"9/11's most controversial image"...

specialman

specialman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,193
Name
Pat MacInnes
Edit My Images
Yes
Last edited:
Yeah read about that months ago, doesn't look too controversial to me.
 
What exactly were they supposed to be doing? It is impossible to know exactly what they were talking about so it is not fair for people to judge them based on that one photo.
 
what did you do when it happened?

I tried to get on to the BBC site but it was overloaded - I went back to work and forgot about it.
 
POAH said:
what did you do when it happened?

I tried to get on to the BBC site but it was overloaded - I went back to work and forgot about it.
Click to expand...

I watched it on tv,then after a bit I had to get back to work as well,can't remember a lot about the rest of the day :)
 
POAH said:
what did you do when it happened?
Click to expand...

We were working, heard about it, saw the pictures and then "just got on with it". An American colleague accused us of being "uncaring" and we explained that if we stopped work then the terrorists had just won. He restarted work.
 
I was driving back from a job interview and didn't hear about it until I got back home.

The next day, wifey and I were in the centre of town and the shopping centre had a 2 minute silence at 11am. Most people were sobbing.
 
POAH said:
what did you do when it happened?....
Click to expand...

Me personally? I sat watching events unfold with my boss.....

simonblue said:
Same here never understood,what all the fuss was about (re photo ).
Click to expand...

I suppose that when presented in a fashion to the type of person who feels they are affected by 9/11 (directly or indirectly), the image could be construed as showing heartless people in the middle of a tragedy giving no thought to the activity going on behind them. The sun is shining, they're relaxing by the water and in their world, all is well.

Whether that is the case or not, it doesn't matter once the already emotional viewer has made their mind up that these people are the worst of worst for not getting involved in the national outpouring of grief as so many did right from the off.

Artistically, there are some key elements that do make it quite a powerful image; the two luscious green tree framing the scene, mimicking the towers in their dominance but acting as visual opposites to the fallen towers because they're alive and in their prime. The bicycle is old-fashioned transport, it's harmless and evokes an era before the anonymity of suicide bombings using weapons that have become more and more reliant on technology to deliver their payload. The quintet are relaxed, they're smiling, they look free from concern for the rest of society. The sun is shining on them, bringing life to the scene whereas in the background the towers burn and smoke, signalling death and decay.

Fo me it's a really good image that documents a piece of history in a fashion that is not seen so often...
 
Last edited:
I can remember going to terrorist attacks long before 9/11, and people in the surrounding area either watched, with similar ways to those in the photo, or got on with their lives.
Yes, people smiled, joked and sat in the sun (or more often as it was the UK, the rain!)
My point in saying all that is that people are people. It was not compulsory to bang your head against brick walls on 9/11. It was not compulsory to shout and scream in grief.
I see nothing controversial about that photo. It shows what you would see in any incident, large or small anywhere in the world, people watching, and interacting with each other.
I'm sorry to say that our US cousins forget that terrorism happened a long long time before 9/11,and while I accept that it all came as a surprise to them, the rest of the world is pretty good at getting on with when faced with similar things.
 
WilliamC said:
We were working, heard about it, saw the pictures and then "just got on with it". An American colleague accused us of being "uncaring" and we explained that if we stopped work then the terrorists had just won. He restarted work.
Click to expand...

Friend of mine was actual on a plane heading to new york when they hit. They landed in Canada and he had a terrible time getting back to his wife and kids
 
specialman said:
I suppose that when presented in a fashion to the type of person who feels they are affected by 9/11 (directly or indirectly), the image could be construed as showing heartless people in the middle of a tragedy giving no thought to the activity going on behind them. The sun is shining, they're relaxing by the water and in their world, all is well.

Whether that is the case or not, it doesn't matter once the already emotional viewer has made their mind up that these people are the worst of worst for not getting involved in the national outpouring of grief as so many did right from the off.

Artistically, there are some key elements that do make it quite a powerful image; the two luscious green tree framing the scene, mimicking the towers in their dominance but acting as visual opposites to the fallen towers because they're alive and in their prime. The bicycle is old-fashioned transport, it's harmless and evokes an era before the anonymity of suicide bombings using weapons that have become more and more reliant on technology to deliver their payload. The quintet are relaxed, they're smiling, they look free from concern for the rest of society. The sun is shining on them, bringing life to the scene whereas in the background the towers burn and smoke, signalling death and decay.

Fo me it's a really good image that documents a piece of history in a fashion that is not seen so often...
Click to expand...

Hi not saying i dont like the photo,i think it very powerful image,but dont understand why its ("The most controversial image of 9/11"),i think he should just put in his book ?
 
I don't see anything controversial in that picture, I think the publication of pictures of the jumpers from the towers in a book would be more of a controversial inclusion.
 
I see a controversy because It wasn't seen in the public domain for years after the event, and the possible reaction if it had been seen, is why its now controversial.

This leads to the question. Why did the photographer feel the need not publish a great candid earlier? Composition wise it looks strongly to me like the creative photographer knew exactly what he was saying, click, there it is, a full on statement of another reality! So by default he would have been aware of its possible Impact on the US population. Apart from it being a sensible choice career wise prioritising his earnings before his art... His ideas on why it was held back would be most interesting Im sure.

Not forgetting that the image could also be used for good, under the banner look how resilient we where, life goes on, where not so easily scared after all!

These things all come down to spin in the end.... :gag:
 
ziggy©;4628526 said:
What exactly were they supposed to be doing? It is impossible to know exactly what they were talking about so it is not fair for people to judge them based on that one photo.
Click to expand...

Although one of the guys in the image has spoken out to protect himself, I think the image speaks on a broader level about how easy it is for some people just to ignore or move on and to not get emotionally involved. It's open to interpretation as to whether you see the image being about five individuals or whether they represent a part of society that is better equipped to stay at arms length from key social changes without getting involved emotionally.

simonblue said:
Hi not saying i dont like the photo,i think it very powerful image,but dont understand why its ("The most controversial image of 9/11"),i think he should just put in his book ?
Click to expand...

I can see why some people would object - it seems these days more and more people have to let others know of their emotional grief, even when their connection to an event is tenuous. Randoms get involved with the emotional nitty-gritty of dealing with a tragedy, it's the way society is going, and especially where Amercians are concerned, you definitely get the impression through the media that yanks want to get upset about everything.

As to the 'most controversial' tag; I just think it's a good image and like someone already says, images like the falling man are much harder hitting in terms of their subject matter and the emotional response because unfortunately, it's one of the images of 9/11 that we remember most vividly. The jumpers are still one of the most heart-breaking results of the attacks because it's such an extreme thing to do to try and survive. But this is a take on the events that is so alien to everything else we've been exposed to so far that I can see how some people will reject its message.

Forbiddenbiker said:
I see a controversy because It wasn't seen in the public domain for years after the event, and the possible reaction if it had been seen, is why its now controversial.

This leads to the question. Why did the photographer feel the need not publish a great candid earlier? Composition wise it looks strongly to me like the creative photographer knew exactly what he was saying, click, there it is, a full on statement of another reality! So by default he would have been aware of its possible Impact on the US population. Apart from it being a sensible choice career wise prioritising his earnings before his art... His ideas on why it was held back would be most interesting Im sure.

Not forgetting that the image could also be used for good, under the banner look how resilient we where, life goes on, where not so easily scared after all!

These things all come down to spin in the end.... :gag:
Click to expand...

Great points.
 
Last edited:
I was onboard a RN ship in Portsmouth dockyard, I just sat and thought we we seeing the start of world war 3.
 
In my view it's only controversial because none of the people in the picture appear to be taking any notice of what is going on in the background. If they had all been looking across the water, the controversy would be gone.

For all we know, this is just one of several images the photographer took of the group, but the only one where they appear to be talking to each other rather than being concerned about the events unfolding behind them.
 
Scarecrow said:
In my view it's only controversial because none of the people in the picture appear to be taking any notice of what is going on in the background. If they had all been looking across the water, the controversy would be gone.

For all we know, this is just one of several images the photographer took of the group, but the only one where they appear to be talking to each other rather than being concerned about the events unfolding behind them.
Click to expand...

But isn't that the point of a photograph like this - being selective as to what you show to create a message to the viewer?... :)
 
Utter twaddle if you ask me.....

And so, 10 years on, the meaning of this photograph is that memories fade fast. The people in the foreground are us. We are the ones whose lives went on, touched yet untouched, separated from the heart of the tragedy by the blue water of time, which has got ever wider and more impossible to cross.

....whilst the words may be true for a lot of us - it's pretentious to assume that this photograph represents the above paragraph. The photographer has simply captured a single second in time. Two seconds earlier or two seconds later I suspect you could have captured an all together different collection of expressions and fluffed it up to mean something completely different.

Yes the photographer may have chosen this particular frame to try and convey some kind of point (no doubt thinking retrospectively) but that's about it.
 
Last edited:
This image really does nothing for me, it doesn't upset me, or anger me or even really hold my interest.

Maybe that's what makes it so controversial.

There's far more meaningful images in the like of Meyerowitz's Aftermath and far more shocking images like the person falling beside the tower/moment of impact shots.
 
It's a bit unfair on the people in the picture I guess, I was at work and my hubby was in London and he rang me to say the pentagon and been hit and it all just unfolded from there, we watched it on telly in the boardroom, I can remember seeing the 2 plane hit and them falling. And the stomach turning feeling of complete and utter helplessness :(
 
brianwar said:
This image really does nothing for me, it doesn't upset me, or anger me or even really hold my interest.

Maybe that's what makes it so controversial.

There's far more meaningful images in the like of Meyerowitz's Aftermath and far more shocking images like the person falling beside the tower/moment of impact shots.
Click to expand...

The images by Meyerowitz and similar shots of ground zero are indeed eye-opening, but their 'shock value' lies in the scale of devastation and to be honest, they all blend into one after a while.

The falling man shots however are something else, truly unique. Even if replicated through some terrible event in the future, they will remain original.
 
I think I was doing very simular watching it on TV. For the life of me I cannot see whais is wrong with that picture unless I am missing something?
 
Unfortunately we as outsiders untouched by disasters only experience these events through the anesthetic of the media. We will never come close to feeling what those touched by these events experience. We, as mentioned earlier are these people meeting for a chat by the river, life goes on. My old head chef was visiting New York during the fall of the towers. Was at the top of one of them the day before they fell and was subsequently locked down in his hotel on the day. Now i know he was a bit crass and bolshy but he returned home with tales of how exiting it all was, to our confusion as we expected horror stories but think about it, life goes on. His wife was terrified though. So how can this be the "most controversial image of 9/11" there are plenty more disturbing ones around. This is just an honest document of something happening at that time, so what if they are happy, life goes on! I see hope in this image not controversy. Its only the media that wants us to recoil in horror.
 
I remember watching the events unfolding on the day, via a large screen in a boardroom at work, but, horrific and transfixing as it was, I was at work and work had to be done, so we did our work and chatted about the events at our desks.
This group in the image were miles away from the towers, and could not possibly help in any way. We do not know what they are discussing, but they are probably just in shock at what has happened.
Just because something has happened, we cannot expect everyone to be overcome with grief, almost paralysed by the moment - life goes on, and whilst that may seem harsh, that is what happened and what will always happen.
 
Never seen that before, I think its a fantastic photo, a perfect capture of human detachment.
I assumed it was another falling man picture.
 
If I was a cynic, I'd say that he's only drumming up "contraversy" because he didn't publish that picture the first time around and now feels he can make some cash from it.
 
I was talking to my ny office..my ny colleague yelled to take their trading prices off the trading screen as a small plane seemed to have hit the opposite tower..they all went to look out of the window....I never heard from them again..we lost nearly all our ny office..it was the worst moment of my life...the line went dead.. that picture is irrelevant.
 
This picture is in the book "Magnum Contact Sheets", I don't have it in front of me but from memory the photographer thought his pictures from the day were pretty worthless as he had got off Manhatten and was too far away from the action. Other shots from the reel are published along side this one and I seem to remember the people were all looking at the unfolding drama in the other shots. I'll check it out later.
 
It is controversial in the slightest, bad journalism.

It's a great image.
 
I was at work when this happened and I remember saying "Someone is going to get the $&*K bombed out of them over this." I still think that we're lucky not to have seen a major war follow this, not just the rather limited wars we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think that the problem with the photo is that it looks like a relaxed and happy scene. You can't really tell what they're thinking or saying and of course the sun doesn't care and continues to shine. Take away the sunshine and blue sky and you could make a sombre picture out of it but nature doesn't care about our troubles and we can't really expect everyone to stand to attention and hang their heads just in case someone with a camera snaps them.

I think this picture rather distorts, I don't know if that was the intention, but I wouldn't give it any weight or indeed any further thought other than possibly as an example of how not everything is always how it seems.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I was at work when this happened and I remember saying "Someone is going to get the $&*K bombed out of them over this." I still think that we're lucky not to have seen a major war follow this, not just the rather limited wars we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
rather limited war? don't you mean an invasion and occupation by the "good guys"
and with a price tag of nearly 5 billion for blighty and nearly 900 billion for the good old U S of A i hardly think limited is the right phrase to coin.
 
I'm not sure is call it a controversial photo, but it certainly is ambiguous.

I remember being at work at stansted airport when this all happened. The whole airport went into lock down and nobody really had any idea what was happening. There was a lot of fear around as more and more people arrived at the airport and then the rumours started saying that there would be a uk attack as well.
 
Simon photo said:
rather limited war? don't you mean an invasion and occupation by the "good guys"
and with a price tag of nearly 5 billion for blighty and nearly 900 billion for the good old U S of A i hardly think limited is the right phrase to coin.
Click to expand...

Really? Are you sure about that? The wars we've seen and indeed are still seeing are rather limited compared to those we've seen in the past and what could have happened by any measure you'd like to use.

If you can't see that you need to revisit some history and think about what could have happened.

All IMVHO, of course.
 
woof woof said:
Really? Are you sure about that? The wars we've seen and indeed are still seeing are rather limited compared to those we've seen in the past and what could have happened by any measure you'd like to use.

If you can't see that you need to revisit some history and think about what could have happened.

All IMVHO, of course.
Click to expand...

So, just as a matter of interest, what would you have foreseen happening, bearing in mind that it was a terrorist operation, and not an act of war by a state which caused 9/11?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top