FETZER: Bill, you're obviously not going to give me a chance to talk about any of these things, so...
O'REILLY: No, I'm not, because you're a nut.
Yes, rather than take on the evidence piece by piece, O'Reilly has this gentleman on, proceeds to say things like:
why don't you just say that you have a Martian living in your bedroom, sir?
and of course, the favorite stand-by of all real truth seekers out there:
You hate your country.
Yes, rather than look at or discuss any evidence Jim fetzer might put forth, O'Reilly had this man on to belittle him. That's good objective journalism.
So Mr. Fetzer was n't able to present evidence such as this:
This picture is evidence that thermite was used to bring the towers down. It's about the only evidence left, as the remains of the building were shipped off and destroyed before investigators could get a look at them. Now, if there were witnesses reports of explosions in the WTC before the towers fell, and we have photographic evidence that thermite, an explosive used by demolition companies to cut main support beams, was present at the WTC, I think that makes a strong case that something other than two planes crashing into the towers brought them down.
And since the charges would have had to been planted sooner (such as in the weekend before, when there were intermittent power outages in the WTC), that implies that someone was aware that the WTC was being targeted by alleged terrorists. I say alleged because at least six men on the FBI's list were found to be alive and innocent two weeks after the attacks occurred.
Now, for all these facts to come to light, there would have to have been a rigorous investigation. But after resisting for years to conduct a formal investigation, the Bush administartion finally set-up the 9/11 Commission. There were told what they could look at, essentially, intelligence failures, and then limited the amount of time and the budget for the commission. And if that wasn't enough, when called before the commision themselves, Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath (Hello? Wasn't perjury what led to Bill Clinton's impeachment? Why give your poltical enemies that weapon to use against you?) So even thought there was eyewitness and photographic and even video evidence that thermite was used in the WTC, there was no follow-up investigation whatsoever. Why not? Who could have ordered any investigation not to take place?
Bill O'Reilly then finishes up his hit piece by concluding:
If you had the evidence, sir, you would be on the front page of The New York Times in a heartbeat.
Well, Mr. Embodiment-Of-Fair-Balanced-And Responsible-Journalism, if you won't let Mr. Fetzer present his case, why should the New York Times?