Conclusion Of Fahrenheit 9/11

1. Please summarize both readings in detail, use dates, names, and any specific information contained in the articles to explain what both articles were about.

Claire Alistar shifts in her seat to cross her right ankle primly over her left and readjusts her large, black sunglasses so that they sit farther down on her nose so that she looks even more unimpressed. "Beck got caught during a job in cicily? Really? Cicily?"

In 2001, an event occurred in the United States of America that was life-changing for every American. On September 11, America had been severely attacked by terrorists, leaving behind traumatic memories for many and led to the country having to take initiative. At the time, George W. Bush was president, and he had to take action to this event in which was defining his presidency. Nine days after the attack, Bush gave an address to a joint session of Congress and to the nation. This dramatic address struck home with America, raising confidence and giving hope to the people. One may wonder, how exactly was Bush able to accomplish such a historical address? The usage of various rhetorical devices are present in his speech, allowing him to craft a powerful speech and connect with his audience. Bush establishes Cicero’s five canons of rhetoric throughout his 9/11 speech by achieving each individual requirement differently to present an address in order to adequately address the attack and give America a plan of action.

The title of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a play on the title of the famous Ray Bradbury novel, "Fahrenheit 451" in which society has been transformed into an authoritarian, repressive regime, in which subversive ideas are crimes and books are burned. In the book, a lonely protagonist is awakened to this reality and joins the struggle to keep underground dissidence alive.

The September 11 attacks were tragic events that had spread shockwaves of horror and grief across the United States. The tragedy became the subject of controversy as some skeptics began to doubt the details reported to have transpired that day. Some people question its legitimacy, theorizing that the Bush administration devised and orchestrated the attacks to further its agenda. Filmmaker Dylan Avery discusses and promotes this prevalent conspiracy theory in his documentary, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup. Avery argues that the government possessed foreknowledge of the attacks by comparing them to precedents of similar situations. He challenges the official explanations and provides his analyzations of evidence from the reports and media. Avery effectively appeals to pathos, ethos, and logos in his film, but his compelling argument is ultimately undermined by fallacies.

9/11 was a very traumatic event in the United States. On 9/11, a series of terrorist attacks took place. There were a total of four hijacked planes that was involved with this historical event. Two planes went right for the World Trade Center or the “Twin Towers.” A hijacker flew the third plane into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth plane crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania. Thousands of lives were ended that day. On the night of September 11, 2001 at 8:30 PM, the whole nation came together to listen to President George W. Bush’s speech. His use of ethos and pathos is good for explaining the issue and being able to talk about what has happened. His use of logos, or logic, is successful because he gives reasoning for what he did when the attacks first happened and how he handled everything.

     On June 25, 2004, Academy Award-winning filmmaker, Michael Moore, released a controversial film, Fahrenheit 9/11, to the nation, that examined the actions of the Bush Administration in the time period following the tragic events that occurred on September 11, 2001. The film was protested by the nation’s conservatives and thought to be rather comical to the nation’s liberals due to the way that Moore portrayed President George W. Bush and the rest of the Republican Party. Moore showed in detail the different events or decisions that he felt were disputable from Bush’s presidency, including the way he feels Bush unfairly powers the nation’s population into following that of

Suena was walking home and she felt like she was being followed, but she thought it was because of the horror movie she watched the night before. It was about a twenty minute walk for Surena to get home and she often enjoyed but that day she didn’t enjoy it. When she got home there was a note on her fridge from her mother saying she’ll be back in a couple of hours and that there was leftovers in the fridge. She still had that icky feeling that someone was watching her, she kept saying in her head that it was just the horror movie scaring her. Her dog Belle was eating the couch again, when her mom got home she’d be mad. Surena went up stairs to her bedroom and forgot to lock the door that day, when her mother warned her many times before to

As kids, we were all warned about the basics. Call 911 for emergencies, tell an adult if someone touches you or even tell the teacher when someone says a bad word. But what happens when something happens to the last person you’d think it would happen to.. Yourself. Who could you actually turn to, and when the time struck, how would the words flow out to confess the crime done to you. Or even worse, would the words come out at all? “Can you tell me what happened exactly?” “It's okay to talk to us, we’re here to help you, not hurt you.” The words kept ringing in my head. But was it okay to talk to them? Speak of the unspeakable with people... people I didn't know, nor trust? Being so young I had no idea what was going on. As my heart was racing,

Nothing I did worked. His skin, so close, so warm against my own, did it distract me? Was that it? I had done my best to free myself from the darkness he had encompassed around me, but my efforts did next to nothing in getting him away. He evaded it all. I was floundering amidst my own failure, but he was still there, still overshadowing me.

Fahrenheit 9/11, creates many good points and provides the public with an inside look into the corruption of George Bush’s presidency and what could have possibly led to the attacks on 9/11. However, the documentary overall argument is extremely weak. It is not convincing to anyone, other than those already suspicious of Bush’s involvement in 9/11, because of the ineffective ways of argument shown throughout the film.

Michael Moore's latest film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," presents a critical look at the administration of George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism. In this film Moore investigates the rapid growth of the United States government and its trend of trampling the rights of individuals, and the corporatism that is spawned out of the close ties between big government and big business during wartime. Michael Moore may not convince all audiences, but is successful for its factual accuracy in which the evidence spoke for itself, and at the same time proclaimed Moore's artistry in transposing and splicing scenes to create impressions that supported his allegations and opinions. Michael Moore has employed two main techniques in an attempt to successfully

Fahrenheit 9/11 depicts the fatal errors of an administration that was not duly elected in the first place. Moore argues that, humiliated by their failure to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, as well as by their own association with the wealthy Saudi Bin Laden’s, the Bush administration initiated a diversionary war against Saddam which had no relevance to the threat of terrorism.

In the Fahrenheit 911 the documentary communicates the event on September 11 through the perspective of Michael Moore. Michael Moore attempts to show the world that President Bush was responsible for the incident and how he failed to solve many of the complications that lead up to the event. While watching CSI, I noticed that there was not much focus on the actual attack on 9/11, but more emphasis on detective Taylor’s wives death. He said he had no

Michael Moore’s latest film, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” presents a critical look at the administration of George W. Bush and the War on Terrorism. In this film Moore investigates the rapid growth of the United States government and its trend of trampling the rights of individuals, and the corporatism that is spawned out of the close ties between big government and big business during wartime. Michael Moore may not convince all audiences, but is successful for its factual accuracy in which the evidence spoke for itself, and at the same time proclaimed Moore's artistry in transposing and splicing scenes to create impressions that supported his allegations and opinions. Michael Moore has employed two main techniques in an