The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation by Sid Jacobson and Ernie Colón:
Our desire to adapt The 9/11 Report arose from the desire to render the complex accessible. After both of us struggled with the verbal labyrinth of the original report, we decided there must be a better way. Then it occurred to us (though to be precise, it occurred to Ernie Colón first) that visually adapting the information in the report—comics, the graphic medium—was the better way. We could tell the story graphically to make it more easily understood. For example: by creating a visual timeline of the four planes on that terrible day, we could tell the simultaneous happenings of that calamity more clearly than any attempt to do so using just words. What was more, we could make it more informative, more available, and, to be frank, more likely to be read in its entirety.
Here’s a Flickr photoset with photos of the book.
Micah
on 24 Oct 06Some might criticize this work as they criticized Maus when it came out. The usual argument is that a comic depiction of events so horrible somehow undermines and demeans the gravity of the events depicted. In my mind, however, Jacobson and Colón did an admirable job adapting an inaccessible book to an accessible form. Lessig would be proud.
Matt Grommes
on 24 Oct 06Salon.com had a review of the book that does not rate it very highly. Apparently there’s quite a bit of fictionalized stuff in it, which doesn’t even add to the story being told. This doesn’t speak to why you chose to highlight it, using the graphic form to make more the events more accessible, but if you’re looking for a story there are plenty of other graphic novels out there to spend your money on.
kirkaracha
on 24 Oct 06Slate excerpted the book in September, and interviewed the authors.
Brad Bice
on 24 Oct 06That’s great, now might I suggest a graphic adaptation of the Patriot Act?
Simon
on 24 Oct 06It wasn’t the planes that brought down the towers
Devin Ben-Hur
on 24 Oct 06Try to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out
Simon
on 24 Oct 06@Devin
The site you quote looks like a very credible source of information – (not)
Mark Larson
on 25 Oct 06I’m almost finished reading that one, and think the Salon review is pretty fair. Great comics it is certainly not; it’s very hokey at times. But it does have some good moments and the text seems to make a nice digest. I particularly like the 10-page foldout that concurrently plots the events on the 4 planes and among the government offices. Very cool—it kind of extends the “where were you when” question.
If I have one solid complaint, it is that the narrative boxes are placed very, very awkwardly. Coupled with the collage-style illustration layout, it can be a bit of a chore to read. The art direction needs a little cleanup.
To its credit I will say 1) I didn’t care much about the 9/11 report before this adaptation, and 2) having read the comic, I’m more interested in what really is and isn’t in the original report.
Eoghan McCabe
on 25 Oct 06Disgusting. Propaganda for your kids.
Anon Coward
on 25 Oct 06Seeing as the the official 9/11 myth has been conclusively disproved by organisations such as Scholars for 9/11 truth, a comic book is an appropraite medium version of events.
You won’t find the answers to how WTC7 collapsed in a comic book.
Wake up America! Your country needs you.
haji
on 25 Oct 06haha! Here’s to thinking this was one place online I wouldn’t be subjected to ridiculously goofy conspiracy theories…
I have a friend who’s completely convinced that Alex Jones is the final arbiter of truth. It doesn’t matter that, out of the 100 or so claims my friend presented me that came out of the conspiracy crowd, I’ve sufficiently convinced him that half of them of them are probably not true. The problem is, one could debunk 99 of the claims, and a conspiracy theorist will still hang on to that last claim like a dying lover’s hand.
Why?
It makes you feel like you are smarter than the “bleeting masses”. That you’re part of something greater, something just. You feel unique.
But, as Durden said, You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile. You’ve invested so much energy and hate into your theories, that you cannot abide the collapse of your fragile worldview.
You’d rather unjustly - ie, without examining critics of your sources - accuse hundreds or thousands of Americans of committing a horrible crime against their neighbors, than find that you might be wrong; that the bleeting you’ve bought into - and encouraged - is full of sound of fury, signifying nothing.
Your views are not impossible, but we must make an inference to the best explanation. The question is not whether your view is possibly true, but whether it is probably true. But you cannot know without examining the critics of your evidence.
And your response when your view is challenged? “The site you quote looks like a very credible source of information – (not)”. Only sources that confirm your hubris are worthy of your attention.
You have a virus, within your mind. The least you can do is not contaminate others.
John S. Rhodes
on 25 Oct 06Amazon reviews (23 readers) is 4.5 stars. So, it must not be too terrible or useless. Amazon ratings don’t necessarily signal BUY but they do give us an idea about what the masses might be thinking.
Per the Amazon description, this is is meant to be an accessible version of the 9/11 Report. Accessible to whom and for what? Children? To help people better understand? Is this really a translation? A simplfication? Ultimately, I can’t determine the true purpose of this representation.
I wonder what the 9/11 Truth Movement folks think about this? I also wonder what Derek Mitchell and Paul Thompson of the Complete 911 Timeline think. How about the 9/11 Widows?
9/11 Truth Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_Movement
Complete 911 Timeline http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
9/11 Widows http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0401-02.htm
So, is this propoganda? Who would care about delivering such a message? I guess we’d have to discuss the 9/11 Report itself, since that is the basis. Oh boy…
haji
on 25 Oct 06“9/11 Truth Movement”
How perfectly Orwellian!
An
on 25 Oct 06And there you have it.
Signal:
- How & why did wtc7 collapse ? - Why are NIST’s findings not peer reviewed? - Why are NIST’s employees forbidden from discussing their findings ?
Vs.
Noise: - @haji et al
Simple questions, simple answers please. Less noise, more signal.
Red pill anyone?
MH
on 25 Oct 06Troll hat, anyone?
haji
on 26 Oct 06Oh, silly An.
If took the time to read my response, you’d see that I was addressing Simon, who cast aside a large body of evidential argumentation (http://debunking911.com/) with a flick of his wrist.
It’s precisely that problem in the so-called “Truth” movement - and in conspiratorial movements in general - that I was addressing.
Confront some of their “facts”, and you are waived away with the accusation that you are presenting “misinformation”, that your sources are “not reliable” or that the “mere” fact that you disproved one of their sources’ thesis does nothing to suggest that their source is unreliable. This is repeated no matter how many of their sources premises are shown to be false. The same treatment is never applied to contravening sources, and certainly never in an impartial manner.
But then again, you didn’t bother reading what I said, or determining to whom it was addressed, so I guess this will be news to you.
ugh
An
on 27 Oct 06@haji
I did “take the time” to read your response to Simon’s post. It was a passionate diatribe replete with fallacies. I won’t waste my time cataloging them here.
Simple question: explain (to yourself) why the owner of the WTC compex said he ordered the controlled demolition of WTC 7
Here’s a fact to pique your interest: it takes weeks to prepare a building for a controlled demolition.
haji
on 28 Oct 06yawn
So, let’s review.
I take the time to formulate a specific critique - not of a belief Truthers have - but of an aspect of their epistemology. Your response is a sweeping wave of your hand: “your response [...] was replete with fallacies [...]”.
It’s not surprising that you won’t “waste [your] time” cataloguing them. But I will take another moment to address your claims.
The video you linked to shows Silverstein stating the following:
“I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
Are you contending that, after killing thousands and keeping it silent, Silverstein just whoopsie! unravels the conspiracy on PBS?
What we have is this:
1. The fire department calls Silverstein. 2. They (ie the firefighters) notify him that they cannot contain the fire. 3. Noting the loss of life, Silverstein says that “maybe” the smartest thing to do is to “pull it” (what specifically does he want to pull?). 4. Then, they (ie the firefighters) decide to pull (again what should be pulled?). 5. Then, Silverstein and the firefighters watch the building collapse.
Already, your claim that “he ordered the controlled demolition of WTC 7” is shown to be false, and all I’ve done is paste the transcript from the video you linked to - that’s your source - and summarize some points therefrom. At best, he suggests “pulling” something, and then the firefighters decide to “pull” whatever that something is.
Silverstein’s spokesperson, in a later clarification of his remarks, claimed that he was suggesting that the fire fighter “pull” out the emergency personnel still in danger of being hurt . This site cites that quote as well as testimony from multiple emergency personnel claiming to have been in or around WTC 7 when the decision was made to “pull” them out (It also presents other serious problems with your analysis, but I’ll leave that to your further study—don’t take my word for it).
It seems highly likely, given the context of the discussion, and the improbability of Silverstein admitting to mass-murder on camera, that he was suggesting pulling the firefighters from the building.
Even if your (apparently faulty) interpretation of “pull” is used, Silverstein is not the one giving orders. The bare fact is this: your premises did not support your conclusion, ergo, your argument is fallacious.
An
on 28 Oct 06@haji
I’m glad that you have taken an interest in these grave issues.
“after killing thousands and keeping it silent” ... “Silverstein admitting to mass-murder”
WTC7 was empty at 17:20 on 9/11/01. No one died as a result of the building implosion.
“your claim that “he ordered the controlled demolition of WTC 7 ” is shown to be false”
Shown where exactly ?
“he was suggesting that the fire fighter “pull” out the emergency personnel still in danger of being hurt”
“he was suggesting pulling the firefighters from the building”
NY Fire Department confirmed the building was empty from 12:00. NYFD were ordered to secure the area at 16:00 and that the collpase of WTC7 was imminent.
“your (apparently faulty) interpretation of “pull” is used”
Ring up a building demolition company. Ask them what exactly does the term “pull” mean in their industry. Better yet, call in to their office and show them the WTC7 controlled demolition and ask them what they think. I’ve done just that.
Unfortunately, you (haji) seem unable or unwilling to examine the facts critically.
The questions remain: - Why did Silverstein say he ordered the demolition of WTC7 ? - Why was FEMA & NIST unable to explain the controlled demolition of WTC7 ? - Why are NIST employees forbidden from discussing their findings ? - Who prepared WTC7 for demolition ? (which takes weeks) - Why are such questions ignored by the relevant authorities ?
These questions are rhetorical. SVN is an innapropriate forum for such matters.
If you wish to discuss these matters further you can do so on this reddit dicussion thread
haji
on 28 Oct 06You ignored the most important section of my post.
An
on 28 Oct 06@haji
Perhaps you missed the conclusion of my last post. I will repeat it for your benefit.
SVN is an innapropriate forum for such matters.
If you wish to discuss these matters further you can do so on this reddit dicussion thread
haji
on 28 Oct 06How delightfully imperious of you! ;-)
Good day and good luck.
Anon
on 29 Oct 06An – don’t waste your time with this one. He’s not worth the debate.
This discussion is closed.