Expolsive ressidue was found on 5 israelis who were arrested for having suspecious ties to 9/11
Executive summary
Multiple contemporary reports and later analyses confirm that five Israeli nationals were detained on September 11, 2001, after being seen photographing and filming the burning World Trade Center; FBI evidence lists items described as “fabric sample (explosive residue)” and “blanket samples for explosive residue” taken from their van [1] [2]. Reporting and later reviews disagree on whether explosive residue was confirmed: some sources say a bomb‑sniffing dog alerted and samples were taken for testing [3], while public records do not clearly disclose final laboratory results in the sources provided [3] [2].
1. The arrests and what authorities recorded
Five men employed by Urban Moving Systems were arrested hours after the attacks after witnesses and police observed them near a white van photographing and apparently celebrating the burning skyline; FBI files and contemporaneous press accounts document the arrests and the van search [1] [4] [2]. The FBI property list included several items explicitly labeled as related to explosives testing — e.g., “Fabric Sample (Explosive Residue)” and “Blanket Samples For Explosive Residue” — and images and film confiscated from the van were sent to an explosives laboratory for analysis [2].
2. What proponents of the “Israeli foreknowledge” theory point to
Researchers and activist groups highlight the presence of those labeled explosive‑residue items, the reported positive alert by a bomb‑sniffing dog, the men’s possession of cash and box cutters, oddities in their moving‑company paperwork, and early media interviews back in Israel as circumstantial evidence suggesting something more than a routine arrest — and use the fact that the public has not seen conclusive laboratory results to argue for withheld information [5] [3] [6].
3. What mainstream and investigative reporting says — alternative explanations
Mainstream outlets and later investigative pieces emphasize that the men worked for an Israeli moving company, had box cutters (a common tool in that trade), were overstaying visas, and ultimately were deported after immigration violations without being charged for terrorism; these accounts note internal FBI debate and that some in U.S. intelligence suspected ties to Israeli intelligence but do not assert criminal culpability [4] [1] [7]. The Grayzone and other reexaminations argue the episode may be more mundane — company fraud, nervous reaction to the attacks, or immigration enforcement — than proof of conspiracy [8].
4. The evidentiary gap: tests and public record
Multiple sources state that samples for explosive residue testing were taken and that a bomb‑sniffing dog alerted, yet publicly available reporting in the provided documents does not produce a clear, publicly released laboratory result confirming explosive compounds in the van [3] [2]. Some advocates seeking further inquiry have filed lawsuits asking the FBI to release or report results, arguing that the public record remains incomplete [3]. Available sources do not mention a definitive public statement from the FBI confirming positive laboratory identification of explosive residues.
5. How this episode has fueled conspiracy and how experts respond
The combination of circumstantial items — photographs of men apparently celebrating, cash in a sock, box cutters, and the labels on FBI evidence logs — has powered long‑standing conspiracy narratives alleging Israeli foreknowledge or direct involvement in 9/11; authoritative debunkers and organizations such as the Anti‑Defamation League characterize many of the broader claims as anti‑Semitic or unfounded while acknowledging the factual kernel that five Israelis were detained [9] [1]. Reporting notes genuine internal skepticism within parts of the U.S. intelligence community about some of the men’s activities, but skepticism is distinct from proven complicity [1].
6. What can and cannot be concluded from the provided records
From the documents and reporting cited here one can confirm: five Israeli nationals were detained on 9/11, law enforcement documented items labeled for explosive‑residue testing, and a bomb‑sniffing dog reportedly alerted [2] [3] [4]. What cannot be confirmed from these sources is a publicly released, conclusive laboratory result identifying explosive compounds in the van, nor any publicly released legal finding tying these men to planning or carrying out the attacks [3] [7]. Claims that the arrests prove Israeli state complicity are not substantiated by the sources provided [1] [9].
7. Why the story persists and what further records would settle it
The episode remains potent for skeptics because of unanswered questions in public records and selective redactions in FBI files that researchers cite [2] [6]. Full, unredacted release of the forensic laboratory reports, chain‑of‑custody documentation, and contemporaneous FBI conclusions about the residue would resolve whether explosive compounds were definitively detected — those materials are either not publicly included in the sources above or remain redacted [3] [2]. Until such release, competing interpretations will persist.
Limitations: this account relies solely on the provided sources and does not introduce outside documents or definitive conclusions beyond what those materials state [2] [3] [1].