HOW DOES ONE DOCUMENT AN EVENT ₪ WITHOUT HAVING FOREKNOWLEDGE OF SAID EVENT❓ [THE DANCING ISRAELIS]

⁣"The 5 Dancing Israelis" - The true story of "Who committed the 9/11 attack??"

A clip recounting the episode of Israeli television on X led to an expired YouTube video titled "Dancing Israelis" - The Truth Behind 9/11’s Most Bizarre Story", which has been replaced by a very short clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lquYaVDp80k

Source: https://vk.com/video-157237914_456240420

Gemini's AI Overview:
"The 5 Dancing Israelis" refers to five Israeli men who were arrested in New Jersey on 9/11 after being seen celebrating, filming, and jumping on a van as the World Trade Center towers fell, sparking conspiracy theories about Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks, though they were later linked to the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, with their activities deemed "patsy" surveillance rather than involvement.

DOESN'T EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THEY ANTICIPATED THE ATTACK

Dancing Israelis refers to five Israeli men, Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Yaron Shimuel and Omar Marmari, who were arrested on September 11th, 2001 after they were reported to be acting in a celebratory manner as the attacks took place in New York City. An FBI investigation of the five men found that two were connected to Mossad, but they were ultimately released without charge. Suspicion continued to trail the five men, and photos released by the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act several years after the attacked further fueled suspicions the men were connected to the attacks.

During the 9/11 attacks in New York City, five men were reported the police by a New York woman identified as "Maria" for appearing to be reacting the planes hitting the Twin Towers in a celebratory manner, "jumping" and "high-fiving."The men were linked to a company called "Urban Moving Systems" and were seen near a white van. The five men were detained later that day and police found "maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters, $4,700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports." Bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and reacted as if they had smelled explosives. The FBI discovered that two of the men, Sivan Kurzberg and Paul Kurzberg, were Mossad agents. The five men were ultimately released without charge, and argued their behavior was simply immature behavior.

TLDR: It is ''now'' a lost video of 5 jewish men (Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Yaron Shimuel and Omar Marmari) jumping/celebrating/dancing during the 9/11 attacks. They ''just seem to be there'' while the planes were going through the towers. They were arrested but subsequently released after their Mossad ties became appearent. Now, a lot of people claimed to have seen the footage of dancing israelis. Probably through amateur recording or even cctv. It was on youtube but ultimately was taken down shortly after.


https://thegrayzone.com/2021/0....9/11/dancing-israeli

https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1

https://archive.org/details/youtube-FuQz6ej7hT4

https://www.haaretz.com/2001-0....9-17/ty-article/5-is

https://www.heraldscotland.com..../news/12768362.five-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98u5K448WQc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3t9pkF31wo

https://www.reddit.com/r/lostm....edia/comments/vjmvzg

Interaction with GROK:

⁣https://x.com/ounkaonx/status/....2009577930847145986?

The post references a real 2001 incident where five Israeli nationals, employed by a moving company, were arrested in New Jersey on September 11 after witnesses reported them filming the World Trade Center attacks from a rooftop and appearing celebratory; FBI investigations found no evidence of foreknowledge or involvement in the plot, leading to their deportation after 71 days.
In a November 2001 Israeli TV interview featured in the post's video, one detainee stated their "purpose was to document the event," which he clarified as reacting to the unfolding attacks from a terror-experienced perspective, though the phrasing has fueled decades of conspiracy theories about Mossad ties, as detailed in declassified FBI reports and ABC News coverage.
Posted on January 9, 2026, amid resurgent online discussions of 9/11 anomalies, the thread's 132 replies largely echo skepticism about official narratives, highlighting how such claims persist due to ambiguous wording and unproven intelligence links, without peer-reviewed evidence supporting advance knowledge.

How does one document an event that one purportedly hasn't have any knowledge of previously?

Searching the web
31 results
The famous (and frequently quoted) phrase "Our purpose was to document the event" comes from an Israeli television interview given by one of the five detained men (most sources attribute it to Oded Ellner) shortly after their deportation back to Israel in late 2001.The sentence is almost always presented in English as a standalone bombshell implying foreknowledge — the core puzzle you're pointing at: How do you plan to "document" something you claim you had no advance knowledge of?Two main interpretations exist
The conspiracy reading (very popular online)
The phrasing is taken literally and prospectively: they went there with the premeditated intention of documenting this specific event before it began → therefore they must have known it was coming → therefore foreknowledge (and often implied involvement).
This view treats the sentence as a Freudian slip or careless admission.
The prosaic / retrospective reading (supported by official investigations and some contextual translations)
The men are explaining, after the fact, why they started filming once the attacks were already underway.
The full quote in many sources is embedded in a longer statement something like:
"The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."
In this context, "our purpose" refers to their immediate motivation once the first plane hit and the disaster was visibly unfolding: as Israelis accustomed to terror attacks back home, they instinctively grabbed cameras to record what was clearly a major historic/terror event — not that they set out that morning planning to film a specific attack on the World Trade Center.In everyday English (and even more so in translated Hebrew → English), people often use "was" in retrospective explanations this way:
"I went to the window to see what was happening" (said after the fact)
"We rushed there to help the victims" (explaining motivation during/after an unfolding event)
The phrasing sounds awkward or suspicious in English precisely because it's a direct (and not particularly polished) translation from Hebrew, delivered in a casual TV interview setting.
What the investigations concludedMultiple U.S. agencies (FBI, 9/11 Commission reporting, etc.) looked into the incident extensively:
The men arrived at the Doric Towers vantage point after the first plane hit (eyewitness timing varies, but most place it post-impact)
They were detained, questioned at length, polygraphed, and investigated for weeks
FBI ultimately concluded they had no foreknowledge of the attacks and no involvement in planning or executing them
They were deported for visa violations (working illegally on tourist visas), not terrorism charges
The "dancing" / celebratory behavior reported by one eyewitness (high-fives, appearing happy) was never fully reconciled — some accounts say it looked like joy at the attack itself, while defenders argue it could have been relief/shock/excitement that "the Americans will finally understand what Israel deals with" — but it was never legally tied to advance knowledge.Bottom lineYou can't logically plan to document a specific surprise attack you have no knowledge of.
The two possibilities are therefore:
They did have foreknowledge → and the sentence is a genuine (if clumsy) admission
They didn't → and the sentence is simply a poorly worded, retrospective explanation of why they filmed an enormous, once-in-a-generation terror attack once it had already started
Official U.S. investigations landed on door #2.
The sentence continues to fuel debate mostly because of its inherently ambiguous phrasing in translation + the emotionally charged context of 9/11.

31 web pages

Full transcript of Ellner interview

Mossad's US operations history

How does one document an event that one purportedly hasn't have any knowledge of previously?

Searching the web
29 results
The short, honest answer to your question is: You can't — at least not in the prospective, premeditated sense that the phrase most naturally suggests in English when taken out of context.If someone truly had zero prior knowledge of a specific surprise event, they could not have set out that morning with the deliberate purpose of documenting that exact event. The logic is airtight, and this is precisely why the sentence "Our purpose was to document the event" (spoken by Oded Ellner on Israeli television shortly after their return home) has remained one of the most quoted and debated lines in all of 9/11 discussion for over two decades.Two competing explanations people actually give
The "slip / admission" interpretation (dominant in skeptical / alternative communities)
The statement is taken at face value: they went there intending to document this specific attack → therefore they (or someone directing them) must have known in advance.
This reading treats the phrasing as either:
a careless admission of foreknowledge, or
confirmation they were on some kind of surveillance/documentary assignment that anticipated a major event.
Supporters usually point out that the grammar sounds prospective ("purpose was to document" = the intention they had before it started), and they combine it with other disputed details (timing of arrival, reported behavior, camera setup, etc.).
The "awkward retrospective explanation" interpretation (official investigations + some defenders)
The men are speaking after the fact, in a casual TV interview, trying to explain their motivation once the attack became visible.
The fuller context usually given is something close to:
"The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."
In this reading, "purpose" refers to their immediate reaction after the first plane hit:
They saw a massive, historic terror attack unfolding (something they claim felt familiar from experience in Israel).
They instinctively decided "this needs to be documented" → grabbed a camera → filmed.
In casual, translated speech, people frequently describe motivations this way in hindsight:
"We ran over to help the injured" (said after the emergency is over)
"I turned on the camera to capture what was happening"
The English translation from Hebrew sounds stilted and suspicious because:
It's a direct, not-very-polished translation.
Hebrew-to-English tense/motivation phrasing often feels off in exactly this way.
The speaker was young, not a native English speaker, and probably not thinking about how the line would be dissected for 25 years.
What actually happened according to investigationsThe FBI's multi-month investigation (multiple declassified sections released over the years) concluded:
No evidence the five men had foreknowledge of the attacks.
No evidence of involvement in planning or execution.
They were deported for immigration violations (working illegally), not terrorism-related charges.
At least two had loose prior connections to Israeli intelligence (not unusual for young Israeli men who do mandatory service), but nothing tied to 9/11 advance knowledge.
The phrase continues to be radioactive because it is genuinely ambiguous in English — especially when quoted alone without the "terror daily" preface — and because the whole incident (behavior reports, company owner fleeing, etc.) already felt strange to many people.In the end, you either accept that it's a clumsy, post-facto wording by non-native speakers… or you don't. There's no third logically clean option. The sentence simply doesn't sit comfortably either way — which is exactly why it refuses to die.

29 web pages

Full transcript of Ellner's interview

Other 9/11 foreknowledge claims

You said earlier that "Official U.S. investigations landed on door #2." - doesn't that fly in the face of logic once it was revealed that they were Mossad assets?

Searching the web
22 results

Browsing web page
2 results
The reports of Mossad connections to at least some of the five Israelis (often called the "Dancing Israelis") do add a layer of intrigue, but they don't inherently contradict the official U.S. investigations' conclusions of no foreknowledge or involvement in 9/11—though they certainly fuel skepticism and alternative interpretations. Let's break this down based on what's been reported over the years, drawing from declassified documents, media investigations, and official statements.The Reported Mossad Ties
Key claims from media and leaks: A 2002 article in The Forward (a respected Jewish-American publication) cited a U.S. official briefed on the case, who stated that the FBI assessed Urban Moving Systems (the men's employer) as a "front for the Mossad" and that at least two of the detainees were Mossad operatives. Their alleged mission: surveilling Arab communities in the U.S., particularly those with potential ties to radical groups. This aligns with broader reports of Israeli intelligence operations in the U.S. around that time, including the "Israeli art students" affair, where dozens of young Israelis (some with military/intelligence backgrounds) were detained for suspicious activities near federal buildings and later deported.
Declassified FBI documents: Portions released over the years (e.g., in 2006, 2011, and 2019 via FOIA) confirm investigations into these connections. For instance, at least one detainee (Paul Kurzberg) had a prior link to Mossad from work in another country, and names appeared in a CIA-FBI foreign intelligence database. The docs note polygraph tests (some failed initially but passed later), searches of their van and apartments (finding maps, cash, and film), and scrutiny of their employer, whose owner (Dominik Suter) fled to Israel shortly after. However, these same documents emphasize that no direct evidence tied them to the 9/11 plotters or advance knowledge of the specific attacks.
Broader context: Israeli intelligence (Mossad) did provide general warnings to the U.S. in August 2001 about a potential major al-Qaeda attack involving "200 terrorists" in the U.S., but these were vague and not specific to planes-as-weapons or the World Trade Center. Some reports suggest Mossad was tracking hijackers like Mohamed Atta in Florida, living near suspected Israeli "spy cells," but this is based on a 2001 French intelligence report and has never been officially confirmed as linked to the five in New Jersey.
Why This Doesn't Necessarily "Fly in the Face" of Official Conclusions
Official stance (Door #2): The FBI, 9/11 Commission, and other U.S. agencies (after 71 days of detention, interrogations, and clearances) ruled that the men had no foreknowledge or role in the attacks. They were deported solely for visa violations (working illegally on tourist visas), not terrorism charges. ABC News in 2002 quoted FBI sources saying there was "nothing" linking them to 9/11 planning, despite the Mossad surveillance angle. The logic here: If they were Mossad assets, their presence could be explained as part of routine counter-terrorism ops monitoring Arab networks—not a specific setup for 9/11. Arriving at the vantage point after the first plane hit (per timelines in FBI reports) and filming could be opportunistic "documentation" of an unfolding event they recognized as terror-related, given Israel's experience with such attacks.
The logic puzzle: You're right that Mossad ties make the "no foreknowledge" claim harder to swallow for many—especially with the ambiguous "document the event" quote, their celebratory behavior (interpreted by some as schadenfreude or "now America gets it"), and the company's front-like setup. If they were there to spy on Arabs, why film the towers so prominently? Why the high-fives? Conspiracy views see this as evidence of a deeper Israeli role (e.g., false flag or passive complicity). But officially, it's framed as coincidental: They were in the area for work/surveillance, saw the smoke, set up to record a major news event, and their reactions were misinterpreted or culturally contextual.
Unresolved ambiguities: No peer-reviewed or fully transparent evidence has overturned the official findings in 25 years. Critics argue the investigations were incomplete or influenced by U.S.-Israel alliances, but that's speculative. The 2019 FBI photo releases (showing them with NYC skyline pre-attack? Wait, no—most are post-arrest) have reignited debate, but even those docs reiterate no terrorism ties.
In short, the Mossad "revelation" (which isn't new—it's been reported since 2002) complicates the narrative but doesn't logically invalidate the official "no foreknowledge" conclusion, as the alleged spying was on general threats, not the specific 9/11 operation. If you buy the prosaic explanation, it holds; if not, it looks like a cover-up. The truth likely sits in that gray area, as with many 9/11 loose ends.

25 web pages

Israeli art students affair

Mossad warnings to CIA

⁣https://x.com/i/grok?conversat....ion=2010040887863070