In September, when I began my research into the people behind the destrucion of the steel, I called the Hugo Neu company, which was one of the two New Jersey scrapyards that "recycled" the steel. Hugo Neu was a German Jewish immigrant (and Rothschild agent) who came to America and headed Associated Metals and Minerals Corporation (AMMC) in New York in the 1930s with his German Jewish fellows, Meno Lissauer and Walter M. Rothschild, the company's president. Lissauer's wife, Meta, was Walter Rothschild's sister. Hugo Neu is now run by his son and has very close ties to the state of Israel.
Daniel Strechay, speaks for the men that destroyed the steel evidence from the World Trade Center.
He then said that the company is very proud of how it handled the steel from the Twin Towers, but was adamant in his refusal to let me speak with any of the men who were involved, and hung up the phone. I got through to Alan Ratner by email and he wrote back, so I sent him a few questions, but he has not responded to my questions. These men clearly do not want to discuss the destruction of the steel from the World Trade Center.
I thought for a minute and called Holden right back. He picked up the phone and I immediately asked, "Was it [Michael] Chertoff who gave you the verbal permission?" Holden was silent on the other end of the line, then he ended the call as he had done before. "Silence is agreement" is an old Estonian saying that came to mind. Holden did not deny that Chertoff had given him the verbal permission. Common sense would suggest that the permission must have come from Chertoff, who as Assistant Attorney General of the United States was the top dog responsible for the federal (FBI) investigation of 9/11.
Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff was "top dog" at the FBI during the "non-investigation" of 9/11, in which the crucial steel evidence was destroyed in Asian smelters before being examined by engineers. Chertoff's Israeli mother, Livia Eisen, was one of the first Mossad agents. An Israeli by birth, Michael spent much of his childhood in Israel.
The towers were well built structures that used more steel than today's skyscrapers. The debris contained about 300,000 tons of steel that was hastily dispatched by a New York City official to two Zionist-controlled scrapyards in New Jersey - before it could even be inspected by engineers. These Jewish-owned scrapyards then shipped the steel - hard evidence from the crime scene - to Asian smelters where it was melted down far from the prying eyes of U.S. investigators. Why was this allowed and who was behind it?
Thomas Wornom, Bureau Chief, Special Prosecutions Bureau
Over the last three weeks you have been informed about the overwhelming evidence that World Trade Center Building 7 was demolished with explosives. I trust that you understand the serious implications of this crime and that you are resolved to prosecute the guilty parties. To provide a critical steppingstone in your investigation, I would like to bring to your attention the widely documented – and widely protested – destruction of physical evidence (structural steel) at the crime scene, which I contend is prosecutable pursuant to Article 205 of the New York Penal Code, § 205.50 Hindering Prosecution.
“[A] person ‘renders criminal assistance’ when, with intent to prevent, hinder or delay the discovery or apprehension of…a person he knows or believes has committed a crime…he...suppresses, by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, any physical evidence which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person or in the lodging of a criminal charge against him;”
I will present publicly available information on the destruction of physical evidence from the World Trade Center site, below my signature, in four sections entitled:
1. Official acknowledgement of the destruction of physical evidence from the WTC.
2. Control of the WTC cleanup.
3. The decision to destroy the physical evidence.
4. The continued destruction of evidence despite public outcry
- Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002
“[T]here is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal.”
- Joseph Crowley, U.S. Congressman, 7th District, New York
“[O]n September 28, the New York Times learned that the city was recycling the steel. When the Times contacted Kenneth R. Holden, commissioner of the Department of Design and Construction, he said that no one from the investigative team had asked him to keep or inspect the steel. The ASCE, it turned out, had faxed a request, but to the wrong fax machine. Late that afternoon, after reporters shuttled the correct fax number to the ASCE, Holden said that a request had finally reached him."
Of course, Mayor Giuliani – previously a U.S. Attorney – and the DDC had to be fully aware of the illegality of destroying the physical evidence prior to their decision to recycle the steel. Their refusal to desist from recycling the steel when asked by the investigative team to do so – still less than three weeks into the cleanup effort, with hundreds of thousands of tons of steel still salvageable, and relatively negligible revenue from selling the steel not an issue because there was virtually unlimited federal funding for the cleanup effort – strongly suggests their contravention of the law was deliberate and motivated by intent to prevent the discovery of a crime they knew had taken place...
Calls to halt the recycling fell on deaf ears. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton:
“Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three-day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation. ‘The city considered it reasonable to have recovered structural steel recycled,’ said Matthew G. Monahan, a spokesman for the city's Department of Design and Construction, which is in charge of debris removal at the site”
Why didn’t the city simply stop recycling the steel? Again, the outright refusal of city officials to desist from recycling the steel strongly suggests their contravention of the law was deliberate and motivated by intent to prevent the discovery of a crime they knew had taken place.