Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Or did they say years ago that they would not show the planes hitting the twin towers again in news reports?

72 replies

pinkytheshrinky · 11/09/2011 06:51

Have I imagined this or was there a decision made at some point about not actually showing the planes hitting the towers some years ago. I may have imagined this but although I know it is the anniversary and all, there were people on there and to keep on replaying it time and time again seems inappropriate.

As I type they are showing a slow mo version of the jet hitting the second tower....

OP posts:
Original poster
pinkytheshrinky · 11/09/2011 07:56

No no the Daily Mail actually wrote a sympathetic article about how these deaths are now acknowledged properly - I would love to do a link but am too thick Blush

It was more about those deaths being compartmentalised off and the families now acknowledging that they they jumped because the Americans have a lot of shame about this - again, not taking a position on this but it was an interesting article

OP posts:
Thumbwitch · 11/09/2011 08:00

I don't know how much build up you've had over there to today - but we've seen it on the news again several times already this last week (Australia), although I must admit I don't think they showed any of the people falling/jumping, only the planes going into the towers and the towers collapsing. And the documentary I have already mentioned. But that's just what I have seen and I am a news-avoider most of the time Blush

Tee2072 · 11/09/2011 08:00

I have never heard that the Americans are ashamed of the jumpers. And I am stunned to read it.

I've not been to NY in over 20 years, so long before the Towers came down. I was in California 10 years ago and had been in the mid-west before then so I've not seen the memorial.

I am horrified that these people are being stigmatized since they jumped.

Original poster
pinkytheshrinky · 11/09/2011 08:05

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035806/9-11-anniversary-Victims-fell-Twin-Towers-appeared-blinded-smoke.html

OH heck - this is the link that I cannot do. It is really sad but one man talks about how knowing his girlfriend jumped makes him feel better for her that she made that choice. I was really stunned at the official line on these people

OP posts:
Mitmoo · 11/09/2011 08:11

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035806/9-11-anniversary-Victims-fell-Twin-Towers-appeared-blinded-smoke.html

Pinky have found the article but I am afraid I don't believe that many Americans exist who look down on the "jumpers" for having committed suicide. They didn't they simply had to choose whether to be burned, choke or jump to their deaths.

I don't believe there are anyone but a few nuts who don't believe that and think the DM article is grossly insensitive to suggest otherwise. It's masked in sensitivity but I just don't buy it.

It reads to me to make a new slant on a tragedly that has been written endlessless on for ten years rather than any attempt at printing the truth.

Not a go at you pinky thanks for pointing it out but a go at the DM

Mitmoo · 11/09/2011 08:14

Tee Americans aren't stupid, I don't believe for a second that they are ashamed of the jumpers. What does it matter if that everyone's cause of death is "blunt trauma" what else could it be? I don't buy this DM non story for a second.

Tee2072 · 11/09/2011 08:18

mitmoo didn't someone write above that they were sort of in a corner of the memorial? Or did I dream that as I can't find it now!

If it's all in the DM then, no, I don't believe it for a second.

Original poster
pinkytheshrinky · 11/09/2011 08:24

When a 9/11 Memorial Museum opens at Ground Zero next year, it will have a small display dedicated to the jumpers, but reflecting the intense feelings of unease the subject has provoked, it will be tucked away in an alcove, on the grounds that the images are considered too private and too distressing.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035806/9-11-anniversary-Victims-fell-Twin-Towers-appeared-blinded-smoke.html#ixzz1XcthPS73

OP posts:
Mitmoo · 11/09/2011 08:29

I think the images of those who fell will be too private and distressing, I don't think they'll be hidden because anyone is ashamed that they jumped, fell or were forced out of the windows from the sheer impact. I think the DM are wrong to suggest there are anyone but a few nuts who would see their actions as a matter of shame in the USA.

Original poster
pinkytheshrinky · 11/09/2011 08:35

Typical Daily Mail - there will be ambivalence from some people I am sure if they are very religious but I do not think it is a countrywide thing at all - it just makes no sense at all

OP posts:
VeryStressedMum · 11/09/2011 08:40

I too can't imagine anyone feeling shame at the jumpers. It must have been the most horrific thing to feel that to jump was better than to stay. All people in the towers deserve nothing but our respect however they died, and even if they jumped they were still killed. The people who think it should be stuck in a corner should feel ashamed of themselves instead.

Clayhead · 11/09/2011 08:43

It's not just a DM story - was covered widely in the broadsheets too last weekend.

There is apparently some controversy over the people who jumped/fell and apparently a special alcove has been created in the new memorial centre so that visitors don't see it automatically/can miss it out if they wish.

It was also mentioned in the articles that everyone killed there on that day has homocide on their death certificate.

Mitmoo · 11/09/2011 08:43

If there is a good reason Verystressed such as not being voyeuristic, making sure people aren't going to accidentally see these horrific images, walking past but having to enter an area where it is clear what will be viewed, then I have no problem with them tucking the images of the fallers and jumpers away.

I don't believe for a second it was done due to any kind of shame.

Shame on the DM for trying to make it seem so.

Gastonladybird · 11/09/2011 08:48

I think this might be a lift/inspired by much more sensitive article in Sunday times last week (can't link due to paywall). The implication that not showing /talking about the fallers was more that it was too traumatic . There is apparently a list somewhere of fallers but it's not well known (but I think will be part of exhibition mentioned here).

VeryStressedMum · 11/09/2011 08:57

I'd like to think that Mitmoo, although I can't help but think that it was the reality of what happened that day and no less horrific than the towers falling just because the people in the towers can't be seen. The people who fell or jumped shouldn't be put in the corner because we can't handle seeing the images.

Although I can understand why it would be placed away and it would be traumatic for the families of the people who were in the towers that day they should be able to choose whether to see those images.
The rest of us - don't look away.

Mitmoo · 11/09/2011 08:58

I can see it being too traumatic, that I can totally understand. These were these peoples' last moments and there was nothing left of them, I can see why the more graphic images should be in their own area so people can't accidentally happen upon them.

I don't buy the shame theory, not for a second (excluding the odd nutter)

meditrina · 11/09/2011 08:58

The fallers have been acknowledged in mainstream media.

There was a documentary which included helmet cam footage from the foyer o one of the towers before its collapse (ie footage that could not have been released without NYFD approval) which included the sound of their impact on the ground. A very powerful piece of footage.

I do not believe there was an "agreement" about what to show/not show. (Who would that agreement be between, anyhow? There are hundreds of channels across the globe).

There are constant editorial decisions of appropriateness of footage - but it's not as formal as an agreement. There is some footage (not just 9/11) that will never make it to the main channels, because it is just too gruesome. Footage that has been played and replayed hundreds of times (no matter what it represents) isn't going to be removed from air.

Mitmoo · 11/09/2011 09:01

Very I think we have to be careful because it will also be visited by children or those not strong enough to cope mentally with those images. When I looked for the story that pinky mentioned and saw the picture of the man who was falling and thought even as a grown woman who had seen it before "Oh my God". The more graphic images jumpers or not should be accessible but not "accidentally accessible" if there is such a term.

Tee2072 · 11/09/2011 09:01

I guess I don't understand how they could be any more traumatic than, say, the pictures of Jews in the concentration camps during WWII.

If we don't look, we soon forget the true horrors of the day. Of what it means when some one attacks buildings that are 107 stories high. It's on thing to say 'people jumped from floor 100 (or whatever)'. It's quite another one to actually see it.

It should be traumatic to view. So we never forget.

Mitmoo · 11/09/2011 09:05

A while back there was a furore about a mosque and leisure centre being built near Ground Zero as a way for the Muslim community to help to heal as it would be open to all. It seemed the families were divided some for and some against it.

Does anyone know what the outcome was?

VeryStressedMum · 11/09/2011 09:07

I agree Tee2072. My horror at looking at a photo of a faller is nothing compared to the absolute horror of those who were there and their families. We should never forget what actually happened not pick and choose because we aren't comfortable with it.
If you are taking children to the museum they should know what they are seeing. If I took my children I would have to judge that they are old enough to see it and understand what happened or I couldn't take them.

Tee2072 · 11/09/2011 09:09

Mitmoo it was never true. The mosque was built several city blocks from Ground Zero and was never planned for anywhere else.

Original poster
pinkytheshrinky · 11/09/2011 09:28

Tee is right the mosque never planned to be near ground zero - just horrible anti-muslim propaganda and completely unnecessary

OP posts:
Robotindisguise · 11/09/2011 11:41

Mitmoo - hard to believe as it is, this isn't the Daily Mail. It's the case. It defies belief, but there is huge shame and even hostility about the jumpers. It's been widely reported. See the quote from the daughter at the end of this article.

Robotindisguise · 11/09/2011 11:43

It wasn't a mosque, it was a cultural centre containing a prayer room, and it was two blocks away, so not at Ground Zero at all. Still, it gave Fox News plenty of airtime Hmm