Does the world really need one more blogger? Regardless of the world’s need, it is more than apparent to me that some things need to be said, and I, for one reason or another, am driven to say them. Readers should understand that I offer not simply ideas but leadership. Should it become evident that the ideas given life here find support, I will launch an effort to become a representative of the people. Had the timing been right, I would have challenged Dianne Feinstein for her seat in the United States Senate. Elsewhere on this site I set out my case against Senator Feinstein. I also include what would have been the announcement of my candidacy, again, had the timing been right. For what it is worth, I had a career to complete, so that option does not appear viable.
Leadership, however, can take many forms. Being an elected representative of the people is simply one of them. Given my view of the decrepit state of affairs as they have been arranged for us at this moment, it is virtually impossible not to view the predicament embracing this nation in the most severe, and I fear, most grandiose terms. I believe that we have lost our democracy. I believe our leaders to be the foulest of villains. I believe our governance is tyranny. I believe whatever pursuit of justice once was a fundamental driving principle amongst our people has been relinquished and abandoned.
These are desperate words in, I say, desperate times. Though they surely require desperate measures, I speak only for those who embrace non-violence. I equate this moment with the others that have defined our greatness in the past, from the Revolutionary War, to the abolition of slavery, to universal suffrage, to the labor movement, to the civil rights movement, to the environmental movement. To prevail at this essential moment will require that the people be willing to march. I here offer my voice in an effort to galvanize and propel a citizenry whose grandchildren will be unable to forgive inaction.
I am fifty-seven years old and as the foregoing suggests, driven. The ideas that I seek to express here may yet find political form, should the reader demand it. My introduction to citizens as a senatorial candidate contains some biographical information as well as an explanation for the beginning of this enterprise which in simple terms is my conviction that the government was complicit in the crimes of 9/11.
Such an admission probably deserves some discussion. I know there is a danger that it will mean the end of any consideration of whatever other ideas I may think important. I would ask for another paragraph or so. I claim mental stability. I claim intelligence. I have read extensively. I, in fact, have thirty plus years of experience as a criminal lawyer, which has allowed me to know criminals, government investigators, police reports, and true evil. To further support my quest for credibility, I proclaim that at one time I considered the ideas which I now embrace to be just as ludicrous, just as farfetched, just as out of the question, just as worthy of derisive dismissal as the most mainstream of thinkers consider them now.
That was true for three and a half years. My resistance to such unspeakable notions was every bit as strong as any who read these words. When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or venality. To this extent, that bedrock principle proceeds, our government leaders are different from those occupying positions of power in the rest of the world. Mistakes due to an excess of zeal or human limitations defined as negligence, or being hamstrung by misguided regulations born of the flawed judgments of lesser politicians, these are all the risks inherent within our democratic system, but evil, pure evil, within the soul of our leaders is, baldly, inconceivable. Thus the bedrock premise has lived and flourished in our schools and churches, at our dining room tables and on our television screens, blaring out of our radios and silently existing within our thoughtful minds.
Even in my opposition to the Vietnam War, I never, at the time, thought what horror I might have learned of, was a reflection of a malicious nature. Certainly, I believed, it was not so in the case of our leaders. Possibly, occasionally, it may have been the case, given the backdrop of war that squeezes from the most righteous any subtle tendency to live outside the bounds of the law or a moral credo, with the lower-ranked soldier, destruction poised in the palms of his hands. Possibly. Occasionally.
But one grows up. The unquestioned nature of our own father’s stature gives way in the end. And there is the world of books and ideas, and the opinions of those once thought unthinkable. At the instant of revelation, there is a profound opening of the mind. And with the lawyer’s training comes the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade. With an abiding interest in history, there is exposure to all that man has produced, bounded sadly by one’s ability to comprehend. The political history of the world, the progression of war and peace, the machinations of the powerful do not, however, test the ability to comprehend so much as the ability to conceive of evil, for if anything, the history of the world has been the demonstration of humankind’s tendency toward, and embrace of, evil.
What is it then that makes our government officials somehow immune to scrutiny in the case of abject, manifest evil? We all must recognize the essential human desire to see what we want, hear what we want, and believe what we want. We want to know and feel peace, hear and feel harmony, and believe in justice. Conflict is not comfortable, mendacity is disquieting, and our world is shaken to its cellular structure by the idea of evil in our midst. Denial is a harbor of refuge for all of us, made more placid and protective when coupled with the anesthesia of powerlessness. To conceive of corrective action, however, is to empower the spirit and to empower the critical senses. Even if it is darkness into which we stare, sight by itself gives life.
I appeal to all to seek an open mind. Further reading without it is, simply, pointless and a waste of time. I present my ideas here for the world’s embrace or dismissal. I present myself as a leader prepared to pay what must be paid in the pursuit of the vision which here finds its voice.
Theoretical Senatorial Announcement
My name is Bill Veale. I have decided to run for the United States Senate, and I am seeking your support. After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government. I have done my best as a private citizen to demand action from my elected representatives and from opinion leaders throughout the country. There has been no satisfactory response; in fact there has been what I regard as an apathetic silence, almost without exception. Since no one else has seen fit to make the events of 9/11 the focus of a Senatorial campaign, and because Senator Dianne Feinstein’s response to my entreaties has demonstrated ignorance, or apathy, or complicity, I have decided to give the people of the State of California the choice to elect a leader who thinks their government has betrayed them in the most unspeakable manner, and who thinks that the fight to expose and bring to justice all those responsible is more important than anything else that he is capable of doing.
Any reasonable person would ask why I feel up to such a challenge. The answer proceeds with uncertainty as the forces arrayed against this endeavor are the most formidable ever congealed on the planet. They are more powerful than any one man’s ability to conceive much less prevail. The only force equal to that which wields power at this time in history is an outraged, demanding, and united people.
To the extent that my qualifications may bear on this struggle, they consist of thirty-one years as a public defender in Contra Costa County, California, the Bay Area county just east and slightly north of San Francisco across the San Francisco Bay. I have been a leader all of my life in one small way or another. I grew up in the country outside of Baltimore, Maryland, was fortunate to receive an outstanding education at a private high school in Baltimore, went to college at the University of Virginia, and law school at the University of Maryland.
I moved to California in 1973, passed the Bar and began my life’s work as a public defender. I was supervising a branch of the office by the age of 33. In 1993 I was chosen to lead the first Alternate Defender Office in the country to handle felony cases. I retired as a public defender at the end of March, 2006, having tried many, many cases, including ones where the prosecution sought the death penalty. I taught Criminal Trial Practice at Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California for eleven years.
I have come to say that I have spent my life trying to get people to do things they haven’t wanted to do, from prosecutors to judges to juries to colleagues to students to clients, and, of course, my own children. I have been speaking in public for three decades for a living. I have been analyzing evidence and conducting investigations for all of that time, and of all of the characteristics missing in the United States Senate, the ability to get to the bottom of things, seems to me the most pronounced. I would hope my tenacity in the face of obstruction and dishonesty would propel me to be as relentless in the pursuit of truth as the citizens of this State and nation deserve.
I enter this race because I am convinced that the most outrageous atrocity ever committed on American soil took place with the connivance of, if not at the instigation of, the leaders of the United States Government. No one should take the word, even of an experienced trial lawyer, for such a notion. I ask each person who considers supporting me to do as much studying as they are able to do. The books and the scholarly articles are available to all. I will, however, seek to give a synopsis of the evidence which I have found convincing, which I have in turn conveyed to Senator Feinstein asking for some effort at rebuttal. These inquiries have produced nothing.
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
It is a sad fact that many Americans are unaware that three large buildings collapsed that day. World Trade Center 7 collapsed at 5 pm, never having been hit by any airplane. The governmental inquiry being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology is still not complete over five years later, but mainstream opinion holds that the building fell because of fire. As it did, if it did, it became the third steel frame building in history to collapse because of fire, according to the government. The other two, if one is to believe official sources, collapsed seven and eight hours earlier and were the World Trade Center Towers. Though they were in fact struck by large aircraft, there was, at the time, no suggestion that the impact of the planes had caused any instability in either building. Those towers were actually subjected to similar levels of force regularly due to simple weather conditions involving high winds such as exist at the altitude of their highest floors. It should be remembered as well that the towers were constructed with the idea that they would have to withstand the impact of a large airliner.
It is fair to say, again if one accepts the government version, that the three buildings were the first such to collapse as they did in the history of construction. They fell all at the same place, all on the same day, all at near freefall speed. Instead of the 12-15 seconds it actually took the towers to end up in small piles, the law of conservation of momentum would predict somewhere between 30 and 90 seconds, had there in fact been resistance to the collapse at each floor. All three buildings fell with, again, near perfect symmetry into their own footprints, a feat only a handful of firms in the world can accomplish with precisely placed high-powered explosives that can create temperatures up to 5000 degrees Fahrenheit.
It is also fair to say that the vast bulk of the ruins were transported away before any sort of criminal investigation could be conducted. There remain, however, substantial quantities of solid debris, extremely important photographs, and statements by rescue and other officials that establish the following crucial facts:
1. There was molten metal in the basement of the ruins establishing that the temperatures achieved during the course of the disaster were substantially over 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel, for example, melts at 2770 degrees Fahrenheit. The propellant capable of producing the highest temperatures inside any of the towers that morning would have been the jet fuel which burns only to 1750 degrees Fahrenheit. It is conceded by all those who have studied the incident that the vast majority of the jet fuel burned up outside of the towers just after impact. It is further conceded that the hottest fires burned for no more than ten minutes, a substantially insufficient time frame for the melting of steel had the requisite temperature been achieved. It is essential, as well, to recall that steel conducts heat away from the source, further limiting the possibility that any jet fuel fire of short duration could have been the explanation for the melted steel.
The interested world will be happy to know that I am not the source for the scientific claims that I make. I rely on a growing number of tenured professors in physics and other professional engineers who have subjected their work to peer review and public scrutiny, and courageously withstood all manner of attack by the forces who seek to continue the cover-up that is the sustaining force of this crime.
2. There are infrared satellite photographs taken weeks after 9/11 that show hotspots with temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees Fahrenheit.
3. There are photographs of yellow-to-orange-hot pieces of steel being lifted by heavy machinery, again weeks after 9/11. This fact establishes temperatures of 1700 degrees Fahrenheit or more. There is no explanation for the contents of the building burning to such temperatures for that length of time that does not include the use of explosives that can produce temperatures as hot as 5000 degrees Fahrenheit.
4. It is undeniable that the forty-seven steel core columns that were at the center of each of the towers were severed into lengths of between 30 and 50 feet. There is no reasonable explanation for the cutting of steel under these circumstances that does not include explosives. The use of acetylene torches or carbon steel blades can be ruled out with confidence. Thermate is an explosive that can cut steel at an instant. Tests performed by Dr. Steven Jones have shown that the debris, and dust, from ground zero contain elements consistent with thermate, and inconsistent with the theories suggested by the government whose agency failed to test for thermate.
5. Senior level firefighters at the scene, as well as others of lower rank and engineers working in the towers, heard explosions and saw damage done by explosives before the towers collapsed. For example, a. Lt. William Walsh, FDNY, was on a call on Canal Street when he heard an explosion that he associated with ConED. He looked up and saw the first plane fly into the North Tower. He went to the North Tower and found the elevator doors going down and up to the 30th floor, blown off the hinges.
b. Philip Morelli, a construction worker then in the 3rd subbasement of the North Tower, felt two explosions within seconds of each other, and one destroyed walls in the subbasement.
c. Mike Pecoraro felt an explosion when he was on the 6th subbasement, went to investigate and found the machine shop, a fifty-ton press, and a three hundred pound door reduced to rubble, all within minutes of the first plane hitting the building.
d. William Rodriquez, a janitor for twenty years at the WTC, made a very clear distinction between the first explosion that he experienced, happening below him in the subbasement, and the second, seconds later, above him and far away, the latter of which he determined to be the first plane hitting the building.
e. There are numerous other witnesses, particularly firefighters, who describe explosions that cooroborate those mentioned here; there is video of marble panels having been blown off the lobby walls as the firefighters enter the building after the first crash; and there are numerous dispatches that refer to explosions.
f. Jenny Carr happened to tape a meeting of which she was part that morning, which captured a first explosion to which attendees made reference, and a second, nine seconds later, which was the first plane crashing.
6. The penthouse to World Trade Center 7, the building not hit by an airplane, is demonstrably the first part of the building to collapse, but the video footage shows no fire anywhere near it
7. The top of the South Tower, above the level of airplane impact, begins to fall over about an hour after being hit by the airliner, achieving a 13% list. Rather than continue falling over whole as gravity and momentum would dictate, it appears to disintegrate into vast clouds of dust. The size of the dust particles, and the quantity of dust from both of the collapsing towers, have been analyzed and shown to be consistent with at least ten times the amount of energy potentially stored in those two collapsing, burning buildings had gravity been the cause of their collapse.
8. There are squibs, puffs of dust and debris, including pieces of steel of varying sizes, readily visible on the video footage, in addition to bright flashes consistent with detonations, being ejected from the sides of the buildings as they are collapsing below the levels of the fire. This is further evidence of severed steel, the only explanation for which is the use of explosives.
According to the government explanation, the airplane that struck the Pentagon was flown by a terrorist named Hani Hanjour. In addition to the fact that his flight instructors considered him incompetent and barely able to fly a Cessna, abundant extremely puzzling questions arise in consideration of the attack on the Pentagon. Consider the following:
1. As the air traffic controllers were watching the aircraft that approached the Pentagon, some commented that its maneuver suggested a military plane. The radar tracking devices showed an aircraft diving from 7000 feet while turning 270 degrees. This path enabled it to hit that part of the Pentagon that had recently been reinforced and which was least inhabited insuring that the smallest loss of military life would be sustained. This change in course also insured that the office of the Secretary of Defense would be spared. The aircraft hit the building, not in its top which would have provided the largest possible target as well as the greatest devastation, but while flying parallel to the ground, without disturbing even a single blade of grass.
2. There was no black box from Flight 77 found in the wreckage. A circular piece of engine was found inside of the Pentagon, whose dimensions, though possibly consistent with a Boeing 757, appear similar to a part of an A3 Sky Warrior jet fighter plane capable of firing missiles. Precision with regard to this question is not possible as the Pentagon has not made the evidence available to the public or its representatives. Further, videotapes of the crash taken from cameras around the area were seized by the FBI shortly after the event but have not been released to the public. The government is therefore in a position to end all inquiry with regard to what hit the Pentagon and how, but refuses to do so.
3. Photographs, taken shortly after the crash, show a hole in the outside wall of the building which some have argued is consistent with a Boeing 757, but no identifiable part of an airliner, as one routinely associates with plane crashes, can be seen. Tests performed at Sandia Laboratory suggest that jetfighters flown into reinforced walls can indeed turn into confetti, leaving behind nothing of any substantial size. Analyses of the damage done to the Pentagon raise questions with regard to the ability of a Boeing 757 to (a) turn into confetti as whatever hit the building surely did, and (b) at the same time leave the path found inside the structure including the hole breached in the farthest wall.
4. There are witnesses who heard the crash, but none refers to the loud noise of a 757 flying overhead at the height of a telephone pole.
5. Witnesses inside of the Pentagon, with many years of experience, said they smelled cordite at the time of impact and felt shock waves consistent with explosives at the same time.
6. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who was in the White House with Vice President Cheney in the moments leading up to the crash at the Pentagon provides a most puzzling account of the attack on the Pentagon. Mineta testified that Cheney was told of the flight path of the plane that ultimately hit the Pentagon, and was informed of its progress every ten miles or so. When the plane was ten miles away from the Pentagon, the young man who had been informing Cheney of the airplane’s progress, asked if the orders still stood. Cheney, according to Mineta, turned abruptly to the inquirer and replied, "Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Mineta assumed that the airplane was to be shot down, and was surprised that it hit the Pentagon shortly thereafter. Mineta’s assumption was that the intercept had failed. During his testimony at the 9/11 Commission hearing, Mineta was not questioned further. Left unexplored was the possibility that the "orders" were to leave the plane unmolested. In addition, no questions were asked about why the Pentagon’s ground defenses were not employed to prevent the attack. It remains one of the single most provocative questions surrounding the attacks of 9/11: how was the headquarters of the greatest military establishment in the history of mankind left undefended?
There is an enormous amount of additional circumstantial evidence that is consistent with the theory that the highest levels of government were responsible for what took place on September 11, 2001. To make brief reference, the official story includes multiple acts of incomprehensible and unusual negligence all serving the same function, to allow the attacks to be successful. At some point, an observer must conclude that such coincidental negligence in fact isn’t. I have reached that point based upon the extensive reading that I have done, but I rely primarily for my conclusion on the laws of physics and the extent to which the official explanation transgresses them. Therefore, I will not seek to bolster what I consider to be an undeniable case with what various observers may see in different ways. If what is set out above is insufficient evidence for one reader or another, it is probably because of the existence of a belief system which does not allow for the idea that the leaders of this country are capable of the conduct of which I accuse them.
Other individuals, who may profess an open mind concerning these questions, may be unable to accept what an analysis of the physical evidence demands because of a need to avoid the conclusion that it is a tyranny under which we live, and there is nothing that can be done to change that fact. It is to these people, most especially, that I seek to offer hope. Once we grasp the nature of our condition, but at the same time recognize that there is action that can be taken to improve it, the veil can be lifted from our eyes, and the overwhelming and disheartening truth can be seen. It is my opinion that we do indeed live in a time of tyranny, where the most powerful nation in the world has relinquished its hold on republican government. The forces in power rule with complete control over virtually every aspect of our existence. It has now become time for the citizens of this country to treat their predicament as other patriots at other times, in this and other countries treated theirs, with courage and complete and undeniable determination. If we as a people must stand before the tanks, it is our children who will reap the benefits and our memory that will provide strength for whatever struggles they may encounter. I do not seek martyrdom or anything like it. It is my belief that once our unity has been demonstrated, the democratic processes which have served us for so long will reassert themselves, and those in power now will be cast out, we a better and stronger nation for it..