Wikipedia

Talk:Loose Change

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rosicrucian (talk | contribs) at 15:26, 17 May 2006 (Pentagon Crash). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Rosicrucian in topic Pentagon Crash
Learn more about this page

Rewriting the Article

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I've gone through and done a complete rewrite to help clean it up. I've tried as much as possible not to remove anything added by anyone else although there is one thing I removed regarding the info about the Fox News Team which I thought didn't add anything to the article. Most of the other things were moved and/or rewritten:

  • added a history section (compiled from the official site)
  • renamed the 9/11 movement criticism section so it didn't make it sound like the criticisms were only coming from the 9/11 movement.
  • turned the factual accuracy section into a sub-section of criticisms...
  • rewrote the assertions section to keep it inline with the sections of the documentary and because the previous one was hard to follow
  • added a secondary picture to "Assertions" for comparison as a possible replacement
  • added a section under history for "Editions". I have only included brief info as I haven't seen the first edition so maybe someone else can expand it?

Hopefully this should be a start for the cleaning up the article and sorry if I accidentally removed something you added. TehQ 05:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cleanup Tag

ok to remove or still work to be done? TehQ 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • Let's vote on it. Yea or Nay for the removal of the Cleanup Tag on the newly rennovated article. I vote Yea. --mikecucuk 1:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • yay TehQ 01:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • yup, looks pretty good to me--Snori 02:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • ok removed it, if anyone has an issue with it's removal, feel free to put it back up TehQ 23:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Sorry. Had to put a clean-up tag back up there for the Reference and Criticisms setions. Do get your html right, whoever was responsible. It is like reading raw coding and it gets annoying after the first few lines. mikecucuk 2:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Length of time 9/11 took to plan and finance

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I think an important point is that 9/11 took many years to come to frution, almost all the planning having taken place during the two Clinton Administrations. This fact alone is enough to render many of the movie's claims, particularly as regards Republican/Bush collusion, pretty absurd.

Irrelevant. This isn't a discussion forum and it has nothing to do with the article itself. TehQ 23:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually this fundamental historical fact renders much of the video out of sync with historical reality.
No, we're talking about the "article" not the "video". Whether the claims made by the video are accurate or not has nothing to do with the article. The place of the article is simply to talk about the fact that the video was created and cite credible references about it. There are forums where you can discuss your thoughts or what fundamental historical facts exist about the video. Wikipedia is not that place. TehQ 19:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
The documentary doesn't say Bush is specifically behind it. Maybe your thinking Michael Moore?

Counterpoint?

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

COUNTERPOINT to the official version? It COMPLETELY refutes it, puts the lie to it, impugns it, shreds it, that is to say exposes the official story AS A MONUMENTAL LIE of HISTORIC PROPORTIONS. Be sure to watch the 2nd edition--which is expanded, refined, and vetted for accuracy.

do your part to bring justice back to America once and for all.

God bless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.123.236 (talk)

This isn't a discussion forum. Mimbster 21:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually, that is exactly what these pages are used for. Kntrabssi 03:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
These pages are created for a discussion of the articles themselves and the presentation of their content. Not to discuss the actual content of the video. See the note at the top of the page Joshlmay 07:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
ASK QUESTIONS AND DEMAND ANSWERS.

Clinton and Bush work for the same team

Cleanup / NPOV

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

This article needs cleaning up and refutations to the rather facile argument put forward by the documentary. Might even deserve deletion, it seems sort of self-promoting. 129.12.228.161 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

66.158.35.2 20:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)I think that although the film puts foward controversial topics, this article should strictly cover the video, and no refuttleReply

whats wrong with the video?

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I did not see anything that was “inaccurate” with the video (the guy just stated facts). How can it be self-profiting or self-promoting since the video is free and I didn’t even see the name of the guy? Why is the article flaged as being biased (or not neutral)? Licio 05:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The video states many highly disputed "facts" and though this is an article about the video, it must be NPoV and thus not take the video's claims as gospel. --Rosicrucian 06:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
What "facts"? It's an interesting video, but simply un-true, and that's the bottomeline.71.109.21.90 02:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean what facts?? How do you know its "simply un-true"? All that you know is what you have been told by one set of people. What makes you think one set of explanations is better than the other. And what gives you the authority to decide what is the bottomline? Government and media have been known to collude and conspire for ages, not just in this country but all over the world. I would rather believe the small guy who makes something on his own than the big house corporate media companies.

It is "simply un-true". All the so-called "facts" in this video have been debunked by factual magazines dealing with the mechanics of airplanes, explosions and the two towers. Painstakingly described, I might add. If you read the 9-11 report, that should give you a few more clues! Governments have colluded, yes, but not to kill their own citizens -- unless it was Clinton selling off our nuclear secrets to Nouth Korea. (That should help us out a lot, I'm sure) As for believing the small guy, what about the guy who bombed Oklahoma City? The one who killed all the little kids? Do you believe him, too, over the investigation of what happened?? He "made something on his own" as you described.

debunking?

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

The “Snopes on Insider Trading” claims something the movie didn’t claim. The website said “In the days just prior to the 11 September 2001, large quantities of stock in United and American Airlines were traded by persons with foreknowledge of the upcoming 9/11 attacks.” The movie started that “put options” were placed on companies that had their shares damaged on 9/11. Licio 06:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

As the movie explained, "put options" are speculation that a stock will fall. The Snopes article directly addresses those claims, and mentions the "put options" directly. --Rosicrucian 06:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
The Snopes article uses only a single source to back up its claim and that source is the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. I don't see the Snopes article as a refutation at all; in fact, the article DOES say there was unusual activity in the days preceding 9/11: The Commission "investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all COINCIDENTALLY INNOCUOUS and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks" (emphasis added). These articles contain actual information, and you won't run the risk of accidentally stumbling onto the Snopes page about Bin Laden eating Cheetos in his cave:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.html :: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/051602_liewontstand.html --Oscarwilde 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

“Snopes on the Pentagon” is based on opinion not fact. The book “The Frightening Fraud” is completely discredited because the author could not come up with a theory of what hit the building.Licio 06:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you'll look carefully, the majority of the points that were argued against in the Snopes article regarding the Pentagon are the same ones mentioned in the movie, most especially the claims that the plane only penetrated the first ring, and did no real structural damage.--Rosicrucian 06:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually, the video mentions damage at least through the third ring of the Pentagon which is the level shown completely torn down and under reconstructed in the photograph in the Snopes article. The article also shows the same small, circumstantial bit of exterior aluminum debris which is, quite conveniently I might add, from a section of a plane that clearly indicates what airline it comes from. It's a rather disappointing debunking and, personally, it makes me question how many times I've relied on Snopes. The information on Snopes is neither as convincing or compelling as the documentary counterpoint to Michael Moore's film, FahrenHYPE 9/11.--SeanCC 07:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Neither of the sources mentioned above give any hard science to back up their claim as the movie did. They all use things us “this is unbelievable so it cant be true” type of arguments, which are completely shredded by the scientifical facts the movie presents.Licio 06:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Snopes articles present at least as much justification and research as the movie did, and as I said they are able to directly disprove the movie on several points. Many of the "scientifical facts" the movie puts forth are not very well researched at all, and some are outright misconceptions. The links I posted show just a few of the errors the film made. Snopes is not known for sloppy research on these sorts of things.--Rosicrucian 06:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's with your name "Rosicrucian"? Seems quite fitting that you go by that name and at the same time defend the official government story of 9/11. For all who don't know, the "Rosicrucians" were largely associated with the Templars and the Crusades. I take it that you are in favor of the Iraq War, with your anti-Muslim stance? That would explain why you attempt to believe the lies that the U.S. Government spreads throughout the globe. And yes, this post of mine is POV -- but that's ok because it is not part of the article. I wrote it in this discussion page to share my opinion.

There are too many liars in this globe, and a lot of those liars come from the U.S. Government and the corporate mainstream news media. If by now, after all these years, that the general public still believes for the most part, the official government story, then lies will only continue to multiply and threaten the very fabric of a free society. You people who continue to listen to the official government story and at the same time attempt to convince others that your convictions are "true" really have no idea of what kind of damage you are bringing on humanity as a whole, including yourselves. The more you proliferate lies and such, the more you jeopardize your lives in the long run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archival McTannith (talk • contribs)

While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, it's not Wikipedia's place to promote any one view over another. As such, a fair look at the Loose Change video needs to be presented, and mention of the many disputed claims it makes must be made. Wikipedia is not a conspiracy theory website, nor is it a vehicle for promotion of a product - even a free product. If this article is to be relevant and meet Wikipedia's standards, it has to be revised to reflect this. --Rosicrucian 15:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
That is true. But just as much as Wikipedia is not a conspiracy theory website, it is not a website to falsify the claims made in the video which I believe this article is more biased toward. I also think the sentence regarding snopes.com is not about factual accuracy and should be moved to the 9/11 Truth Movement section. The section itself should be renamed to 'Rebuttals' or a similar title as it makes it look like the 9/11 Truth Movement are the only ones who refute the claims made in the video. TehQ 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Missiles/Fuselage

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
"In particular, all claims that the planes used in the tower attacks shot missiles in the instant before they collided, were removed, as well as commentary about modification to the fuselage of the aircraft."

In edit 05:37, 22 February 2006 this passage was removed by Licio without comment or discussion. Is there a particular reason this passage should not be included? --Rosicrucian 16:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • I think an in-depth discussion on the differences between the two versions of the film might be helpful. It's not really clear from the article what corrections/additions were made between them. -- MisterHand 18:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed that part because I have not seen the video claiming that at all. The video never claimed missiles being shot from the planes that hit the towers. It has 1 eye witnesses saying the planes “looked like cargo planes, which seem to not belong in that area” (forgive me for the loose quoting). This is why I removed that passage. Licio 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The passage refers to an older version of the video, which had certain claims which were removed in the latest revision. Are you referring to the older version of the video? --Rosicrucian 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was not referring to a comparison to the old video, but I was trying to describe the second edition. Perhaps we should being to rewriting the article. Making separate sections, 1 for the first edition and 1 for the second edition. Licio 23:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unsigned commenting

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can people please sing their comments when they post? The name the guy has is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It was mentioned before this is not a talk forum, but it’s a place where we discus what should be changed in the article and that’s all. Licio 17:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think I tracked down the last of the unsigned comments and fixed their sig.--Rosicrucian 20:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
La, la, la, you can't type, do, re, mi, bad typiiing!!! -zappa 03:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What's the problem with the article? Save the word "strong" right next to "rebuttal", I can't see anything here that's not neutral. The article barely presents some of the claims made in the movie and they are clearly identified as just that - claims. Of course it would be nice if the article included details on the claims - and refutations right next to them - but it's certainly NPOV as it is. IMHO. Sippan 21:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Use of "strong" is not neutral

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

This portion of a sentence taken from paragraph 4 is in no way neutral:


"The documentary is notable for presenting a strong rebuttal to the established versions of the events as officially recounted in the 9/11 Commission Report ..."


The structure of this sentence and the use of the word "strong" before "rebuttal" implies that these claims hold some precedence over the official accounts given in the 9/11 Commission Report. Usage of the word "strong" here is misleading and preferential, changing what would be a neutral sentence into an opinionated statement.


It should be removed.


I also question the use of the word "rebuttal", as Snopes and several other websites have challenged the factual accuracy of the film Loose Change. The film makes claims and they should be referred to as claims, theories, etc.; not "rebuttals," as whether anything has been rebutted or not is purely a matter of opinion. Just my two cents.

--Waychel 00:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The tag has been removed, but we should be vigilant. -- MisterHand 18:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

fyi, I note that 'Oscarwilde' above has contributed nothing to wikipedia except to support the removal of the tag. 198.207.168.65 00:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply


Have we really gotten so picky that we have to have a discussion over two words? What is this, Capitol Hill? -- Anonymous 22:08, 25 April 2006 (EST)

Removal of Criticisms

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

MisterHand notes: "(reworked headers a bit, some npov edits, removed unnecessary sourcing (we don't need eight sources for one statement), turned in-line references into footnotes)"

I disagree, I think several sources for the critiques are necessary to show that many do not agree with numerous claims made in the film. I disagree about npov edits - this is the section for critiquing the film and the points made are not pov but factual. Bov 00:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. There is such a thing as over-sourcing, I think. We don't need several articles telling us the same thing over and over again. I would say that one source is preferable, but no more than two sources is necessary. (This is not a Wikipedia guideline by the way, just my personal opinion).
As for the NPOV edits, the section on Factual Accuracy is for discussing criticisms of the film...not adding our own. See WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for the guidelines on this. It's very important that the article itself not make judgements on the film. It's the difference between:
  • The film makes several outrageous and false claims (bad)
and
  • Bob Smith of the New York Times charges that the film makes "several outrageous and false claims (good)
I hope I'm making sense here. -- MisterHand 00:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Okay, right now the article has, apart from the links to the movie itself, ten links to sites that argue against the movie. For the sake of NPOV, shouldn't there be at least a few links to sites that support and elaborate further on the conspiracy theory? Sippan 08:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Although I think that citations on both sides of the table should be about Loose Change specifically, and not about the theories within out of context...if that makes sense. -- MisterHand 15:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that providing sources of criticism is a necessary part of the article, as this informs the reader that much of the film's assertions, claims and presented facts are controversial and contested by a number of sources on both sides of the fence. However, I agree that having three footnotes in consecutive order (such as with the second sentence of the "9/11 Truth Movement Criticisms") is redundant. I would suggest limiting one footnote to this sentence while leaving the referenced links themselves INTACT at the bottom of the article. Sources can be listed under References, External Links, Debunking, etc. without being specifically mentioned as a footnote.

I do not agree with listing sites that agree with the film en masse. This is unnecessary and promotional of the film. If a reader is interested in finding more sources or information collaborating claims made in the film, I believe that they should be forwarded to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Wiki, which provides such sources. This article should not be promoting the film or its theories. If it is going to give specific mention to certain claims within the film however, I personally believe that citing criticisms of those specific claims is relevant.

Just my opinion...

--Waychel 01:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

One can argue that inclusion of a link to the official website and to the streaming videos serves to promote it. But removing them is censorship. TehQ 07:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

References section

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[NOTE: On 2006-03-06, 20:18, the References section cannot be edited. Please fix.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.141.151 (talk)

  • Hi. To change or add a reference, you need to go into the body of the article itself. All of the references are contained in <ref> tages, and automatically put to the bottom using the <references /> tag. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for more info on how this works. -- MisterHand 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Criticisms

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I restored the 9/11 truth movement criticisms as a separate section - they are not at all the same as questions of factual accuracy and don't belong under such a title. 24.4.180.197 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • I don't understand what you mean. The 9/11 Truth Movement stuff is doing exactly that: questioning the factual accuracy of the film. I don't see why it should get it's own section, especially considering both questions are so short. -- MisterHand 14:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Contradiction within Snopes

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Compare what is read here (from Snopes)…

Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall.

...with what Donald Rumsfeld said here (from Snopes)…

The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.

Rumsfeld clearly tells of only three rings being penetrated, yet Snopes still holds to the “fact” that all five rings were penetrated. But later on in the page, Snopes pulls a 180 and says the following…

You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring.

This clerical error shows a contradiction that further obscures the question of how far the Pentagon was penetrated during the attack. Either Snopes fixes this, or I can just disregard its contribution to the debunking section, especially when there can be the possibility of more contradictions within the Snopes Pentagon page. -- mikecucuk 14:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dissecting the Snopes claims is not the goal of this article, as this is not an article on the Snopes article. Instead, the Snopes article is mentioned because it provides debunking of the claims of the Loose Change video, which is the focus of this article. Debunking sources are mentioned as NPOV, and linked without value judgements. As such, I'd say you'd need more evidence that they should be disregarded than this, considering the importance of NPOV in conspiracy theory articles. --Rosicrucian 06:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I understand the importance of NPOV in this article when it comes to debunking, but shouldn't such a request also be given to the debunking source when it cannot even keep a straight basis of fact in the debunking process? If this isn't the case, then all Snopes is doing is disputing with the NPOV of this article toward opposing views of the conspiracy theory. That much, I can tell, is what really needs cleanup. --mikecucuk 14:20, 20 March (UTC)

Snopes is an external source, and really if you have criticisms or discussion of Snopes, they do have their own Wikipedia article. Bear in mind, the place of this article isn't to say whether the debunking sources are correct or incorrect, merely to demonstrate dissent where it is present. That's the NPoV. The article itself doesn't debunk Loose Change, it just presents dissenting opinions to show that they exist. --Rosicrucian 23:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I understand that now. The fact still remains, though: in this conspiracy theory, you either favor the theory or the official story (the 9/11 Commission Report, in this case). Snopes, from its external source, attemtps to debunk the Pentagon theory, thereby showing a favoritism toward the official story when it should be showing an impartial status. This isn't an NPoV toward the article. That is the contradiction within Snopes' external source. Other than that, the rennovations to the article looks much better than before. --mikecucuk 3:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Better picture please

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The picture that's currently on the page is just some text and a huge black background. It's ugly and a waste of space.
I hope someone is willing to improve it. --ScWizard 23:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's the opening title from the first edition which makes it highly relevant. I do agree though that it's not particularly descriptive. Maybe another still frame from the film would be better? Or a pic of the authors? TehQ 18:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Perhaps this link is a better picture?[1] Anyways, as a user, I cannot edit the picture myself, but perhaps a consensus can be reached. If this one doesn't work, I can always find others. --mikecucuk 14:36, 20 March 2006 (EST)
have added the pic you suggested into the article (further down the page) for comparison. TehQ 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Free Download

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It says that the documentary is free to donwload from the official website...maybe I am just being blind, but I could only find the trailer for free, and you have to pay for the full movie? Kernow 00:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Second edition is available for free via google I know.... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
KV 08:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
They link to a higher quality version on the site but it requires a bittorrent client to download.

Debunking? 2

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The "Snopes on Insider Trading" link doesn't appear to debunk the theory at all. It reads as if it is going to tell you something relevant, but if you actually make it to the end without giving-up through sheer boredom, it provides no evidence whatsoever. It seems to repeat all the evidence given in the film and then says "the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous". In fact, the unbelievable lameness of this supposed debunking warrents that it should be kept as evidence of such. Kernow 19:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The "Snopes on the Pentagon" link seems to list all the points that the film disproved. It says, for example, that "the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first". In the film we see that no damage was done to the ground in front of the building.

"The fire chief wasn't asked 'where the aircraft was'; he was asked 'Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?' He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up" - Is this meant to be a joke? Kernow 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • I agree with Kernow. The "Snopes on Insider Trading" does indeed repeat (not verbatim, mind you) the same events brought forth in the film. And it then allegedly proves it false using a paragraph from the 9/11 Commission Report with no further examination of the issue. It is then safe to say that Snopes favors the 9/11 Commission Report or "What the U.S. government has to tell the citizens of the U.S about what they believe happened on 9/11." The same can safely also go with "Snopes on the Pentagon". This isn't debunking; this is vaudeville. mikecucuk 2:00 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia as a Source

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

varous edits were removed... there were a lot of pov statements as well as information that would be better placed in other sections. "In fairness..." is an opening that would be better avoided. And can people please add notes to their edits. TehQ 03:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

TehQ what is this vandalism you do? Constantly I try to fix things to please you and you revert with no explanation. You don't even have a user page so your edits matter less. DyslexicEditor 19:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

My reasoning is that the inclusion of the info about wikipedia as a source is irrelevent because that info hasn't been revealed to be false. Whatever info we put into "Factual Accuracy" (which in itself is probably a poor choice of title) should only include info that has been proven to be incorrect such as the B-52 error. Including stuff that could "possibly" be wrong would open up that section to include just about anything. If you have reason to believe that the wikipedia-sourced info in the documentary was incorrect then certainly post something in there to say so and maybe inform the filmmakers about the error so they can address it. Just for the record, the last person to revert your changes was not me. TehQ 02:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's not that. It's that an editor can change wikipedia to say "George Bush is actually a woman in disguise," video tape it and use it as a reference. It does not matter if it is reverted a second later, as long as it shows up as "George Bush is actually a woman in disguise" on their computer screen, that's what they can show. This needs to be pointed out. ... and also 70.23.212.26 did some editing of what I wrote, but (s)he did not understand this concept I meant. DyslexicEditor 04:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

But is any of the info used from Wikipedia in the documentary incorrect? The same can be said about any website including news ones (CNN, BBC etc which were also used). The filmmakers could have edited that content also (rewrote html code) despite the fact that they would be in violation of various TOCs and certainly breaking the law. I just can't see why the possibility that something is false should be stated if it hasn't been verified. I can take a look at it when I get a free moment to try and verify what they used which should clear up any problems. If anything is incorrect I'll certainly state it where necessary. For the time being, I've moved the Wikipedia info from "Factual Accuracy" to "Criticisms". (also renamed this section) TehQ 21:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Criticisms: Other building fires.

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This is something I'd like to see added to the criticisms section. I don't have links to sources at the moment, but it seems pretty obvious (not to imply that it should be added without references). Anyway, the crticism is that showing the B-25 impact on the ESB and the other high-rise building fires, then stating that none of those buildings collapsed, is deceitful.

Firstly, in the non-ESB case, it completely ignores the other major cause of the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses: the airliner impacts. Secondly, regarding the ESB, it ignores the fact that the buildings (WTC1 and WTC2 vs. ESB) are of significantly different construction.

I'm hoping to dig up some links, as I'm sure they're out there, but I also wanted to bring this up in case anyone reading this already has some handy. R.Lange 20:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • Here's a criticism for you: it's a POV to compare the article to topics such as Disinformation and Black Propaganda. I'm talking about the "See Also" section. Give me one viable reason why I shouldn't just go in there and delete the two...or at least put up a POV tag. mikecucuk 1:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Here's a rebuttal for you, too: in the video, the narrator refers to the other buildings that withstood fires for much longer than WTC 1 and WTC 2, showing that these buildings never collapsed as a result of fire, not airliner impacts or jet fuel, although we are supposed to believe that both WTC 1 and WTC collapsed as a result of fires. May I suggest looking into the Windsow building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005? Here's a link for the full coverage of the story: [2]. Look it over before bringing up any more criticisms, please. mikecucuk 3:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Where was it ever claimed that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed solely because of fire? Just like the video, you ignore the second part of the equation: the impact damage. fire = no collapse; impact = no collapse; fire + impact = collapse. The Windsor building fire is, again, an apples-to-oranges comparison. Firstly, it didn't suffer impact damage. Secondly, it's a different construction than the WTC towers. Thirdly, it's a much, much smaller building in height, width, and depth. You can't gain logical ground using illogical comparisons. R.Lange 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • I looked over the video...and the narrator indeed told the viewer that the WTC buildings collapsed solely because of fire in regards to the 9/11 Commission Report's story (33:35-33:55 min.) before going into the history of building fires. Uh-oh, that's a clerical error that I now have to ignore in order to make you look good. And how about that three-alarm fire at the North Tower back in 1975[3]? How's that for fire at the WTC?


  • The planes would've had to have been traveling in the neighborhood of mach 3 or 4 to have caused the building to collapse through kinetic energy alone.

I find it amazing that you 1) do not consider the architectural design of WTC 1 and WTC 2 while freeing examing the Windsor Building, 2) defend the 9/11 Commission Report, and 3) do not consider the survivor and firefighter eyewitness accounts. Minoru Yamasaki (the architect that designed the WTC) said that these buildings could withstand the impact of a commercial airplane that was full to capacity with fuel (23,000 gallons to 10,000 gallons on that day. Do the math.) and still remain standing, since I now want to take into your interest the factor of jet fuel. And to follow up on Kaimiddleton's question: How about the Banker's Trust building, which was closer and took more damage from the collapse of both buildings than WTC 7, and yet it remained standing. Like I said before, Look it over before bringing up any more criticisms, because I sure did. mikecucuk 06:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Factual Accuracy" section

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...it sort of starts off well, then runs off into left field talking about Wiki verifiability. And makes some nearly magical claims: "all unsourced information is immediately deleted" or something like that. In a perfect world, maybe, but the whole section starts sounding like Wiki Defense and doesn't really speak to the strengths or weaknesses of Loose Change in particular. --MattShepherd 15:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. I'm going to have a look at what info the documentary used from Wikipedia, if it's incorrect I'll put something down about it. Bottomline, I don't think issues about whether Wikipedia could "possibly" contain false info should be put into the article and especially not in that section. It should only be included if it's certainly incorrect and in the interest of reporting verified false info. TehQ 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Added Influence On Pop Culture Section

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Over on the Ministry boards people are talking about how the band used some samples from Loose Change. There is also speculation that the creators of Loose Change will even do the music video to the song. However, I don't think they've reported it on their site. I'm sure that in the future some other people may mention Loose Change with Charlie Sheen and other celebs talking about 911 conspiracies. --71.29.135.68 15:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Black Propaganda

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a link on the bottom of the page to Wiki's article on "black propaganda," yet nowhere in the article is that talked about. I can only assume that whoever added that is suggesting that some people think this film is in fact "black propaganda." If that is the case that should be addressed in the article, or the link should be removed. White Lightning 05:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It's never discussed in the article because to my knowledge (and I doubt anybody could come with anything) there's nothing to suggest it is black propaganda. I'm removing the link.Unmitigated Success 08:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The criticism section

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I watched this video a few times and found it interesting that there was an article about it here. What I found even more interesting is how weak the criticism section seems to be. After seeing the huge edit wars on the 9/11 article, I would have thought this video would get a point by point rebutal. Let's see what the criticism section says as of this writting:

Loose Change has been criticized as disinformation even by some within the 9/11 Truth Movement, which disagrees with many aspects of the official version of events on 9/11/01 2. A primary concern of many in the movement is the promotion by documentaries such as Loose Change and In Plane Site, that a commercial jet did not hit the Pentagon 3, 4, 5, 6.

Critics of the documentary's proposal that a cruise missile or a small aircraft may have been the cause of damage to the Pentagon, cite the nearly 100 documented accounts from witnesses on the scene 7 who reported seeing a large airliner. Some witnesses specifically noted seeing a 757, while only two witnesses, located some distance from the scene, reported seeing a small plane. Loose Change, however, implies that an equal number of witnesses reported different aircraft as reported a commercial jet, and does not mention the large body of witness reports in support of a commercial jet. Critics of the missile theory note that not a single witness at the scene has ever reported seeing a missile 8.

So many more witnesses say they saw a large plane than a small one. How many? Who are they? This also means that some people did see a small plane. As for "no one saw a missile", well in the video you actually hear people say it sounded like a missile so that's false.

Many do not support the suggestion put forth by Loose Change that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland instead of crashing or being shot down in Pennsylvania, and that passengers were subsequently secretly evacuated to an empty NASA research center. Critics in the 9/11 Truth Movement note that there is virtually no evidence to support this claim and that many witnesses at the time reported seeing and hearing the plane at the crash site. 9, 10. The basis for this claim is the short-lived WCPO story citing the mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, regarding the plane's alleged landing 11 12 13. Loose Change cites one witness who describes what they believe to be an A-10 Warthog, trailing whatever crashed. However such testimony does not support the idea that planes were swapped in Cleveland, only that another jet was in the area, which most 9/11 researchers agree on.

I agree with this, and I think it was more of an attempt to explain what could have happened to them, more than trying to say that's definitively what happened.

Wikipedia was used as a source for some information from the documentary. Critics argue that since Wikipedia can be publicly and anonymously edited, the producers of the documentary could have edited articles to suit their own purposes. None of the Wikipedia-based information has yet been verified as correct or incorrect.

That's pretty weak, since this is a wikipedia article in the first place, and beside this site is being used more and more by tons of credible, offline sources.

The film carries many of the features of a Conspiracy Theory, most notably, it appeals to common sense, letting the spectator draw some of the conclusions himself to make its claims more convincing. Regarding for example the events at the Pentagon, Dylan Avery shows a piece of the plane's fuselage on the lawn, and says: "And why is not singed, or scratched, after a 530 mph impact, and the subsequent fireball?", without trying to explain why it should be. He also claims that another part found on the site could not have come from a 757: "Let's look a little closer at the defuser case of a 757. Do you see the triangular bezels around the openings ? Those are nowhere to be found on the case found at the Pentagon". Rather than relying on an expert, it puts the spectator in the expert's seat.

That's also pretty weak. It's bad because it "appeals to common sense" ? I would hope more mainstream sources would appeal to common sense, instead of putting out facts which may make no sense but since it's from XYZ it must be true. As for the triangular bezels, they did cite sources saying it cannot be from a 757. So rather than ridiculize the quote, how about saying why it's false? Elfguy 16:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I read the above comment a few times and found it interesting. What I found even more interesting is how weak its criticism seems to be. Let's see what it had to say:


So many more witnesses say they saw a large plane than a small one. How many? Who are they? This also means that some people did see a small plane. As for "no one saw a missile", well in the video you actually hear people say it sounded like a missile so that's false.
You could read what you paste: "nearly 100 documented accounts from witnesses on the scene reported seeing a large airliner, while only two witnesses, located some distance from the scene, reported seeing a small plane". Also, "sounded like a missile" isn't exactly eye testimony. And who has ever heard what a missile sounds like, aside from James Bond movies ?
[regarding Wikipedia as a reliable source]That's pretty weak, since this is a wikipedia article in the first place, and beside this site is being used more and more by tons of credible, offline sources.
Regardless, anybody can edit, vandalism alone makes it legitimate to take WP with a pinch of salt. It's even Wikipedia policy that you can't use Wikipedia as a reference (< ref></ref >) inside an article. This may change at some point (I heard they're thinking of making some articles semi-permanent), but right now that's just the way it is.
[regarding the fact the common features the movie has with conspiracy theories]That's also pretty weak. It's bad because it "appeals to common sense" ? I would hope more mainstream sources would appeal to common sense, instead of putting out facts which may make no sense but since it's from XYZ it must be true. As for the triangular bezels, they did cite sources saying it cannot be from a 757. So rather than ridiculize the quote, how about saying why it's false?
Common sense is great when you're buying your groceries or deciding what car insurance to choose, but when you make claims as serious as these, you need a wee bit more to back up your story. Common sense, by definition, is common: everybody has it. On the other hand, not everybody knows anything about mechanics, airplanes, geopolitics, chemistry, or physics, and not everybody can identify plane parts in wreckage. Watch that part again: the movie shows a schematics of the part, for just a few seconds, without a title, without saying where he got it (for all we know there could be several different kinds for one given airplane, the same way that a given car model with different choices of equipment can come with different parts), and then shows, again for just a few seconds, a similart part half covered in ashes in debris. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that. I didn't even see the triangular besels (a word I had never heard before, that isn't explained).
But that's beside the point. The paragraph doesn't even say that the conclusions are bogus: instead, it focuses on Avery's method, a common trait of conspiracy theories, whereby instead of asking an expert (there are very few interviews in the movie), spectators are asked to judge for themselves, and those quotes are there to back it up. Again, the paragraph doesn't dispute the conclusions made (the reader can decide for himself :^) ).Unmitigated Success 22:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you try reading the witness statements yourself and tell me which people saw a missile, not described the 757 as sounding like a missile. Not a single person. 24.4.180.197 16:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Weasel Words

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Okay. Who went and did it? Who put the weasel words in there and made the tags reappear? I thought we were past this. Will the real perpetrator please stand up and explain your behavior? This is the very reason why dissenting opinion has no place in a Wikipedia article. mikecucuk 3:24, 3 May, 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary

Despite your accusations, there is really no way to back a conspiracy theory with facts. Unless you are just going to dish out a historical lesson and then note in short that there are some that speculate the event and its official publicity, if you write the article in hopes of displaying a factual ocurrence in relation to a conspiracy; it will not go without weasel tags. Probably something you will have to deal with. Look at any generalized public conspiracy written by one of its own backers. Is it in a stage of speculation? Of course! People are going to come up with as many logical fallacies as they need, or people are just going to disregard it as a "S--- happens" event.

It's conspiracy theory, not conspiracy facts. --M@x 20:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The tag is there to warn readers about weasel words in the article, not in the movie or the conspiracy theory itself. If there are any in the article, point them out out and they can be fixed.

I was explaining that it seems improbable for an article with immeasurable speculation such as questioning a conspiracy theory, to be seen without "weasel words". Just a comment, I'm very much aware what the tag is there for. I was responding to your assertion that the article was thorough and "complete" in a sense that it had been cleansed of any of these "weasel words", and an outside "perpetrator" had reworked it to get rebranded.--M@x 20:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Assertions" to "Film's content"

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article titled Assertions has been changed to Film's content. The word "assertion" suggests the creators of this film didn't think their claims through much before releasing their work. On the contrary, some of the film is very well thought out and presented. Also, not all of the content within this section are assertions - Ie. the historical data of the Cuban missile crisis, and there onwards, is accurate - nothing assertive about it. If anyone opposes this change, or has a better term to use, please voice your opposition and reasoning here. -- D-Katana 21:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a problem with the change. I've amended it further to just "Content." -- MisterHand 21:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, that is what I originally thought to put. Thanks. -- D-Katana 22:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Article title

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A second gripe with this article is its title suffix. Surely "film" is more befitting than "video" - after all it is a fully fledged documentary film comparable to other film's of that genre. Would it be possible to have a vote regards an article title change? -- D-Katana 22:16 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It hurts me to give that piece of garbage such a flattering description, but I have to agree that film would be more appropriate than video. Unmitigated Success 22:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
According to the article, a seperate feature film is being planned which is why (I think) "video" was used in the disambiguation title. -- MisterHand

Banned from the US?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I read here and here that some people are saying that its banned from the US. It seems to be not the case, but it might be good for someone to find proof or a couple different sources that say its not banned, and put that on this page. Fresheneesz 00:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gold Claims

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

They make a claim that several hundred thousand TONS of gold (well, hundreds of Billions of dollars in gold) were removed from "ground zero." This seems like a pretty easy thing to refute, could someone make a note? Thanks, Daniel 208.59.130.243 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oddities section

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article stated that video claims technology to make in-flight calls not invented until 2004. The actual claim is that the technology was not *installed* on AA flights until 2004. A technicality, perhaps, but if we are going to pick holes in the movie, we must be accurate ourselves. I have changed the article to more accurately reflect this. jamiemcc 23:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fuel Safety Crash Test Video

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When I first saw the video of the test-crash that was used as a comparison to the crash at the pentagon, I remembered where I had seen it before. As a child, I had relatives who worked at edwards air force base. They showed me a video of a test crash, I believe the very same one in the video. According to NASA pages ( http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/HTML/EM-0004-01.html ) the footage is from a fuel test. The fuel in the plane was experimentally gelled ( http://fermat.nap.edu/html/aviation ), to be LESS flammable than regular jet fuel, but still capable of powering a jet. Thus I feel it is completely possible that this fire was COOLER than a regularly fueled plane.

Additionally, The plane was intentionally torn apart by structures on the ground (clearly visible in the crash video).

I am unable to verify this. I am posting this to see if there is anyone out there who knows more about this fuel test, or can prove some facts about it. My reason for bringing this up is to find out whether or not the gelled fuel might burn cooler than regular jet fuel, thus providing a possible explanation of why there were reports of a white fire/explosion at the pentagon. Kdavidsn 04:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

False allegations of vandalism

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Posting a link to a flyer critical of the film is not 'vandalism,' its called critique. Or is the search for truth via Loose Change not allowed to be critiqued? 198.207.168.65 19:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Moved from page

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Wikipedia was used as a source for some information from the documentary. It has been argued that since Wikipedia can be publicly and anonymously edited, the producers of the documentary could have edited articles to suit their own purposes. None of the Wikipedia-based information has yet been verified as correct or incorrect.

this paragraph is absolutly terrible, with weasel words and unproven innuendos and speculation, I deleted it from the article, it should not return unless it has been substantiated with who said this, and the proof od the allegations.Travb 08:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. This article is no place to discuss the verifiability or lack thereof within Wikipedia. --Rosicrucian 14:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've removed it so many times but someone keeps putting it back. As it reads above is the best edit I could do to satisfy those who keep arguing that it should be there. I agree though, it should stay gone. TehQ 02:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hard to track down who's doing it too. I've scoured the edit logs and every time it gets added back in it seems to be done by an anonymous user. It's getting ridiculous. At least the second "Wikipedia as a source" passage about the cordite got killed. I might just revise the passage and make it a subsection.--Rosicrucian 15:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Defense?

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This section really needs some work, especially:

Some defenders of the film, mostly others involved in similar types of movements and projects have defended the film against criticism.

Defenders of the film by default have defended the film against criticism. The sentence is redundant.

As well, the section doesn't seem to cite much, and only seems to exist to detract from earlier sections. If it's to remain in the article I'd say it needs to be better sourced so it doesn't sound like an outlet for editorializing. --Rosicrucian 00:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of things in the article now that need to be looked at. I agree that the question of whether the Defense section needs to be there is a valid one. I also question whether those extra bits added to Factual accuracy should be there. No matter what, nobody is ever going to be satisfied with this article whichever way it's written unless it's completely POV. TehQ 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Removed a misleading sentence

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the sentence that said "Furthermore, a number of engine and other parts found at the scene have been shown to match a 757" in the criticisms section. It didn't have a source, and anything that doesn't have a source should, by default, be considered POV. If you disagree, go right ahead and change it back. I also decided to remove the sentence that read "To reference cordite the authors utilized this site (Wikipedia). Though containing a wealth of information, to present information of such groundbreaking nature, one would assume the authors consult a more reliable source." When it comes to scientific stuff, such as (in this case) explosive compounds, wikipedia provides only scientific facts. There is no reason to claim that wikipedia is an unreliable source just because someone decided to reference an article here in his movie about 9/11 that somebody disagreed with. 83.227.219.45 19:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. This video is gaining popularity, as is this article - credibly sourced information should only be used throughout. People can make their own judgements regards the film, whether they regard it as a tonne of baloney, or as one of the best argued conspiracy films yet made. -- D-Katana 08:52, 17 May 2006

Criticisms are whimsical

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"The documentary focuses on the combustion temperature of jet fuel (1,517 F) which is much lower than the melting point of steel (2777 F). [12] This is true but irrelevant as it does not elaborate on the combustion temperatures of office equipment and open air flame which can be much higher."

I think it could be argued this criticism is largely irrelevant as the preponderance of causality is not on infinite combinations and permutations of combustable materials and different circumstances of fires, but of the particular collapses of the Towers themselves taking into account all of the circumstances (including temperatures suggested in official government theories) and observations therein.


"It also fails to note that "steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 F." [13] Which likely led to key structural failures that are heard as "secondary explosions" and "crashes" prior to the collapse."

This statement and the theory it offers may require reference to what it is talking about structurally as local structural compromises do not necessarily (or at all) translate uniformly into very rapid global ones. Again it is the global collapses of the Twin Towers which is under intense scrutiny here. Furthermore would even a 50 percent decrease be enough to intiate the particular global collapses seen on 9/11 ? The film maker obviously strongly feels not and therefore that "steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 F" may be fairly irrelevant.

Some of these criticisms such as the above are made in regards of a percieved bias of presentation, not exactly on facts. After all, a TV documentary may be factual, but it could be argued that it presents a case in favour of certain parties rather than others, therefore I'm not sure perceived ommissions about possibilities are themselves noteworthy criticisms. They strongly seem to be just in the article arbitrarily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.159.26.65 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC).Reply

You wrote I think it could be argued this criticism is largely irrelevant as the preponderance of causality is not on infinite combinations and permutations of combustable materials and different circumstances of fires. Whereas the statement in the article was very clear - jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning in the towers and therefore there's more to it than just comparing 1,517 with 2777 -, your own comments are complete gibberish. "preponderance of causality" ? What were you smoking ? Try and be clearer when you're trying to make a point.
You wrote Furthermore would even a 50 percent decrease be enough to intiate the particular global collapses seen on 9/11 ? Read source [13], it says that 50% is enough. I guess with such sentences as "local structural compromises do not translate uniformly into very rapid global ones", you probably have a degree in mumbo-jumbo physics, so you can disagree with those conclusions if you want. Nevertheless, it is a credible reference voicing its criticism, and as such is relevant to the article.
You wrote I'm not sure perceived ommissions about possibilities are themselves noteworthy criticisms. If a documentary forgets to point out crucial details in order to make its story more believable, and never bothers to ask experts on the issue because none of them would back them up, then criticism is about as legitimate as it gets. Unmitigated Success 10:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Pentagon Crash

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Did these videos UNMISTAKEABLY show a 757 crashing into the Pentagon? They showed a white blur! Why can't we see the other videos which were confiscated?

They would truly debunk the conspiracy theories, but then again, will they? Is that why we are not allowed to see them? I've removed this passage. This is vandalism. Please do not treat the article as a discussion page. That is what the talk page is for.--Rosicrucian 15:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loose_Change&oldid=53695647"