four and a half year $8 million lease obligation? What difference would six months have made (i.e., fast tracked vs conventional construction time period) when they still had occupancy rights with a significant lease obligation at the WTC? Apparently, Zim knew they had to be out of the WTC by September 11th, and that’s why they did everything in their power to ensure they would be out of the WTC and in their new Norfolk office by Sept. 4, 2001.
In November 1996, Zim entered into an agreement with the City of New York to transfer its North and South America freight traffic from the area’s largest port at Port Elizabeth, N.J., to the Red Hook Marine Terminal in Brooklyn. Although Zim’s original agreement with Red Hook port was only for three years, Zim extended the agreement in 1999, and it appeared to still be in place on Sept. 11, 2001. Red Hook Port is only four miles from the WTC and the closest and most conveniently accessible to the WTC of the four New York-New Jersey shipping ports. As discussed in Section B.8 above, there were several other CI and other Israeli associations with Brooklyn and the Red Hook Port.
The CIA has long suspected that Zim has been used for Israeli intelligence cover. The 1979 CIA analysis of Israeli intelligence had this to say about Zim: “Other Israeli government organizations that provide support to the intelligence and security community are the Ministries of Finance and tourism, El Al, and the national shipping line, Zim. Unofficial Zionist organizations based in Israel and Jewish communities throughout the world also give aid to Israel operations when needed……Official organizations used for (Israeli intelligence) cover are Israeli Purchasing Missions and Israeli Government Tourist, El Al, and Zim offices, Israeli construction firms, industrial groups and international trade organizations also provide non-official cover (“NOC’s”). Individuals working under deep or illegal cover are normally charged with penetrating objectives that require a long-range, more subtle approach, or with activities in which the Israeli Government can never admit complicity” (i.e., give them “plausible deniability”).
Like UMS, Zim Shipping could have provided intelligence cover and operational functions in the 9/11 attacks. Backing up the CIA’s assessment of Zim as an Israeli intelligence asset, is a number of questionable, illegal, and/or potential Israeli covert operations by Zim over the last decade:
* In August 2002, German Authorities in Hamburg seized a Zim ship containing rubber parts that could be used to make tracks for tanks and US-made M-113 armored personnel carriers. The license specified Thailand as its final destination, but according to German customs, the shipment was really destined for Iran, which was on the US “Trading with the Enemy” list. According to the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, the equipment was to be transferred in Hamburg to an Iranian cargo ship headed to the southern Iranian port of Bandar Abbas.
* In April 2003, CBS Market Watch reported that the US government has revealed that 57 companies and organizations have been fined for doing business with terrorists, despots and tyrants. The largest penalty levied among 59 public cases was a $250,000 fine against Zim Shipping for trade with Cuba.
* A May 2009 article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz stated that “at least” 13 Ofer Brother (Zim) ships have docked in Iran over the past decade, including in Bandar Abbas, the destination port for the attempted illegal military shipment to Iran in 2002.
* Another article in Haaretz that same month noted that Zim was also under investigation and sanctioned by the US State Department for selling a tanker to Iran for $8.6 million. Although the State Department argued that Zim failed to exerDIse due diligence and heed publicly available and easily obtainable information that would have indicated that Zim was dealing with Iran, Zim was later cleared of the violations when the company claimed it was not aware of its subsidiary’s actions in the sale.
The case of the Dancing Israelis is one of many instances of likely Israeli/Zionist foreknowledge and potential involvement in the 9/11 attacks or subsequent cover-ups. Consequently, from the moment FBI Headquarters sent Newark FBI the short “priority” order basically shutting down the CI Counterterrorism investigation on Sept. 24, 2001, the cover-up denying any Israeli complicity had started. Like most intelligence investigations involving Israeli transgressions, top level government officials intervened so there would be no further investigation and so that Israel would not be implicated in any way. Hence, the government cover-up continues to this day with the FBI omitting 1,280 pages of investigation reports including a couple dozen critical missing documents, excessive redactions, 25+ dropped FBI leads, and many more unanswered questions. As FBI and CIA case agents quoted in the Ketcham article confirm, “higher-ups torpedoed the investigation”….. And those agents “were outraged that there hadn’t been a real investigation with the facts hanging out there without any conclusion.” The FBI/government cover-up is now made clear in this article.
The FBI’s determination that the DIs did not have foreknowledge or involvement in the attacks is clearly not supported by the evidence in the FBIR and elsewhere. A preponderance of the evidence provided (not even including the information omitted and redacted by the FBI), which was presented in Section B.2 allows little room for doubt that the DIs had at least foreknowledge of the attacks and that the FBI’s assumptions and analysis of foreknowledge was deeply flawed and erroneous. Specifically, Section B.2 confirms the following faults and defects in the FBI’s foreknowledge analysis:
All three DIs at The Doric told three different stories of their timelines for the morning of 9/11, with one being a blatant lie and the other two being impossible given other evidence presented in the FBIR.
There are two contradicting timelines in the FBIR for Yaron Shmuel and neither are plausible stories supported by other evidence in the FBIR.
Not one UMS employee interviewed confirmed that the DIs were at UMS before they left for The Doric as their stories suggest (Note: the FBI apparently fails to even ask UMS employees if and when they saw the DIs on the morning of 9/11).
Maria’s testimony makes Shmuel’s and the other 2 DIs story basically impossible in that there is no way the DIs could have been at The Doric before Maria’s friend called her and Maria subsequently looked out the window and spotted the DIs filming.
Another Doric eyewitness saw a white van with a driver closely fitting Oded Ellner’s description in The Doric parking lot a half-hour before the first plane crash. The FBI failed to show this witness a photo of Oded Ellner to see if she could positively identify him as the driver of the van she saw.
A third Doric eyewitness saw the DIs filming in the parking lot within 5 minutes of the first plane crash which was a time that would have made it impossible for the DIs not to have had foreknowledge.
A UMS eyewitness apparently saw the DIs back at UMS by 8:58 AM, which meant they would have had to leave The Doric by 8.54 AM, which in turn meant they were basically at The Doric before a time that would make it humanly possible for them to be there. Given Shmuel’s testimony that the DIs were at the The Doric for 10 minutes, it would make the DIs story absolutely impossible.
The FBI’s analysis of whether the DIs may have had foreknowledge depends almost solely on comparing helicopter video footage with one photo from the film the DIs had in their possession when they were stopped. Even the FBI confirms that this analysis is “unscientific” and “although the results verified the DIs were at the parking lot between 8:50 to 9:00, it did not provide a precise time.” The FBI’s helicopter analysis is not supported by other evidence in the FBIR.
The FBI analysis does not take into consideration the DIs had over seven hours to dispose of other film or video, and if they lied about their timelines on 9/11, why wouldn’t they lie about other film they may have disposed of?
The FBI’s attempt to cover-up the factual evidence of Israeli foreknowledge is equally as disturbing as their overlooking and disregarding substantial circumstantial evidence which also shows that the DIs very likely had foreknowledge, which includes:
All three DIs basically told lies about their 9/11 timelines, something that innocent people with legitimate explanations do not have to do (Sec B.2).
The three DIs were Dancing shortly after the first plane hit the WTC when the rest of the world did not know the attacks were an alleged terrorist attack (Sec B.2).
The primary camera used to film the event was purchased the day before, and there is other evidence that two other cameras were also coincidently brought to work by the DIs on 9/11 (Sec B.2 and B.3).
A random photo of the WTC lit up at night was found in the DIs’ van (Sec B.3)
Maps were found in the DIs’ van suggesting foreknowledge or involvement in the 9/11 attacks (Bergen Record and Sec B.3).
Although the common story in the media today is that Israel was just conducting an unauthorized nationwide surveillance of bad Arabs in the US, this view ignores new information from the FBIR and other sources mentioned in this article. Given Israel’s proven and willful intent to harm the US by stealing scientific secrets, instigating false flag attacks against the US, and its history of using Arab citizens as deep cover spies in covert operations, a deeper Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks cannot, and should not, be ruled out. There is significance evidence suggesting that the DIs and UMS had more than just foreknowledge of the attacks and may have been involved in the 9/11 operation in a deeper way, given the following:
The DIs possessed airline tickets with immediate travel dates (after 911) to destinations worldwide. If the DIs just had foreknowledge, why were they all leaving the US right after the 9/11 operation (Sec B.3)?
At least one, and possibly two DIs, had round trip tickets (Tel Aviv/New York) coming to New York on June 15, 2001 and leaving on Sept. 12, 2001, suggesting the particular CI(s) may have had at least 3 months foreknowledge of the specific attack date of the 9/11 operation (Sec B.3)
Explosives were suspected in the DIs’ van and samples were sent to the FBI lab for testing; however, as of Sept. 24, 2001, the results were strangely still not completed. It appears that at least one of the DIs, Yaron Shmuel, had an explosives background (Sec B.3).
Explosive samples appear to have been taken from the UMS warehouse and a video from a gas station very close to UMS was sent to the FBI’s Explosive Unit (Sec B.2).
Although box cutters, the hijackers’ alleged weapons of choice were found, most typical moving company equipment was not found in the DIs van (ABC 20/20 and Sec B.3).
UMS’s employment grew quite a bit in the months before 9/11, just as the thirteen “muscle hijackers” were entering the US and allegedly preparing for the 9/11 operation (Sec B.3).
Two UMS trucks were spotted by police in the Boston area on Sept. 11th, and one UMS truck was pulled over driving toward Shanksville on Sept.10, 2001 and then again on Sept. 12 (Sec B.3).
In addition to the above examples of CI foreknowledge and/or potential involvement in the 9/11 attacks, there are many more instances of critical dropped FBI leads that could have led to deeper involvement in the 9/11 operation if the leads were ever properly followed up:
Yaron Shmuel had a German passport, and there is no evidence the FBI checked with German intelligence to see if there might be a nexus with the hijackers’ Hamburg Germany cell (Sec B.3).
One of the DIs had an ISIC student identity card that was issued in Sept. 2000. Although school name/country was redacted, there is a UK phone contact number. Hamburg Germany hijacker Ziad Jarrah also had an ISIC card issued to him in Hamburg, Germany in Sept. 2000 (Sec B.3).
An approximately one-third page email found in the DIs van was completely redacted except for the “Dear God” subject line and the July 10, 2001, date. There was also an urgent request by the FBI to the Israeli government on Sept. 12, 2001 requesting a name belonging to an email account, but it appears never to have been followed up. (Sec B.3).
A number in one of the DIs notebooks matched a phone number of an Islamic militant in South America. Although the FBI concluded it was actually a bank account number, another entry in the FBIR appears to indicate it may not have been (Sec B.3).
Two of pilot hijacker Ziad Jarrah’s cousins living in Lebanon were convicted of being long term spies for Israel in 2008. Was there a family connection with Israel or is this just another supposed extreme coincidence? (Sec B.3)
There’s also evidence that other associated parties had foreknowledge of the attacks, with one likely party possibly having approximately six months foreknowledge of the specific attack date in advance.
A Doric resident called the manager on Sunday, Sept. 9, 2001, with an emergency request to move out the morning of Sept. 10, 20001, with UMS being the moving company. The nationality of the condo unit owner is redacted and the tenant’s nationality was not even investigated by FBI (Sec B.5).
WTC Israeli tenant Zim Shipping entered into a “fast track” development agreement in March 2001, guaranteeing it to be ready for move-in no later than Sept. 4, 2001 (Sec B.10).
Despite the FBI intentionally omitting from the FBIR their timeline and geographic nexus’ analysis between the DIs and the alleged hijackers and those people believed to be their associates, Section B.8 of this paper shows a number of significant connections between the parties. Dominik Suter lived only five miles from the alleged hijackers’ Paterson cell and there is also evidence that suggests at least one CI spent some time in the Paterson area. In addition, Section B.7 shows that there were at least three other Israeli moving companies in the area with profiles similar to UMS, with one of them (Classic International Movers) under FBI investigation in the moving of one of the hijackers. Another Israeli moving company (Moishes Moving Systems) had its main office/warehouse at the mouth of the Holland Tunnel, right across the Hudson from the WTC, with the owner’s Delray Beach Florida home being 6 miles from two apartments occupied by alleged hijackers.
There’s very little room for doubt that full FBIR information on the DIs, other Israeli groups, and the hijackers, would have revealed significantly many more timeline and geographic connections. The same is true for the nexus’ between the DIs and the Israeli Art Students which was also being investigated by the FBI but not included in the FBIR. Although it was already known that the largest concentration of IAS lived in the same area of the largest concentrations of alleged hijackers in Southeast Florida, and that the head of the IAS had an apartment a half mile from one of Mohammad Atta’s Hollywood, FL apartment and a half mile from Atta’s PO Box, several additional connections and other new and pertinent facts have been presented in this paper. In addition to the many substantial facts related to the IAS in Section B.9, following are several new facts and connections:
Two of thirteen IAS (15 percent) where their address is known, lived in the Hudson/Bergen County area, with one of them living next door to The Doric (Sec B.8).
Five of fourteen IAS (36 percent) where their military background is known, came from explosive/ordnance units. IAS Peer Segalovitz admitted he was a Lieutenant in the Israeli military, that he commanded 80 men, and acknowledged he could blow up buildings, bridges, cars, and anything else that needed to be blown up (Sec B.9).
Eight of seventeen IAS (44 percent) where it is known what city/country they entered the US from, arrived from Hamburg, Germany, prior US residence to three of the pilot hijackers (Sec B.9).
Atta’s PO Box (Mail Box Etc) in Hollywood Florida was not too conveniently located near his rental house and was situated in a retail center that included several Jewish stores/restaurants and was about one mile from 3 Jewish Synagogues (Sec B.9).
The evidence in Section B.10 suggests that Zim Shipping apparently had at least six months foreknowledge of the specific Sept. 11, 2001 attack date when they fast tracked the development of their new office building guaranteeing its completion by Sept. 4, 2001. Zim still had an estimated four and a half year $8 million lease liability at the WTC, but they apparently knew they had to be out by Sept. 11. The CIA has suspected for a long time that Zim has been used to provide cover for Israeli intelligence, including deep cover operations requiring long range objectives and activities where the Israeli government can never admit complicity. Zim’s main port was Red Hook Port in Brooklyn, which is the closest and most convenient of four NY/NJ ports to the World Trade Center. Coincidently, one of Zim’s four worldwide regional ports was in Hamburg Germany, suggesting a potential nexus with the hijackers’ Hamburg cell, Hamburg IASs, and German/Israeli citizen Yaron Shmuel.
Despite desperate and disgraceful attempts by the FBI to deny any covert operations by the Israelis, information provided in both the media and the FBIR strongly suggest otherwise. At least five of the media reports in Section A believe that Israel was at least involved in an unauthorized surveillance of Arabs in the US and that UMS was an Israeli intelligence front company. The Forward even stated that one of its FBI sources confirmed that at least two of the DIs were Mossad operatives. The FBIR and Section B.6 also confirms that two-to-three of the DIs had Israeli intelligence associations and were connected with other on-going US intelligence investigations, while Section B.4 shows that UMS was probably a front company that may have had deeper involvement in the 9/11 operation.
Israel has a history of harming the US by stealing of its scientific and military secrets, and by false flag attacks on its interests and citizens, and getting away with it. Categorical denials in all these crimes have always been made by Israel until they are caught red-handed like in the indisputable espionage case of Jonathan Pollard or the Lavon Affair false flag attacks. Unfortunately, a complicit US national security apparatus almost always looks the other way in crimes involving Israel as a possible perpetrator, just as they have done in the case of the DIs. As confirmed previously by Christopher Ketcham, FBI and CIA case agents had no doubt that higher ups quashed the investigation and that there was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11.
It’s an ethical crime and an abuse of power that the FBI has omitted so many important documents and utilized other blatant cover-up techniques in its investigation of the DIs, including the cherry picking of evidence to try and give the DIs a highly questionable doubt of guilt. Unfortunately for the FBI, its cherry picked evidence does not stand up to all the other evidence and eyewitnesses in the case. The fact the FBI dropped so many critical leads that could have led to the DIs culpability and convictions cannot be explained by its usual incompetence and uselessness. It’s also a shame and unacceptable that the American people will have to wait another 22 years until the FBIR documents are fully declassified and the truth maybe told some day. A grave injustice has been done to the people of the United States in this cover-up and hopefully this report will help expose this fact and the many more lies and crimes constituting the 9/11 false flag attack.
References and Endnotes
 FBI Documents Relating to the FBI’s Counterterrorism Investigation of the Five Dancing Israelis. The subject FBI Report (“FBIR”) was obtained through a FOIA Request in August 2011 and posted on the public website Scribd.com. The FBIR consists of 579 pages of redacted FBI documents that are contained in the six sections listed below (Note: The FBI omitted 1,280 investigation pages from the FOIA request). The documents’ authenticity can be corroborated from a variety of sources including the use of standard FBI documentation, vernacular, processes, classification stamps, detailed redactions, etc. In addition, much of the information known to date about the DIs is included in the FBIR in more depth and detail, and just about all of the information known to date is confirmed by information in the FBIR. Because there are over one hundred sixty references to the FBIR, references to the FBIR will be footnoted directly in the body/Exhibits of the paper. For example, a reference to Section 1, Page 37 in the FBIR will be noted as followed: “FBIR_S1P37”.
Section 1: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62392807/dancing-israelis-fbi-document-section-1-1138796-001-303a-nk-105536-section-1-944861
Section 2: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62393381/dancing-israelis-fbi-document-section-2-1138796-001-303a-nk-105536-section-2-944876
Section 3: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62394063/Dancing-Israelis-FBI-document-Section-3-1138796-001-303A-NK-105536-Section-3-944880
Section 4: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62394178/dancing-israelis-fbi-document-section-4-1138796-001-303a-nk-105536-section-4-944881
Section 5: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62394321/dancing-israelis-fbi-document-section-5-1138796-001-303a-nk-105536-section-5-944891
Section 6: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62394765/Related-article-at-http-tinyurl-com-FBI-Dancing-Israelis-Dancing-Israelis-FBI-document-Section-6-1138796-001-303A-NK-105536-Section-6
 East Rutherford New Jersey Police Reports, Sept. 11, 2001. Three police reports relating to the Dancing Israeli’s apprehension and detainment by East Rutherford Police on September 11th.
 Paulo Lima, “Five Men Detained as Suspected Conspirators,” The New Jersey Bergen Record, September. 12, 2001. www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/02/WTC_Mysteries.html
 Carl Cameron and Brit Hume, “Israel is Spying in and On the US,” Fox News, Dec. 12 to Dec. 17, 2001 (four part TV investigative report relating to the Israeli Art Students and Israeli companies spying in the US)
Part 1 – Israeli Art Students: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
Part 2 – Amdocs: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7544.htm
Part 3 – Comverse Infosys: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6480.htm
Part 4 – Israeli Intelligence Gathering Operation: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5133.htm
 Marc Perelman, “Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth: Americans Probing Reports of Israeli Espionage,” The Forward, March 15, 2002. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/israelis_9-11.html. The Forward of New York is a reputable newspaper and the oldest Jewish-American newspaper in the United States.
 John Miller, Chris Isham, Glenn Silber, and Chris Viasto, “Were Israeli’s Detained on Sept 11 Spies?”, ABC News 20/20, June 21, 2002 (Note: coincidently, this is the same John Miller who just did the white wash investigation of the NSA for CBS 60 Minutes in December 2013 and who will soon be working for incoming New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton). http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=123885&page=1.
 Gerald Shea, “Memorandum to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and to the Senate and House Select Committees on Intelligence,” September 15, 2004.
Note: The Shea Memo included several potential Israeli associations with 9/11 and the DIs and Dominik Suter are discussed in Section 7.
 Christopher Ketcham, “What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks,” Counterpunch, March 7, 2007.
 Maria is a key eyewitness who spotted and reported the DIs to the police on 9/11 and her testimony is discussed in detail in Section B.2.
 David Johnston and James Risen, “After the Attacks: The Investigation; Bin Laden Tie Cited.” New York Times, September 13, 2001. www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/us/after-the-attacks-the-investigation-bin-laden-tie-cited.html. The Times specifically stated: “Separately, officials said a group of about five men were now under investigation in Union City, suspected of assisting the hijackers. In addition, the officials said the men had set up cameras near the Hudson River and fixed them on the World Trade Center. The photographed the attacks and were said to have been congratulated each other afterward, officials said.”
 “State Granted Access to Moving Company’s Storage Facility,” New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, December 13, 2001. www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/press/storage.htm. The state of New Jersey filed a lawsuit against UMS owner Dominik Suter alleging violations of both the State’s Consumer Fraud Act and regulations set forth in the Public Movers and Warehousing Licensing Act. According to the complaint, on or about Sept. 14, 2001, Suter departed the US and left no one acting as an agent for UMS. In addition, Suter declined through his lawyer to be interviewed for the March 2002 Forward article.
 Justin Raimondo, “I HAVE IN MY HANDS A LIST; New documentary evidence points to an Israeli connection to 9/11,” Antiwar.com, July 26, 2001. www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j072602.html. Justin Raimondo was one of the first journalist to break the story on a FBI watch list and describes it in the subject article as “An official government circular originating with the American authorities and distributed to various Italian financial institutions in an effort to trace the terrorist trail.” The list will be discussed further in Section B.4.
 Tamar Lewin with Alison Leigh Cowan, “A Nation Challenged: The Detainees; Dozens of Israeli Jews are Being Kept in Federal Detention,” New York Times, November 22, 2001.
 See Endnote 4. The Fox News investigation was a four part investigation on “various” Israeli spying operations in and on the US. Part 1 related to the Israeli Art Student ring with a lot of the information coming from the June 2001 DEA Memo discussed in Section B.8. Part 2 concerned an Israeli communication company Amdocs, Part 3 was about another Israeli communication company Comverse Infosy, and Part 4 was on a potential Israeli intelligence gathering operation in the US on 9/11. The Ketcham article (see Endnote 8) states that several pro-Israeli lobby groups attacked Fox for the investigation and that Fox finally agreed to take the investigation off its website. However, Fox did not retract or disavow the report.
 Marc Perelman of The Forward states in both his Forward article and in an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez from PBS that an FBI source confirmed that two of the DIs were identified as Mossad agents See Endnote 5 and the following Democracy Now interview with Christopher Ketcham, Marc Perelman, and Alexander Cockburn. By Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, February 8, 2007. www.democracynow.org/2007/2/8/cheering_movers_and_art_student_spies
 At the end of each FBIR section (see endnote 1), there is a list of omitted pages for which there are no duplication charges. The total of the 6 sections is 1,280 deleted pages, while the number of pages provided, excluding the omitted page list, is 550 pages. Thus, only 30 percent of the pages are included in the FBIR.
 The FBIR entry regarding the DIs foreknowledge is somewhat vague and appears to be based on evidence that excludes NK-FBI’s Counterterrorism Unit records and interviews. Following is the full entry:
“FBI-NK’s Foreign Intelligence squad then attempted to verify the statements made by the 5 Israeli as to their whereabouts immediately preceding the attack on the WTC.” Due to the on-going tasking of those agents involved with the initial investigation, the FCI squad was unable to obtain a complete written record of all interviews and investigative actions undertaken until several days later. During the course of those days, the FCI squad’s independent investigation to include FCI interviews and polygraphs of the 5 Israelis (note: not part of FBIR), revealed that the five Israelis “most likely” did not possess prior knowledge of the WTC events. It is opined that the Israelis “probably” arrived at the parking lot observation point between the first and second attacks on the WTC” (FBIR_S5PP55-56).
 The Jonathan Pollard/Israeli spy case is one of the most damaging espionage cases in US history. Pollard was convicted in 1986 of spying for Israel and was given a life sentence without parole due to the severity of his crimes. Israel and its lobby groups inside the US have been lobbying for his release from prison ever since he was convicted. Israel has since given Pollard Israeli citizenship and his spy case will be discussed in more detail in Section B.6. The following recent article discusses the Israeli lobby’s failed efforts to release one of the US’s most damaging spies.
Russel Mead and Staff, “Israel Lobby Not All It’s Cracked Up To Be: Pollard Still in Jail,” The Feed, March 18, 2013. http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2013/03/18/israel-lobby-not-all-its-cracked-up-to-be-pollard-still-in-jail/
 In several entries in the FBIR, the FBI complains about the lies, discrepancies, and inconsistencies of the DIs including in the 9/16/01 Synopsis where the FBI states, “Inconsistencies in statements by (redacted, apparently Yaron Shmuel), who stated the van was on 8th West Side Highway (Manhattan) at the time of the WTC attack, but is clearly in photos from the apartment parking lot “within minutes” after the WTC was first struck (FBIR_S1P86-87). The DIs lies were also confirmed by ABC 20/20 that stated, “For the FBI, deciphering the truth from the five Israelis proved to be difficult.”
 YouTube video of Bush giving a speech in December 2001 where he states that he thought first crash into WTC was due to “a bad pilot.”
 Section B.3 of the paper discusses the evidence that the primary camera used to film the attacks was just purchased the day before, and that there are at least two entries in the FBIR that suggested there were two or more cameras found in the DIs van.
 White Glove Moving is another Israeli moving company in Hudson County, NJ that is discussed in detail in Section B.7.
 Although the DIs names are always redacted in the FBIR, their identity can often be established from association with known facts from media sources discussed in Section A and elsewhere. Given these known facts, they can often be used not only to identify a CI in a FBI entry, but through cross-referencing of these facts with other documents, other new facts and identity associated can be made. In addition, in some cases, the DIs identity can be determined from the length of the redaction in conjunction with the process of elimination. In general, the following four CI identification rules have been used in this paper:
Know CI Identity with Certainty – Will use the DIs name
DI’s Identity is Likely – (Redacted, apparently DIs name)
DI’s Identity is Possible – (Redacted, possibly DIs name)
DI’s Identity is Unknown – (Redacted)
It should also be noted that the DIs are the FBI’s “persons of interest” in the investigation, and that most of the investigative documentation involves uncovering facts and evidence around them.
 The Gulf gas station was at 1324 Willow, Hoboken, NJ and not on the way from UMS to the Doric (FBIR_S5P31-32). The FBI determined that the DIs did purchase gas at the Gulf gas station at approximately 2:14 PM, or about 5.5 hours after Ellner alleges the DIs stopped for gas there and only about 2 hours before the DIs were apprehended in East Rutherford (FBIR_S5P50). Given the impact this day had people heightened senses, it is not understandable how Ellner could have made such an obvious error.
 There is some question whether this is Yaron Shmuel’s or Oded Ellner’s detailed FBI interview. However, it appears to be Shmuel’s because Ellner was subject to the NYO-FBI investigation and there is no mention of stopping at the Gulf gas station before going to The Doric as in Ellner’s timeline summary in Section 5, page 45, paragraph 2 (Note: the subject timeline is in conflict with all 3 CI summary timelines in FBIR_S5PP45-46). Regardless of who received the alleged call from a friend after the first plane crash (i.e., Shmuel or Ellner), the other apparently checked the internet for a few minutes before going to The Doric (also see Endnote 27).
 There were 3 cell phones found in the DIs van when they were apprehended and none of them showed any incoming calls shortly after the first plane crash (FBIR_S43-48).
 This is unquestionably Yaron Shmuel’s timeline summary, as he was CI that initially lied that they were on West Side Highway during the attacks. However, Oded Ellner’s timeline summary in Section 5, page 45, paragraph 2 is also in contradiction to the CI interview in Endnote 25 and is also implausible given other evidence. Following is a summary of Oded Ellner’s Summary (note: Ellner’s call estimate is more than 45 minutes before the first plane crash):
* Ellner got a call at UMS from a friend around 8:00 AM informing him of the first explosion.
* Ellner and his roommates got into the van and drove to a (out of the way) Gulf gas station.
* Ellner, Shmuel, and S. Kurzberg then drove to another location (The Doric) to take photos.
 The route between UMS and The Doric is approximately 1.5 miles and has 4 stop lights and 1 stop sign (Note: Distance is driving distance per Yahoo maps). The author drove the route 3 times during non-rush hour period and it took approximately 4 to 5 minutes. The DIs drove during the morning rush hour period which could have taken them even more time.
 The Sept. 23, 2001 Case Summary states, “Although the results of this (helicopter photo) analysis verified the DIs were at the parking lot between 8:50 to 9:00 AM, it did not provide a preDIse time.” (FBIR_S5P51).
 The “DIs Maximum Time at the Doric” of between 8:53 AM to 9:00 AM assumes 2.5 minutes to hear about attacks and look it up on the internet (Note: Shmuel’s Version 1 story admits that it took a “few” minutes to look on Internet and before they went outside to look at WTC) and to drive approximately 4 minutes to the Doric. However, evidence from Maria and Eyewitnesses 2 and 3 suggests the DIs got to The Doric before 8:53 AM and evidence from Eyewitness 4 suggests the DI’s left The Doric by 8:54 AM. Shmuel also said they spent about 10 minutes at The Doric, which is impossible given eyewitness 4’s testimony.
 There are only three to four FBI interviews of current UMS employees and their interviews can be found at the following entries: FBIR_S3P85, S5P18-20, S5P21-22, S5P39 (Note: although there are 4 interviews listed, it appears that one employee may have been interviewed twice).
 Eyewitness 2’s description of the van driver fits CI Oded Ellner very closely (drive description: male individual appearing to have a brown but not dark complexion, round face, dark hair, and approximate age 30’s). The following video shows the DIs on an Israeli talk show, where Oded Ellner (middle CI) states that their purpose was to document the event. www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OyUoGUV7b8
 An unconfirmed photo of the DIs van has showed up on the Internet on occasions. This photo can be viewed at Historycommons.org at the following link. http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101fiveisraelis#a091101fiveisraelis
 An APB/BOLA went out on 9/11 which came from Maria’s complaint to the police and stated, “Vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack. White 2000 Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration with ‘Urban Moving Systems’ sign on back seen at Liberty Park, New Jersey, NJ at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center” (see New Jersey Bergen Record in Endnote 3)..Also, Boston Channel 4 WBZ news broadcast on 9/11, referring to the APB, stated the DIs van had “Urban Moving Systems” written on the back. The news broadcast can be viewed at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DHMl7e1luk
 The FBI canvassed The Doric on Sept. 12, 2001, and showed approximately a dozen residents photos of the 5 DIs to see if anyone had recognized them from being at The Doric previously (FBIR_S1PP66-85). It is not understandable why the FBI did not show Eyewitness 2 photos of the DIs to see if the resident could positively identify Oded Ellner as the driver of the van.
 Although the names of the individuals are redacted, it’s logical that the UMS employee is talking about the “persons of interest,” aka, the DIs under investigation. In both FBIR entries where this employee’s interview is discussed (i.e., FBI_S5P21, S5P52), the length of the redaction fits both Sivan Kurzberg’s and Yaron Shmuel’s names. In addition, the FBI’s regrets of not verifying this employee’s statements in a subsequent interview is further evidence of the serious potential implications of this employee’s testimony. Why the FBI does not just pick up the phone or drive this eyewitnesses house to confirm her testimony, is not known.
 An FBI document on FBIR_S5P40 shows 3 helicopters where video was taken from and another 3 helicopters that may have been seen in videos. The FBI does not appear to know what helicopters are which and states the DIs’ photo is “most likely” the helicopter of interest (i.e., N8BQ). Thus, the FBI does not know with certainty the results of the one piece of evidence that there entire foreknowledge analysis depends on.
 Yaron Shmuel actually states that the DIs used the EZ Pass lane at both the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel and the Lincoln Tunnel. If that was the case, then there should have been an EZ Pass record when the van passed through the Lincoln Tunnel. However, there is no Lincoln Tunnel EZ Pass record in the FBIR and it is believed that there is not a toll gate at the Lincoln Tunnel leaving Manhattan and entering New Jersey.
 There were only three to four current UMS employees that were interviewed by the FBI, and none of state they drove in with the DIs who were at The Doric the morning of 9/11 (also see Endnote 31).
 Section 1, pages 91 to 132 of the FBIR lists items found in the DIs van that were sent for further analysis (“traces”). Numbered items range from 1 to 52 and alpha letters range from A to H, suggesting there were “at least” 60 items found in the van. However, only 19 items are listed on pages 91 thru 132 and about another 20 “non-duplicating” items are listed in FBIR_S1PP3-9, leaving approximately 20 missing items. In addition, “most” of the analysis/traces requested for the 19 listed items were not included in the FBIR or are too heavily redacted to tell (Note: the approximate 20 missing items are presumably a subset of the 1,280 omitted FBI pages).
 Wayne Madsen, “The Israeli Art Students and Movers Story,” Waynemadsenreport.com, Aug.7, 2005.
Madsen cites the following article as his source for this information: Jim Galloway, “Innocent Israelis Caught Up in Arrests,” Palm Beach Post, November 18, 2001.
 The DIs stopped at White Glove Moving shortly before they were apprehended on 9/11 for the alleged purpose of picking up skis that belonged to one of the DIs. In Omer Marmari’s FBI interview, he states he was awoken when someone placed skis and red bag in the back of the van shortly before the DIs were stopped on 9/11 (FBIR_S3P65). An FBI interview with two employees of White Glove on Sept. 21, 2001, confirms that they both saw skis at the company (FBIR_S5PP12-13).
 There are several entries in the FBIR that suggest the primary camera used by the DI’s to film the WTC attacks was purchased just the day before. This point is discussed in more detail in Section B.3 and includes the following entries:
UMS Employee 1: “She recalled that (redacted, apparently Sivan Kurzberg) had received a new camera from (redacted, apparently Paul Kurzberg) the day before (i.e., 9/10/01).” (FBIR_S5P20).
UMS Employee 2: Employee said she thought (redacted, apparently Paul Kurzberg) had recently bought his (redacted, apparently brother) a really nice camera that had a big lens” (FBIR_S5P22).
CI Omer Marmari Interview: The only camera he saw on 9/11/01 was the one that (redacted, apparently Paul Kurzberg) had recently purchased for (redacted, apparently Sivan Kurzberg) to use on his upcoming trip to India (FBIR_S5PP64-65).
CI Yaron Shmuel Interview: Shmuel stated that on the way to The Doric, (redacted, apparently Sivan Kurzberg) remarked, “I am glad I brought my camera today” (FBIR_S5P86).
 Although there is some question on when the Hamburg cell got involved in the 9/11 plans, the 9/11 Commission Report alleges that four core members of the Hamburg cell (including pilot hijackers Mohammed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, and Marwan Shehhi) attended the al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan in November 1999 and were chosen for the operation at that time by OBL. They then went back to Hamburg in January 2000 and started preparing for the operation (9/11 Commission Report, Section 5.3 – The Hamburg Contingent). Atta had been living in Hamburg since around 1992 and Jarrah and Shehhi allegedly moved there around 1996.
 German residency and passport conditions “typically” require that one of the parents be German, the applicant is born in Germany and meet certain other conditions, or that they live in Germany for at least eight years and speak the language. http://www.justlanded.com/english/Germany/Germany-Guide/Visas-Permits/Citizenship
 Robert Worth, “Lebanese in Shock Over Arrest of an Accused Spy,” New York Times, February 18, 2009.
 FBI Hijacker Timeline (“FBI HJT”).The FBI compiled a timeline for the 19 hijackers which was released through a FOIA Request in February 2008 and subsequently posted on the FBI website. Like the FBIR, the FBI Hijacker Timeline is a very heavily redacted document and suffers from poor transparency. The FBI timeline was supposedly used by The 9/11 Commission in the preparation of its report and it can be found on the FBI website at the following links (Note: references to the FBI Hijacker Timeline will be made directly in the body of the report and will be noted by FBI HJT and date(s), for example, “FBI HJT 6/1/01 to 6/5/01”)::
Part 1 (1968 – 5/29/01): http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-01-of-02
Part 2 (5/29/01-10/12/01): http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11%20Commission%20Report/9-11-chronology-part-01-of-02
The following article further describes the FBI Hijacker Timeline and some of the contradictions from the 9/11 Commission Report:
Lisa Alexandrovna, “FBI Documents Contradict 9/11 Commission Report,” Therawstory.com, Feb. 28, 2008.
 Although the FBI seems to conclude that the number was not a militant’s phone number and a bank account number instead, another apparent related FBIR entry seems to contradict this conclusion. S6, page 55, paragraph 3 of the FBIR states, “More specifically, (redacted) never fully revealed to the satisfaction of interviewing agents, how handwritten telephone numbers found in his personal notebook just happened to be (redacted 1 line).”
 UK Channel 4 ran an 8 minute segment on the Dancing Israelis, including interviews with Paul and Sivan Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel and East Rutherford police officer Scott DeCarlo. They also interviewed an ex-Mossad agent (Note: name stated, but do not know the spelling) working in the US who stated that UMS was a front company for Israeli intelligence and that some of its workers were spying illegally in the US. Although the date of the UK Channel 4 video is not known, it appears to be around 2010. The ex-Mossad agent’s interview starts around the 5:54 minute mark and the video was obtained on YouTube at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeD9XPn_lg4
 An October 16, 2001 FBIR entry specifically states, “During the search conducted by Weehawken Police Department, it was revealed that the building and all its contents had been abandoned by (redacted) the owner of UMS. This apparently being done to avoid criminal prosecution after the 9/11 arrest of five of his employees and subsequent seizure of his office equipment by members of NK-FBI.” (FBIR_S5P90). Dominik Suter was the owner of UMS and it is a known fact from several media sources, government documents, and the FBIR, that he abandoned UMS on Sept. 14, 2001 and went back to Israel.
 Massanova, “Urban Moving Systems: The US-Israeli 9/11 Financial Nexus,” undertheradarmedia.blogspot.com, June 19, 2008.
 The interviewed UMS employee appears to be a manager/HR employee with a good understanding of many of UMS’s operations and employees. The UMS start dates of the DIs were obtained from four redacted names that started working between May/June and July/August, 2001 which also coincides with some of the known DIs US entry dates discussed in Section B.8. The interview also states that (redacted, apparently Paul Kurzberg),”Is a consultant for the company.” Based on information discussed in B.6, it appears that one of the DIs also worked for “The Jewish Agency,” and this may have been the consultant. The full employee interview is found on FBIR_S1P18-20, with the specific job start dates on P19.
 In a Sept. 19, 2001 FBI interview with a UMS the employee, the employee stated, “None of these employees ever punched time cards as they were instructed to do. (Redacted) told (redacted) several times that she filled out all the time cards based on instructions from (redacted).” Although it is not completely clear who gave the instructions on filling out the time cards, it appears to be someone in a managerial and/or ownership role, which may possibly include Dominik Suter.
 In a Sept. 16, 2001 FBI interview with an ex-UMS employee, the ex-employee stated, “(redacted, apparently Suter) normally does not let his workers take his vehicles home with them” (FBIR_S5P30). In another Sept. 16, 2001 FBI interview with an ex-UMS employee, the ex-employee stated, “(redacted, apparently Suter) doesn’t usually lend his vehicles out to his workers” (FBIR_S5P33).
 A Sept. 18, 2001 interview with an apparent acquaintance of one of the DI’s, states, “Since (redacted) has been employed at UMS, he has not been as outgoing as he once was,” which was followed by an approximate 15 line redaction (FBIR_S3P3). Another Sept. 18, 2001 interview with another apparent CI acquaintance states, “After being employed at UMS, (redacted) did not socialize much” (FBIR_S3P68).
 The DIs likely Israeli intelligence associations are discussed in depth in Section B.6 of this paper.
 Yaron Shmuel job history at LinkedIn.com: http://il.linkedin.com/in/yaronshmuel
Octagon Explosives and Security Website: http://octagon-il.com/Explosions.html
 Per FBIR entry S5P41-42, an ex-employee of UMS states that “(redacted) was a crook. He would have the delivery team fill-up the delivery trucks with empty boxes, because he would charge the customers by cubic feet. He would also have some employees stay on the trucks when they were weighed, so that he could charge more. The ex-employee further advised that he was not surprised that (redacted) is in some form of trouble with the authorities because he always spoke badly of the United States.” Although it cannot be confirmed if the UMS employee was Dominik Suter, the orders given to cheat customers were in line with someone of ownership and/or senior managerial capacity.
 In a Sept. 15, 2001 interview with the FBI, an ex-UMS employee stated, “She left UMS because (redacted).” In another statement, this employee states that another person, “Left UMS because (redacted), and that she would have more information regarding (redacted) that may be helpful to the police” (FBIR_S5P30).
 UMS’s Bayonne warehouse was discovered from an FBI lead by an ADT Security Systems salesman who met at the warehouse on August 21, 2001 to provide a security system estimate. The salesman met with two males with UMS business cards and unknown foreign accent and conducted a survey of the first floor, but was advised that it was not necessary to survey the second floor. The salesman noted that the first floor was empty except for a forklift and garbage cans. When the salesman called back several days later to follow-up, he was repeatedly hung up on and did not call again (FBIR_S3P32). Although there is UMS internal memo dated 9/16/01 advising employees that there is a new warehouse in Bayonne, there’s no evidence this warehouse ever operated (FBIR_S3P28).
 A FBIR entry in Section 5, page 117, states, “On 1/10/2002, computer hard drives containing data or mirror images of the hard-drives found inside the central processing units (from UMS) listed below, were received by SA (redacted) from SA (redacted).” There is no other evidence in the FBIR that the computer information was received before the DIs were released.
 “FBI Searches New Jersey Apartment,” USA Today, September 15, 2001, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/15/nj-hijackers-fbi.htm.
The end of the article states, “Officers had visited the warehouse Tuesday night (9/11/01), surveying it from outside with bomb sniffing dogs, then went inside on Thursday.” In an interview with neighbors of UMS, independent journalist Wayne Madsen stated, “Investigators wearing hazardous material (bomb) suits went through the warehouse.” Although some neighbors said FBI “found bomb materials and anthrax, this information could not be confirmed. Following is the information on the Madsen article:
Wayne Madsen, “The Israeli Art Students and Movers Story,” Waynemadsenreport.com, Aug.7, 2005.
 The UMS truck was stopped around Montoursville, Pennsylvania, which is approximately 150 miles northeast of Shanksville, PA where UA 93 allegedly crashed. Per the FBIR, the truck was travelling in the direction of Shanksville.
 Per Section 1, page 30 of the FBIR, “When Newark (FBI) later questioned (redacted) of UMS about the vehicle’s presence in Pennsylvania, he could not offer an explanation.” The redaction length fits the number of characters for “the owner” (i.e., Dominik Suter).
 Wayne Madsen, “The Israeli Art Students and Movers Story,” Waynemadsenreport.com, Aug.7, 2005.
Madsen cites the following article as his source for this information: Jim Galloway, “Innocent Israelis Caught Up in Arrests,” Palm Beach Post, November 18, 2001. :
 S5P49 states, “A search of FBI records for any reference to (redacted, apparently Barak), UMS employee detained and questioned in Pennsylvania, revealed two references to a (redacted) which further identified (redacted) as an (redacted)
 The FBIR includes information relating to an investigation the FBI opened up against Antiwar.com primarily relating to a FBI document (FBI May 2002 Post-9/11 Watch List) that Antiwar had published on its website. Antiwar.com is suing the FBI for not providing to Antiwar.com the file(s) the FBI has on the Antiwar.com. Following are two articles from Antiwar.com that discuss the FRIR and their lawsuit against the FBI:
Justin Raimondo, “The FBI vs. Antiwar.com,” Antiwar.com, August 21, 2011. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/08/21/antiwar-com-vs-the-fbi/print/
Justin Raimondo, “Antiwar.com Sues FBI After Secret Surveillance,” Antiwar.com, May 21, 2013. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/05/21/antiwar-com-vs-the-fbi-2/
The May 22, 2002 Post-9/11 Watch List can be found at Antiwar.com, which the FBI put under investigation for publishing the list on-line (FBIR_S6PP62-84). Although the FBIR investigates Antiwar.com in conjunction with it publishing the watch list, it does not state why Dominik Suter and his wife appeared on the list. The FBI’s Post-9/11 Watch List can be found at the Antiwar.com website: www.antiwar.com/justin/CI-08-02.pdf. Also see Endnote 12 for Antiwar.com article discussing the FBI report.
 Dominik Suter and his wife have their job histories noted at Linkedin.com at the following links:
Dominik Suter’s Linkedin.com: www.linkedin.com/pub/dominik-suter/24/72b/21b?trk=pub-pbmap.
Ornit Levinson-Suter LInkedin.com: www.linkedin.com/pub/ornit-levinson-suter/47/272/a1b
 Several times during the course of the FBI interview, this Doric resident independently volunteered that he was positive that the man identified within the photographs was the man he saw in the building (FBIR_S1P61-62). Based on the character size of the redaction, it appears that the identified CI may have been Sivan Kurzberg.
 The FBIR includes two relatively heavy redacted entries relating to “construction guys” at The Doric in August 2002 (S5P128-29, 131). The entries appear to be related to the painter who observed the DI’s filming the attacks on 9/11 and not the CI or Spanish speaking individual on 9/10/01 (see Section B.6). What is interesting about these entries is that the FBI appeared to have a key “witness” still under surveillance about a year after the attacks.
 The following two articles discuss the renovations, including garage improvements, done at The Doric just prior to 9/11:
Shannon Terrell-Ernest, “Back from the Brink,” The COOPERATOR, November, 2001. http://www.cooperator.com/articles/681/1/Back-from-the-Brink/Page1.html
Omar O. Alvarez, “How much is a building’s life worth? Doric’s road to recovery has been rocky,” Hudson Reporter, May 26, 2000. http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/2362769/article-How-much-is-a-building-s-life-worth–Doric-s-road-to-recovery-has-been-rocky
 Jonathan Pollard pleaded guilty to spying in 1986 in hope of leniency, but was still given a life sentence with a recommendation against parole due to the severity of his crimes. Israel’s spying against the USA is not friendly and often does the US harm. Pollard remains in prison despite strong lobbying by Israeli and Jewish groups for his freedom. Following are source documents on Jonathan Pollard and other Israeli spying cases:
“Why Pollard Should Never be Released (The Traitor),” Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker Magazine, January 18, 1999. http://cryptome.org.jya/traitor.htm
Wikipedia, Jonathan Pollard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
“Overview: Israeli Spying,” The Council for the National Interest, September 20, 2011. www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/costs/spying
“Israeli Spying: The Mother of all Scandals,” WhatReallyHappened.com, www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/motherofallscandals.php. Subject provides a good summary of many alleged and confirmed Israeli spying operations against the USA.
“Serving Two Flags: The Bush Neo-Cons and Israel,” Stephen Green, Counterpunch, September 3, 2004. www.counterpunch.org/green09032004.html. This article discusses several top officials in the Bush White House, including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Stephen Bryen, and Michael Leeden, who were suspected of spying for Israel.
 “Israeli Spies Wooing US Muslims Wooing US Muslims, Sources Say,” Washington Post, September 2, 2010. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/09/israeli_spies_pitching_us_musl.html
 “US Sees Israel, Tight Mideast Ally, as Spy Threat,” Associated Press, July 28, 2012. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-sees-israel-tight-mideast-ally-spy-threat
 Rowan Scarborough, “Mossad Can Target US Forces Framing Arabs: US Troops Would Enforce Peace Under Army Study,” The Washington Times, September 10, 2001. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/washingtontimes091001.html
SAMS assessment of the Mossad and Israeli military was in conjunction with a hypothetical plan for sending peacekeepers to Israel in the event that Israel and Palestinians agree to a peace plan and the creation of a new Palestinian state. The report attempts to predict events in the first year of a peacekeeping operation and then assess the possible dangers for US troops on both sides.
 Israel has a long and assorted history of false flag attacks against the US and other nations. The primary goal in most of Israel’s false flag terror attacks is to set the blame on Arab interests for the benefit of Israel. Although the level of evidence against Israel varies between the false flag attacks, there are indications of Israeli involvement in dozens of false flag attacks since around its inception. Following is a link to an article by Chris Bollyn discussing Israel’s history of false flag terror, which gives several other examples of Israeli false flag terrorism including the 9/11 attacks:
Chris Bollyn, “America the Target: 9-11 and Israel’s History of False Flag Terrorism,” bollyn.com
 The Lavon Affair is a well-documented and confirmed Israeli false flag attack consisting of bombings of US and British interests in Egypt in 1954. One Israeli was literally caught red handed with a bomb in his pocket and a search of his home resulted in the names of other apprehended Israeli agents. Despite all the evidence and the resignation of the Israeli Prime Minister Phihas Lavon, Israel denied any involvement in the incident for 51 years. Following are a couple of references relating to the Lavon Affair:
Wikipedia, Lavon Affair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
“The Lavon Affair: When Israel Firebombed US Installations,” Richard Curtiss, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 1992. www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/141-washington-report-archives-1988-1993/july-1992/6852-the-lavon-affair-when-israel -firebombed-us-installations.html
 Israel’s vicious massacre of the defenseless and clearly identified USS Liberty in 1967 is also a well-documented suspected Israeli false flag attack. It shows Israel’s disregard for American lives and the willful bombing and destruction of a defenseless and expensive communications ship. A blatant military cover-up investigation which concluded that it was a case of mistaken identity was confirmed to be a lie when a former Navy attorney who helped lead the investigation, Captain Ward Boston, signed an affidavit saying President Johnson and Defense Secretary McNamara told those heading the inquiry to “conclude the attack was a case of mistaken identity despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.” The evidence of Israel’s atrocity against the USA is incontrovertible, and can be found in the following source documents:
“New Revelations in Attack on American Spy Ship,” John Crewdson, Chicago Tribune, October 2, 2007. http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,7326127.story
“USS Liberty: Dead in the Water,” BBC Documentary, May 2012. www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjOH1XMAwZA
 CIA Analysis of Israeli Intelligence, March 1979. When the Iranian students captured the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979, a 13 volume CIA and State Department file was found which included a March 1979 CIA Assessment of Israeli intelligence. The Washington Post and Boston Globe ran articles relating to the documents in early 1982, with the reputable but now defunct CounterSpy Magazine publishing the entire report in May-June 1982 (Note: the Washington Post ran another article in May, 1991). The CIA report is very detailed and provides a summary of each of Israel’s intelligence agencies, including Mossad, Shin Beth, Military Intelligence, and The National Police. Per the document’s “Comments on Principal Sources,” most of the information in the publication has been derived from a variety of sources including covert assets of the CIA, publications of the Israeli Government, and reports prepared by the US Department of Defense. It also lists 19 “Supplementary Overt Publication” sources. The following link is to a page on the Serendipity website which has the full CIA analysis along with an Introduction and Afterword from CounterSpy Magazine. The CounterSpy Afterword includes a discussion on the document’s authenticity, including an excerpt from former Mossad chief Isser Harel, who in a Ma’ariv interview called the assertions of the documents “malicious, dilettantish, distortions……but probably authentic,” and that the publication of the document had been a nightmare for him. www.serendipity.li/cia/counterspy/secret_cia_documents_on_mossad.htm
 Following are three other sources confirming the authenticity of the 1979 CIA Analysis of Israeli Intelligence:
“Documents from the U.S. Espionage Den,” Federation of American Scientist, Issue 70, September 1997. www.fas.org/sgp/bullentin/sec70.html
“Iran Hostage Crisis,” Wikipedia, Hostage-Holding Motivations Section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
David Ignatius, “Bungles, Bobbles and Spies; The Tehran Papers: Portrait of CIA in a Maze of its Own Design,” Washington Post, May 5, 1991.
 The 1979 CIA Assessment of Israeli Intelligence has many findings that are applicable to Israeli spying on the US, false flag attacks against the US and others, non-official cover organizations, and the utilization of Arab spies in deep cover operations, among many other facts. Following are some of those key findings (see Endnote 80)::
A principal target of Israeli intelligence is the collection of scientific intelligence in the US and other developed countries and the collection of information on US policy or deDIsions concerning Israel.
The intelligence and security community is completely loyal and if the government requested the execution of a certain task, legal and illegal, it would be accomplished.
Mossad is also charged with inciting disturbances calculated to create mutual distrust among the Arabs and to draw Western sympathy away from the Arab cause.
The fact that Lebanon has a mix of Christians, Druze, and Moslem population has made that country attractive for intelligence projects, and Israel has covert assets and has run operations in Lebanon (Note: pilot hijacker Ziad Jarrah was Lebanese and his Lebanese cousins were confirmed Israeli spies).
In 1970, the Israelis estimated that about 50 percent of their operational effort was directed against Egypt and the next priority was Syria (Note: Lead hijacker Mohammad Atta was Egyptian). P
Much of the activity against the Arabs in the Near East is based on “deep cover operations” by Israeli illegal’s or the recruitment of Arabs in third-countries followed by their dispatch or normal rotation back home to Arab areas.
One “deep cover” example was Eli Cohen, an Egyptian-born Jew who was involved in Israeli sabotage operations against American and British installations in Egypt in 1952. Mossad recruited Cohen for an illegal operation designed to develop intelligence networks and acquire political and military information in Syria. Cohen adopted the identity of the late Kamil Amin Thabet, a Syrian born merchant, and immigrated to Argentina, where he became an active member of the Arab community. Cohen eventually went to Syria where he was assisted by two Arabs who had previously been recruited by the Israelis. From 1961 until 1965, Cohen made numerous contacts with political and military personnel in Syria. In 1965, Cohen was caught, convicted, and hanged in Syria.
Another “deep cover” example was, Johann Wolfgang Lotz (aka Zeev Gur Arich), an officer in the Israeli Military who went undercover in 1959 as a former Nazi officer to infiltrate special weapons activity by German scientist in Egypt. After receiving training in Israel, he went to Germany, married a German woman, and surfaced as an East German refugee and former African Corps officer. Lotz then moved to Cairo and opened a riding academy where he made the acquaintance of a number of prominent and well-placed Egyptians. Lotz also made a number of trips to Western Europe for debriefing and was eventually caught and imprisoned in 1965 and sent back to Israel in 1968 in a prisoner trade.
Mossad activities are generally conducted through Israeli official and semiofficial establishments, deep cover enterprises in the form of firms and organizations, some especially created for, or adaptable to, a specific objective, and penetrations effected within non-Zionist national and international Jewish organizations.
Official organizations used for cover are Israeli Purchasing Missions and Israeli Government Tourist, El Al, and Zim Offices. Israeli construction firms, industrial groups and international trade organizations also provide nonofficial cover. Individuals working under deep or illegal cover normally charged with penetrating objectives that require a long-range, more subtle approach, or with activities in which the Israeli Government can never admit complicity.
Many Israelis have come from Arab countries where they were born and educated and appear more Arab than Israeli in speech, demeanor, and attitude. By forging passports and identity documents of Arab and western countries and providing sound background legends and cover, Mossad has successfully sent into Egypt and other Arab countries Israelis disguised and documented as Arabs or citizens of European countries
The Israelis have used false-flag recruitment pitches extensively and successfully. In several cases they approached citizens of Western European nations under the cover of a national NATO intelligence organization for operations in Arab target countries.
Shin Beth has picked up local Arab espionage agents on their way back to neighboring countries and doubled them in coordination with Military Intelligence.
 In addition to the entries mentioned in subject paragraph and next paragraph, following are other entries that suggest DIs were associated with Israeli intelligence or other active intelligence investigations:
A search of UNI (i.e., FBI universal index/database of names associated with ongoing investigations or files) for any references to [redacted] revealed one possible reference [redacted] investigation to [redacted] as an Israeli [redacted]. FBIR_S1P30
A search of UNI for any reference to [redacted] revealed two possible references [redacted] and [redacted] investigations at San Diego to [redacted] born [redacted] which further identified [redacted] as an [redacted]. FBIR_S1P39
Evidence acquired from van search contained telephone numbers and names directly associated with previously identified [redacted] and activities. (FBIR_S1P1)
 The FBIR states that the FBI Counterterrorism Unit sent out a communication on March 24, 2004 advising that the post 9/11 “watch list” was posted on the internet and may contain names of individuals in active investigations (FBIR_S6P63). Dominik Suter and his wife were included on the May 2002 FBI 9/11 Watch List.
 The Case Closing Summary includes an individual summary of each DI’s facts and evidence starting at top of S6P39 and running to about the middle of P41. Based on various information in this report, the apparent order of the DI’s summary is as follows: Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Sivan Kurzberg, Omer Marmari, and Yaron Shmuel.
 A July 10, 2003 FBI document lists 9 Case ID’s of which 8 are closed and 1 is still pending (FBIR_S6P52). The pending case appears to be the US intelligence agency’s investigation into a nexus between the DIs and IASs (See Sec B.8 and FBIR_S6PP56-57). Some of the other potential closed cases may relate to the following cases: (1) NK-FBI Counterterrorism Investigation of DIs; (2) NYO-FBI Counterintelligence investigation of DIs; (3) FBI Investigation of Dominik Suter (note: Suter’s name appears on May 2002 9/11 Watch List suggesting he was possibly under a subsequent investigation – see Section B.3); (4) Miami FBI investigation of Classic International Movers in conjunction with moving one of the hijackers; (5) Investigation that driver of UMS/Pennsylvania truck was involved in; (6, 7, & 8) On-going investigations that some DIs were already under investigation for, including one in San Diego.
 There are several entries suggesting that at least two DI’s were subject to the counterintelligence investigation, including S5P55 stating, “As a result, the investigation was then referred to FBI-NK’s foreign counterintelligence (FCI) squad, for further review and possible investigation. Two more Israelis, (redacted) and (redacted) were later polygraphed (redacted several lines).”
 Due to heavy redactions, it’s difficult to draw definite conclusions on the DI’s Israeli intelligence associations; however, the 7/10/03 Closing Memo suggests the following three DI’s had likely intelligence connections:
Paul Kurzberg (S6P54Par1):
* Statements made by DI’s indicates that (redacted, apparently Paul Kurzberg) is (redacted 2 lines).
* (Redacted, apparently Paul Kurzberg) admitted to being employed by the (redacted 3 lines).
* (Redacted, apparently Paul Kurzberg) advised during an additional interview he was selected by the (redacted) to (redacted) working outside the country of Israel.
* NK-FBI found no “factual evidence” to suggest that (redacted, apparently Paul Kurzberg) was operating in an overt or covert capacity inside the US for the “Jewish Agency.” (Note: The Jewish Agency is the largest Jewish (Zionist) nonprofit organization in the word. Was Paul working for both UMS and The Jewish Agency?)
Oded Ellner (S6P54Par2):
* (Redacted 3 lines). However, NK-FBI found nothing to suggest (redacted, apparently Oded Ellner) acted in such a capacity inside the US.
* Physical evidence as well as (redacted) statements to special agents of FBI corroborated NK-FBI’s belief that (redacted, apparently Oded Ellner) was (redacted 1.5 lines).
Sivan Kurzberg (S6P55Par3):
* Physical evidence along with statements by (redacted, apparently Sivan Kurzberg), revealed an association between (redacted 2.5 lines).
* More specifically, (redacted, but apparently Sivan Kurzberg) never fully revealed to the satisfaction of interviewing agents, how handwritten telephone numbers found in his personal notebook just happened to be (redacted 1 line).
* In light of the seriousness of Newark’s investigation, and considering the totality of mounting circumstantial evidence indicating either direct or indirect involvement link between 5 Israelis (redacted 6 lines).
 See Endnote 80, CIA Assessment of Israeli Intelligence, March 1979. The excerpt relating to Mossad training can be found in Section B.3.a.
 See Endnote 80 CIA Assessment of Israeli Intelligence, March 1979. The excerpts relating to The Jewish Agency’s intelligence connections can be found in Section A.2.www.serendipity.li/cia/counterspy/secret_cia_documents_on_mossad.htm
 Section A of this paper, the Fox News Investigation, discusses in detail two Israeli communication companies, Amdocs and Comverse Infosys, operating in the USA that have been suspected of spying in and on the US.
 The fax sent from the Ridgefield Police Department to the FBI Command Center is dated Sept. 4, 2001 (Note: appears the interview conducted by an FBI special agent). However, it appears that this date is a typo as the fax cover page “fax electronic information” appears to have been sent Sept. 14, 2001.
 Hilo Glazer, “From Tel Aviv to New Jersey: Moishe Mana, the Israeli Who Made a Fortune with His Moving Empire, Wants to Build a New Tribeca in Jersey City,” Haartez, 6/26/13 (note: all information in paragraph is from Haartez article). www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/.premium-1.532334
 Per Dominik Suter’s Linkedin.com resume, Suter worked for Moishes from 1993 to 1996, and apparently started UMS after he left Moishes. Dominik Suter’s Linkedin.com webpage: www.linkedin.com/pub/dominik-suter/24/72b/21b?trk=pub-pbmap
 Moishe Mana’s Delray Beach, FL house, which was purchased in December 1996, is located at 16720 Senterra Drive, Delray Beach, FL (Palm Beach County Property Records and Peoplefinders.com) and the hijacker apartments were located at 3600 Hamlet Drive, Delray Beach, FL (Hamlet Country Club Condos) and 610 Egret Circle, Delray Beach, FL (Delray Racquet Club).
 Although it appears that there was a FBI person of interest that may have resided in Mt. Holly, it is not known who that individual may have been and whether there was a connection with the arrested Israelis.
 In his FBI Interview, Shmuel states that he’s been in US for about one year, but that he went back to Israel for one month in-between. A copy of Shmuel’s July 2001 Australian Visa Application found in the van states, that he has been travelling in the US for 5 months which would seem to indicate that he came back around February 2001 (FBIRS5P85).
 Suter’s address is per the May 2002 Post-9/11 Watch List, page 22, and hijacker address is per the FBI Hijacker Timeline. (FBI HJT 5/21/01).
 “Deadly Tale of Incompetence,” Mike Kelley, Bergen Record, 8/14/05
 The Rochelle Park, NJ Shop Rite at 220 W. Passaic Street is approximately 22 miles from one of the DIs apartments at 100 Washington St., Brooklyn, NY, and about 14 miles from UMS warehouse at 3 18th Street, Weehawken, NJ (Note: Per Sec B.3, the DIs appeared to be office employees and not movers).
 The June 2001 DEA Memo can be found in the Gerald Shea Memo, Exhibit A – DEA Memo (see Endnote 7). See sections 138 to 142 for description of Meirav Balhams detention and questioning. Shea Memo Link: www.antiwar.com/rep2/MemorandumtotheCommissionandSelectCommitteesbold.pdf
 Michael Gal information is per Sections 42 and 43 of June 2001 DEA Memo.
 Amdocs Offices Worldwide, www.amdocs.com/About/Pages/Worldwide-Offices.aspx
 Mack-Cali advertisement for Harborside Center Plaza 5, noting its “unparalleled Manhattan views.”
 The Israeli Art Students with explosive/ordnance backgrounds can be found in DEA Memo Sections 46, 56, 83, 97, and 99.
 On 3/1/2001, a group of approximately seven Israelis were detained and questioned in Tampa, FL after one was stopped peddling art at the Tampa DEA offices. All of the subjects gave ambiguous answers to the agents. Of particular concern was Team Leader, Hanan Serfaty, who drove the van and had deposit slips for approximately $107,000 and withdrawals totaling $86,000. Serfaty stated that he arrived in the US about a year ago, is now 24 years old, and served in the Israeli military between the ages of 18-21 (Note: did not mention unit or what he did for military). When questioned what he did between the ages of 21 and 24, he refused to answer but indicated that he resides in Hollywood, FL (DEA Sections 76-81).
 Hanan Serfaty’s addresses were obtained from DEA Memo Section 39 and Mohammed Atta’s addresses were obtained from FBI Hijacker Timeline.
 Jewish retailers at Park Sheridan Plaza West included area famous Levy’s Kosher Deli and the three Hollywood synagogue/temples within about a mile of the shopping center included Temple Solel (5100 Sheridan St, Hollywood, FL), Temple Sanai (1400 N. 46 Ave, Hollywood, FL), Hollywood Community Synagogue (2221 N. 46 Ave, Hollywood, FL)
 Segalovitz also admitted that he had been in two military actions in Lebanon involving explosives and asked agents not to divulge this information to Israel because it would lead to his immediate arrest there. Segalovitz stated he was working for his brother Dror’s company selling art and that Dror lived in Tamarac, FL. Peer stayed with brother Dror in Tamarac, FL, whose house was about 5 miles from one of Atta’s residences in Coral Springs, FL (DEA Memo Sections 95 to 98).
 Per Section 99 of DEA Memo.
 Per Sections 53 to 57 in DEA Memo.
 Per DEA Memo Sections 46, 51, and 129.
 Per DEA Memo Sections 46, 50, and 51.
 Tamar Lewin with Allison Leigh Cowan, “A Nation Challenged: The Detainees; Dozens of Jews are Being Kept in Federal Detention,” New York Times, 11/21/01
 John Mintz, “60 Israelis on Tourist Visas Detained Since Sept 11,” Washington Post, 11/23/01
 Paul Rodriguez, “Intelligence Agents or Art Students? The DEA and Justice Department Believe There Was Something Sinister behind the Unusual Visits Israeli Art Students Paid to Employees of Law Enforcement Agencies,” Insight on the News, April 1, 2002.
 Wikipedia, Zim Integrated Shipping Services, http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Zim_Integrated_Shipping_Services
Zim Integrated Shipping Services Website, www.zim.co.il/content.aspx?id=159&1=4
Miriam Shaviv, “Zim workers Saved by Cost Cutting,” Jerusalem Post, September 13, 2001.
Wikipedia, List of Tenants in One World Trade Center, http://en.wikipedia.org
Dennis O’Brien, “Shipping Firm Moves Headquarters to Norfolk, VA,” The Virginian Pilot, Sept. 4, 2001
This article can also be viewed at the SteveWarRan blog at the following link: http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2012/05/zim-israel-navigation-company.html
Christopher Dinsmore, “Firms Move to Norfolk Will Create 235 New Jobs, Shipping Company to Relocate Headquarters to Hampton Roads from New York City,” The Virginia Pilot, April 3, 2001.
In addition to stating that Zim expects to open its new building by Sept. 4, it also states that a Zim official said the company started looking to move its headquarters in December 1999. However, there is no evidence of this in the media and this date happens to basically coincide with Atta, Jarrah, and Shehhi’s alleged visit to OBL in Afghanistan and when the 9/11 plot was assumed to blossom (See Endnote 44). Thus, Zim’s December 1999 date to start getting the feelers out for new office space is not to be unexpected given 9/11 was a probably deep cover false flag operation that took several years to plan and come to fruition.
Zim Shipping’s new Norfolk office is located at 5801 Lake Wright Drive, Norfolk, VA, and the Naval Network Warfare Command is located at 2465 Guadalcanal Road, Norfolk, VA.
 In addition to the 45,000 square foot office building in Norfolk, Zim moved its WTC sales team to Staten Island in a rented 10,000 square foot office space, totaling approximately 55,000 square feet, which approximates its total estimated square feet of 60,000 square feet at the WTC.
“Fast tracking” a real estate development means to compress standard design and construction procedures and timelines in order to meet the owner’s schedule to use the structure. In a project of this type, time is of the essence, and project processes that would normally run in sequence must be run in parallel. Following is a good summary of what fast tracking a project requires and then Wikipedia’s basic definition.
Fast Track Design Description: www.struturesdb.com/about/fasttrack.asp
Wikipedia Fast Track Construction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-track_construction
 This author was a commercial real estate lender in a prior life and I could say through experience that the typical development/construction period for a 50,000 square foot office building would be 12 to 18 months depending on the status of the land and permitting approvals. The construction loan period would coincide with this development period. “Fast track” construction/development is used when someone needs a building to be completed quickly; however, there are more construction and design risks when this methodology is used. Following is an example of a construction timeline for a 3-story 75,000 square foot building which is approximately twelve months.
“Hunter is Representative for Zim Relocation,” Real Estate Weekly, April 25, 2001.
Phil Jayhan, “World Trade Center Occupancy FOIA 1972-2001,” Letsrollforums.com, January 14, 2011, www.letsrollforums.com/press-release-world-trade-t24256.html
Tenant Roster Website: www.editgrid.com/labc/common/FOIA_Request_Occupancy_WTC_1972-2001
Alice Lipowicz, “Zim American Ships Itself Out of NY, New Headquarters in VA will Cut Costs, Move Means Layoffs,” Crain’s New York Business, April 9, 2001.
This article can be viewed at the SteveWarRan blog at the following link: http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2012/05/zim-israel-navigation-company.html
Zim’s remaining WTC lease obligation is calculated at 60,000 square feet of office space, multiplied by $30 per square feet per year rental rate, multiplied by four and a half remaining lease years, or $8.1 million.
Chris Bollyn, “Israeli Company Mum about WTC Pullout,” American Free Press, September 2, 2002. http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/09/AmericanFreePress0902.html
Douglas Feiders, “Shipping Line Relocating Service from New Jersey to New York,” New York Daily News, November 27, 1996. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18910281.html
“Government Alert: Spitzer takes the early fund raising offensive, AG girding himself for a heavy weight campaign class with someone like Rudy,” Crain’s New York Business, April 23, 2001..
This article can also be viewed at the SteveWarRan blog at the following link: http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2012/05/zim-israel-navigation-company.html
See Endnote 80.. The following link is from the Serendipity website which includes a CIA Assessment of Israeli intelligence. The excerpts on Zim Shipping can be found in Section A.2 and Section B.4.
The Agence France, March 2003 – Article’s English summary can be found at Historycommons.org under the following entry: “August 28, 2002: Germans Seize US/Israeli Weapons Bound for Iran,”
 Rex Nutting, “Trading with the Enemy,” CBS Marketwatch, April 15, 2003
“13 Offer Brothers Ships have Docked in Iran over the Past Decade,” Haaretz Newspaper, 5/29/11. Article reprinted in Sea News: www.seanews.com.tr/article/worldships/63297/Ofer-Brothers-Iran/
 Sale Neami, “200 Israeli Companies have Indirect Investment Ties in Iranian Energy Sector,” Haaretz, May 26, 2011. http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/13000/World/Region/Haaretz–Israeli-companies-have-indirect-investmen.aspx
Exhibit I – Maps (2) of Israeli and Hijacker Groups in New Jersey and New York
The World Trade Center, Manhattan, NY
The Doric, 100 Manhattan Ave., Union City, NJ (Sec B5)
Urban Moving System Warehouse, 3 18th St., Weehawken, NJ (Sec B4)
CI Van Stop, Route 3 just East of NJ Turnpike, East Rutherford, NJ (Sec A)
Urban Moving System Bayonnne Warehouse, 73-75 Gould St., Bayonne, NJ (Sec B4)
Liberty Park Marine Terminal, Jersey City, NJ (Sec B4)
Dominic Suter Residence 1, 312 Pavonia Ave, Jersey City, NJ Residence (Sec B8)
Moishes Moving Office/Warehouse, 227 Coles St., Jersey City, NJ (Sec B7)
Moishes Moving Brooklyn, 32 Grand Ave, Brooklyn, NY (Sec B7 & B8)
White Glove Moving 1, 930 Newark Ave., Jersey City, NJ (Sec B7)
White Glove Moving 2, 235 West 1st St., Jersey City, NJ (Sec B7) – Not on map, just south Map 1
Classic International Movers, No Address Provided, Ridgefield, NJ (Sec B7)
Newark Airport, Newark, NJ (Sec B8) – Not on map, slightly west of Map 1
Port Jersey, Bayonne, NJ (Sec B4)
Red Hook Port, Brooklyn, NJ (Sec B8 & B10)
Port Elizabeth, Elizabeth, NJ (Sec B8) – Not on map, slightly west of Map 1
4G Truck Rental, 395 Kent Ave., Brooklyn, NY (Sec B8)
CI Sivan Kurzberg & possibly 3 other DI’s,100 Lawrence St, Brooklyn, NY (Police Reports)
CI Omer Marmari residence, 509 West 212th St., Manhattan, NY (Police Reports)
IAS Meirav Balhams residence, 354 Paterson Plank Rd., Jersey City, NJ (Sec B8)
IAS Michael Gal, 22 Palisades Terrace, Edgewater, NJ (Sec B8)
Amdocs Office, Harborside Financial Center Plaza #5, Jersey City, NJ (Sec B8)
HJ Hani Hanjour & Nawaf Hazmi Mailbox Etc., 96 Linwood Plaza, Fort Lee, NJ (Sec B8)
Dominik Suter Residence 2, 28 Harlow Crescent Rd., Fair Lawn, NJ (Sec B8)
Hijackers Paterson Cell, 486 Union Ave., Paterson, NJ (Sec B8)
Nice Systems, 301 Rt-17, Rutherford, NJ (Sec B8)
Wayne Inn, 553 Route 23, Wayne, NJ (Sec B8)
CI Shop Rite Food Card, 220 W. Passaic St., Rochelle Park, NJ (Sec B8)
Jade East Motel, 410 US Highway 46, South Hackensack, NJ (Sec B8)
Royal Park Hotel, 46 Stone Ave., Elmwood Park, NJ (Sec B8)
Exhibit II – Terrible Transparency: Missing FBI Documents and Excessive FBI Redactions
The FBIR suffers from terrible transparency primarily in the form of critical missing documents/information and excessive and unnecessary FBI redactions. To begin with, the FBI has provided only 550 pages of a total 1,830 pages of the investigation (only 30 percent of total pages). At the end of each FBIR Section, the FBI provides a list of omitted pages which total 1,280. Although the below list of missing FBI documents is an apparent subset of the total omitted pages, it probably only accounts for a fraction of the total omitted pages. The majority of missing FBI documents/information listed below come from “attachments” that were not included in the FBIR and where additional FBI analysis was requested but never received (Note: the missing documents listed below are a primarily a summary of the missing documents previously noted in the body of this report, but also includes some new items).
Missing FBI Documents
The FBI Interviews of Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner and Sivan Kurzberg are not in the FBIR. The FBIR stated there were “numerous” CI interviews over several months (FBIR_S6P39), yet the only individual CI interviews in the FBIR are one for Omer Marmari on Sept.18, 2001 (FBIR_S3PP61-66) and Yaron Shmuel’s on Sept 15, 2001 (FBIR_S5PP85-88).
Several media reports in Section A state that the DIs were given multiple polygraph tests and failed those (The Forward & ABC 20/20). However, there was only one “very heavily redacted” summary of polygraph tests in the entire FBIR and it does not discuss what parts may have been failed (Note: polygraph tests were from 11/13/01 to 11/16/01). In addition, 22 pages of interview notes and transcripts are not included in the FBIR (FBIR_S5PP91-95).
The Sept. 23, 2001 FBI Case Update stated that “Polygraph results of three subjects were still outstanding,” yet HQ-FBI ordered that the case be closed the next day (FBIR_S5P53). The results and/or summary of these three polygraph tests are not in the FBIR (Section B.1).
Several media sources in Section A (The Forward, ABC 20/20) state that Dominik Suter was interviewed by the FBI on Sept. 12, 2001 in conjunction with the CI case; however, his FBI interview is not in the FBIR.
Section 1, pages 91 to 132 of the FBIR lists items found in the DIs van that were sent on for further analysis (“traces”). Numbered items ranged from 1 to 52 and alpha letters ranged from A to H, suggesting there were at least 60 items found in the van. However, only 19 items are listed in the FBIR, meaning there are 41+ items that were found in the van but not listed in the FBIR, with one of the obvious missing items being box-cutters (Section B.3). In addition, most of the analysis/traces requested for the 19 listed items were not included in the FBIR.
None of the 76 photos developed from the film and cameras that were in the possession of the DIs were included in the FBIR even though they were supposed to have been attached (FBIR_S1P3, P10). One entry in FBIR stated that the Israelis were visibly happy in “nearly all” the photographs (FBIR_ S1P35, 9/15/01) while another entry stated that the Israelis were smiling on at least three of the photos (FBIR_S4P46, 9/23/01). The reason for this FBI discrepancy is unknown. (Section B.3)
The helicopter video footage which the FBI basically relies on as its sole evidence that the DIs did not have foreknowledge (along with the one developed photo) is not included in the FBIR (Section B.2.d and FBIR_ S5P40).
Results of the van’s explosives tests are missing and have never been revealed by the FBI. Samples for explosives were taken on Sept. 11, 2001 from the DIs’ van and were allegedly still not available as of the Sept. 23, 2001 case update, and even the July 2003 Case Closing Memo (Section B.3).
The FBIR did not list any other items seized from the UMS warehouse search on Sept. 14, 2001 except for 15 computers. Media reports and common sense would suggest that the FBI also took explosive samples from the UMS warehouse since explosives were detected in the DI’s van and the results were not ready by the time FBI searches UMS warehouse. FBIR did not state explosive samples or list any other items taken from UMS warehouse (Section B.4).
The computer hard drive images were not entered into evidence until Jan. 10, 2002, and none of the computer hard drive information was included in the FBIR (FBIR_S5P117 and Section B.4).
The FBI conducted a surveillance of the UMS warehouse on Sept. 16, 2001, and although the results of the surveillance were supposed to be attached/included, they were not in the FBIR (FBIR_S4P1).
On Sept. 15, 2001, the FBI ran an analysis comparing the DIs’ entry dates and addresses against the hijackers and their suspected associates. Although this analysis was supposed to be attached to the FBIR document, it was not (FBIR_S5P28 and Section B.8).
A 24-page fax to NK-FBI relating to the questioning of four Classic International Movers was supposed to be attached to the FBIR document, but it was not (FBIR_S1PP133-34 and Section B.7). CIM was under investigation by the Miami FBI in conjunction with moving one of the alleged hijackers.
The requested translation from Hebrew of a letter to a Motel 6 in Laurel, Maryland (5 miles from NSA headquarters) was apparently never received or too heavily redacted (FBIR_S1P112 and Section B.3).
In September 2002, results of analysis by the FBI’s Questioned Documents Unit came back (FBIR_S6PP36-37). The analysis was apparently of DIs notebooks and papers, and although very vague, 9 related enclosures were not included in the FBIR.
On Sept. 17, 2001, NK-FBI sent two groups of documents collected from the DIs for translation (Hebrew to English), and the results were not received until Oct. 4, 2002 (FBIR_S6PP5-6). None of the original or translated documents were included in the FBIR even though they were supposed to be attached.
Unidentified trace (analysis) results were supposed to be attached to a FBI document dated Sept. 19, 2001, but were not (FBIR_S3P29).
Unidentified trace (analysis) results were supposed to be attached to a FBI document dated Sept. 21, 2001, but were not (FBIR_S3P92).
On Sept. 18, 2001, NK-FBI requested traces (analysis) of certain items (mostly redacted or unidentifiable) but there was no evidence the results were ever received (FBIR_S3PP43-58). This request may be related to the above two trace results (numbers 17 and 18); however, it appears that this request includes additional items.
A Sept. 18, 2001 FBI document notes that a fax response to a grand jury subpoena received, but the fax was not included in FBIR (FBIR_S5P23).
On Oct. 8, 2001, the NK-FBI requested Laboratory work for additional phone and pager analysis but no evidence results ever presented (FBIR_S5PP67-68).
Three cell phones were found in the DIs van, and although phone records were checked, none of the results are included in the FBIR (FBIR_S1PP43-48). None of the three phones incoming answered phone records show a call coming in shortly after the first plane crash as one of the DIs contend.
Excessive FBI Redactions
The primary purpose of redactions is to protect sources and methods and the purposely vague “protection of national security.” The FBIR obviously goes way beyond these parameters in its redactions despite Israel being one of our alleged most loyal allies who should have nothing to fear or hide. Thus, there should not be any national security concerns since Israel is an staunch ally. Following is a list of the many excessive and unnecessary redactions contained in the FBIR (Note: The excessive redactions listed below are a summary of the missing redactions with many of them being previously noted in the body of this report).
The names of the DIs and Dominik Suter are redacted each and every time even though all their names have been publicly known for about a decade. Except in the instances where the FBI is investigating the DIs Israeli intelligence associations, there should be no reason to redact the DIs names since they were already public. The FBI even redacts the DIs names from the East Rutherford Police Reports in the FBIR which are publicly available reports that list all the DIs names and known addresses.
A Sept. 14, 2001 FBI synopsis linking five Israeli nationals, states: “Newark FBI initiated an investigation predicated upon the detention of five Israeli nationals who may have possessed information about the terrorist incident targeting the WTC on 9/11.The following sets forth the basis for linking these five Israelis….. [Redacted entire two pages].” This is an excessive and unnecessary redaction potentially linking the DIs to the terrorist attacks on the WTC. (FBIR_S1PP28-30). It is not understandable why the FBI had to redact the entire two pages.
Some of the most heavily redacted parts of the FBIR were those documents and entries related to the DIs Israeli intelligence connections and associations with other ongoing US intelligence investigations. The following 13-pages relating to Israeli intelligence connections and associations with ongoing investigations were very heavily redacted: S1PP34-35, 37-38, S5PP48-49, 52-53, 93-95, S6PP39-40.
There is an approximate one page redaction in an FBI document dated Sept. 21, 2001. The document appears to relate to INS results relating to information about the whereabouts of the five DIs prior to 9/11 (FBIR_S3PP83-84).
In one of the more bizarre and unexplained redactions, there is basically an entire redaction of an email found in the DI’s van. The only things not redacted from the email are the “Dear God” subject line and the July 10, 2001 date (Sec B.3 and FBIR_S3P59).
Another relatively strange redaction is the FBI’s redaction of the nationality and/or country of the owner of the co-op unit at The Doric where there was the emergency tenant move-out on Sept. 10, 2001 (Sec B.4 and FBIR_S1P74). There is no reason to redact such information, unless the owner was coincidently Israeli.
There is an approximate 20 line redaction relating to Classic International Movers, which happened to be under investigation by the Miami FBI in conjunction with moving one of the hijackers (Sec B.6 and FBIR_S1P39).
The apparent background details explaining the reasons and findings as to why the Weehawken Police Department’s searched UMS on Oct. 16, 2001, were almost completely redacted (FBIR_S5P89).
In a Sept. 13, 200 FBI interview of a Doric resident who positively identified one of the DIs as being at The Doric on Sept. 10, 2001 and around Sept. 7, 2001, there is a substantial 10+/- line redaction of his testimony (FBIR_S1P61).
There were substantial redactions (approx. 20+ total lines) to a Sept. 13, 2001 FBI interview of an acquaintance of one of the DIs. It appeared that the CI had one or more phone conversations with this individual on Sept. 11, 2001 and may have even visited her at her office that day (FBIR_S1PP49-51).
There’s an approximate 20-line redaction in a Sept. 18, 2001 FBI interview of a CI acquaintance right after the acquaintance stated that the CI had not been as outgoing as he once was after working for UMS (FBIR_S3P3).
Although the FBI had no problem divulging the names and work positions in their investigation of Antiwar.com, the FBI redacted the past and current positions of all the DIs and all the other UMS and White Glove Moving employees that they interviewed. Although it’s reasonable to redact the individual’s name, there is no reasonable explanation for redacting the person’s company position.
A Sept. 18, 2001 response to a subpoena is almost entirely redacted (FBIR_S5P23).
FBI redacts the school and/or location on a DI’s ISIC student ID card. However, it is issued the same month and year that hijacker Ziad Jarrah was issued one in Hamburg, Germany (Sec B.3 and FBIR_S1P99).
The FBI “tried” to hide/redact the fact that one of the DIs worked for the The Jewish Agency, which is an Israeli organization that has been linked as a non-official cover for Israeli intelligence agents (Sec B.5). In two identical entries in the FBIR, the FBI redacts the fact in FBIR_S6P39, but forgets to hide this incriminating fact in FBIR_S6P54.
The FBI redacted all the Israeli military positions and backgrounds of not only the DIs, but also all UMS and White Glove employees that they interviewed. Unless the Israelis were in secret or classified military units, there should have been no reason to redact their military backgrounds and it could have showed if their military background were applicable to the 9/11 false flag operation.
In a Sept. 15, 2001 interview with the FBI, an ex-UMS employee stated, “She left UMS because (redacted).” In another statement, this employee states that another person, “Left UMS because (redacted), and that she would have more information regarding (redacted) that may be helpful to the police” (FBIR_S5P30). Why is the reason a person left a defunct company redacted?
Exhibit III – Cover-Up Investigation: Dropped FBI Leads and Critical Unanswered Questions
The FBI carried out what was basically a “cover-up” investigation to ensure that the DIs would not be found to have foreknowledge or involvement in the 9/11 attacks. In no place is this more obvious in than in a number of FBI dropped or non-pursued leads. As a result of the poor investigation and the cover-up, there are many critical open questions today (Note: The dropped FBI leads listed below are a primarily a summary with many of them being previously mentioned in the body of this report).
Dropped FBI Leads
A UMS employee apparently saw at least two of the three DIs from The Doric back in the UMS warehouse by 8:58 AM. This would have meant that they would have had to have left The Doric by around 8:54 AM, which would have basically made all the DIs timelines impossible and proven the FBI’s helicopter analysis was flawed and wrong. The FBI failed to interview this employee a second time to confirm her statement which clearly shows the DIs had at least foreknowledge (Note: See Eyewitness 4 testimony in Section B.2.c and FBIR_S5P21-22, S6P52). Instead of pursuing this employee for a subsequent interview to confirm her statement, the FBI appears to ignore this important fact.
A Doric resident spotted a white van in the The Doric parking lot at around 8:15 AM on 9/11, and gave a description of the driver that matched Oded Ellner “very closely.” However, there is no evidence that the FBI showed this eyewitness a photo of Ellner to see if she could positively identify Ellner as the van driver (See Section B.2.c, Eyewitness 2 testimony).
A UMS employee told the FBI that she did not recall seeing the company’s one van in its usual parking space on the side of the building on 9/11 (see Section B.2.c Eyewitness 5 and FBIR_S3P85). Shockingly, the FBI does not confirm the time she noticed not seeing the van in its usual parking spot, nor do they ask the employees directly if she saw the DIs at UMS at the time they were alleged to be there.
The FBI appears to interview only 3 or 4 “current” UMS employees, and only one discusses when she first saw the DIs the morning of 9/11 (Section B.2.c, Eyewitness 4 above). There is no evidence that any UMS employee saw the DIs at UMS before the first plane crash, and the FBI does not appear to ask the other UMS employees when they first saw the DIs the morning of 9/11.
The FBI also tried to determine the time the DIs were at The Doric by determining the accuracy of the time/date readout on the Canon EOS Rebel LCD screen; however, there’s no follow-up information on the FBI’s conclusions (Sec B.2.e and FBIR_S3P72). What were the results of the time that the DIs got to the Doric and how long were they there?
The FBI’s foreknowledge analysis of the DIs consisted of utilizing only one photo to try and determine the approximate time the DIs arrived at The Doric. However, the FBI does not try to take all the photos into consideration to determine the duration that the DIs were at The Doric to see if this fits into the assumed timeline (Sec. B.2.d).
Sivan Kurzberg and Oded Ellner told obvious lies about how and when they got to The Doric the morning of 9/11, and Yaron Shmuel’s “two” stories in the FBIR are contradicting and highly questionable given the evidence. The FBI fails to resolve and reconcile the DIs lies and explain why the DIs had to tell lies in the first place if they had innocent and acceptable stories (Sec B.2.a).
What were the results of the explosive tests from the DIs’ van and why were they not completed in several days and included in the FBIR (Section B.3)?
It appears from various media sources that explosive samples were also taken from the FBI’s search of the UMS Weehawken warehouse on Sept. 13, 2001. What were the results of these explosive tests? (Sec B.4)
Why did UMS get a second warehouse in Bayonne, N.J. around July/August 2001 given it was apparently a front company, and did the FBI search and test this warehouse for explosives, especially since the alarm company witness was told he did not have to check out the second floor premises? (Sec B.4)
Who was the CI who was positively identified as being at The Doric on the afternoon of Sept. 10, 2001 and on Sept. 7 or 8? Although it’s known that the CI exited the elevator on the 9th floor, there’s no evidence that the FBI followed up this lead and tried to identify and question the individual he may have been visiting on this floor (Sec B.5)
There was an emergency tenant move-out from the Doric on Sept. 10, 2001 and UMS just happened to be the moving company (i.e., the tenant called the day before, wanting to move the next day and to reserve an elevator). There’s strong circumstantial evidence that this tenant had foreknowledge, yet there is no evidence that the FBI followed up on this important lead. (Sec B.5)
What were the results of the FBI’s analysis of comparing the DIs’ entry dates and addresses against the hijackers and their suspected associates and why wasn’t it included in the FBIR? Why didn’t the FBI consider a wider range of Israelis given that Classic International Movers was under investigation for moving one of the hijackers? (Sec B.7 and B.8)
What were the results of the FBI’s investigation started around April 2002 into whether a nexus existed between the DIs and other Israelis (IAS) fitting similar profiles who were held in INS detention around 9/11 and who were possibly part of a clandestine human intelligence collection network? (Note: Not completed at time of July 2003 Case Closing Memo?) (Sec B.9)
The FBIR noted that “seizure of the individuals’ (DIs) property yielded airline tickets with immediate travel dates and destinations worldwide,” and at least one plane ticket was for a roundtrip ticket coming from Israel to New York on June 15, 2001 and returning on Sept. 12, 2001 (Sec B.3). What were the other departure dates and were there any other DIs that had roundtrip tickets where the departure date was established several months prior to Sept. 11, 2001?
Classic International Movers (CIM) was being investigated by the Miami FBI for moving one of the hijackers. The result of that investigation is not included in the FBIR and a 24 page interview with four employees of CIM was not included in the FBIR. What were the results of the Miami FBI’s investigation of CIM in conjunction with the moving of one of the hijackers (Sec. B7)?
Yaron Shmuel had an Israeli and German passport. There is no evidence that the FBI checked with German intelligence as to when and where Shmuel may have lived in Germany and if there was any potential nexus with the 9/11 Hamburg Germany cell (Sec B.3).
Who was the CI who had the ISIC student identity card issued to him the same month and year (September 2000) that hijacker Ziad Jarrah had one issued to him in Hamburg, Germany, and in what city or school was the CI card issued? (Sec B.3)
The Forward, ABC 20/20, and New York Times (Sec A) all stated that box cutters were found in the DIs’ van (and the Palm Beach Post stated that box cutters were found in Pennsylvania UMS van), but no mention was made of it in the FBIR. Why did the FBI redact this information and did the confiscated box cutters match any of the box cutters left behind by the hijackers or found at the Shanksville crash site? (Sec B.4)
On October 12, 2001, the Weehawken Police Department searched UMS warehouse and found 57 CD-ROMs, 35 floppy discs, and 2 zip files. Why didn’t the FBI seize and analyze this evidence when they searched the UMS warehouse on Sept. 13, 2001? There is no evidence that the FBI ever analyzed this evidence and there is no further information in the FBIR regarding it (Sec B.4).
The Sept. 15, 2001 Case Summary states that NK-FBI agents were tasked to interview the attendant at The Doric parking lot and to determine whether a surveillance camera may have recorded the event (FBIR_S1P40). Upon authors inspection of The Doric, garage access was by key card and it could not be determined if there were video cameras (Sec B.5). There is no evidence in the FBIR that the FBI asked The Doric management for potential parking lot video?
Why did the FBI have to redact all of the “Dear God” email, and did they get a response to their request form the Israeli government identifying the owner of the email address from which it was sent? (Sec B.3)
The Bergen County Record reported on Sept. 12, 2001 (Sec A) that officials present when the Israelis were pulled over on Sept. 11, 2001 stated that, “There are maps of the city with certain places highlighted. It looks like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty Park.” Items found in the van did include an open map and two MapQuest searches, and the NK-FBI requested traces on all. What were the results of these traces and did places highlighted on the maps tie the DIs to the attacks? (Sec B.3)
During questioning by Pennsylvania State Police, The two UMS truck drivers pulled over in Pennsylvania on 9/10/01 and 9/12/01, advised that they weren’t in New York on 9/11; however, a gasoline receipt was found dated Sept. 11, 2001 for gas purchased in New Jersey on that day (FBIR_S1P36). In addition, one of the occupants stated they made a delivery in Chicago, while the other one denied this fact. The FBI never follows up how they got a New Jersey gas receipt on 9/11 when they said they were in Ohio and Chicago on 9/11, and just assumed that the one suspect, who said he was not in Chicago on 9/11, just did not understand the question because his English was not too good (Sec B.4).
In September “2002,” results of analysis by the FBI’s Questioned Documents Unit came back (FBIR_S6PP36-37). The analysis was apparently of DIs notebooks and papers, and although very vague, 9 related enclosures were not included in the FBIR.
On Sept. 17, 2001, NK-FBI sent two groups of documents collected from the DIs for translation (Hebrew to English), and the results were not received until Oct. 4, 2002 (FBIR_S6PP5-6). A “Contract Linguist” reviewed the items and opined there was nothing of Foreign Intelligence nature in the documents. None of the original or translated documents were included in the FBIR even though they were supposed to be attached. Why did the FBI close the case and release the DIs without these results?
Critical Unanswered Questions:
Section B.2.a clearly shows that two, and possibly all three DIs at The Doric on 9/11, lied about their timelines for that morning. Did these lies show up on their polygraph tests and how did the FBI resolve these lies? What other lies showed up on the DIs polygraph tests and how come they are not discussed in the FBIR (Note: there are other entries in the FBIR that state there are discrepancies and contradictions in the DIs stories and several sources in Section A discuss failed polygraph tests)?
Where was Paul Kurzberg the morning of 9/11? It appears that he may have drove in from Brooklyn with the three DIs that ended up at The Doric on 9/11, but he apparently was not at The Doric. If Paul Kurzberg did not drive in with the three Doric DIs, then who was the other UMS employee they picked up and how come this employee was apparently not interviewed by the FBI? (Sec B.2.e)
Who gave the order at FBI headquarters’ to close the CI investigation on Sept. 24, 2001 while the investigation was still ongoing? Documents in the FBIR showed that the investigation continued in some form and that the DIs were held and investigated for another two months before they were released (Sec B.1).
There is no evidence that the FBI tried to contact Dominik Suter for further questioning after he fled back to Israel on Sept. 14, 2001, despite his and his wife’s name appearing on a May 2002 FBI Post-9/11 Watch List along with OBL’s, KSM’s, all the 9/11 hijackers, and their presumed associates (Sections A and B.4). No explanation has ever been given by the FBI and/or Suter why he abandoned his business and why his name showed up on the subsequent FBI list.
A number was found in one of the DIs notebook that matched the phone number of an Islamic militant in South America. The other number in the notebook was a phone number of a hashish dealer in New York. The FBI subsequently concluded that the number sought be the Islamic Militant’s was actually a bank account number of the DIs friend. What bank did the number belong to and was it an Israeli bank (Sec B.3)?
A video from a gas station near UMS’s warehouse caught two white vans driving by between 8:29 AM to 8:31 AM on 9/11, but it “appears” that the FBI’s analysis of the video could not determine if they were the DIs van (FBIR_S5PP64-67 & PP69-71). However, a copy of the video and photos were sent to the FBI Explosive Unit with no explanation as to why (FBIR_S5P70). Why was the gas station video sent to the FBI’s Explosive Unit?
A July 10, 2003 FBI document lists 9 “Case ID’s” of which 8 are closed and 1 is still pending (FBIR_S6P52). The pending case appears to be the US intelligence agencies investigation into a nexus between the DIs and IASs (See Sec B.8 and FBIR_S6PP56-57). Besides the subject NK-FBI and NYO-FBI investigations of the DIs, what were the other 6 related closed investigations (Sec B.6)?
A July 10, 2003 memo from NK-FBI to the Laboratory Division and DC-2C states that all outstanding leads shall be discontinued upon dissemination of this communication (S6PP53-57). What outstanding leads in the CI investigation were still open as of July 10, 2003?
Did The Doric have a “guest log” prior to 9/11? There is conflicting evidence in the FBIR as one entry in the FBIR states there are no guest logs available for 9/11/01 or prior (FBIR_S5P131) while another entry shows a completely redacted Doric Guest Log, including the date (FBIR_S5P127).
Several media reports in Section A (The Forward, ABC 20/20, New York Times) state that some of the DIs failed polygraph tests but there is no information in the FBIR as to what polygraph questions were failed and what the implication were. What polygraph questions did the DIs fail? At least two, and possibly all three DIs were lying about their timelines for the morning of 9/11. Did these lies show on the polygraph tests and how did the FBI reconcile them?
A Sept. 17, 2001 FBI document from Newark C-9 stated that “results of traces are attached but due to the classification of the document, the attachment is being held in the custody of the Newark Security Officer” (FBIR_S1P136 & Sec B.5). Were these results and attachment related to the explosive trace samples that were taken or another requested trace (Sec B.3)? If another trace, what was the trace related to and why the high classification level?
Was it Paul Kurzberg, the suspected Mossad operative, who bought the camera for his brother the day before the attacks? There were two brief mentions of a possible second camera in the FBIR; how many cameras did the DIs actually have in their possession when stopped by the police (Sec B.3)?
The June 2001 DEA Memo relating to the Israeli Art Students noted that a majority of the IAS questioned had served in intelligence, electronic intercepts, or explosive ordinance units and that their ‘current occupation of selling art did not seem to fit their backgrounds (Sec B.11). All the DIs’ Israeli military backgrounds were redacted. What were the DIs’ military backgrounds and were their jobs as temporary movers reflective of their military and other backgrounds?
The FBIR includes two relatively heavy redacted entries relating to “construction guys” at The Doric in August 2002 (S5P128-29, 131). The entries appear to be related to the painter who observed the DI’s filming the attacks on 9/11 and not the CI or Spanish speaking individual on 9/10/01 (see Section B.5). Why was this key “witness” still under surveillance about a year after the attacks?
Zim American-Israeli Shipping vacated the WTC on Sept. 4, 2001 even though they had a four-and-a-half year $8 million lease liability at the WTC. Zim also “fast tracked” the development of their new office building so it would be guaranteed to be ready by Sept. 4, 2001 even though there was no urgency since their WTC lease was still in place (Sec B.10). Why was it so critical that Zim had to be out of the WTC by Sept. 4, 2001?
The Dancing Israelis
Exhibit IV — Examples of Excessive FBI Redactions
FBIR, Section 1, Pages 28-30 This is an approximately two-page complete redaction except for a vague half-sentence. This September 14, 2001, FBI document appears to be a synopsis of the facts and evidence potentially linking the DIs to the 9/11 attacks. The sentence prior to the redaction states, “The following sets forth the basis for linking these five (5) Israeli Nationals.”
FBIR, Section 1, Pages 37-38 This is an approximately one-and-a-half-page redaction. This entry is from a September 15, 2001, FBI document that is a Case Summary from NK-FBI to HQ-FBI, and the redaction appears to be related to the DIs potential association with Israeli intelligence and other on-going FBI investigations.
FBIR, Section 1, Page 39 This is an approximately one-third-page redaction. This entry is from a September 15, 2001, FBI document that is a Case Summary from NK-FBI to HQ-FBI, and the redaction appears to be related to Classic International Movers, a New Jersey moving company that was under investigation by the Miami FBI in conjunction with moving one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers.
FBIR, Section 1, Pages 49-50 This is a very heavily redacted September 14, 2001, FBI interview apparently with a roommate of the one of the DIs. It appears that this roommate had some telephone calls with one of the DIs on 9/11 and may even have had some physical contact that day.
FBIR, Section 3, Page 59 This document is an email that was found in the DIs van. The approximately one-third-page email is completely redacted except for the “Dear God” subject line and the July 10, 2001, date.
FBIR, Section 3, Pages 83-84 This is an approximately one-page complete redaction. This September 21, 2001, FBI document is apparently a response from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) regarding information they may have had on the whereabouts of the five DIs.