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.
How did the FBI investigate the Dancing Israelis incident?
Executive summary
The FBI detained five Israeli nationals on September 11, 2001, after witnesses and officers observed them in a van near Manhattan and reported they appeared to be celebrating; field reports published weeks later said the Newark and New York Divisions “determined that none of the Israelis had any information on prior knowledge” of the attacks and the men were ultimately deported [1] [2]. Declassified and later-released FBI documents, and reporting that cites them, show a patchwork of investigative steps, differing interpretations, and persistent controversy over whether the detainees had intelligence links or foreknowledge [3] [4].
1. How the arrests happened — “High‑fivers” pulled from a van
On 9/11 witnesses and first responders reported seeing five men in a white van who appeared to be filming and celebrating near the Hudson River; police stopped the van in New Jersey and detained the occupants that day, at least one of whom reportedly identified the group as Israeli [1] [4]. Local police and FBI field agents collected photographs, notebooks and interviewed the men as part of the immediate on‑scene response documented in police and FBI reports [5] [4].
2. The FBI’s early field conclusion — no evidence of prior knowledge (official line)
A field report released weeks after the attacks stated that both the Newark and New York Divisions “conducted a thorough investigation which determined that none of the Israelis had any information on prior knowledge regarding the bombing of the World Trade Center,” and those findings are the basis for mainstream summaries that the FBI “cleared their names” [1]. That official determination is cited repeatedly in reporting that seeks to rebut conspiracy claims about Israeli foreknowledge [1].
3. Declassified documents and later releases — new details, new disputes
Beginning with partial releases and later Freedom of Information disclosures, researchers and outlets flagged FBI documents and photographs that raised unanswered questions — for example, notes suggesting internal interest in possible foreign intelligence links, references to the employers Urban Moving Systems, and redacted materials that some analysts say leave gaps [3] [4] [2]. These documents fueled alternative narratives claiming the men were on a surveillance mission or had ties to Israeli intelligence; such claims rest on interpretations of names appearing in databases, employer connections, and eyewitness statements cited in the files [3] [6].
4. Conflicting accounts — former officials, journalists, and alternative media disagree
Some reporting — notably interviews with an anonymous “former high‑ranking American intelligence official” and investigative pieces — have asserted the FBI concluded the five were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their company was a front, a claim that contradicts the field‑report conclusion and has been picked up in alternative outlets [3] [6]. Mainstream outlets and summaries emphasize the FBI’s later statement clearing the men of prior knowledge, while independent analysts point to redactions, destroyed photos, and internal communications as evidence of unresolved questions [1] [4] [3].
5. What the records show the FBI did — from detention to deportation
Available FBI and police records show the men were detained, interrogated, had property (photos, notebooks) seized, and were held while agents checked identities and connections; later administrative actions included deportation of some detainees back to Israel in November 2001, according to contemporaneous reporting and aggregated document collections [5] [2]. Sources argue both that the FBI completed its investigative steps and that important materials remained redacted or were destroyed, leaving parts of the record opaque [1] [4].
6. Limitations, evidence gaps, and why the controversy persists
Substantive disagreement persists because key documentary details are redacted or incomplete in public releases, eyewitness descriptions conflict, and some authoritative accounts (anonymously sourced intelligence claims) contradict official field reports, creating room for competing interpretations [3] [4]. Reporting that declares definitive Mossad involvement or a government cover‑up rests on inference from partial documents and unnamed officials, while mainstream rebuttals point to the FBI field conclusion that found no evidence of prior knowledge [3] [1].
7. What is not confirmed in these sources
Available sources in this packet do not present an unambiguous, fully declassified FBI timeline proving foreknowledge or a coordinated cover‑up; nor do they contain a single conclusive, publicly released statement from the FBI that accepts the Mossad‑surveillance conclusion as fact — instead, there are field reports, later document releases, and conflicting claims about internal findings [1] [3] [4].
Final note: Readers should weigh the FBI’s published field report that cleared the men of prior knowledge [1] against later document releases and investigative claims that suggest unresolved intelligence links [3] [4]. The public record remains contested because redactions, differing source types, and divergent interpretations persist in the materials cited here [4] [3].