9/11's most controversial photo?

[MichaelMcGuire]

Discuss

[snooper2]

1. Looks like a group of middle class americans

discussing the fact that shit like this wouldn't happen if we didn't have to rely on oil from shithole despots in the middle east...

[Brickbat]

2. And they should be doing....what instead?

[trumad]

3. Not even close...

This one.

[southernyankeebelle]

28. What he is thinking is Yes, yes now we can invade Iraq and whup them.

[lunatica]

53. His pants are literally twisted into a knot in that photo

A far cry from the other 'controversial' photo of him inspired by what happened on 911 which will also live in infamy forever.

[sufrommich]

4. Discuss what? Photoshop? nt

[Demit]

7. You win the thread.

First thing I thought: composite!

[markpkessinger]

50. I don't believe it was Photoshopped...

...I live in NYC, and did during 9/11. It was an absolutely stunningly beautiful day in NYC weather wise. The location is on the east side of the East River, in Long Island City, looking to the southwest.

Beyond that, the suggestion that one can draw any particular inference from that photograph is absurd. Very likely they were folks who lived in the area who were curious to see what they could see of the unfolding events (it's not like they could have traveled to Manhattan at that point, since ALL mass transit had been shut down, and Manhattan was closed to all vehicular traffic. A photograph captures a fleeting instant. One cannot tell what those folks were talking about (although I think most of us have a pretty good idea what the likely topic was).

And you know, even if their affect or demeanor did seem a bit off, the events of that day were so fucking surreal that frankly nobody knew how to react. I'll never forget my own experience. I was having some work done in my apartment, and had decided it would be easier for me to hole up in a hotel for a few days. I was staying at the Crowne Plaza on Times Square. I wasn't feeling well, and had called in sick for work that day. My phone rang, waking me up -- it was a friend of mine, saying something incomprehensible about a plane hitting one of the twin towers. Once my grogginess subsided, I started grasping what he was telling me, and immediately turned on the TV, just in time to see the first tower fall. I remained there, in my room, glued to the TV, until well into the afternoon, when finally I ventured outside. The Crowne Plaza sits on the East side of Seventh Avenue where Seventh Ave. meets Broadway. Before 9/11, you could stop outside and look to your right down the long canyon of Seventh Avenue until, at a certain point, the view to the horizon was blocked by the World Trade Center towers looming to the south. So on 9/11, upon stepping out and looking to the right, and saw just ... sky. And smoke. I felt like I had been hit in the gut with a sledge hammer. But here was the strangest thing: out on Times Square, although there was no vehicular traffic, there were as many pedestrians milling about as one would typically expect, only they were ALL just dead silent, appearing to be lost in their thoughts, not knowing quite what to do with themselves. I suspect the folks in this picture felt much the same way. So I'm not prepared to draw any conclusions from ANY photograph taken that day. It was all just too far off the scale of anything anybody had known up to that point.

[Brickbat]

5. "The people in this photograph cannot help being alive, and showing it."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/911-photo-thomas-hoepker-meaning

[trumad]

8. Just read it...

Seriously one of the stupidest pieces I've ever read.

[Brickbat]

11. It blows hard, indeed.

It's one of the first things to come up when you google "most controversial 9/11 photo." I do agree with the point at the end, however. As a symbol, it's a bitter photograph. But the people in it are identifiable, and I do not think it's fair to ascribe irony, carelessness or disinterest to them because of the photo.

[trumad]

16. I sat with a bunch of friends on a hill in Pacific Heights-San Fran...

after the 89 Loma Prieta earthquake.

We sat there getting high and drunk as we watched the Marina burn below us.

I'm sure if someone took a picture of us the image may have made the wrong impression...

[deaniac21]

35. Lost me at "brilliant blue water"

[Brickbat]

46. As I say, it blows hards.

His point stands, though, I think.

[MineralMan]

6. How is it controversial? What would you have them do?

Looks like they're talking about what's going on. Sadly, I can't hear what they're saying. What is it that you find controversial? That day, I sat in front of my television set all day, watching, just as these people are doing. They just happen to be in a place where they can watch directly. What did you do on 9/11 that is much different?

[bemildred]

9. Were you trying to make some point? nt

[MichaelMcGuire]

13. No.

I seen it in the guardian newspaper with that heading and wondered what people in the states thought.

[bemildred]

26. I think it looks fake, but that's about it. nt

[JHB]

37. I think the Guardian columnist was overwrought to the point of ridiculousness

He certainly seems to think he's clairvoyant enough to read the minds of those in the photo, to assign them thoughts and actions that he has no way of knowing if they were representative or not. It did last all day, so it is somehow significant if people sit down and don't spend every second with their attention riveted on the disaster at hand?

It seems he he got better grades in "mind reading" than I did back in school.

[closeupready]

10. Not controversial, IMO.

nt

[WilliamPitt]

12. I poop on this thread from great height.

[Pithlet]

14. No n/t

[sibelian]

15. This has been discussed already

many times on many sites.

[SpiralHawk]

17. "Cool. I like even better than my pic. Smirk." - xCommander AWOL (R)

[ThomWV]

18. Looks like a piss-poor photo-shop job to me

[supernova]

19. Nah. It's an odd photo

to be sure, considering the seeming contrast in subjects. The catastrophe in the background and the seemingly uninterested people in the foreground.

But we don't know from the picture that they *aren't* discussing the smoke in the distance.

As for controversial, I would vote for any pic from W's visit to the pile. That was the official beginning of pimping out 9/11 sorrow and anger to feed military adventurism.

[MichaelMcGuire]

20. So you all conclude the pictures shite

[Rex]

24. No, just confused as to WHY you thought it might be controversial.

Can you clarify?

[MichaelMcGuire]

44. The newspaper thought so I wondered if Americans thought so too

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/911-photo-thomas-hoepker-meaning

I didn't post the guardian article in full cos it seems to be frowned upon

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Posting articles in full is definitely against the rules, but links are encouraged

You can post up to 4 paragraphs as an excerpt, with a link (and that DU policy has proved extremely successful in the US courts recently; a 'copyright troll' company called Righthaven tried to sue DU, as it already had done many bloggers and sites; DU resisted, saying the policy was 'fair use', and has wiped the floor with Righthaven in the courts).

Links are always good (apart from ones to racist sites or other forms of bigotry); they encourage fuller understanding and discussion. If you give a link, but don't actually agree with what you're linking to, it's worth pointing that out; most people assume a link without comment implies interest or approval of what it says.

[MichaelMcGuire]

52. The 1st I had known of the rules was when I had to delete a tread...

Anyway what you say makes sense, and a guess its was up to me to read the rules.

[treestar]

21. If they were biking in the park before it happened

What is wrong with that? It looks like they stopped, too. No one knows what they are saying.

[Nye Bevan]

22. I think this one is much more controversial:

[lunatica]

54. And to think we might never have seen that one if his Secret Service had done their job

that day. They sure missed cleaning up after Bush's visit and for that little mistake we have that film.

Nobody ever talks about that little mistake. For someone who's every public step was vaunted carefully down to the smallest detail, they sure missed that video playing right in the room the whole time. We also don't know who was taking the video because it's obviously being done by a person getting long shots and close-ups.

And I wonder who released the video.

[Rex]

23. I am not sure why anyone would find that controversial.

What are people outside the states expecting to see? Could also be photo shopped, but still not controversial. I actually don't get the point.

[Ter]

25. Is that taken in Staten Island?

I had to work that day, but got off around 10 PM. My then g/f and I drive on Richmond Terrace, by St. George. We got out and looked at it, still in shock for what happened that day. I still remember the smoke being very heavy. It looks like the same place as in the picture. It was an incredibly sad moment.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

30. So IOW you see them just cracking jokes, so the rest of us must

be idiots. Thanks. Got it. :eyes:

[begin_within]

32. Herewith the first demonstration of my point. Thank you.

[Rex]

39. No thank you for the acknowledgement of what I said is true.

Have fun with your outrage over outrage. That was a second in time...but don't let that stop you from being Better Then Everyone Else. :eyes:

[gratuitous]

31. Perhaps the people pictured aren't lounging

I know, I'm one-upping you; but perhaps they're in earnest discussion about joining the military and blowing away some terrorists. Or maybe they're talking about what the United States might have done that invited such an attack on the foremost symbol of American financial hegemony. From the snapshot, it's impossible to tell if they're simply lounging, engaging in spectator activities, or talking about the advisability of commandeering a car and driving to the scene. They could be talking about whether their presence would help or hinder rescue efforts, or if they would simply arrive to become casualties themselves.

The short answer is I don't know, really, what's being depicted in this "most controversial" photo. If you do, please let us know. If you don't then it appears we're in the same boat, the Good Ship Conjecture.

[Rex]

40. No no, he made his judgment call and has to stick by it.

A moment in time...some people are EXPERTS at telling you what is going on in that second.

[Courtesy Flush]

29. Do you even remember that day?

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an all-day event. Literally hours passed between the first impact and the time this picture was taken. People will stop freaking out, and just watch after a while.

Yes, they sat down and talked among themselves. There is no controversy here. Move long.

[LuckyLib]

33. Yup. We've been so manipulated by media that we read unintended stuff into any

photo. Folks had been riding. Some stopped. Others were seated there. Talking. She leans her body back to attend to the guy when he said something. Lounging? Recreating? Nah, a few of the millions of folks that were trying to process it -- whether right before them or on their tee-vees.

[csziggy]

34. Real photo but more depth the the story than implied by the image

Iconic Photos
Famous, Infamous and Iconic Photos
9/11 – Thomas Hoepker

On the morning of September 11, Thomas Hoepker, a Magnum photojournalist, crossed from Manhattan into Queens and then Brooklyn to get closer to the scene of the disaster. He stopped his car in Williamsburg to shoot a group of young people sitting by the waterfront as the plume of smoke rose from across the river. The result was a pastoral scene of five youths chatting amicably as the towers burned. Hoepker expressed concern that they ”didn’t seem to care,” and did not publish the shot at the time, feeling it was “ambiguous and confusing.”

<SNIP>

Shortly thereafter, Walter Sipser wrote to Slate. “It’s Me in That 9/11 Photo,” the magazine said in the headline posting Sipser’s e-mail message, which explained that “we were in a profound state of shock and disbelief, like everyone else we encountered that day,” and denounced Hoepker for not trying to ascertain the state of mind of the photograph’s subjects and for misinterpreting the moment. Hoepker responded on Slate that “the image has touched many people exactly because it remains fuzzy and ambiguous in all its sun-drenched sharpness,” especially five years after the event. He wondered, was the picture “just the devious lie of a snapshot, which ignored the seconds before and after I had clicked the shutter?”

More: http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/911-thomas-hoepker/

[hifiguy]

36. That looks as photoshopped as the pic with Evil Bert

on top of the WTC.

[H2O Man]

38. where?

[spanone]

41. discuss? what? you think about it and get back to us.

[RainDog]

42. this photo has already been discussed and the people involved have replied

there is nothing controversial about this photo other than people trying to attach all sorts of assumptions to it.

[dipsydoodle]

43. Exact history of that photo here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/911-photo-thomas-hoepker-meaning

[Nye Bevan]

47. "Apparently sunbathing"? What crap.

They look sombre and reflective to me.

[csziggy]

48. More on it here

http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/911-thomas-hoepker/

[RagAss]

45. Why..Should they have been kneeling in prayer?...or shitting their pants?

[SoCalDem]

49. and 99% of the rest of us were glued to the tube..

seated, and perhaps leaning backwards to ask a question of someone behind us., and many of us may have even had a beverage..

These people may have been on a regular bike/hike, and the events unfolded. They were in no position to do much besides watch..,.

[HopeHoops]

55. No. The one of the Pentagon - no wing marks, no luggage, no debris - just a missile hole.