Dancing Israelis

From 911myths

Jump to: navigation, search

There are many claims of 9/11 foreknowledge, but perhaps the most widespread concerns the so-called "Dancing Israrlis":


This Fox News article is one of the most quoted sources of the foreknowledge claim:


This is referring to another article, though. We browsed the New York Times archive and believe this is what Fox were talking about:


The setting up of the cameras “prior to the attacks” is an inference from the phrase “they photographed the attacks” in this report. It’s a reasonable literal interpretation, but that doesn’t necessarily make it true: a New York resident who took photos of what happened on 9/11 may well describe those images as “my pictures of the 9/11 attacks”, for instance, even if they didn’t include any shots of the initial plane impacts.

Even if the unnamed officials were saying the cameras were set up before the attack, these may be reports of the allegations they are investigating. The report does talk of the men “apparently” setting up cameras near the Hudson River, for instance, and that they said “said” to have congratulated each other afterwards. The report itself is very early, published on the 13th, perhaps written less than 24 hours after they were arrested, so it would be surprising if these officials had reached definitive conclusions.

Of course it’s difficult to form meaningful conclusions by simply analysing one or two words. That is demonstrated more than adequately here:


Here it’s suggested that saying “our purpose was to document the event” is in itself somehow suspicious, that it indicates foreknowledge. Why? We’ve no idea. Every single person who pointed a camera at the WTC on 9/11 did so because they wanted to “document the event”. The phrase indicates precisely nothing at all.

Let’s abandon the second-hand reports, then, and look at what the witness to this filming actually said. This ABC article crops up a lot:


There’s nothing here to support the foreknowledge claim. The time frame as to when she noticed them is vague, but it definitely came after the call from a neighbour, which itself followed the first plane hitting the towers.

What’s more, if you look at the full 20/20 transcript from which this story is derived, you find that Maria says she saw the van park after she’d been watching the WTC for a few minutes. And so they did not film the first impact (or ar least, not from here). The report also talks about other issues involved with this story, so we’re reproducing the whole piece:


This doesn’t completely end the issue, as there are other reports of them “dancing” prior to this (also denied). Their lawyer said:


However, there’s still no witness evidence to support the claim that they were set up and filming before the attacks occurred.

This page is intended to focus solely on the foreknowledge issue, but plainly (as you can see above) there are other considerations, too. By all means read the Killtown article, WhatReallyHappened page and anything else you can find for more on these, but be sure you check sources carefully. We’ve seen this story used as evidence that the Israelis’ van contained explosives, for instance:


But mysteriously this correction from the same source, issued less than 8 minutes after the first story, doesn’t get the same attention:


More on this here.

Question everything you read, then (even here). And we may return to this topic at a future date.

Footnote

One curious footnote to this story appeared three years later, when four of the Israelis filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice:


We've not yet discovered what happened to the case, and the lack of information suggests it never reached court. Still, bringing the case at all is hardly what you'd expect if these really were Mossad agents somehow connected to 9/11. Surely three years on they'd want to keep their heads down, not re-open the whole affair?

Personal tools