Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did the FBI consider the Dancing Israelis linked to the 9/11 attacks or classify them differently in their case files?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows the FBI arrested five men from Urban Moving Systems on Sept. 11, 2001, after witnesses said they appeared to be celebrating while filming the World Trade Center, and the bureau questioned them and searched their employer’s offices [1] [2]. Some later reporting and FOIA releases describe FBI probes that examined whether some of the men had Israeli intelligence links and whether any evidence of foreknowledge existed, but mainstream outlets cited by these sources report the FBI “found no evidence” tying them to foreknowledge of the attacks [1] [3] [4].
1. The arrests and immediate classification: police narrative vs. public framing
Five Israeli nationals working for Urban Moving Systems were detained on Sept. 11 after witnesses said they were filming and acting “puzzlingly” near the burning towers; New York police and the FBI removed them from a white van and later searched their company premises [1] [2]. Contemporary mainstream coverage called them “five young Israeli moving men” and reported that some were deported in November 2001 — a description that framed the case as suspicious conduct and immigration/visa issues rather than as a terrorism conspiracy designation in public files [1] [5].
2. FBI internal follow-up: investigations into surveillance and foreign connections
Post‑9/11 reporting and released FBI material indicate the bureau investigated whether the men were conducting surveillance of local Arab communities and whether their employer might be an intelligence front; at least one 2002 story cited an anonymous former intelligence official saying some agents concluded two Kurzberg brothers were Mossad operatives involved in spying on Arabs [1] [6]. Other outlet coverage of later FOIA documents likewise asserts investigators probed possible ties to Israeli intelligence and whether classified evidence existed that could “link these Israelis to 9‑11” [7] [4].
3. Contradictions in public statements: “no evidence” vs. classified leads
Multiple sources note a partial split in public messaging: ABC News cited reporting that the FBI “found no evidence” that the five had foreknowledge of the attacks, while other investigators and documents quoted in alternative media claim there were classified “tie‑ins” or intelligence link leads that could not be disclosed publicly [1] [4] [7]. That tension—public clearance on foreknowledge versus hints of classified material—is central to why the episode remains contested in reporting [1] [4].
4. Photographs and records: redactions, release dates, and disputes over interpretation
FOIA releases and compilations of FBI/police records have circulated; some outlets highlight that only a subset of photos was released and that images are heavily redacted, complicating third‑party interpretation of the men’s expressions and actions [5] [2]. Alternative press pieces emphasize photos allegedly showing one man with a lighter and others appearing to celebrate, while critics note date stamps and redaction issues that fuel differing readings of the images [4] [8].
5. How major outlets and later summaries treated the case
The Jewish Chronicle and other mainstream summaries report that an FBI report “cleared their names” in the sense that the bureau did not publicly list them as having foreknowledge of the attacks; the same materials reflect that immigration violations and visa issues were central to deportation decisions, per Israeli officials at the time [3] [6]. Wikipedia’s survey of advance‑knowledge theories likewise says ABC News cited the Forward’s reporting that the FBI had found no evidence of foreknowledge, while noting the broader discussion of possible Mossad warnings to U.S. agencies in August 2001 [1].
6. Competing narratives and why certainty remains limited
Available documents and reporting present two competing lines: (A) public FBI findings reported by mainstream outlets asserting no evidence the five had foreknowledge, and (B) later pushes from FOIA‑driven or alternative outlets that cite classified notes, unnamed investigators, or redacted documents suggesting agents investigated Israeli intelligence links and possible “tie‑ins” [1] [4] [7]. Because some investigative leads and FOIA materials remain redacted or described as classified in these sources, definitive public confirmation either way is not uniformly present in the available reporting [4] [9].
7. What the sources do not say or cannot confirm
Available sources do not present an unequivocal FBI public declaration that the men were part of an intelligence operation tied to the attacks; nor do they provide a fully unredacted chain of evidence in open reporting proving foreknowledge [1] [2]. If readers seek a final adjudication of the men’s intelligence status or a complete declassification of all FBI files on this matter, the articles collected here indicate those points remain partly sealed or contested in the public record [4] [9].
Final note: reporting is split between mainstream outlets that reported the FBI publicly “found no evidence” of foreknowledge and alternative/FOIA‑driven outlets that emphasize redactions, classified leads, or alleged Mossad links; those competing emphases explain why the “Dancing Israelis” story still attracts attention and divergent conclusions in different media [1] [4] [7].