This page struck me for many reasons. The back and forth question and answer structure of the page really conveyed the power of the interview that was going on between Bin Ladin and the ABC person. It also appalled me that the US was given such a warning about the threat to civilian lives, which they subsequently ignored (i.e. Bin Ladin drove out the Soviets and he would do the same thing to the Americans.) In addition, the last picture on the page of just Bin Ladin’s eye was very dramatic. It reminded me of a close-up shot in a movie, a shot that a director would include in a scene to convey intensity. The backdrop of the page is a clock- maybe to convey how time before an attack is running out?  

 If the 9/11 Commission Report does nothing else it should teach its readers that in order to better combat ourselves against terrorism abroad and in the United States we as a people have to become better educated and informed about who the terrorist are, and in what ways we as a people encourage stereotypes that create environments that are ideal for terrorists to be formed.  I feel that the Official 9/11 Commission Report accomplishes this goal, and after having read selections of the report I felt that I had a better grasp of the backstory to 9/11 and an idea of what the United States could do going forward to prevent another catastrophe.

Considerations for class discussion

-time management

-was the conversation about whether or not Arne Naess was a nazi effective/useful?

Ideas on Serendip Posts:

-topic in class that was left unfinished

-didn’t get to say in class

-evaluation of the reading

-something people can respond to

-Rant about something that you wouldn’t say in class

Topics Covered in Serendip Posts

Narratives, use-value, reality

-uncertainty in etymology

            -look for “senses” of words, not definitions

In our discussions of Tarnation and the Graphic Adaptation of 9/11, we mentioned subjectivity and objectivity, and how one form may be more or less objective than another...

I think we need to be careful when we talk about this. While I think there is a more emotional response when presented with visual images, and while we are going to be reading illustrations in a different way than written prose, I don't know that anything is really objective. 

Everything is edited. Everything is constructed. And we construct everything ourselves, with our interpretations-- and all of it is done with a purpose, realized or not. 

 The first chapter of the graphic representation of the 9/11 report struck me the hardest. Even though it wasn't constructed to elicit emotion (because it seemed to try to focus on the facts and not their emotional implications), I still found myself caught reliving the emotions of that day. I had a neighbor who worked in one of the twin towers; I was good friends (at the time) with his daughter, who is my age. I remember getting the news that he was lost, and I remember getting the news some days later that his torso had been found, wedding band still wrapped around his finger. Maybe the power of these first few pages is found in the fact that they are factual rather than anecdotal or personal or emotional.

The original 9/11 report faulted inter-agency communication and personnel failures in US intelligence agencies such as the CIA, FBI, NSA. I remember reading numerous articles detailing the bureaucratic mishaps in Washington, but I never quite understood what was really meant by the highly technical and often redundant language used to describe government security functions. However, the graphic adaptation of the 9/11 report was able to crystallize and sharpen my muddled understanding of 'interagency miscommunications' by laying out scenarios, such as the panel on page 40 in which one of the agents agents says "I can't make heads or tails of this" and an FBI agent is shielding documents from the agent from the Justice Department.