The flaccid outlines of a comic book adaptation of the 9-11 commission report

It's all part of the showbiz industry's refusal to live in reality. The Washington Post recently reported about "The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation", which is supposedly a straightforward telling of the 9-11 commission report in comic book format. However, as a letter writer to the WaPo told them on July 25:

As a pilot for American Airlines who captained Flight 77 on Sept. 8, 2001, and who attended five memorial services in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, I am outraged by the attempt to depict the horrific events of Sept. 11 in a comic book format ["The Bold Outlines of a Plot; Adapted as a Comic Book, the 9/11 Commission Report Hits Home Anew," Style, July 16].

How anyone can portray the following excerpt found on Page 9 of the Sept. 11 commission's report as a "soft, translucent tan mood" is inconceivable: "The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon." Even more disturbing were the narratives appearing in this comic book; its casting of the individuals carrying out these evil acts as "newcomers" and "Hamburg pilots," not terrorists, is unconscionable.

Additionally, these terrorists didn't "settle in the United States," they infiltrated it. While shielding children from the details of this horrific tragedy is appropriate, telling the rest of society about it in a comic book isn't.

This could also serve as a good point to make about marketing comics to anyone, no matter what age they are: propaganda and filthy lies are something that NOONE should have to have foisted upon them. And while I can't remember exactly who it was who said the following, "Without knowledge, there is no defense."

Sid Jacobson and Ernie Colon, the veterans who worked on this book, should be ashamed of themselves for whitewashing the whole subject. Did they even consult with the relatives and friends of the victims of the tragedy on 9-11?

People like these can/will tell you that they're trying to avoid "offending" anyone. Problem is that it usually includes even the criminals who carried out these vile crimes, ditto their followers, as was the case involving Spielberg's Munich, and we all saw how well that did in the end. Just what do these phonies expect to accomplish by not giving an honest description of the scum and what they are, which is a gang of Islamic terrorists? Simply put, only if they're willing to understand that, in order to put together a successful storyboard, they'll have to run the risk of offending, will they be able to impress upon the audience. That's exactly why United 93 (which interestingly enough, is mentioned in the WaPo report) worked as well as it did, because it was honest about who and what the criminals who hijacked Flight 93 in my native Pennsylvania, and even in its efforts to figure out how the passengers heroically fought back against the hijackers and prevented them from making a third suicide strike in the Pittburgh area. If Colon and Jacobson are going to be as dishonest as they apparently are, then all they've done is to mark themselves as cowards.

It really makes me sick thinking about any and all of the people who could get tricked into reading this propaganda and get the wrong impressions of what went on during 9-11. I think that a television interview with Colon, Jacobson and company is in order here. Repeat after me: "televised debate, televised debate, televised debate, televised debate..."