Browse by Category
Graphic image for 9/11 foreknowledge
Graphic: unanswered questions
Graphic of paper shredder- destruction of evidence
Graphic: conflict of interest
Cui bono graphic
Alleged Hijacker graphic
9/11 Commission Shield

A Trial Lawyer’s Perspective on 9/11 Truth

CleanPrintBtn gray smallPdfBtn gray smallEmailBtn gray small

by William Veale

As a relative late-comer to this cause, it is with caution that I wade into these turbulent waters. It is apparent, however, that a certain disunity threatens to destroy the amazing work that so many have done with so little for such enormous good. I set out my understanding briefly. It appears that at least two camps have taken up positions on the battlefield. One argues that no airplanes hit the World Trade Center; the other disagrees and is circumspect about the precise nature of the crash at the Pentagon.

I call upon my background, thirty-one years as a trial lawyer and public defender, to make some observations. My expertise is relevant because this is a struggle about evidence and proof and its presentation. Ultimately, it will be necessary for the 911 Truth movement to prove that the government was complicit in the attacks. If that is accomplished, a feat of inestimable magnitude will have been achieved. A new understanding of our history will have clawed its way into the American consciousness, and, in my opinion, all kinds of much needed reforms, having to do with the structures of what remains of this democracy, will have demanded our collective attention.

When a lawyer sets about to prove a case in court, he or she must be critically aware of any deficiency in any piece of evidence. There is always an opponent in a courtroom. The job of that opponent will be to find whatever weakness exists, magnify it beyond its due, and then smear its proponents with its flaws. That smearing, even if only marginally successful, will have a devastating effect on every other piece of evidence that is put forward to prove the case. The proponent of evidence must never be in the position of having to back away from a thesis, nor of having to apologize for demonstrable weakness no matter how unnecessary that particular piece of evidence is to the ultimate conclusion.

The evidence in this case as I have learned it is overwhelming. Conscious Americans must live their lives knowing that elements of their own government killed thousands of their own fellow citizens with as much malice as it is possible to imagine. For simplicity’s sake I rely on a relatively few broad categories of evidence to make that assertion.

1. The apparatus of protection that is our armed forces failed to act as its elements are trained to, at so many times and in so many ways, that innocent incompetence is an unreasonable explanation.

2. The World Trade Center towers and WTC 7 were destroyed as a result of controlled demolition.

3. The crash at the Pentagon, whether it involved Flight 77 or not, took place in such a way, and left such evidence behind, that it is impossible to conclude that the government was not an active participant.

4. The mass of circumstantial evidence as history, set out in Ahmed’s /War On Freedom/ as well as Ruppert’s /Crossing the Rubicon, /and Lance’s /Cover-up, /and many others, demands the conclusion that the United States government has operated with an agenda that is completely consistent with the commission of the crimes of 9/11 and inconsistent with any other reasonable innocent interpretation.

5. The cover-up and the withholding of evidence cannot be explained by anything other than guilt.

The facts which prove the assertions set out above are more than sufficient to establish government complicity. In my opinion it is not necessary to attempt to prove the precise mechanisms in each instance where there are choices. Any effort to prove any mechanism must approach the certitude with which the overall conclusion is held.

The idea that no airplanes hit the World Trade Center towers is completely unnecessary to the underlying ultimate conclusion. There is no reasonable explanation for the buildings’ collapse that does not involve high-level government complicity. If the mechanism of destruction turns out to have been more exotic and more depraved than some of our suspicious minds can conjure, it will likely be of very little use at the time sentence is pronounced. On the other hand, the words “crazy”, “conspiracy theorist,” and “buff” are already more baggage than any of us needs to carry as we attempt this monumental ascent. It will be to the movement’s eternal credit that it refrained from efforts to prove a more strenuously imaginative theory, if that is the chosen path. At the same time, it will exhibit a profound allegiance to reason and obedience to the strictures of evidence, and these are the ultimate sources of whatever power this convergence of aroused citizens is now able to claim.

END
William Veale’s blog can be found here: vealetruth.com.