Update 22 November 2010: Who Destroyed the 9/11 Evidence?
By Christopher Bollyn,
www.bollyn.com
During the past two months I have been involved in research about the Rothschild/Mossad network behind the criminal destruction of the steel from the World Trade Center. I have found that the network that arranged for the destruction of the steel - critical evidence from the crime scene - was actually organized by Israel's Mossad and their Zionist agents, the real culprits behind the false-flag terrorism that changed the world. This article will be the final and conclusive chapter of my book, Solving 9/11 - The Deception that Changed the World.
On 19 November 2010 I sent photographs of two of the main people involved in the "recycling" of the 300,000 tons of steel from the World Trade Center to Roy Tov, the Christian Israeli author of The Cross of Bethlehem. I sent these photos of the culprits behind the criminal destruction of the steel to Tov because he is very knowledgable about the Mossad, having been pursued and targeted by Israeli assassins around the world. This is what Roy Tov wrote back to me on November 21:
Thanks Christopher,
If the pictures are real, then there is little doubt regarding their allies and employers. The chances they'll answer in such case are slim, or it will be in the form of an attack (lawyers or violent) against you.
If the pictures are real, then there is little doubt regarding their allies and employers. The chances they'll answer in such case are slim, or it will be in the form of an attack (lawyers or violent) against you.
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 from Fürth (like Henry Kissinger, another Rothschild agent) who came to America and worked as a bank clerk with Seligman & Co. before becoming the head of 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 also Walter Rothschild's sister. Hugo Neu started his own scrap metal company in 1945. The company is now run by his son, John, and has very close business ties to the state of Israel and is invested in a Mossad-linked Israeli venture fund.
Since 2001, the two companies involved in the destruction of the steel, Sims Metal Management and Hugo Neu, have merged into one company. I called and asked to speak with Alan Ratner, the former head of Metal Management in New Jersey, Daniel Dienst, or Robert Kelman, since these were the key executives involved in the 9/11 steel recycling. I got through to Ratner's secretary, who gave me his email, but instead of letting me speak to any of these men, I was connected to company's spokesman, Daniel Strechay.
Daniel Strechay is the corporate gatekeeper who speaks for the company who profited from the illegal destruction of the steel evidence from the World Trade Center.
Strechay was completely unwilling to answer any questions. I told him that the destruction of the steel is a matter of great historic importance and that in the interest of fairness and accuracy I wanted to speak directly with the people involved. Strechay refused, saying "It's all a matter of public record. Read the Wall Street Journal."
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 actually involved in the operation, and hung up the phone. Later, I got through to Alan Ratner by email and he wrote back, so I sent him a few questions, but he yet to respond. Clearly, these men do not want to discuss their roles in the destruction of the steel 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 actually involved in the operation, and hung up the phone. Later, I got through to Alan Ratner by email and he wrote back, so I sent him a few questions, but he yet to respond. Clearly, these men do not want to discuss their roles in the destruction of the steel from the World Trade Center.
I called Kenneth Holden at his home in Scarsdale, New York, on October 16, to ask him some questions about his role in the clean-up of the debris at the World Trade Center. Holden is the former head of New York City's Department of Design and Construction (DDC), and was the official who oversaw the removal of the steel. As Mayor Bloomberg said about Commissioner Holden, when he was reappointed as head of the DDC in January 2002:
New Yorkers are fortunate to have Commissioner Holden agree to remain as Commissioner of DDC," said Mayor Bloomberg. "Over the last four months he has done a terrific job managing the clean up of the World Trade Center and so that the reconstruction process for Lower Manhattan can begin. By coordinating the movement of millions of tons of steel and rubble, excavating one of the most dangerous work sites in the world all seemingly ahead of schedule, under budget and without a fatality, Kenneth Holden has been the unsung hero of this enormous task.
Kenneth Holden
THE "UNSUNG HERO" WON'T SING
When Holden gave his statement to the 9/11 Commission on April 1, 2003, he said that he had received "verbal permission" to remove the steel to New Jersey scrapyards, but failed to name the person who had authorized the move. Oddly, nobody bothered to ask who gave Holden the verbal permission:
Steel and debris from the site was sent to Fresh Kills where it was examined and sifted. As the Department of Sanitation could no longer handle the steel with their equipment, and our engineers thought the steel would destabilize the landfill, DDC received verbal permission to ship the steel to New Jersey. (From whom?) By the end of June 2002, an astounding total of over 1.6 million tons of steel and other debris were removed from the site.
It was Saturday morning when I reached Holden at his home. I told him I was working on an article about the destruction of the steel from the World Trade Center and wanted to ask him a few questions. He bawked a bit at first, saying that he was no longer giving interviews on the subject, so I repeated what he told the commission and asked the most important question first: Who gave you the verbal permission to ship the steel to New Jersey scrapyards? I was able to repeat the question twice very clearly. After a short pause Holden said, "As I said, I'm not giving interviews on this subject." Then he silently ended the call.
I thought for a minute and called Holden right back. He picked up the phone and I immediately asked, "Was it Chertoff? 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 the old Estonian saying that came to mind. The logic is that Holden could not deny that Chertoff had given him the verbal permission, so he remained silent. 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.
I thought for a minute and called Holden right back. He picked up the phone and I immediately asked, "Was it Chertoff? 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 the old Estonian saying that came to mind. The logic is that Holden could not deny that Chertoff had given him the verbal permission, so he remained silent. 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.
To understand the essence of the crime, I recommend reading the short article "Selling Out the Investigation" by Bill Manning of Fire Engineering. Manning's piece was published on January 1, 2002. The destruction of the steel was a crucial part of the 9/11 hoax. A hoax cannot succeed if there is evidence that reveals the truth and 9/11 is a global hoax.
The Twin Towers were primarily steel structures supporting 220 lightweight concrete floors. 
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?
An organization called the NYC Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) is calling for the public to demand that the district attorney of New York County investigate and prosecute those responsible for the destruction of the evidence from the crime scene. This is from their open letter/petition of June 23, 2010 to the district attorney's office:
Cy Vance, Jr. District Attorney of New York County
Thomas Wornom, Bureau Chief, Special Prosecutions Bureau
Dear Sirs:
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
Thomas Wornom, Bureau Chief, Special Prosecutions Bureau
Dear Sirs:
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
The supporting documentation provided in this letter/petition from NYC CAN includes the following:
“In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT Team)], a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.”
- 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."
- 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."
Commissioner Kenneth R. Holden and his wife Frances McGuire. Holden was given an award in 2002 by the AIA New York Chapter after he had overseen the criminal destruction of the steel from the World Trade Center. Why was he being awarded when he should have been arrested?By September 28, the DDC is publicly known to have been aware of the BPAT’s request for the steel to be saved, however, the decision to recycle the steel stood.
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.
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.
I strongly support the NYC CAN petition to prosecute those behind the criminal destruction of the steel from the World Trade Center. My forthcoming article will reveal the key people involved in the terror network behind this crime.
In the meantime, I recommend visiting the website of NYC CAN to understand the basis of their appeal for justice and the extent of the criminal destruction of evidence from the World Trade Center: http://www.nyccan.org/join.php
http://www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_12402
0 Comments