9-11 Review
articles critiques
9-11 Research
reviews essays
9-11 Review
sections
Attack & Cover-Up
Means & Motive
Info Warfare
contents
Info Warfare
Trojan horses
dissembling websites
hoax-promoting videos
dissembling books
legal subterfuge
parade of errors
phantom planes
Webfairy's Whatzit
pod-planes
North Tower hit
South Tower hit
bumble planes
Flight 93
fake calls
Pentagon attack
757 maneuvers
eyewitnesses
no debris
crash debris
small impact hole
missing wings
turbofans 101
standing columns
punchout
obstacles
small plane
Boeing 737
Flyover
WTC demolition
seismic spikes
pre-impact explosions
collapse times
diminishing fires
Building 6 explosion
basement bombs
spire to dust
WTC 2 powerdown
mini nukes
pull it
vast conspiracy
divide and conquer
left gatekeepers
Holocaust denial
the Big Tent
intimidation
propaganda
hit parade
conspiracy theory
Denmark
shell game

ERROR: 'Webfairy's Whatzit'

There is only one known video or photographic record of the collision of the first plane with the North Tower on 9/11/01 -- the "Fireman's Video" shot by one of the Naudet brothers. In this recording the plane only registers about one hundred pixels in a frame, far too little resolution to draw any conclusions about the plane other than its approximate size and shape.

Certain people have insisted that the jumble of pixels in the Fireman's Video cannot be a 767. The most vocal proponent of this conclusion is an internet persona calling herself Webfairy, apparently one of 911review.org's image and video analysis experts . She calls the object a Whatzit, saying that it is obviously not an airplane.

Eric Salter, a professional video editor for 11 years, exposes the baselessness of this assertion in the first article to thoroughly address this idea promoted by Webfairy, Gerard Holmgren, and others.

e x c e r p t
title: The WTC Impacts: 767s or 'Whatzits'?
authors: Eric Salter

...

There is, however, a particular hypothesis regarding the physical evidence that cries out for critical skepticism: the idea that no 767s hit the World Trade Center.

This argument has a singularly obvious hurdle to cross: We have many pieces of hard evidence-video recordings and photographs-that clearly show a 767 crashing into the south tower of the WTC on September 11th. We also have a video recording of the first impact on the North tower, but plane in the image is not identifiable as a 767 because of it's small size in the frame. In contrast, there is no hard evidence, such as a video, photo or small plane debris, that establishes the presence of a small plane or any other object besides a 767 hitting the WTC. The proponents of the no-767 get around this by claiming that the planes in the videos we have were superimposed in real-time by the television networks using advanced graphics technology, and they proceed to identify a number of anomalies in the videos and in the physics of the impacts which they claim indicate that the 767 was not actually there. Their case is supplemented by analysis of witness testimony and some other circumstantial evidence.

...

Holmgren and Webfairy base their analysis on the fact that a 767 is not visible in the 1st strike mpeg, and therefore was not there in real life. Of course it's not visible-the reduction in resolution removed half the visual data, and compression artifacts distort the shape of the plane. Holmgren and Webfairy show a profound lack of knowledge of digital imagery by failing to consider that this movie was a highly compromised version of the original footage. And in so doing, they also show a lack of respect for their colleagues in the 9/11 Truth Movement by engaging in tenuous, risky speculation in areas where they lack the necessary expertise and discipline.


page last modified: 2005-12-14
Copyright 2004 - 2011,911Review.com / revision 1.08 site last modified: 12/21/2012
Webfairy insists this blur of pixels is not a 767.