What did official investigations and police reports conclude about the five Israelis arrested after 9/11?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Official investigative records and mainstream reporting show that five Israeli nationals who were detained on September 11, 2001, were held and extensively questioned by U.S. authorities, that the immediate legal basis for detention included immigration violations, and that FBI field offices ultimately reported no evidence they had prior knowledge of the attacks or were actively engaged in clandestine intelligence operations on U.S. soil [1] [2] [3].
1. Arrest, initial suspicions and what police reported that day
Local law-enforcement officers in New Jersey stopped a white van containing five Israeli men after witnesses reported them filming and behaving oddly near the World Trade Center aftermath; officers found items such as a box cutter and significant cash, and their employer was identified as Urban Moving Systems — factors that prompted arrest and referral to federal authorities [4] [5] [1].
2. Immigration charges and the formal legal pathway
Although the initial detentions were tied to behaviors seen that morning, the men also faced immigration enforcement: The New York Times reported the five were ultimately charged with overstaying visas and other immigration offenses rather than with terrorism in criminal court, a common outcome for many foreign nationals detained in the probe’s aftermath [1] [3].
3. FBI and interagency investigation: conclusions recorded in field reports
Newark and New York FBI divisions conducted a “thorough investigation” and produced field reports concluding that none of the five had information indicating prior knowledge of the World Trade Center attacks and that none were “actively engaged in clandestine intelligence activities” in the United States — a finding reported in later coverage and summarized in a field report cited by outlets including The Jewish Chronicle and mainstream follow-ups [2] [4].
4. Continued counterintelligence interest and alternative assessments
Despite the field-office conclusions, reporting in outlets such as the Forward described elements of the FBI’s counterintelligence response as more ambivalent: some former and unnamed officials and lawyers reported that counterintelligence personnel suspected Urban Moving Systems might have been a front and that the detainees underwent multiple polygraph exams and prolonged interrogation, with at least one source asserting some FBI personnel remained convinced the company served Mossad surveillance purposes [6]. These claims represent internal assessments and reported suspicions rather than charged criminal findings; they stand alongside the formal field reports that found no evidence linking the men to foreknowledge of 9/11 [2] [6].
5. Release, deportation and wider fallout
After weeks of detention and interrogation, the five men were released; some faced deportation proceedings tied to immigration status rather than terror charges, and Urban Moving Systems’ owner — named in reporting as Dominik Suter — left the U.S. before full questioning could be completed, which fueled further speculation [1] [4]. Over time the episode fed a persistent stream of conspiracy theories and has been repeatedly cited by commentators and fringe sites, while civil-rights and anti-defamation organizations have emphasized that the core facts (that five Israelis were detained and photographed) do not support allegations of advance knowledge or complicity in the attacks [7] [4].
6. How to reconcile the official record with lingering doubts
The record contains two durable facts: the men were arrested and interrogated, and FBI field investigations reported no evidence they had prior knowledge of 9/11 or were conducting clandestine intelligence operations in the U.S. [2] [3]. At the same time, contemporaneous reporting of intense counterintelligence interest, multiple polygraph tests, seized company materials, and the employer’s abrupt departure from the country left unanswered questions that have been amplified by critics and conspiracy-minded researchers — but those amplified claims are not the same as conclusions in official field reports or public criminal charges [6] [8].
7. Bottom line for the public record
The public, declassified, and media-documented official conclusions are clear on the central point most often alleged by conspiracists: the FBI’s New York/Newark inquiries found no evidence any of the five Israelis had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks or were operating as Mossad agents carrying out the attacks; allegations to the contrary remain unproven or are based on disputed secondary reporting and inference rather than on publicly cited bureau determinations or criminal indictments [2] [1] [6].