Annotated Bibliography

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_9_11_truth_movement_the_top_conspiracy_the
ory_a_decade_later
Thomas, Dave. "The 9/11 Truth Movement: The Top Conspiracy Theory, a Decade
Later." - CSI. N.p., July-Aug. 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
The first article talks about how the main conspiracy theories have been evolving
with the amount of time since the attacks. Due to peoples thoughts being more
expressive later on in time and not being afraid of what they are saying. New
theories are being introduced into the picture. However it doesnt focus just on
these new theories but rather what has changed with the old ones as well. It
shows how they found Nano thermite in the rubble of the collapsed tower.
I feel that this site is important for what Im trying to research about because it
allows me to learn more about what type of conspiracies there are apart from
some of them that I already know. It also allows me to research more about the
main conspiracy theory being that the government used the attacks to give them
a reason to invade Iraq for later beneficial reasons. However the site is weak in
the sense that most of this is opinionated and not all of it is necessarily true. This
is a big drawback of the article as these are theories and none of them are
proven. It also doesnt answer one of my questions about why these conspiracies
are so popular. It also doesnt talk about how it has affected the US in recent
years.
The reason I think that this site is credible is because it is an organization that
has come together and created this site. Most of the information that is posted
cant be something that is completely wrong since it would impact the site and
those that founded it. This is sort of why I trust this site with the information that
it is presenting. Also the information that was presented was part of a larger
series in which it was based off of inquiries. This making it something that wasnt
only done for the specific reason of theories based on the attacks.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories
"9/11 Conspiracy Theories." - RationalWiki. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.

This article focuses not on one specific theory but the theories in general. Unlike
the first article in which it was published by a single author, this is a multiple
submission piece in which many different people came together to contribute
other theories. It shows the broad aspect of thinking and reasoning among many
different people.
Very similar to the first site, this site focuses on the larger quantity of theories so
there for I gained a larger perspective on what people thought about the event. It
also shows a lot of different sources which is nice to gain a better perspective
from many different viewpoints. This is a good thing as well as a bad thing.
This site I would say isnt as credible as the other sites but still has a lot of
information that could be used for my research paper. Since it is a wiki it has
taken a lot of other material and compounded it together to bring you the pure
research and focus of what is trying to be said. That being said I had never heard
of the site which brings questions to the validity of the site as well as the
reputation.

http://www.911truth.org/
"9/11 First Responders Need Your Help NOW!" 911Truth.Org. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.

This site talks more about the effects of what happened after the attacks. It looks
at the long term effects on the US and Iraq as well as the short term as well. It
also shows how the event could have been illustrated by the government in
order to take advantage of situations in Iraq at the time of the attacks. These are
all technically conspiracy theories but at the same time it takes a step back and
looks at everything with a very logical view. Instead of coming up with some
absurd comments without any logic or facts backing it up.
I liked this site because of how it took a step back and looked at everything as a
whole. Instead of the other sites that mainly focus on the theories. I can use this
site to answer my question about how the attacks have affected the US as a
whole. By looking at the many different articles about the attacks you can see
why so many people also believe in the theories. However I would say that a
drawback is that it is heavily biased towards the conspiracy theories being true.
It doesnt show anything to support the attack being terrorist based.
Much like the first site I chose this site because it is an organization. Another
reason is because of the actual content within the site being very useful towards
my type of research paper that Im writing.
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2008/09/are-any-911-conspiracy-filmsplausible
"Are Any 9/11 Conspiracy Films Plausible?" Mother Jones. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.

This site also takes a different look at the conspiracy theories. Instead of talking
about them, it looks at the bigger picture and sees if they are actually possible in
any sort of situation. It doesnt show any bias towards the bias or the theories
but looks at them with an attention to the logic behind the theory.
I liked this site because it was different compared to all of the other sites. It
showed me how the conspiracy theories could actually be possible. It took
another persons views on the situation, then took a logical look at the evidence
and presented an outcome of what they thought about the theory.
This site was one that I chose purely because of the content that it provided. It
didnt have anything else that said that it was a site that was credible however
the content proved to be worth more than the reputation of the site.
http://www.911proof.com/
"911 Proof." 911 Proof. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.

Unlike the previous articles that show multiple theories that may not actually be
conclusive or true. This site shows only evidence that supports the theory that
the building wasnt a terrorist attack. It shows severally facts about the incident.
Apart from containing conclusive material it also includes content that supports
other theories showing how they could have influenced other events.
Just like the other site similar to this one, it was heavily biased towards the
theories saying that it wasnt a terrorist attack. It also didnt answer the question
about how the theories are so popular and as to why people believe them.

However it did present strong facts about the day and presented them in a way
that was easy to understand and comprehend.
Much like the other site, the only difference would be that this is not an
organization so the reputation of the site is questionable. However as said much
before the content of the site is a lot better than that of the other sites that I
visited. It showed a vast range of what I needed in order to answer my questions
regarding the research paper.