Ducking the Question of the Passengers
Notice the artful dodging by Fetzer in this segment of the Colmes show. It's clear that Fetzer wants to talk about anything but the passengers and so he continually tries to steer the argument towards other topics (begins at about 8:55):
Colmes: But we know there were actual passengers on those planes who died.
Fetzer: Alan, what do you know about it? You weren’t there, you have no idea about those planes.
Colmes: Are you saying there were not passengers on those planes?
Fetzer: None of those hijackers were named on any passenger manifest. None of them was the subject of any autopsy. Five, six or seven have turned up alive and well, living in the Middle East.
Colmes: Now you’re talking about the hijackers, but the passengers there were actual passengers on those planes, right?
Fetzer: Well, there were passengers somewhere, but whether there were actual passengers on the planes as they were impacting the building is an interesting question. Everything was pulverized, Alan. All the concrete on the office floors was pulverized, all the office furniture was pulverized,
Colmes: No, but there were passenger records of people on those flights.
Fetzer: And they don’t include any hijackers, Alan.
Colmes: But they were real airplanes with real passengers on them.
Fetzer: Yeah there were real airplanes, but let me tell you something, if you look at the NTSB’s raw data, for these aircraft, which I observed on a spreadsheet this weekend, Dylan Avery who made Loose Change showed me a spreadsheet. You go for those four planes and you cross on the data and it’s all blank—it’s all blank Alan. Now, the NTSB had a formal obligation to investigate those crashes and it hasn’t done so. Why do you think it hasn’t done so, Alan?
Colmes: I don’t know the answer to that question, but what I’m trying to—my job is to give the questions, you’re going to answer them—but my point is that there were civilians, Americans who were on those flights, right?
Fetzer: Well, there were some, but the whole business about how many were paid and that whole sort of thing or compensation—
Colmes: What do you mean, paid?
Fetzer: Alan it’s very spotty.
Later, they get back into it:
Colmes: Are you saying that the other people on all the other planes—
Fetzer: No, no, I’m not saying that. Obviously there were bodies around; there don’t seem to be enough bodies to make up what was a full complement. You know, each of those planes, Alan, was curiously about one quarter full—you actually could have put all those people together on any one of those airliners.
I suspect that last claim is untrue as well.
Now, is that nutty or what? There were bodies around but not enough of them, so maybe they put all of the passengers on one of the planes? Wouldn't there then be even fewer bodies?
As for his claim that "none of those hijackers were named on any passenger manifest", one of the JREFers pointed us to this.
Listening to Fetzer, I get the feeling that I'm tuning in the Phil Hendrie show. Hendrie's schtick is that he disguises his voice and pretends to be someone with a wacky opinion on something. He then interviews himself, switching voices back and forth. It's mildly entertaining for about 10 minutes, but of course it's so over the top that you have to marvel when some of the callers to the show don't seem to understand that it's all a gag.