What FOIA documents exist about the seized computers from Urban Moving Systems and what, if anything, was recovered from them?
Executive summary
FOIA-produced FBI and police records released in the years after 9/11 document that agents seized a large number of computer units from Urban Moving Systems — commonly reported as sixteen machines — and that those devices were sent for analysis to FBI personnel in Newark/Franklin Township; the released records themselves, which include investigation reports and photographs, do not contain a public, detailed forensic report cataloguing recovered data and concrete evidence linking the machines to terrorism [1] [2] [3]. Reporting based on subsequent FOIA requests and interviews yields conflicting accounts about whether usable data was recovered, with some sources asserting the FBI returned items or lost drives and official post‑investigation materials indicating agents were unaware of any successful hard‑drive restorations [4] [5] [6].
1. What the FOIA documents show: seizure, inventory, and where the computers went
Released FBI and local police files available through FOIA and mirrored on archives (and summarized in the FBI’s own online Vault) plainly record that evidence recovery teams seized multiple computer units and related materials from Urban Moving Systems’ Weehawken premises and vehicle, with one contemporaneous file repeatedly noting “sixteen separate computer units” and directing that analysis be performed at Newark’s Franklin Township RA (the regional evidence facility) [1] [2] [3]. The contemporaneous forms and narrative reports in those FOIA dumps portray Urban Moving Systems as a “possible ‘fraudulent operation’” with “an unusually large number of computers relative to the number of employees,” which is part of what led agents to seize and examine electronic equipment [1] [6].
2. What FOIA releases do not show: an explicit, public forensic recovery report
The documents released under FOIA that are publicly available comprise the investigative narrative, inventories, photographs and internal memos but do not include a forensic, item‑by‑item forensic extraction report published in the released packet that details recovered files, emails or logs from those seized drives tying the company to 9/11. Journalists and FOIA requesters who received the early 500‑page FBI/police releases via FOIA (for example through requesters such as John Massaria) obtained arrest and search documentation but not a clear readout of recovered data in the public releases [7] [1].
3. Conflicting follow‑up claims: lost drives, returned items, and media narratives
Subsequent reporting and commentary diverge: some investigative outlets and bloggers have claimed the FBI later returned equipment to an abandoned warehouse or that drives were “lost” and thus no catalogue of recovered data exists in the public record, often citing conversations with FOIA requesters or activists [4] [8]. Conversely, official memoranda and mainstream reporting compiled later — and the 9/11 Commission’s documentation regarding hard‑drive restoration efforts generally — reflect skepticism among agents that damaged hard drives could realistically be restored and note that assembled agents “expressed no knowledge of the reported hard‑drive recovery effort,” underscoring the absence of an acknowledged, successful data‑recovery operation in the official record released publicly [5].
4. How FOIA limitations and investigative practice shape what’s available
FOIA release content is also shaped by classification, ongoing investigatory equities, and evidentiary handling protocols: policy guidance on searching and seizing computers explains that where imaging or extraction is unnecessary to preserve evidence, equipment may be returned once requirements are met, and that forensic acquisition must follow procedures to preserve integrity — factors that could explain limited public forensic detail in the released FOIA materials [9]. In addition, the FBI’s Vault and archive uploads reflect what the agency chose to release; absence of a public forensic recovery report in those FOIA caches does not by itself prove no forensic work occurred, only that a public, releasable, detailed extraction report has not been produced among the released files [3] [10].
Conclusion: the factual bottom line from FOIA material
FOIA‑released documents confirm seizure of about sixteen computer units from Urban Moving Systems and show they were routed for analysis to Newark/Franklin Township, but the publicly released FOIA files do not contain a transparent, detailed forensic report describing recovered data or conclusive ties from those hard drives to terrorist planning; subsequent claims that drives were lost, returned, or unrecoverable exist in secondary reporting and activist accounts but are not fully documented by the core FOIA packets available through the FBI Vault and archive mirrors [1] [4] [3] [5]. Readers should treat the FOIA record as clear on seizure and disposition to a lab but inconclusive on any public record of data recovered from those drives.