Baltimore-born and raised with the most normal of childhoods. I graduated from a college in Western NY state, and began to understand, during my time there, that I don't like snow showers in April, or to feel my ears burn in January as soon as my hat comes off.
I lived in Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and want to go back ASAP. The second segment of Zeitgeist is a step by step refutation of each of the three attacks: The Pentagon, the flight that crashed in central Pennsylvania, and the attacks in New York.The implication of the examination is that the attack in Washington and the crash in Pennsylvania, is that they did not really happen.In New York, the film proposes that the buildings were brought down intentionally, with explosives, and that this is the only explanation that fits.This section got me, and made me start to really perk up and begin to ask myself what I believed.
The second section opens with an examination of the improbabilities (or impossibilities?) of the attacks being successfully carried out by the accused. Testimony by the flight instructor of the pilot indicated in the attack on the Pentagon is not encouraging. The instructor says that the accused, '...could not fly at all...' and expresses shock that he was able to execute the apparently difficult maneuvers required to crash into the Pentagon. I have to admit that by this point in the game, I was less of a skeptic, and more of an interested viewer.
Problems with the Pentagon attack abound, and are significant enough to make even the most skeptical take a second look. The explanation for the lack of crash materials is the the ignited jet fuel vapourised the entire aircraft (twelve tons). However, positive identification of the passengers, based on fingerprints, was possible.This begs the question, asked by the author of 'The New Pearl Harbor': What kind of fire can vapourise aluminum and tempered steel, and yet, leave human bodies intact?
No footage of the attack on the Pentagon is available to the public.Security footage from surrounding buildings was immediately confiscated.That fact doesn't seem to have much weight. The huge hole in this setup is that the film does not investigate what exactly was on the footage.
A quote is flashed onto the screen from a Citgo employee who claims he never saw the tape because FBI agents confiscated it before he had a chance to watch it. However, on the next screen is this quote: 'Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated [it]. 'This quote is odd in two ways.First, why is the 'it' in brackets? Maybe I'm way off, but I can't understand what could have originally been there that would need to be replaced by 'it.' The second, and far more serious problem, is that the film never examines what was seen by those employees. Certainly that eye witness account could prove extremely crucial to the argument presented by the creators?
Next, the crash in central PA is examined. The footage of the crash site in PA is shown up against crash sites of other commercial airliners, and the differences are startling. There is a noticeable absence of gnarled steel, or charred plastics, of seats and cushions, of doors, of engines.Basically, the site looks like there was nothing that crashed there.
After watching the footage, with the narration, and being highly uneducated in building demolition, and the structural qualities of sky scrapers, I came to the following conclusion: The buildings in NY, the three World Trade Center facilities, fell in a manner inconsistent with what was supposed to have happened.The molten steel that was reported, was also telling.
Given the footage, and the logical and reasonable explanations of what went on, the theorists finally gained the air of legitimacy in my mind that conspiracy theorists the world over long for.I'm not saying that I believe everything in the film, or that I necessarily believe in their conclusions, but I do now believe that something odd happened, that something is not right with the explanations we have been given for that day.