Search

They did not include the viewpoint of fire fighters in this film, who were also important in the response to this disaster.

-          The article describes Dr. Astaneh-Asl, a Berkeley Professor sent by the ASCE to investigate and determine the structural causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center, and his search for answers. When he arrived in NYC, he finds his evidence he was hoping to investigate, the 310,000 tons of debris, had been sent by the city to be scrapped and recycled.

-          The article goes on to explain the challenges faced by the three organizations presiding over the investigation, FEMA, ASCE and NIST, not being permitted access to documentation, records, or witness testimonies. From these problems arose inter-agency conflict and dischord, as the three failed to work together cohesively with clear goals and purpose. There was a clear lack of leadership, made apparent when Rep. Anthony Weiner asked “Whoever is in charge of this investigation, please raise your hand,” which was met with three people claiming leadership.

-          Knowles goes on to state that these problems and conflicts in the wake of the attack were not unique to the World Trade Center attack. He goes through a number of national tragedies, comparing and contrasting the investigation process of each, explaining the hurdles faced by investigators. This drives home how, over centuries, this is a reoccurring issue.

The narrative is maintained through both very real, detailed descriptions of actions taken for both specific cases and the handling of large groups of patients. It also goes into some lesser known events of 9/11, such as the triage camps being destroyed by the collaspe of the towers and how the situation evolved throughout the two crashes and collaspes that day. It appeals to the emotion of the viewer in many ways. It discusses the incrediable physical and psychological damage that the victims sustained during the disaster. It then handled the emotional trauma and determination that the first responders and doctors had to deal with when they saw their gore and chaos of their city all around them while needing to maintain their professionality and ability to care for their pateints. It also later in the film talked about the first responders who lost their lives in their dedication to save others, with direct emotional appeal through the portayal of one first responder who lost a long time friend becoming choked up remembering his fallen friend once again.

I think it can both bring the public to better understand first response and disaster response better as well as serve as a great film for other first responders to better understand what happened and how that day was handled.

Investigation after large-scale national tragedy is often contaminated with the many factors that surround that event. Since the attack on the World Trade Center was so deeply rooted in politics, culture, international relations and emotional connections, the investigation following the attacks failed to result in a dispassionate, scientific verdict. Instead, it became muddled in the many conflicting and intertwining interests that came with the attack. 

The central narrative of the film is the many complications, setbacks, and incrediable challenges that the first responders of 9/11 faced when attempting to medically aid the many victims of the disaster.

It has been cited 5 times, in three papers (The World Trade Center Analyses: Case Study of Ethics, Public Policy and the Engineering Profession; Engineering Risk and Disaster: Disaster-STS and the American History of technology; Making Sense of Disaster) and two books (Expanding the Criminological Imagination: Critical Readings in Crimonology; The Martians Have Landed!: A history of Media-Driven Panics and Hoaxes).

Not much, to be honest. I was disappointed they didn't mention fire fighters much in it though.

Scott Gabriel Knowles is the head of the Department of History at the University of Drexel College of Arts and Sciences. His work focuses on risk and disaster, with particular interest in modern cities, technology and public policy. He is a research fellow at the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware, and has been a member of the Fukishima Forum collaborative research community since its inception in 2011. His work on public policy in relation to disaster-preparedness is focused on his home city of Philidelphia, and has written extensively on how to better prepare the city and preserve its legacy.

This article covers the investigation procedure following a tragedy, and how the outcomes of these investigations tend to be muddled due to factors outside of logic and reason. These influencing factors make it difficult to draw conclusions as to what contributing factors were most significant in the damage sustained during the tragedy, and how to best avoid them in the future. For this reason, it addresses how difficult it is to improve disaster-response when so little useful information can be gleaned from the modern investigatory procedure.