Disinformation
By Proxy & Other Misdemeanours
Holmgren and Webfairy “Toilet Paper” 911 TV Fakery
Introduction
This critique is based on Gerard
Holmgren’s “Analysis Of Hip Hop
Plane” dated 2nd
October 2006 with video
extracts provided by the Webfairy.
Back
To Front
Holmgren
begins his “Analysis Of Hip Hop
Plane”
article
with the following conclusion:
“The video has
been broken into frames, and the quickest and easiest way to see how fake this
video is…”
One would
imagine that an investigative article would start with something along the lines
of (1) a brief précis, (2) the presentation of information, (3) an
interpretation or analysis of that information and finally (4) a conclusion
drawn from the information analysed.
For some
reason Holmgren has decided to waive this process in favour of a more
unconvincing methodology that involves starting with the conclusion and working
backwards. The act of annexing himself from any logical methodology doesn’t
credit Holmgren and probably wouldn’t instil any confidence in the reader
either.
Avoiding “Any
Deep Analysis”
We are then
guided to poor quality captures from the “Park Foreman” WTC2 strike video
provided by Webfairy and told that…
“If you have
your eyes and brain connected, it will be obvious without any deep analysis that
this video—purported to be real footage of a real plane hitting the WTC and
aired as such on CNN—is a pathetic fake. “
So “any deep analysis” is obviously out. I
wonder what “any deep analysis” was
and what it would have involved. Why did Holmgren chose to abandon “any deep analysis” and how did he get
to the “fake” conclusion so quickly
without any evidence?
Holmgren
confuses the reader in the next paragraph (excerpt below) with terms like 78,
disturbance, 85, noses, 2/3, spots, 1/3, building, 84, signs, wings and lots
of other stuff which would be rather good if we actually knew what it meant.
“You’ll also see that at frame 79 the
nose is just making contact with the building. In frame 80, it’s in exactly the
same spot. In frame 81, it’s about 1/3 of the way into the building—with no sign
of any disturbance to either plane or building, and in frame 82 it’s still in
exactly the same spot. In frame 83, it’s about 2/3 the way in, still with no
disturbance of any kind to plane or building, even though the wings are now
completely “inside” the building…”
Perhaps if
Holmgren had chosen to utilise “any deep analysis” the reader might not have been
subject to this meaningless cocktail of numerical and grammatical utterances.
Why render that which is supposedly “obvious” in such a confusing
fashion?
The Missing
Frames
The
aforementioned are small points when you consider Holmgren’s primary mistake,
that being the speed calculation of the “Hip Hop Plane” based on the video
captures supplied by Webfairy.
“Convert this
to mph. 1600 x 60 x 60 ft per hour
= 5,760,000 ft per hour = 1090 mph.”
It should be
obvious to Holmgren that the figure of 1090 mph cannot possibly be correct. You
only have to look at the video to see this. Why is Holmgren’s speed calculation
so inaccurate? It’s because the source material provided by Webfairy was
defective. Webfairy’s video frames are reproduced below as a
montage:
In her
version the “plane” hangs in the air
for one frame and advances in the next.
“A video of a
real plane would show the plane moving every frame…”
This
observation form Holmgren should have been the first warning that something was
wrong with the video source. It wasn’t necessarily the video captures themselves
that were the problem, more to the point, the lack of
them.
“Then there’s
the problem of how it can be doing 1090 mph in one frame and then suddenly zero
in the next frame, and then 1090 again in the next frame and then zero again and
then 1090 again…”
The reason
Holmgren made such a mess of the speed calculation was because Webfairy supplied
him with either captures from a defective video source or a sequence of captures
from a genuine source with some of the original captures missing having been
replaced with duplicates.
Chop Job
As it was
Webfairy who had procured the video captures for Holmgren’s speed analysis I
decided to quiz her by e-mail on the origins of her version of the “Park Foreman” video. Webfairy responded
promptly with the following:
“It is from what we saw RIGHT AWAY,
the first day, or maybe the second. It is what they showed us on TV THEN, not
later when they could regenerate the animation at leisure.”
(4th October 2006)
In that case where did “Frame X” (below) come from? It does not
appear in the Webfairy sequence shown previously although they appear to be from
the same source – look at the text at the bottom of the frame “TWO AIRCRAFT CARRIERS” and compare it
to the previous montage (above).
So according to Webfairy the video
frames used in the analysis were taken from North American television either on
the first showing or subsequent replays on the same day or the day
after.
In
As there is evidence that the “Park Foreman” video was recorded using
the NTSC standard then when it was broadcast using that same NTSC standard the
viewers should have essentially seen a facsimile of the original on their
television sets, that is 60 unique images shown every second.
Webfairy claims that her version of the
“Park Foreman” was taken from a North
American television transmission that should have been NTSC yet it only has 15
unique images per second. The comparison source used here was the NTSC DVD
called “In Memoriam -
I’ve illustrated this point below.
Webfairy has supplied the fields marked “77/78” and “79/80”. I’ve filled in the gaps using
“Frame X” from another source on the
web (I could have used my own DVD version here, it didn’t matter either way) and
the two remaining fields marked “Park
Foreman –
If it were the case that North American
broadcasters were showing this very strange version of the “Park Foreman” video then the situation
was even more peculiar in the Britain because at roughly the same time a 25 FPS
(“frames per second” - with 2 fields in each frame as the PAL standard
resulting in 50 unique images per second) version was being shown with no sings
of frame rate conversion.
The montage below shows captures from
the PAL transmission in question. They were sourced from a VHS recording of the
“Park Foreman” video that was
transmitted at approximately 6:00pm on the evening of September 12th 2001 in the
Quite a
difference from the Webfairy version which runs at 15 images per second
presumably with plenty of duplicates to raise the frame rate to the NTSC
standard implied.
Webfairy
continued:
“One later version, from National
Geographic's Inside 911 http://webfairy.org/inside911/jetcrash.htm features 4
unique frames and one dupe, which makes me think the footage was raised up from
PAL fps to NTSC (24 to 29.995 fps).”
(4th October 2006)
The British version does look as if it
has been originally recorded at 25 FPS because there is no visual evidence of any conversion from one
frame rate to another.
The montage
below shows one possible visual side effect of a frame rate conversion from NTSC
(30 FPS approximately) to PAL (25 FPS). In the example frame merging / blending
has been utilised to eliminate 5 frames from the original NTSC source thus
allowing smooth playback at the PAL frame rate. Comparison between field 1
(white text below) and field 4 (red text below) should make the concept of frame
merging / blending clear:
The same technique can be used to raise
frame rates from PAL to NTSC but in this case extra frames are created from the
merging / blending of 2 adjacent frames, the resultant frame inserted between
the 2 original adjacent frames to boost the frame rate. The other way to convert
frame rates is to eliminate frames (frame rate step down) or to create frames
(frame rate step up) but the problem here is that the playback is not smooth
making it apparent that such a conversion has taken place.
The PAL version of the “Park
Foreman”
detailed previously shows no obvious sign of being converted from one frame rate
to another. The playback is smooth and there are no signs of frame blending /
merging. Therefore one could assume that PAL was the format of choice for the
original “Park
Foreman” recording.
The
only problem with this assumption is that it is challenged by the existence of
any NTSC DVD version of what we are led to believe is precisely the same video.
In this case I’ve chosen the version from “In Memoriam -
Just like its PAL counterpart this DVD
NTSC “Park Foreman” version shows no
obvious signs of frame rate conversion. The playback is smooth and there’s no
evidence of any frame merging / blending.
If the Webfairy version was recorded in
PAL as she suggests then we should see some sign of frame rate conversion
equivalent to a step up from PAL to NTSC but we don’t.
Did anyone in
Which one was the original anyway? The
Webfairy version? The British PAL version? The North American NTSC version? Was
there an original as such and in what form was it recorded?
It is conceivable that Webfairy
unwittingly obtained an inferior version of the video (in whatever form) and
assumed it was suitable for Holmgren to analyse for the “Analysis Of Hip Hop Plane” article. I find this explanation unsatisfactory
as there have been plenty of good versions of the “Park Foreman” readily available since
2001 either via the Internet, video shops or mail order companies like
Amazon.com. Perhaps Webfairy does have a better version of the video but due to
her incompetence she failed to present it to Holmgren, which would be as bad as
giving him a defective version on purpose.
But the quality of some of Webfairy’s previous work makes this
explanation unlikely. The error she made seems too big to be
unintentional.
The Question
Of Speed
“The plane is
alleged to be a 767 which is about 160 ft long. A 767 has a typical cruising
speed of 530 mph at 35,000 ft….A plane which normally flies about 530 mph at
high altitude somehow doing double this at low altitude—while barging it’s way
through a building…A plane which has a normal cruising speed of 530 mph at
35,000 ft is alleged to be travelling so fast at low altitude…”
Once again Holmgren has not proved that
the video is fake. He assumes the “plane” is meant to be a Boeing 767-200
and bases his video forgery test based on that assumption. There’s no attempt to
ascertain the real length of the “plane” from the video. If the
“plane” was shorter or longer than 160 ft / 48.5 meters the speed
calculation would be different. But how do we know the video is genuine showing
a hologram of a Boeing 767-200 or a modified Boeing 767-200 designed for high
speed operation at low altitudes?
Holmgren
never tells us why the 530 mph speed at “lower altitude” (whatever height that
refers to is anyone’s guess) would be a problem for the Boeing 767-200 aircraft.
Does Holmgren assume that the reader has a sound understanding of aerodynamics
and aircraft handling?
Holmgren needs to explain why the “550 mph commercial jet at sea level
scenario” is at best, unlikely, if not totally impossible. Failure to make
this clear would render the speed calculation meaningless for anyone who did not
already know this.
I decided to calculate the speed of the
“plane” in the “Park Foreman” video using field captures from the
“In Memoriam -
1 – The recording is of a sufficient
visual quality to perform a reasonably accurate speed
analysis.
2 – The DVD version used is
representative of the original source.
3 – The original recording was made
according to the NTSC standard.
4 – The aircraft in the video is an
unmodified Boeing 767-200 at 48.50 meters in overall
length.
5 – The aircraft fuselage is horizontal
in the cameras field of view.
I’ve used the south-west corner of WTC2
as a fixed visual reference to gauge the transit of the 48.5-meter
“plane” fuselage across its vertical edge and I’ve broken down the video
into fields to obtain a timeframe for fuselage transit across that vertical
side. With these two factors known it is possible to measure how much time has
elapsed during the passing of the “plane” from nose-tip to tail-fin
section and therefore calculate the speed of the “plane” relative to the
WTC2 tower.
It took roughly 12 fields for the
48.5-meter fuselage to pass the vertical southwest corner of WTC2 (see field 0
and field 12 above). 12 fields equates to 0.2002 seconds so we can say that the
“plane” had travelled 48.5 meters in 0.2002
seconds.
Those values convert to 242 m/s or 871
km/h or 470 knots or 540 mph or
depending on your inclination.
So Holmgren’s speed calculation from
the Webfairy version turned out to be quite accurate making it the only valuable
piece of information in the paper.
It’s a shame he chose to halt the
analysis at this point leaving the reader pondering over an unexplained 3-digit
number.
The Partially Visible Non-Visible
Hole
“The impact
area is partially masked by a building in the foreground, but we can still see
enough to see that the hole which should be in the building has not
appeared.”
How is Holmgren able to see a point on
the tower that relatively speaking has such inadequate illumination that one can
barely see any detail on it’s surface? The
But the “Park Foreman” video
(above lower) has an added bonus. The impact area is partially obscured by
another building (as Holmgren points out) making it practically impossible to
see any hole the “plane” might have created had the impact area been
adequately illuminated. Additionally the video quality isn’t
brilliant and the hole would only have been a few of pixels across making visual
detection of any such hole very difficult.
It’s a bit like thinking you can
quickly escape from a dark room to another equally dark room via a small door
that is partially blocked by another object. Extremely difficult, if not impossible,
without adequate illumination of either rooms and / or the removal of the
doorway obstruction.
The only part of any hole that we’d
potentially be able to see would be the area where the right wing of the
“plane” appears to impact against WTC2’s south wall (red arrow below) and
the only evidence of this is the appearance of “dust bubbles” from the corresponding
area.
The video source used here cuts out
long before the explosion dies away thereby removing any chance to see any hole
so I’m not quite sure what Holmgren is trying to prove with the
following:
“…we can still
see enough to see that the hole which should be in the building has not
appeared…”
Suffice to say it means very little and
makes it the most irrelevant and confused part of “Analysis Of Hip Hop
Plane”.
The Christian, The Madman And The
Holmgren
“Firstly, we can see that there is no
sign of deceleration. The last third of the plane enters in the same number of
frames as the first. In a real crash of a plane into a building, assuming that
the plane did enter fully inside the building, the last section would enter more
slowly than the first. The deceleration wouldn’t be discernable at full speed,
but the whole idea of frame-by-frame replay is that it enables us to see things
like this in increments of 1/30th of a second. This is how we are able to pick
real events captured on video from animations.”
As Holmgren points out the major
oddities of the WTC2 strike videos are the way the “plane” vanishes
inside the tower with no sign of deceleration and no deformation of the airframe
during impact.
Holmgren can deliver an exceptionally
convincing argument about how it would be impossible for a commercial passenger
jet to punch a hole in, and vanish inside of, the WTC towers as we see in the
911 videos. Similarly a Christian could present an extremely convincing argument
that proves God exists and that He created the entire universe with everything
in it. No doubt a madman could develop a sound argument to prove that the moon
was made of cheese. Unfortunately for the Christian, the Madman and Holmgren
their respective arguments are arguments and nothing more.
Some readers may be already be aware of
a video (see photographs below) that shows an F4 Phantom being deliberately
rammed into a solid concrete block at about the same speed of the alleged 911 “planes”.
The airframe shows no noticeable
deceleration during the collision and is pulverised in the process. Anyone who
has seen this video might counter-argue that something similar happened to the
“planes” at the WTC on 911 with the debris passing inside the tower.
An argument is not as meaningful as a
scientific analysis no mater how convincing it is.
Plaguepuppy v The “Cat
Mincer”
Holmgren’s “Analysis Of Hip Hop Plane” article might have come closer to achieving
it’s aim had it included interviews from suitably experienced and / or
qualified engineers from the relevant disciplines. An obvious example of this would be Jeff
King (aka Plaguepuppy) who has spoken publicly about the implausibility of the
WTC “plane” impacts as we see in the videos.
Kings describes himself
as:
“…a 50-something former engineer (MIT
class of '74, about 10 years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering),
gainfully employed as a family physician for the past 25 years…”
And elsewhere:
“…after graduating from MIT in
1974 I went to med school at UVM in Vermont, then spent a year at the
Harvard School of Public Health in the Pulmonary Physiology lab doing electrical
and mechanical engineering work before deciding to do an internship and practice
clinical medicine..”
Holmgren has an article on his site
called “WTC Forensics” that deals
with the impact physics. Here’s a quote from it:
“Think of the cartoon scene, where the
cat chases the mouse through a mincer. The cat emerges from the other side still
running, not realizing that its now made of a jigsaw type shapes. It keeps
running for a while, and then with a look of resignation realizes that its been
cut up, stops and collapses into a pile of little jigsaw type
pieces.”
According to Holmgren’s website he is a
professional musician. I’m guessing that in the eyes of the reader his “cat mincer” argument would not carry as
much weight as an analysis provided by Jeff King.
Let me illustrate this point. Compare this transcript from Jeff King,
the MIT graduate with electrical and mechanical engineering work
experience…
“…what you should see is something
like a squashed flat plane with probably 2 holes where the engines have gone
thought the walls, but you should see a great deal of crumpling at the point
where the plane is actually interacting with the surface of the steel columns.
You should see the longitudinal elements of the plane buckling. You should see
the wings crumple up. You should see a great deal of material either bouncing of
the wall or essentially falling after impact…”
To this (complete with original
capitalisation and line spacing) from Gerard Holmgren, the professional
musician:
“In real life, the cat either
Gets immediately cut into pieces and
ceases all co-ordinated movement as a single object, and doesn't damage the
blades or Bursts through the mincer blades, breaking them or Mangles itself,
stopping almost immediately and also causing significant damage to the blades.
So what we asked to believe at the WTC is
a Tom and Jerry cartoon.”
Who’s description do you think the
reader would find more convincing that an aeroplane cannot pass through a steel
tower in the way the WTC2 impact videos show us. Holmgren’s “cat mincer” argument or King’s “squashed flat plane”
description?
Morgan Reynolds has adopted a similar
approach to the impact physics issue as Holmgren has with “We Have Some Holes In The Plane Stories”
but his attempt is superior in that it is far more detailed, flashes a few
numbers around to quantify things and has some good graphics to explain the
points he makes, thereby making the subject material accessible to the
reader. Had Holmgren bothered to do
some research on the web he might have come across this revealing image (below)
that gives a graphical representation of what King
describes:
The graphic shows what should have
happened to a Boeing 767 had it been flown head on into a solid object. But as
we know WTC walls were not solid, they were made from a grid of steel beams that
were designed to withstand aeroplane collisions. So even if this simulation were
accurate it would not be entirely representative of the WTC “plane”
impacts as revealed in the official version of events. But given the strength of
the WTC towers what we see here is a good visual approximation of what should in
the event subject to hardware and software limitations of modern computers and
limitations of the computer model utilised.
Holmgren chooses not to link the “Analysis Of Hip Hop Plane” article to
“We Have Some Holes In The Plane
Stories” or any of Kings material even though both are freely available on
the web and are far better than anything he has to offer.
What’s strange is that he won’t provide
a link to his own article, “WTC
Forensics”, that supposedly deals with the impact physics.
An oversight or
intentional?
Straight From The Horses
Mouth
Some time ago I found myself wanting to
make an important update the then “Ghost
Gun UA175” article. I needed to know how fast a Boeing 767-200 could
feasibly fly at sea level. I could have developed an argument for why a B767-200
couldn’t have flown at 550 mph at sea level but I’ve never flown that type of
aircraft or studied its aerodynamic properties so what would be the point? My
ramblings would be meaningless and it would have been dishonest to present them
publicly.
Fortunately I knew an experienced
airline pilot who had flown the B767-200 and B767-300 aircraft and had trained
pilots to fly them. I simply knocked on his door and asked if I could talk to
him about the performance limitations of the B767-200. He agreed and after the
interview I had enough material to update the “Ghost Gun UA175” article. I did this because I had no knowledge of
the operational limitations of the B767-200 and therefore I needed to interview
someone who did.
Similarly a 911 researcher by the name
of Dr Stefan Grossmann did the same thing while preparing the then forthcoming
article “T-911 An Insiders On
There was no reason for Holmgren not to
do the same thing for the “Analysis Of
Hip Hop Plane” article.
Perhaps informing the reader of the
implausibility of what we see in the “Park Foreman” video was not on his list
of priorities.
The Germania Explanation
Holmgren claims
that:
“The plane in this video is a crude
fake”
Most of
the WTC2 videos don’t show the approach to WTC2 they just show the impact and a
great deal of these seem to have been recorded using a video camera mounted on a
stand making it easier to add a “plane” into the
video.
Comparatively
speaking the “Park Foreman” video is
clever in the sense that it shows the approach and impact of a “plane” that
supposedly never existed while at the same time providing camera shake, motion
blur and other qualities that make the video look genuine. The “plane” as you
see it is more or less the correct size, has the correct livery, the correct
illumination and obeys the laws or perspective.
If
we are to assume that there never was a second plane then the forger who made
the “Park Foreman” would
have to have set up a camera and then mimicked the camera movements to coincide
with the movement of a non-existent plane as it flew towards lower
One
possible explanation for this effect is that the “Park Foreman” video was
recorded using multiple video cameras mounted on a platform for the purposes of
producing a large static panoramic view of
The reader
might think that this explanation is far fetched, but think again because a
similar method was being used in the film industry prior to 911.
Here is an
example of the technique taken from the bonus disc of the extended version of
Ridley Scott’s epic “Gladiator” titled
“
I’d
argue that the “Park Foreman” is one of the
better fakes at least in comparison to, say for example, the “Cheney Hit”
video or the “Jennifer Spell” video which is
full of easily detectable flaws. The claim that “The plane in this video is a crude fake”
highlights Holmgren’s poor grasp of
the subject matter and another example of his avoiding “any deep
analysis”.
approach to 911 TV Fakery.
Prognosis
Webfairy hasn’t helped Holmgren by
supplying him with a misleading video source for the “Analysis Of Hip Hop Plane” article.
Webfairy does this kind of thing with monotonous regularity, that is, using
inferior versions of a video for the purpose of analysis when there are better
versions readily available. By their very nature these lower quality videos
allow the analysis to be subjective and therefore worthless because the analyst
can essentially see what they want to see in the video.
With regards to the suspicious
procurement of the inferior video captures, I suspect that Webfairy took an
original NTSC video source
and
hacked it to pieces using a video
editing application like VirtualDub. The resulting chop job would be dished up
at a later date for the “Analysis Of Hip
Hop Plane” paper. The purpose being to make Holmgren look like an idiot. It
worked. In my view this was “disinformation by proxy”. As for the
origins of this chopped up version I could not say. Perhaps she got it from “Peter Pan” or a pixie that flew by her
window one night.
On a
positive note Holmgren did manage to get the correct speed from Webfairy’s
mangled version but sadly
this was more by chance than anything else.
For the “Park Foreman” video proof of forgery
does not lie in the understanding of what the video shows. The proof of forgery
lies in the pixels and there is plenty of evidence to support forgery using this
approach. But Holmgren skilfully misses the opportunity to imply or prove
forgery by choosing abstinence from “any
deep analysis”, producing a speed calculation without explanation or
relevance and avoiding the discussion of impact physics.
It’s hard to tell if Holmgren’s
“misdemeanours” were intentional. From past experience it has become
apparent that Holmgren has no aptitude for the visual analysis of anything. But
he could have avoided being the Patsy (or possibly the Sheila) by looking around
for other versions of the video or at least confirming that the version he was
using was representative of the original. If he had done this maybe he would
have become aware of the suspicious coexistence of what looks like unmodified
PAL and NTSC versions of the same video. Neither Holmgren nor Webfairy seem to
have noticed this, a point of which strongly indicates video forgery and the
sole purpose of the “Analysis Of Hip Hop
Plane” article.
Did Holmgren collude with Webfairy to
produce one the most underwhelming 911 to date? Is Holmgren really as dumb and
impressionable as “Analysis Of Hip Hop
Plane” makes him out to be? Or is the Holmgren / Webfairy duo just a “Laurel and Hardy” act with delusions of
grandeur?
“Analysis Of Hip Hop
Plane” is too brief
and superficial, covers old ground, is propped up by a foundation of
assumptions, is written is such a style that it belittles the reader, assumes
the reader has a good understanding of science, offers no evidence that proves
the video is fake, contains irrelevant information and is generally useless for
the purposes of what it claims to prove.
As I see it “Analysis Of Hip Hop Plane” is a joint
Holmgren / Webfairy effort to “toilet paper” 911 TV Fakery and
additionally damage the credibility of other researchers in the same
field.
Sources
Holmgren’s “Analysis Of Hip Hop Plane” can be viewed here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/hiphop.html
Webfairy’s
images can be observed here:
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/jetcrash/act_one/index.htm
The
phenomena of “Toilet Papering” can be scrutinised
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_papering
A
“Cheney
Hit”
video analysis can be seen here:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/cheney
A
“Jennifer
Spell”
video analysis can be seen here:
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/spell
According
to NIST (see screen capture below) the name of the person who made the film used
in the “Analysis Of Hip Hop
Plane” article was
Park Foreman.
Disclaimer
The
official 911 story, all names and incidents portrayed in the 911 production are
entirely fictitious, no identification with actual events, persons, places,
buildings and aeroplanes is intended or should be inferred. The names and
personalties of “Webfairy” and “Holmgren” are the intellectual property of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Any unauthorised reproduction, exhibition,
distribution or copying of the “Webfairy” and “Holmgren” personas or any part
thereof is an infringement of the relevant Federal Bureau of Investigation
copyright and will subject the infringer to severe civil and criminal penalties.
That is all.
December
2006