You’ve probably seen it, even if you tried to look away. A man, perfectly vertical, head pointed toward the pavement, bisecting the two towers of the World Trade Center. He looks calm. Almost like he’s diving into a pool on a summer day rather than falling from the North Tower. This is the 911 falling man photo, and it’s arguably the most controversial piece of journalism from the twenty-first century.
Honestly, it’s a photograph that shouldn't exist in our collective memory. Not because it isn't "real," but because for a long time, America tried its hardest to pretend it didn't happen. We like our heroes on 9/11 to be firemen covered in dust or flags being raised over rubble. We don't like to talk about the estimated 200 people who were forced out of those windows.
The split second that changed everything
Richard Drew was a veteran. He’d seen a lot. He was there when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. On the morning of September 11, 2001, he was actually at a maternity fashion show in Bryant Park. When the planes hit, he did what any AP photographer does—he ran toward the fire.
He ended up at the corner of West and Vesey Street. He heard the sound first. Thud. Thud. It wasn't concrete hitting the ground. It was people.
The 911 falling man photo wasn't a single shot. Drew took a sequence of twelve frames. In almost every other frame, the man is flailing. He’s a human being in the middle of a terrifying, chaotic tumble. His clothes are whipping around. He looks like he’s fighting the air. But in frame number nine—the one the world saw—gravity and the camera’s shutter aligned for a fraction of a second. He looks peaceful.
Why the public reacted with such rage
The day after the attacks, the photo appeared on page seven of The New York Times and in newspapers across the country. The backlash was instant. People called it "ghoulish" and "sadistic." They accused the media of exploiting a man’s final moments of life.
💡 You might also like: Direct Democracy Definition Government: Why Power to the People Is Harder Than It Looks
It basically disappeared from public view for years.
Why? Because the "jumpers" (a term the NYC Medical Examiner’s office actually rejects) didn't fit the narrative of the day. We wanted to see ourselves as survivors or fighters. This photo showed us as victims of a choice no one should ever have to make. The medical examiner’s office is very clear about this: these people didn't "commit suicide." They were forced out by the heat and the smoke. If you’re in a room that’s 1,000 degrees, the window isn't a way out—it’s the only air left.
Searching for the identity of the Falling Man
For a long time, the man had no name. He was just a silhouette.
📖 Related: Olivia Leedham Daughter: What Really Happened With Lailah Price
Journalist Peter Cheney first thought he found him. He believed it was Norberto Hernandez, a pastry chef at the famous Windows on the World restaurant. He even showed the photo to Hernandez’s family at a funeral. It was a disaster. His daughter, Jacqueline, looked at it and saw a stranger. To her, the idea of her father jumping was a stain on his memory, a violation of his Catholic faith.
"That's not my father," she said. And she was right.
The Jonathan Briley connection
Later, journalist Tom Junod did a deeper dive for Esquire. He noticed something in the other frames of the sequence. Underneath the man’s white tunic—which looked like a kitchen worker's coat—was a bright orange t-shirt.
Jonathan Briley’s wife, Hillary, knew that shirt. Jonathan was a 43-year-old sound engineer who also worked at Windows on the World. He was tall, slim, and often wore an orange undershirt that his wife used to tease him about.
His brother, Timothy, saw the photo and recognized the body type. His sister, Gwendolyn, also felt it in her gut. But they’ll never know for sure. There’s no DNA evidence for the man in the photo. The towers fell, and the physical remains were lost or unidentified. In a way, his anonymity is what makes the 911 falling man photo so powerful. He could be anyone. He’s the "unknown soldier" of the civilian victims.
The 911 falling man photo in 2026: A new perspective
Looking back from today, the ethics of the photo have shifted. We aren't as shocked by the image as we are by the fact that we tried to censor it.
The photo has become a staple in journalism schools. It’s used to talk about the "Right to Bear Witness." If a photographer doesn't take the photo, did the event even happen in the eyes of history? Richard Drew has always maintained that he didn't capture the man’s death; he captured a part of his life.
What we can learn from this image
- The fallacy of the "calm" descent: The photo is a lie of composition. The man wasn't falling gracefully; the camera caught the one moment he happened to be straight. It reminds us that a single photo never tells the whole story.
- The definition of choice: The 9/11 victims who fell were not choosing to die; they were choosing how to die. Recognizing this is a form of giving them back their dignity.
- Media's role in trauma: The initial ban on the photo shows how society tries to "clean up" tragedy to make it more palatable for the public.
If you want to understand the full weight of that day, don't just look at the photo. Read Tom Junod's original Esquire piece or watch the 2006 documentary 9/11: The Falling Man. They provide the context that a single frame cannot.
To truly honor the history of 9/11, it is necessary to confront the uncomfortable parts of it. Start by visiting the 9/11 Memorial & Museum website to learn more about the Windows on the World employees, like Jonathan Briley, whose stories are often overshadowed by the larger-than-life images of the towers themselves. Taking the time to read their names and their biographies helps move the narrative from a shocking photograph back to the human beings who lived behind the lens.