Dboogers views 2013

Corrupt • NSA revealed – Snowden escaped to Russia – bought and paid for judges passing laws that protect these shithead spies. • Manning – sentenced for Wikileaks articles exposing criminal activity in Iraq / Afghanistan. He goes to jail, Bush – Cheney open libraries. • ObamaCare – passed – ensure health care industry obscene profits – not the people • Drone war expanded – kill more innocent people • Syrian war exposed as masterminded by the Axis of Evil. KSA – USA – Israel • Gitmo is still open and the bad boys are not brought to trial that could expose the evil of 9/11 • Fox News and the rest of Rothschild’s controlled Zionist presstitutes playing up the hype of Good Jew, Bad Muslim – keep the wars going for profit. • Afghanistan – money mongers are pushing for more involvement of the US Military for another 10 years – CIA will make more money from peddling heroine and military company CEO’s wallowing in wealth. • The exposure to more and more obvious blatant greed and control of the masses in foreign countries I have lived in has made me discover this is being forced onto our own citizens here at home and other countries of the world. Israel is currently forming a coalition with China and preparing for the eventual discarding of the Zionists in power in the USA by the citizens. These creeps are buttering both sides of the bread and are getting paybacks from China for the nuclear technology passed on to them by Pollard and the rest of the spies in the US military and intelligence departments. But being familiar with the ethnic Chinese, I don’t believe they will let the Zios in to pilfer their riches. The Zios are headed for Ukraine to live since that was the area close to Khazaria where most of the criminals came from. The extremely sick comedy of these ‘elite’ people becoming more in control of our daily existence is disgusting and it soon will be the start of a revolution – the only problem is, by that time, there will be nothing of value left of the country and all the ‘elites’ will be planted in small offshore countries like the UAE, Dubai for one, with deadly military security in place for protection. Abu Dhabi has an enormous military establishment not even labeled for people that visit or pass other than a sign that restricts access. Eventually the privatization of the military in the countries aligned will come into place and the people financing these will mobilize them to wherever they decide to settle. It is headed in that direction as we speak and soon will be the destruction of our lives as we know it today. Benefit the People of the world • ? Haven’t figured that one out yet. ************ The world is finally entrapped in an extremely sick society. NSA, CIA, DHS, FBI, IRS, CFR, PNAC, AIPAC, ADL and host of other alphabet organizations, think tanks and intelligence gathering groups controlled by evil despots feeding the masses bullshit to infect their minds full of misinformation. Mind control? Orwell didn’t even come close to the methods of manipulating the populace into furthering Big Brother’s control of the world. Snowden, Assange and Bollyn and Ellsberg, for all that matters, most likely are shills of the regime in charge creating all the doubt and screwing up any reasonable direction of thought. Honesty is now a forgotten trait and now categorized as something of historical dementia. To further their comfort in life, the people are now coerced into becoming dumbfounded followers of Lucifer watching Fox News and CNN. The Zio-bolsheviks are succeeding – time for people to wake the fuck up!!! I refuse to believe Obama is a stupid as he has been exposed to be and even dumber than Bush. Surely, even way back when on the campaign trail, he recognized the needs of the masses and control of them by the select few whose tentacles spread through the world and centered on the Rothschild’s controlled bankers. He had to know, being privy to back door meetings, that the Zionist lobbies control of our politicians was humiliating by means of corporate power and bribery. 1 The Five Celebrating Israelis: September 11th Foreknowledge and Possible Complicity Corroborated by Evidence from FBI Investigation and Other New Information Keith Maart December 28, 2013 Introduction 2 Section A – Information Known to Date on the Celebrating Israelis (“CIs”) 4 Primary Sources: 09/11/2001 – East Rutherford Police Reports 09/12/2001 – The New Jersey Bergen Record 12/12/2001 – Fox News Investigation 03/15/2002 – Marc Perelman of The Forward 06/21/2002 – ABC 20/20 Investigation 09/15/2004 – Gerald Shea Memo to 911 Commission 03/07/2007 – Christopher Ketcham of Counterpunch Section B – The FBI Investigation and Other New Information on the Celebrating Israelis 7 1. FBI Cover-Up Begins Two Weeks after 9/11 and Continues with the Release of the FBIR 7 2. The Facts, Fallacies, and Flaws of the FBI’s Foreknowledge Assumptions and Analysis 9 3. Incriminating Evidence Found in the CIs Van Possibly Tying Them to the 9/11 Operation 15 4. UMS: Likely Israeli Front Company with Pre-9/11 Growth and Potential 9/11 Connections 17 5. The Doric: Perfect Views of North Tower Attack and Hub of Other CI and UMS Activity 20 6. The CIs’ Associations with Israeli Intelligence and Other US Intelligence Investigations 21 7. Other Israeli Moving Companies in NY/NJ Area Operational Responsibilities in 9/11 Attacks? 23 8. Geographic and Timeline Nexus’ of CIs/Israeli Groups and Hijackers in NY/NJ Area 24 9. FBI’s Nexus between the CIs and Israeli Art Students Nationwide Israeli Operations on 9/11 27 10. Zim Shipping: Apparent Early Foreknowledge of Attack Date and Other Potential 9/11 Connections 29 Conclusion 31 References and Endnotes 35 Exhibits:I. Maps (2) of Israeli Groups and Hijacker Cells in New Jersey / New York 51 II. Terrible Transparency: Missing FBI Documents and Excessive FBI Redactions 54 III. Cover-Up Investigation: Dropped FBI Leads and Critical Unanswered Questions 58 IV. Examples of Excessive FBI Redactions 63 2 The Five Celebrating Israelis: September 11th Foreknowledge and Possible Complicity Corroborated by Evidence from FBI Investigation and Other New Information Within minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center’s North Tower, a woman in Union City, New Jersey, looked out her apartment window and witnessed bizarre and puzzling behavior by three men in her parking lot. While an unexplained catastrophe of epic proportions was unfolding and thousands of Americans were in the process of losing their lives, she saw the three men taking photos and apparent video of the WTC tower burning while they smiled, high-fived and hugged one another. Their jovial and celebratory behavior was subsequently confirmed by the FBI who arrested them and two other associates later that day, confiscating and developing the film from one of the suspect’s camera that was coincidently purchased just the day before the attacks. All five men happened to be relatively new employees of a moving company in Weehawken, New Jersey, called Urban Moving Systems (“ UMS” ), which the FBI later characterized as a “probable fraudulent operation with little evidence of a legitimate business venture.” The five men and the company owner also happened to be from a Middle East country, the region of the world that many intelligence officials tended to assume that the perpetrators came from. One ex-employee of the company told the FBI that he was not surprised that a certain senior employee of UMS was in trouble with the authorities, because he always spoke badly of the United States. Another ex-employee told the FBI that he had quit because of the high amount of anti-American sentiment expressed at UMS and that one employee once told him, “Give us 20 years and we’ll take over your media and destroy your country.” So who were these men who took apparent pleasure in the destruction of American economic symbols and the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and who worked for a company where anti-American sentiment ran so high? They must have been Islamic fundamentalists, probably connected to the 9/11 hijacker cell that operated out of nearby Paterson, New Jersey, right? Wrong! When these five men were pulled over later that day and forcibly pulled out of their van by East Rutherford, New Jersey police, the driver blurted out, “We are Israeli, we are not your problem, your problems are our problems, the Palestinians are the problem.” The five individuals and the UMS company owner were indeed Israeli citizens, as were many of the employees who worked at UMS, which coincidently saw a sizable increase of workers in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks. One US newspaper, citing an FBI official, stated that the FBI subsequently discovered that some of the apprehended Israelis had connections to Israeli intelligence and that two of the five were in fact Mossad operatives. The men were held by US authorities for approximately two and a half months before high-level negotiations between US and Israel officials resulted in their release. UMS owner, Dominik Suter, fled back to Israel two days after being questioned by the FBI on Sept. 12, 2001, abandoning the alleged business he just grew in the months before 9/11. Suter and his wife were subsequently placed on an FBI 9/11 watch list report that included Osama Bin Laden, the 19 hijackers, and others believed to be associated with the 9/11 attacks. The above story is often referred to as the case of the “Celebrating Israelis” or “Dancing Israelis,” so nicknamed because of the Israelis’ displays of jubilation n and celebration of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers. Although the story was mostly ignored by US mainstream media, with the exception of a feature by ABC 20/20 and a broader Israeli investigation by Fox News, there have been a number of other very credible reports of the story to date. Section A of this investigative report discusses what is known to date about the Celebrating Israelis (“ CIs”) with most of the information coming from seven sources from Sept.11, 2001 to March 2007. It should be noted that just about all the information contained in these earlier reports has proven to be true based on information from an FBI counterterrorism investigation of the CIs. Section B focuses on new information about the CIs with a significant portion of new information and evidence coming from the subsequent FBI investigation/report (“FBIR”). 1 Although the FBIR is missing a significant number of documents, is heavily redacted, and primarily consists of approximately the first two weeks of the CIs’ two-and-a-half month incarceration and investigation, its 579 pages provide some valuable and insightful new facts that draw the CIs and Israel’s potential connections to the 9/11 operation much closer. This paper is without question the definitive source on the Celebrating Israelis and includes many new substantive facts about the CIs and UMS’s possible connections to 9/11 that have not been discussed anywhere else before. The paper is very detailed and well referenced containing about 138 references/endnotes and another 160+ additional references to the FBIR. 3 Although the CIs’ case is only one of about a dozen potential Israeli/Zionist connections to the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent cover-ups, it is the only connection where an actual government investigation was pursued. And although the investigation was little more than an official government/FBI cover-up that suffers from poor transparency issues, it still provides significant new facts and evidence that ties the CIs and other Israelis closer to the 9/11 attacks. Among other important findings, this report shows the following ten crucial facts and findings: 1. FBI Headquarters abruptly and prematurely ordered the FBI Newark investigation of the CIs to be closed on Sept. 24, 2001 while it was still on-going and before the CIs ’ foreknowledge and/or involvement in 9/11 could be definitely established. Despite the order to close the case, the CIs were held and investigated for another two months before high level negotiations between US and Israeli officials secured their release. 2. An obvious FBI cover-up of the facts and evidence exists to this day. The FBI investigation includes dozens of missing key documents, excessive and unnecessary redactions, 25+ dropped FBI leads, and many unanswered critical questions of the investigation. The investigation was apparently quashed by higher level officials to conceal any involvement by the Israelis in the 9/11 attacks. 3. The assumptions and analysis used by the FBI in concluding that the CIs did not have foreknowledge and/or involvement in the attacks were deeply flawed and erroneous. In addition, the FBI ignored substantial factual and circumstantial evidence and at least four eyewitness testimonies that indicate that the CIs had, at a minimum, foreknowledge of the attacks. 4. Based on other information in the FBIR and other outside sources, it is possible that the CIs and other Israelis had a deeper involvement in the September 11th attacks. There was evidence of explosives in the CIs’ van (but lab tests were supposedly never completed), and other items were found in the van potentially implicating them more deeply in the 9/11 operation. 5. Several media reports stated that UMS was an Israeli intelligence front company and an FBI search team leader characterized UMS as “a possible fraudulent operation with little evidence of a legitimate business operation.” UMS coincidently grew quite a bit in the several months before 9/11, and had several other potential connections to the September 11th attacks, with its owner, Dominik Suter, abandoning the business he recently expanded and fleeing back to Israel on Sept. 14, 2001. 6. A media report stated that at least two CIs were Mossad operatives, and the FBI investigation shows that at least two, and probably three CIs, were associated with Israeli intelligence and/or were the subject of previous US intelligence investigations. The CIs’ affiliation with Israeli intelligence is heavily redacted and no reasonable explanation has ever been provided as to why Israeli intelligence agents were working for a New Jersey moving company in the run-up to 9/11. 7. The FBI and other US intelligence agencies opened up an investigation in April 2002 to determine if there was a nexus between the CIs and the so called “ Israeli Art Students” , who also seemed to be in the US for nefarious reasons, and which was still on-going as of July 2003. The CIs lived among the Paterson, NJ hijacker cell and the largest concentration of Israeli Art Students just happened to live among the highest concentration of alleged hijacker cells in Southeast Florida. 8. There were several other Israeli related moving companies in the Hudson/Bergen County area, one of which (Classic International Movers) was under investigation by the Miami FBI in conjunction with a move of the one of the hijackers. Another Israeli related mover, Moishes Moving Systems, was situated at the mouth of the Holland Tunnel across the Hudson River from the WTC and had an Israeli employee profile similar to UMS. 9. There were timeline and geographic connections between the alleged Paterson, New Jersey hijacker cell and the CIs and other Israeli groups in the New Jersey/New York area (Note: the FBI ’s timeline and geographic connections analysis is omitted from the FBIR). This paper will also discuss a new and potential Hamburg (Germany) connection between various Israeli groups and hijacker groups. 10. New information shows that Zim American-Israeli Shipping, the Israeli shipping company that vacated the WTC around Sept. 4, 2001, likely had at least foreknowledge of the specific attack date as much as six months in advance. A CIA assessment of Israeli intelligence states that Zim Shipping has been used for various Israeli intelligence functions including providing non-official cover for Israeli intelligence agents. 54 Exhibit II – Terrible Transparency: Missing FBI Documents and Excessive FBI Redactions The FBIR suffers from terrible transparency primarily in the form of critical missing documents/information and excessive and unnecessary FBI redactions. To begin with, the FBI has provided only 550 pages of a total 1,830 pages of the investigation (only 30 percent of total pages). At the end of each FBIR Section, the FBI provides a list of omitted pages which total 1,280. Although the below list of missing FBI documents is an apparent subset of the total omitted pages, it probably only accounts for a fraction of the total omitted pages. The majority of missing FBI documents/information listed below come from “attachments” that were not included in the FBIR and where additional FBI analysis was requested but never received (Note: the missing documents listed below are a primarily a summary of the missing documents previously noted in the body of this report, but also includes some new items). A. Missing FBI Documents 1. The FBI Interviews of Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner and Sivan Kurzberg are not in the FBIR. The FBIR stated there were “numerous” CI interviews over several months (FBIR_S6P39), yet the only individual CI interviews in the FBIR are one for Omer Marmari on Sept.18, 2001 (FBIR_S3PP61-66) and Yaron Shmuel’s on Sept 15, 2001 (FBIR_S5PP85-88). 2. Several media reports in Section A state that the CIs were given multiple polygraph tests and failed those (The Forward & ABC 20/20). However, there was only one “very heavily redacted” summary of polygraph tests in the entire FBIR and it does not discuss what parts may have been failed (Note: polygraph tests were from 11/13/01 to 11/16/01). In addition, 22 pages of interview notes and transcripts are not included in the FBIR (FBIR_S5PP91-95). 3. The Sept. 23, 2001 FBI Case Update stated that “Polygraph results of three subjects were still outstanding,” yet HQ-FBI ordered that the case be closed the next day (FBIR_S5P53). The results and/or summary of these three polygraph tests are not in the FBIR (Section B.1). 4. Several media sources in Section A (The Forward, ABC 20/20) state that Dominik Suter was interviewed by the FBI on Sept. 12, 2001 in conjunction with the CI case; however, his FBI interview is not in the FBIR. 5. Section 1, pages 91 to 132 of the FBIR lists items found in the CIs van that were sent on for further analysis (“traces”). Numbered items ranged from 1 to 52 and alpha letters ranged from A to H, suggesting there were at least 60 items found in the van. However, only 19 items are listed in the FBIR, meaning there are 41+ items that were found in the van but not listed in the FBIR, with one of the obvious missing items being box-cutters (Section B.3). In addition, most of the analysis/traces requested for the 19 listed items were not included in the FBIR. 6. None of the 76 photos developed from the film and cameras that were in the possession of the CIs were included in the FBIR even though they were supposed to have been attached (FBIR_S1P3, P10). One entry in FBIR stated that the Israelis were visibly happy in “nearly all” the photographs (FBIR_ S1P35, 9/15/01) while another entry stated that the Israelis were smiling on at least three of the photos (FBIR_S4P46, 9/23/01). The reason for this FBI discrepancy is unknown. (Section B.3) 7. The helicopter video footage which the FBI basically relies on as its sole evidence that the CIs did not have foreknowledge (along with the one developed photo) is not included in the FBIR (Section B.2.d and FBIR_ S5P40). 8. Results of the van’s explosives tests are missing and have never been revealed by the FBI. Samples for explosives were taken on Sept. 11, 2001 from the CIs’ van and were allegedly still not available as of the Sept. 23, 2001 case update, and even the July 2003 Case Closing Memo (Section B.3). 55 9. The FBIR did not list any other items seized from the UMS warehouse search on Sept. 14, 2001 except for 15 computers. Media reports and common sense would suggest that the FBI also took explosive samples from the UMS warehouse since explosives were detected in the CI’s van and the results were not ready by the time FBI searches UMS warehouse. FBIR did not state explosive samples or list any other items taken from UMS warehouse (Section B.4). 10. The computer hard drive images were not entered into evidence until Jan. 10, 2002, and none of the computer hard drive information was included in the FBIR (FBIR_S5P117 and Section B.4). 11. The FBI conducted a surveillance of the UMS warehouse on Sept. 16, 2001, and although the results of the surveillance were supposed to be attached/included, they were not in the FBIR (FBIR_S4P1). 12. On Sept. 15, 2001, the FBI ran an analysis comparing the CIs’ entry dates and addresses against the hijackers and their suspected associates. Although this analysis was supposed to be attached to the FBIR document, it was not (FBIR_S5P28 and Section B.8). 13. A 24-page fax to NK-FBI relating to the questioning of four Classic International Movers was supposed to be attached to the FBIR document, but it was not (FBIR_S1PP133-34 and Section B.7). CIM was under investigation by the Miami FBI in conjunction with moving one of the alleged hijackers. 14. The requested translation from Hebrew of a letter to a Motel 6 in Laurel, Maryland (5 miles from NSA headquarters) was apparently never received or too heavily redacted (FBIR_S1P112 and Section B.3). 15. In September 2002, results of analysis by the FBI’s Questioned Documents Unit came back (FBIR_S6PP36-37). The analysis was apparently of CIs notebooks and papers, and although very vague, 9 related enclosures were not included in the FBIR. 16. On Sept. 17, 2001, NK-FBI sent two groups of documents collected from the CIs for translation (Hebrew to English), and the results were not received until Oct. 4, 2002 (FBIR_S6PP5-6). None of the original or translated documents were included in the FBIR even though they were supposed to be attached. 17. Unidentified trace (analysis) results were supposed to be attached to a FBI document dated Sept. 19, 2001, but were not (FBIR_S3P29). 18. Unidentified trace (analysis) results were supposed to be attached to a FBI document dated Sept. 21, 2001, but were not (FBIR_S3P92). 19. On Sept. 18, 2001, NK-FBI requested traces (analysis) of certain items (mostly redacted or unidentifiable) but there was no evidence the results were ever received (FBIR_S3PP43-58). This request may be related to the above two trace results (numbers 17 and 18); however, it appears that this request includes additional items. 20. A Sept. 18, 2001 FBI document notes that a fax response to a grand jury subpoena received, but the fax was not included in FBIR (FBIR_S5P23). 21. On Oct. 8, 2001, the NK-FBI requested Laboratory work for additional phone and pager analysis but no evidence results ever presented (FBIR_S5PP67-68). 22. Three cell phones were found in the CIs van, and although phone records were checked, none of the results are included in the FBIR (FBIR_S1PP43-48). None of the three phones incoming answered phone records show a call coming in shortly after the first plane crash as one of the CIs contend. 56 B. Excessive FBI Redactions The primary purpose of redactions is to protect sources and methods and the purposely vague “protection of national security.” The FBIR obviously goes way beyond these parameters in its redactions despite Israel being one of our alleged most loyal allies who should have nothing to fear or hide. Thus, there should not be any national security concerns since Israel is an staunch ally. Following is a list of the many excessive and unnecessary redactions contained in the FBIR (Note: The excessive redactions listed below are a summary of the missing redactions with many of them being previously noted in the body of this report). 1. The names of the CIs and Dominik Suter are redacted each and every time even though all their names have been publicly known for about a decade. Except in the instances where the FBI is investigating the CIs Israeli intelligence associations, there should be no reason to redact the CIs names since they were already public. The FBI even redacts the CIs names from the East Rutherford Police Reports in the FBIR which are publicly available reports that list all the CIs names and known addresses. 2. A Sept. 14, 2001 FBI synopsis linking five Israeli nationals, states: “Newark FBI initiated an investigation predicated upon the detention of five Israeli nationals who may have possessed information about the terrorist incident targeting the WTC on 9/11.The following sets forth the basis for linking these five Israelis….. [Redacted entire two pages].” This is an excessive and unnecessary redaction potentially linking the CIs to the terrorist attacks on the WTC. (FBIR_S1PP28-30). It is not understandable why the FBI had to redact the entire two pages. 3. Some of the most heavily redacted parts of the FBIR were those documents and entries related to the CIs Israeli intelligence connections and associations with other ongoing US intelligence investigations. The following 13-pages relating to Israeli intelligence connections and associations with ongoing investigations were very heavily redacted: S1PP34-35, 37-38, S5PP48-49, 52-53, 93-95, S6PP39-40. 4. There is an approximate one page redaction in an FBI document dated Sept. 21, 2001. The document appears to relate to INS results relating to information about the whereabouts of the five CIs prior to 9/11 (FBIR_S3PP83-84). 5. In one of the more bizarre and unexplained redactions, there is basically an entire redaction of an email found in the CI’s van. The only things not redacted from the email are the “Dear God”subject line and the July 10, 2001 date (Sec B.3 and FBIR_S3P59). 6. Another relatively strange redaction is the FBI’s redaction of the nationality and/or country of the owner of the co-op unit at The Doric where there was the emergency tenant move-out on Sept. 10, 2001 (Sec B.4 and FBIR_S1P74). There is no reason to redact such information, unless the owner was coincidently Israeli. 7. There is an approximate 20 line redaction relating to Classic International Movers, which happened to be under investigation by the Miami FBI in conjunction with moving one of the hijackers (Sec B.6 and FBIR_S1P39). 8. The apparent background details explaining the reasons and findings as to why the Weehawken Police Department’s searched UMS on Oct. 16, 2001, were almost completely redacted (FBIR_S5P89). 9. In a Sept. 13, 200 FBI interview of a Doric resident who positively identified one of the CIs as being at The Doric on Sept. 10, 2001 and around Sept. 7, 2001, there is a substantial 10+/- line redaction of his testimony (FBIR_S1P61). 57 10. There were substantial redactions (approx. 20+ total lines) to a Sept. 13, 2001 FBI interview of an acquaintance of one of the CIs. It appeared that the CI had one or more phone conversations with this individual on Sept. 11, 2001 and may have even visited her at her office that day (FBIR_S1PP49-51). 11. There’s an approximate 20-line redaction in a Sept. 18, 2001 FBI interview of a CI acquaintance right after the acquaintance stated that the CI had not been as outgoing as he once was after working for UMS (FBIR_S3P3). 12. Although the FBI had no problem divulging the names and work positions in their investigation of Antiwar.com, the FBI redacted the past and current positions of all the CIs and all the other UMS and White Glove Moving employees that they interviewed. Although it’s reasonable to redact the individual’s name, there is no reasonable explanation for redacting the person’s company position. 13. A Sept. 18, 2001 response to a subpoena is almost entirely redacted (FBIR_S5P23). 14. FBI redacts the school and/or location on a CI’s ISIC student ID card. However, it is issued the same month and year that hijacker Ziad Jarrah was issued one in Hamburg, Germany (Sec B.3 and FBIR_S1P99). 15. The FBI “tried” to hide/redact the fact that one of the CIs worked for the The Jewish Agency, which is an Israeli organization that has been linked as a non-official cover for Israeli intelligence agents (Sec B.5). In two identical entries in the FBIR, the FBI redacts the fact in FBIR_S6P39, but forgets to hide this incriminating fact in FBIR_S6P54. 16. The FBI redacted all the Israeli military positions and backgrounds of not only the CIs, but also all UMS and White Glove employees that they interviewed. Unless the Israelis were in secret or classified military units, there should have been no reason to redact their military backgrounds and it could have showed if their military background were applicable to the 9/11 false flag operation. 17. In a Sept. 15, 2001 interview with the FBI, an ex-UMS employee stated, “She left UMS because (redacted).” In another statement, this employee states that another person, “Left UMS because (redacted), and that she would have more information regarding (redacted) that may be helpful to the police” (FBIR_S5P30). Why is the reason a person left a defunct company redacted? 58 Exhibit III – Cover-Up Investigation: Dropped FBI Leads and Critical Unanswered Questions The FBI carried out what was basically a “cover -up” investigation to ensure that the CIs would not be found to have foreknowledge or involvement in the 9/11 attacks. In no place is this more obvious in than in a number of FBI dropped or non-pursued leads. As a result of the poor investigation and the cover-up, there are many critical open questions today (Note: The dropped FBI leads listed below are a primarily a summary with many of them being previously mentioned in the body of this report).. A. Dropped FBI Leads 1. A UMS employee apparently saw at least two of the three CIs from The Doric back in the UMS warehouse by 8:58 AM. This would have meant that they would have had to have left The Doric by around 8:54 AM, which would have basically made all the CIs timelines impossible and proven the FBI’s helicopter analysis was flawed and wrong. The FBI failed to interview this employee a second time to confirm her statement which clearly shows the CIs had at least foreknowledge (Note: See Eyewitness 4 testimony in Section B.2.c and FBIR_S5P21-22, S6P52). Instead of pursuing this employee for a subsequent interview to confirm her statement, the FBI appears to ignore this important fact. 2. A Doric resident spotted a white van in the The Doric parking lot at around 8:15 AM on 9/11, and gave a description of the driver that matched Oded Ellner “very closely.” However, there is no evidence that the FBI showed this eyewitness a photo of Ellner to see if she could positively identify Ellner as the van driver (See Section B.2.c, Eyewitness 2 testimony). 3. A UMS employee told the FBI that she did not recall seeing the company’s one van in its usual parking space on the side of the building on 9/11 (see Section B.2.c Eyewitness 5 and FBIR_S3P85). Shockingly, the FBI does not confirm the time she noticed not seeing the van in its usual parking spot, nor do they ask the employees directly if she saw the CIs at UMS at the time they were alleged to be there. 4. The FBI appears to interview only 3 or 4 “current” UMS employees, and only one discusses when she first saw the CIs the morning of 9/11 (Section B.2.c, Eyewitness 4 above). There is no evidence that any UMS employee saw the CIs at UMS before the first plane crash, and the FBI does not appear to ask the other UMS employees when they first saw the CIs the morning of 9/11. 5. The FBI also tried to determine the time the CIs were at The Doric by determining the accuracy of the time/date readout on the Canon EOS Rebel LCD screen; however, there’s no follow -up information on the FBI’s conclusions (Sec B.2.e and FBIR_S3P72). What were the results of the time that the CIs got to the Doric and how long were they there? 6. The FBI’s foreknowledge analysis of the CIs consisted of utilizing only one photo to try and determine the approximate time the CIs arrived at The Doric. However, the FBI does not try to take all the photos into consideration to determine the duration that the CIs were at The Doric to see if this fits into the assumed timeline (Sec. B.2.d). 7. Sivan Kurzberg and Oded Ellner told obvious lies about how and when they got to The Doric the morning of 9/11, and Yaron Shmuel’s “two” stories in the FBIR are contradicting and highly questionable given the evidence. The FBI fails to resolve and reconcile the CIs lies and explain why the CIs had to tell lies in the first place if they had innocent and acceptable stories (Sec B.2.a). 8. What were the results of the explosive tests from the CIs’ van and why were they not completed in several days and included in the FBIR (Section B.3)? 59 9. It appears from various media sourcesthat explosive samples were also taken from the FBI’s search of the UMS Weehawken warehouse on Sept. 13, 2001. What were the results of these explosive tests? (Sec B.4) 10. Why did UMS get a second warehouse in Bayonne, N.J. around July/August 2001 given it was apparently a front company, and did the FBI search and test this warehouse for explosives, especially since the alarm company witness was told he did not have to check out the second floor premises? (Sec B.4) 11. Who was the CI who was positively identified as being at The Doric on the afternoon of Sept. 10, 2001 and on Sept. 7 or 8? Although it’s known that the CI exited the elevator on the 9th floor, there’s no evidence that the FBI followed up this lead and tried to identify and question the individual he may have been visiting on this floor (Sec B.5). 12. There was an emergency tenant move-out from the Doric on Sept. 10, 2001 and UMS just happened to be the moving company (i.e., the tenant called the day before, wanting to move the next day and to reserve an elevator). There’s strong circumstantial evidence that this tenant had foreknowledge, yet there is no evidence that the FBI followed up on this important lead. (Sec B.5) 13. What were the results of the FBI’s analysis of comparing the CIs’ entry dates and addresses against the hijackers and their suspected associates and why wasn’t it included in the FBIR? Why didn’t the FBI consider a wider range of Israelis given that Classic International Movers was under investigation for moving one of the hijackers? (Sec B.7 and B.8) 14. What were the results of the FBI’s investigation started around April 2002 into whether a nexus existed between the CIs and other Israelis (IAS) fitting similar profiles who were held in INS detention around 9/11 and who were possibly part of a clandestine human intelligence collection network? (Note: Not completed at time of July 2003 Case Closing Memo?) (Sec B.9) 15. The FBIR noted that “seizure of the individuals’ (CIs) property yielded airline tickets with immediate travel dates and destinations worldwide,” and at least one plane ticket was for a roundtrip ticket coming from Israel to New York on June 15, 2001 and returning on Sept. 12, 2001 (Sec B.3). What were the other departure dates and were there any other CIs that had roundtrip tickets where the departure date was established several months prior to Sept. 11, 2001? 16. Classic International Movers (CIM) was being investigated by the Miami FBI for moving one of the hijackers. The result of that investigation is not included in the FBIR and a 24 page interview with four employees of CIM was not included in the FBIR. What were the results of the Miami FBI’s investigation of CIM in conjunction with the moving of one of the hijackers (Sec. B7)? 17. Yaron Shmuel had an Israeli and German passport. There is no evidence that the FBI checked with German intelligence as to when and where Shmuel may have lived in Germany and if there was any potential nexus with the 9/11 Hamburg Germany cell (Sec B.3). 18. Who was the CI who had the ISIC student identity card issued to him the same month and year (September 2000) that hijacker Ziad Jarrah had one issued to him in Hamburg, Germany, and in what city or school was the CI card issued? (Sec B.3) 19. The Forward , ABC 20/20, and New York Times (Sec A) all stated that box cutters were found in the CIs’ van (and the Palm Beach Post stated that box cutters were found in Pennsylvania UMS van), but no mention was made of it in the FBIR. Why did the FBI redact this information and did the confiscated box cutters match any of the box cutters left behind by the hijackers or found at the Shanksville crash site? (Sec B.4) 60 20. On October 12, 2001, the Weehawken Police Department searched UMS warehouse and found 57 CD-ROMs, 35 floppy discs, and 2 zip files. Why didn’t the FBI seize and analyze this evidence when they searched the UMS warehouse on Sept. 13, 2001? There is no evidence that the FBI ever analyzed this evidence and there is no further information in the FBIR regarding it (Sec B.4). 21. The Sept. 15, 2001 Case Summary states that NK-FBI agents were tasked to interview the attendant at The Doric parking lot and to determine whether a surveillance camera may have recorded the event FBIR_S1P40). Upon authors inspection of The Doric, garage access was by key card and it could not be determined if there were video cameras (Sec B.5). There is no evidence in the FBIR that the FBI asked The Doric management for potential parking lot video? 22. Why did the FBI have to redact all of the “Dear God” email, and did they get a response to their request form the Israeli government identifying the owner of the email address from which it was sent? (Sec B.3) 23. The Bergen County Record reported on Sept. 12, 2001 (Sec A) that officials present when the Israelis were pulled over on Sept. 11, 2001 stated that, “There are maps of the city with certain places highlighted. It looks like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty Park.” Items found in the van did include an open map and two MapQuest searches, and the NK-FBI requested traces on all. What were the results of these traces and did places highlighted on the maps tie the CIs to the attacks? (Sec B.3) 24. During questioning by Pennsylvania State Police, The two UMS truck drivers pulled over in Pennsylvania on 9/10/01 and 9/12/01, advised that they weren’t in New York on 9/11; however, a gasoline receipt was found dated Sept. 11, 2001 for gas purchased in New Jersey on that day (FBIR_S1P36). In addition, one of the occupants stated they made a delivery in Chicago, while the other one denied this fact. The FBI never follows up how they got a New Jersey gas receipt on 9/11 when they said they were in Ohio and Chicago on 9/11, and just assumed that the one suspect, who said he was not in Chicago on 9/11, just did not understand the question because his English was not too good (Sec B.4). 25. In September “2002,” results of analysis by the FBI’s Questioned Documents Unit came back (FBIR_S6PP36-37). The analysis was apparently of CIs notebooks and papers, and although very vague, 9 related enclosures were not included in the FBIR. 26. On Sept. 17, 2001, NK-FBI sent two groups of documents collected from the CIs for translation (Hebrew to English), and the results were not received until Oct. 4, 2002 (FBIR_S6PP5-6). A “Contract Linguist” reviewed the items and opined there was nothing of Foreign Intelligence nature in the documents. None of the original or translated documents were included in the FBIR even though they were supposed to be attached. Why did the FBI close the case and release the CIs without these results? B. Critical Unanswered Questions: 1. Section B.2.a clearly shows that two, and possibly all three CIs at The Doric on 9/11, lied about their timelines for that morning. Did these lies show up on their polygraph tests and how did the FBI resolve these lies? What other lies showed up on the CIs polygraph tests and how come they are not discussed in the FBIR (Note: there are other entries in the FBIR that state there are discrepancies and contradictions in the CIs stories and several sources in Section A discuss failed polygraph tests)? 2. Where was Paul Kurzberg the morning of 9/11? It appears that he may have drove in from Brooklyn with the three CIs that ended up at The Doric on 9/11, but he apparently was not at The Doric. If Paul Kurzberg did not drive in with the three Doric CIs, then who was the other UMS employee they picked up and how come this employee was apparently not interviewed by the FBI? (Sec B.2.e) 61 3. Who gave the order at FBI headquarters’ to close the CI investigation on Sept. 24, 2001 while the investigation was still ongoing? Documents in the FBIR showed that the investigation continued in some form and that the CIs were held and investigated for another two months before they were released (Sec B.1). 4. There is no evidence that the FBI tried to contact Dominik Suter for further questioning after he fled back to Israel on Sept. 14, 2001, despite his and his wife’s name appearing on a May 2002 FBI Post-9/11 Watch List along with OBL’s, KSM’s, all the 9/11 hijackers, and their presumed associates (Sections A and B.4). No explanation has ever been given by the FBI and/or Suter why he abandoned his business and why his name showed up on the subsequent FBI list. 5. A number was found in one of the CIs notebook that matched the phone number of an Islamic militant in South America. The other number in the notebook was a phone number of a hashish dealer in New York. The FBI subsequently concluded that the number sought be the Islamic Militant’s was actually a bank account number of the CIs friend. What bank did the number belong to and was it an Israeli bank (Sec B.3)? 6. A video from a gas station near UMS’s warehouse caught two white vans driving by between 8:29 AM to 8:31 AM on 9/11, but it “appears” that the FBI’s analysis of the video could not determine if they were the CIs van (FBIR_S5PP64-67 & PP69-71). However, a copy of the video and photos were sent to the FBI Explosive Unit with no explanation as to why (FBIR_S5P70). Why was the gas station video sent to the FBI’s Explosive Unit? 7. A July 10, 2003 FBI document lists 9 “Case ID’s” of which 8 are closed and 1 is still pending (FBIR_S6P52). The pending case appears to be the US intelligence agencies investigation into a nexus between the CIs and IASs (See Sec B.8 and FBIR_S6PP56-57). Besides the subject NK-FBI and NYO-FBI investigations of the CIs, what were the other 6 related closed investigations (Sec B.6)? 8. A July 10, 2003 memo from NK-FBI to the Laboratory Division and DC-2C states that all outstanding leads shall be discontinued upon dissemination of this communication (S6PP53-57). What outstanding leads in the CI investigation were still open as of July 10, 2003? 9. Did The Doric have a “guest log” prior to 9/11? There is conflicting evidence in the FBIR as one entry in the FBIR states there are no guest logs available for 9/11/01 or prior (FBIR_S5P131) while another entry shows a completely redacted Doric Guest Log, including the date (FBIR_S5P127). 10. Several media reports in Section A (The Forward, ABC 20/20, New York Times) state that some of the CIs failed polygraph tests but there is no information in the FBIR as to what polygraph questions were failed and what the implication were. What polygraph questions did the CIs fail? At least two, and possibly all three CIs were lying about their timelines for the morning of 9/11. Did these lies show on the polygraph tests and how did the FBI reconcile them? 11. A Sept. 17, 2001 FBI document from Newark C-9 stated that “results of traces are attached but due to the classification of the document, the attachment is being held in the custody of the Newark Security Officer ” (FBIR_S1P136 & Sec B.5). Were these results and attachment related to the explosive trace samples that were taken or another requested trace (Sec B.3)? If another trace, what was the trace related to and why the high classification level? 12. Was it Paul Kurzberg, the suspected Mossad operative, who bought the camera for his brother the day before the attacks? There were two brief mentions of a possible second camera in the FBIR; how many cameras did the CIs actually have in their possession when stopped by the police (Sec B.3)? 62 13. The June 2001 DEA Memo relating to the Israeli Art Students noted that a majority of the IAS questioned had served in intelligence, electronic intercepts, or explosive ordinance units and that their 'current occupation of selling art did not seem to fit their backgrounds (Sec B.11). All the CIs’ Israeli military backgrounds were redacted. What were the CIs’ military backgrounds and were their jobs as temporary movers reflective of their military and other backgrounds? 14. The FBIR includes two relatively heavy redacted entries relating to “construction guys” at The Doric in August 2002 (S5P128-29, 131). The entries appear to be related to the painter who observed the CI’s filming the attacks on 9/11 and not the CI or Spanish speaking individual on 9/10/01 (see Section B.5). Why was this key “witness” still under surveillance about a year after the attacks? 15. Zim American-Israeli Shipping vacated the WTC on Sept. 4, 2001 even though they had a four-and-a- half year $8 million lease liability at the WTC. Zim also “fast tracked” the development of their new office building so it would be guaranteed to be ready by Sept. 4, 2001 even though there was no urgency since their WTC lease was still in place (Sec B.10). Why was it so critical that Zim had to be out of the WTC by Sept. 4, 2001? 71 FBIR, Section 3, Page 59 This document is an email that was found in the CIs van. The approximately one-third-page email is completely redacted except for the "Dear God" subject line and the July 10, 2001, date. 72 FBIR, Section 3, Pages 83-84 This is an approximately one-page complete redaction. This September 21, 2001, FBI document is apparently a response from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) regarding information they may have had on the whereabouts of the five CIs. 73