Dam Breaks, ABC News Covers Willie Nelson 9/11 Story

Dam Breaks, ABC News Covers Willie Nelson 9/11 Story
May force other mainstream outlets to pick up icon's comments

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 5th, 2008

The dam has broken on mainstream media coverage of Willie Nelson's comments yesterday about the implosion of the WTC twin towers with ABC News picking up the story on their front page this afternoon.

AOL News have also now reported on the story.

The link leads to an embedded video clip which includes Nelson's comments about how he doubts the official 9/11 story during yesterday's Alex Jones Show. Conforming to the usual standards of establishment media, ABC don't even provide the source of where Nelson made his comments.

The story briefly appeared on the Drudge Report yesterday before it was pulled but the blogosphere is raging with discussion about Nelson's take on the terror attacks.

ABC News' decision to give the issue attention will probably force other mainstream outlets to follow suit.

YouTube: the Willie Nelson Interview

YouTube: the Willie Nelson Interview

February 6, 2008


9/11 Truth to ABC News By Cheri Roberts-Piper

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_cheri_ro_080205_9_2f11_truth_to_...
February 7, 2008

By Cheri Roberts-Piper

MTR News

Miracle of miracles 9/11 Truth and the controlled demolition theory made it to the mainstream via the ABC News website thanks to Wille Nelson.

Thank you Willie!

With this opportunity wide open now is the time to bombard ABC News to not only bring Willie back, but to bring him to the news desk. Contact ABC News today. Copy/Paste the following or write your own:
ABC News,

I am very happy to have come across the Willie Nelson/911 interview on your website. Sept. 11th, 2001 was an American tragedy and America deserves real answers from real news sources to the many valid questions that are surfacing about what really happened that day.

Please bring Willie back to ABC along with a panel of the current researches looking into the controlled demolition theory of all three WTC Towers: Dr Stephen Jones & Richard Gage-AIA. It would also be beneficial to your story to include Ray McGovern along with David Ray Griffin in this panel.

I applaud ABC for taking some initiative in this urgent matter. False flag operations are not theories and they are certainly nothing new.

REF URL: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4244526

send to:
Show Comments

Authors Website: http://www.mtrnews.com/

Authors Bio: C Piper, Aka Cheri Roberts, lil…is a longtime activist and writer who has worked in mixed media for 15 yrs. With 911 Truth as her primary focus, she participates in and organizes for events both locally and nationally always striving to get people out of their chairs and in the streets. She believes the biggest strength of the 911 Truth movement is the one strength they have yet to embrace, unity.

a subtle two-edged sword Psy-Op?

What appear to be clumbsy attempts at dismissing and cover up, may represent fearsome Psy-Ops that terrorizes an individual's subconscious. The average pedestrian observer goes, "gee, Willie Nelson actually believes the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition?" The thought is simply planted.

It serves a mesage to the citzenry? The government wants you to suspect they are capable of acts of aggression against you! They want to serve notice you should fear them! You can just hear Rumsfeld, at the time, going, "what are you going to do about it?" We're not going to have a commission until we're forced to send the message to everyone we don't care what you think!

In my estimation, the glaring holes in the OCT, e.g., the hole in the Pentagon a few pieces of metal sprinkled about, also, the inexplicable absence of a fighter jet response the morning of 9/11, serve to raise the element of terror into the emotional life of the population! A question has been planted?

Who are the terrorists? Willie Nelson's interview just serves to remind us!

...don't believe them!

Sue them !

I suggest that Alex Jones has his lawyer write a DMCA-notice to ABC .
Clearly, they are stealing Alex's "intellectual property" and misrepresenting it as their own by not stating him as source .
"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

What? ABC runs GCN silly Peter

GCN Network 3 programming is on Starguide III

* Starguide III – GE-8, Transponder 23, Provider: ABC NY, Channel ID: WWEI/GCN (right channel)

What ever happened to this place?


That's just the satelite, SILLY DHS .

Could you please point me to some documentation for that claim ?
better than something like this : http://www.spirituallysmart.com/Jones-CIA.htm

So far my research indicates that GCN is owned by Midas Resources Inc. (Ted Anderson) ,
a company that trades in coins and precious metals .. and that does sound some alarms in the back of my head ..
"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

Show "I thought the Dam broke Dec" by DHS

Has AJ...

Covered the "Jersey Girls" statement anywhere?

Who Is? Archives


This may not be the dam break we all pray for, but there are two very important breaks here:

1. Several MSM outlets have reported on this story, putting the idea of controlled demolition into the collective unconscious of millions, and demonstrating that the media will report such statements from celebrities, and

2. The speaker is Willie Nelson, whose statements will reach many of his fans who haven't given this matter a moment's thought, and some of them will look further.

I'm sure you will agree that we in the Truth Movement need every break we can get, and even though the dam has not collapsed, there are a few more chinks in the dyke....and they're apperaing faster than the MSM can stick their fingers in to plug them up.

Show "This isn't the TRUTH" by DHS

Please help me understand

The great majority of people died in the buildings, and many more were injured by the destruction of the buildings.

The simple fact is that those buildings were not destroyed by planes, but by other means.

Do the victim's families not want that to be the focus of the investigation? I don't understand that.

Obviously the media doesn't want to mention the victims because they want to be able to attack us as dishonoring the victims and their families.

It is not a simple fact. You

It is not a simple fact.

You don't know what a 400MPH 300,000LB bomb (which is essentially what it was) will do a building.

I'm on the fence about CD, so I would not promote it as my #1.

You wrote
"Obviously the media doesn't want to mention the victims because they want to be able to attack us as dishonoring the victims and their families."


So why don't we stick it to them! Every chance we get we should be promoting the plight of these individuals as our PURPOSE. It makes us look far more compassionate and far less 'kooky' than shouting that Bush knocked down the towers.


Of course we know

"You don't know what a 400MPH 300,000LB bomb (which is essentially what it was) will do a building."

Yes I do. It would not bring a building as strong as WTC 1 and 2 down in the way observed.

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Even if a progressive collapse was initiated, it would not have proceeded as observed.

I applaud the Jersey Girls for speaking out, and you for supporting them.

I've supported them in the past, and continue to believe they warrant much more coverage:


But their view of what happened is not definitive. This crime has affected us all and resulted in many deaths since 9/11. Our understanding of what happened has evolved and it does not appear that most of the outspoken family members understand that.

You mention Silverstein and Zakheim. I agree that we should not speculate about who was responsible, and focus on the physical evidence not accounted for. I don't understand the reference to "holograms." Even the subset of people that question the plane impacts don't allege this, and most people here do not question the plane impacts. If you consider that disinfo, then you shouldn't allow disinfo to win by shutting off a key area of inquiry, the so-called "collapses" of the buildings that is what killed most of the people.

For what it's worth, I'm not downrating your comments. I disagree with you in part but don't have a problem with your argument, except for the gratuitous reference to holograms.

I do.

It makes a hole. That's about it. The structure can withstand _repeated_ jet impacts. You could ram jets into that building all day long. The core structure would remain. You could cut the outside of the building _all_ the way around. It would remain standing. You could pick the top 20 floors up with a space crane and drop it 100ft onto the remaining structure... the building _WOULD NOT_ explode top down outside it's own footprint at a significant fraction of free fall. The top piece would most likely roll off one side or come to a standstill. The building would remain standing.

The PSYOP (911 was a PSYOP above all else) is _built_ on the demolition of those towers.

And NO. Jumbo jets are not bombs. They can not produce any significant overpressure (which is what makes bombs so useful). Ya it was a big fireball, but that does (literally) nothing to the load bearing elements.

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers. Any skyscraper.

Would one plane block people from getting down (and up)?

Thank you for a very interesting post. I didn't know about the overpressure concept.

I'm wondering if you think there is anything to this argument:



Professor Grabbe's letter states "There was never any issue of the energy and momentum the plane impacts had on the towers."

Professor Grabbe is of course correct that NIST has disingenuously responded to questions about conservation of momentum and energy in the supposed "progressive collapses" by saying that energy and momentum were conserved in their aircraft impact analyses, but it is not true that these impact analyses have not been questioned, nor that it is proper not to question them.

The crash physics should be questioned because they relate to how people died. This is a bit contradictory to my prior argument of focusing only on the "collapses" because that's what killed most of the people. In fact, most of the people were killed, it is said, because the planes either killed them directly or prevented them from escaping from floors above the impact zones. It is the claim that stairwells were blocked that interests me the most. Is it really possible that stairwells on the opposite side of the building would have been rendered impassable, completely in the North Tower and sufficiently in the South Tower

This is new to me - an impact analysis expert has been asking NIST to disclose its data.


I've long been frustrated by the reluctance of scientists, engineers, and architects in this movement to question the aircraft impact scenarios used by NIST. This reluctance may be because they don't want to lend support to controversial theories about the planes, but this is a huge mistake in my opinion.

First, I think we can all agree that aircraft impact analyses relate to the question of how many columns would be severed, how much fireproofing would be stripped, and how much fuel would be deposited inside the buildings. Thus, the crash physics are a core premise of NIST's findings.

Anonymous's recent letter to Journal of 9/11 Studies raises questions about the amount of fuel in the planes assumed in NIST's impact scenarios, which is an important element of kinetic energy models.
Anonymous' letter at page 2 shows that NIST assumed Flight 11 had 36% capacity and Flight 11 had 31% capacity, rather than 50% capacity as assumed in the study published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics by Karim and Hoo Fatt of the University of Akron. [Mistake. Actually, they assumed full fuel, and found that over 65% the difference was negligible.]


But there is another issue that I think may have been overlooked---why so many people died in and above the impact zones, either at time of impact or because they were unable to escape.

NIST NCSTAR 1-7 discusses this issue:


NCSTAR 7 at page 106 (144 of 298), NIST says that the majority of the 18 people who survived despite being at or above the impact zone in the South Tower were in the Sky Lobby on Floor 78, and that although the stairwell on the side of the building opposite the impact remained passable, it was severely damaged.

NCSTAR 1-7 at 120 (158 of 298) says that over 1,300 people died at or above the impact zones in WTC1, and over 600 people died at or above the died at or above the impact zones in WTC2.

According to the New York Times, roughly 800 people in WTC 1 and 300 people in WTC2 survived the crashes and lived until the collapses.


These people are believed to have died in large part because they could not get down through the impact zones because stairwells were blocked. Reading 9/11 Commission Report Chapter 9, damage to elevators from the impacts also is said to have prevented firefighters from getting up to the impact zones where they might have put out the fires and allowed people to get down to safety, and damage to the security system is said to have kept doors to the roof locked. All this is said to have occurred from the
plane impacts.

The New York Times said in the above article:

" With most elevators ruined, firefighters were toting heavy gear up stairwells against a tide of evacuees. An hour after the plane crash, they would still be 50 floors below Windows."

That's a question for me -- would the plane impacts have really destroyed most elevators, especially those that went from the ground to the 44th Floor in the South Tower and North Tower, and even those that went to the 78th Floor, given that the plane impact was at the 95th Floor. Would shock and fireballs have destroyed all the elevators? This is just a question -- I have no idea. But that is an issue of crash physics.

NIST says that reports of blocked stairwells in Newsweek is an observable that matches their impact scenarios.

The New York Times also says in the above article that many people on Floor 78 were killed by a wingtip.
It doesn't appear that NIST supported this finding, and I could see that a the major impact on Floor 81 could result in an explosion killing people on Floor 78. Still, the question remains whether it would have.
Why did these people die?

All this is capable of interrogation by experts, and I hope they will take a look at this, just to confirm that hundreds of people above the impact zones were trapped there only because of planes.

And as stated above, even without this issue, the crash physics remain the core premise of NIST's explanation of how "progressive collapse" began, and should be questioned for that reason alone.

You mean all this time

You mean all this time architect Richard Gage was wrong? You are being silly. I would rather trust Richard Gage, my eyes, and my own understanding of newtonian physics.

WTC 9-11-2001 was a Neocon-Zionist conspiracy,
but Jews DID NOT do 9-11 -
The WTC was destroyed by controlled demo-


Sorry friend, but you are sadly mistaken.

Controlled demolition is at the center of the truth movement,as it is one of the most glaring examples of the OCT lies.

Make no mistake, I applaud you for being for accountability and justice for the families, but I certainly hope you are not suggesting that I and all others in the movement are not.

.Of course, each individual must decide for themselves what they believe, and it sounds as though your brain has snapped shut on the majority of facts and figures which have given millions of critical thinkers pause.

And as far as Willie Nelson goes, I'll tell you what sounds best to me: Mr. Nelson speaking the truth as he sees it, straight from his experience and his heart.

And finally, no I have never thought about why the MSM gladly promotes CD information....BECAUSE THEY DON'T. If you have any examples of that, please post them here. I and others would be greatly interested.

I really do wish you great success in helping the families of 9/11 victims, but to my eyes, you're just standing on the bank with your toe in the water.

I"ll see you when you decide to really get wet.

Willie Nelson said what he thinks happened

I agree with him. If he thought there should be a new investigation and said the families support that, it would have been news and reported because he is a famous person. So I don't accept DHS' suggestion that the only reason it is reported is because he mentioned controlled demolition, and that his statement would not have been reported if he had said support the families' call for a new investigation about what the Bush Administration knew about al-Qaida, which I consider misleading, and ultimately irrelevant to what killed most of the people - the demolition of the buildings.


And as a postscript, let me say that after the call for a new investigationon on behalf of the families is made, there is one inevitable question...."Why should we investigate it? We've already done that".

And that is when the bulk of everything this movement is about comes into play. There has to be a reason to call for a real commission.

I think that is also where

I think that is also where research by truthers on who the culprits are will be important. We can follow a new investigation and determine it's sincerity if it would properly question Lawrence Silverstein, Frank Lowy, Lewis Eisenberg, and other figures that we already know could have played a part in the 9-11 attacks. If they wheel in Osama Bin Laden in shackles, we would know right away that the investigation is another scam.

WTC 9-11-2001 was a Neocon-Zionist conspiracy,
but Jews DID NOT do 9-11 -
The WTC was destroyed by controlled demo-

This is good!

It may be a bit premature to talk about a dam breaking, though.

I think it is above all videos like the following that help in "breaking the dam". Well over 200,000 viewers have watched this:


Commenting helps increase the popularity of YouTube videos, so please use a minute to contribute.

as directed...commented on video link....

I did as you directed, VESA! I'm glad that this is getting around the world! I hope, it does some good?

...don't believe them!

Thanks for your comments!

I'll be away for a few days, so I hope you guys check in once in a while to keep the shills under control. They don't seem to be giving up...