Ian Carroll lies about 9/11.
Telling the truth about these hoax stories regarding 9/11 has been a mission of mine for the past six years
On January 9th an X post and accompanying video responding to Elon Musk’s support for Israel went viral. The person behind it is Ian Carroll (@IanCarrollShow), a TikTok and X influencer known for his “down the rabbit hole posts”. I personally have only encountered Carroll’s work from time to time, and have no direct interaction with him, but I did notice not long ago that he has subscribed to the theories put forward by Ryan Dawson, a 9/11 hoax propagandist with whom I had a debate in 2019. Thanks to his loyal following and the lack of an appropriate response to his assertions about Israeli involvement in 9/11, Carroll’s post has dramatically ratioed Musk’s and as of this writing has 6 million views. While he also referenced other issues, I wanted to specifically focus on the 9/11 related ones as those are issues that few have been willing to debate in detail.
Not long after the 2019 debate, a group of political activists called the “Groyper Army” began to use the “Israel did 9/11 narrative” in their activism against mainstream Republican personalities. Their activities yielded them much notoriety, and new followers who defected from the so-called “Conservative, Inc.” groups like Turning Points USA. It is because of this that I have been devoting so much time to writing about the facts of the “Dancing Israelis” suspects. In addition to that, Carroll also referenced the so-called “DEA art student spy ring”. In my upcoming book I devote extensive research and reasoning into both, exposing the lies that 9/11 hoaxers like Dawson and Christopher Bollyn have been propagating for decades. I will do so once again here.
Carroll’s tweet on the “Dancing Israelis”
The assertion: In the eighth paragraph of his tweet Carroll talks about “fake Israeli moving companies positioned across the eastern seaboard” and claims that they knew about the attacks the day before they happened. This is in reference to five Israeli moving company employees arrested in East Rutherford, NJ on 9/11 after being accused by a female witness of celebrating on the roof of the below ground parking garage of her apartment complex, the Doric Towers in Union City, NJ. Some of them had performed a moving job at the Doric Towers the week preceding 9/11, which may explain why they knew to come back. Their names are: Oded Ellner, Sivan Kurzberg and his brother Paul, Yaron Shmuel and Omer Marmari. One of them (allegedly Marmari) was carrying a Canon film camera at the time of arrest and the developed photos included some taken with the timestamp 9/10, as is seen in the photo of one of the suspects below flicking a cigarette lighter.
Carroll instructs the reader to take a look at the original FBI reports, which I have done numerous times. Buried in the document is a report about a police inspection of the camera on Sept. 20, 2001 at 10:03 AM in which the officer notices that the internal clock of the camera was reading 19:22 (7:22 PM) on Sept. 19, 2001. The camera’s internal clock had been set to a time 15 hours slow, which would explain the time on the photos taken as evidence showing 9/10 and not 9/11.
What about the allegations that the Israeli suspects were set up early for the attacks? This is contradicted by the fact that some of the photographs do not seem to be from the Doric Towers at all but from the roof of the Urban Moving Systems office in Weehawken, NJ, as evidenced by the raised roadway visible in the foreground of the photos. The witness who saw the suspects was reported to have looked out her window “shortly before” 9:00 AM, which would be between the time of American Airlines Flight 11 struck the WTC 1 North Tower and United Airlines Flight 175 hitting the south tower at 9:03 AM.
For years propagators of this hoax theory like Dawson and Whitney Webb have failed to explain how the suspects were both staked out at the place they were witnessed for at least a half hour prior to the attack as Carroll states, and also on the rooftop of their workplace in some of the photos. Also, what intelligence value did they get from these photographs of themselves along the Manhattan skyline during the 9/11 attacks in which the Twin Towers are scarcely visible in the distance? Ryan Dawson has alleged for years that there was a video camera (as stated by the eyewitness), yet this camera has never been found, is not visible in the photos, and would not have offered any unique footage for the Israelis that would not have been available from the news helicopters or anyone else who was capturing the attacks and their aftermath on video that morning.
What most likely happened? The suspects got on their office roof after AA Flight 11 hit, were dissatisfied with the view, and then drove to the Doric Towers five minutes away that offered a better vantage point.
The DEA “Spy Ring”
In the 7th paragraph Ian Carroll references the “DEA report” concerning alleged spying against federal facilities by Mossad agents prior to 9/11. In the forthcoming book I extensively detail why the full details of this story render the whole premise implausible and perhaps impossible. According to this theory numerous Israeli “art students” were using their cover as door-to-door salesmen and attempted to solicit from federal law enforcement offices such as the Drug Enforcement Administration and Federal Protective Service and according to speculation keep tabs on 9/11 hijackers. These salesmen were indeed arrested, so what is the problem with this story?
Firstly, the events of the story all occur up until May 2001 with many of the salespeople (“agents”) being rolled up in a raid in Dallas, TX on March 27 and subsequently deported for tourist visa violations. Some of them were using marijuana when they were arrested, not exactly the behaviour of professional intelligence agents.
If these “agents” were arrested and interrogated this early, why is it that no information regarding prospective hijackers was yielded by them? Really? No photographs? No documents? Nothing? This also leaves more than four months leading up to 9/11 during which this so-called surveillance of the terror suspects was incapacitated, so how would this implicate Israel?
Secondly, nothing stated in either the DEA report nor the Shea Memorandum that brought it to greater public attention demonstrates that the salespeople were following hijackers or terror operatives. Gerald Shea, a California prosecutor who wrote the latter document addressed to the 9/11 Commission, tried to make the case that the salespeople were in the vicinity of hijackers. Yet the evidence of this is extremely flimsy. For example, multiple salespeople were arrested in Fort Myers, which is in the same Florida Gulf Coast region as Venice where 9/11 pilot hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi were doing flight training. However the two cities are 60 miles and two counties apart and there is no evidence that they crossed paths at all. This is effectively accusing a group of people of a crime for being in the same state as someone else the same year he committed a crime somewhere else.
It is also important to note that chronologically the theory does not make sense. The Israeli art sellers in Hollywood, Florida were arrested by the beginning of April 2001. Mohammed Atta rented an apartment in the city only April 11, 2001 according to court documents from the USA v. Moussaoui case (see p. 40). This alleged surveillance “operation” was already gone before its targets had even arrived.
Many of these allegations regarding 9/11 have been repeated and convoluted for decades by others, but now they have Ian Carroll to amplify them to an audience of millions. I have nothing personal against him until now, but this continuing slander regarding 9/11 cannot stand. I urge you all to share this article so that the truth about these speculative theories be known.