Talk:Loose Change/Archive 1

Rewriting the Article

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)

Cleanup Tag

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

• 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)
• yup, looks pretty good to me--Snori 02:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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

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)

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)

The documentary doesn't say Bush is specifically behind it. Maybe your thinking Michael Moore?

Counterpoint?

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 • contribs)

This isn't a discussion forum. Mimbster 21:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly what these pages are used for. Kntrabssi 03:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

ASK QUESTIONS AND DEMAND ANSWERS.

Clinton and Bush work for the same team

Cleanup / NPOV

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)

• I agree, and as such I've added both cleanup and npov tags to the article. -- MisterHand 16:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this article deserves a cleanup, but not a deletion, considering the importance of the argument put forward by the documentary. - 84.163.65.101 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't seem very noteworthy, frankly. Wikipedia is not a web directory, after all. Bobulus 16:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • A google search on '"Loose Change" 9/11' nets 117,000 hits. Seems notable enough to me. -- MisterHand 16:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• You want to delete the article??? Are you crazy? Self-promoting?? The movie is for free(as i know) watch it for free at video.google.com to see that the movie realy puts some good arguments against the ofitial version about 9/11! Bulgaria rulz--Chickem4o 23:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've started a section on debunking this film. This is just what I've found on Snopes so far on the claims the film has made.--Rosicrucian 01:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The sections on Snopes don't refer to Loose Change and just rehash the official explanations. 67.187.234.66 16:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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 refuttle

• The factual accuracy of a film is fair game if there's notable criticism of said film. See, for instance, Fahrenheit 9/11. -- MisterHand 21:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

whats wrong with the video?

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)

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)

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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

“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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Missiles/Fuselage

"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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Unsigned commenting

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)

I think I tracked down the last of the unsigned comments and fixed their sig.--Rosicrucian 20:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

La, la, la, you can't type, do, re, mi, bad typiiing!!! -zappa 03:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

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)

Use of "strong" is not neutral

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)

• I removed "strong" and made some other edits. I kept rebuttal, since that's what it is. But if somebody wants to change the wording, I won't mind. -- MisterHand 00:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Excellent, the article is now NPOV. I don't see how anyone can disagree. Can the tag be removed? Sippan 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I would support removal of the tag. -- MisterHand 16:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I third the removal of the tag. Oscarwilde 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References section

[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 • contribs)

• 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)

Criticisms

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)

• 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)

Contradiction within Snopes

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

Free Download

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)

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)

They link to a higher quality version on the site but it requires a bittorrent client to download.

Debunking? 2

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)

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)

• 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Criticisms: Other building fires.

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)

• 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)
      • What about building 7? Kaimiddleton 07:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• 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.
  • That's so obvious any fourth-grader could have come up with that value. Unmitigated Success 05:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

"Factual Accuracy" section

...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)

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)

Added Influence On Pop Culture Section

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)

Black Propaganda

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)

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)

The criticism section

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)

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)

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)

Weasel Words

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)

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)

"Assertions" to "Film's content"

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)

I don't have a problem with the change. I've amended it further to just "Content." -- MisterHand 21:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that is what I originally thought to put. Thanks. -- D-Katana 22:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Article title

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)

According to the article, a seperate feature film is being planned which is why (I think) "video" was used in the disambiguation title. -- MisterHand

I have a question regarding rather not the title of the article, but the title of the film/video: Why is it called "Loose Change"? It cannot be just about the supposed gold and money deposit in the TC. Or is it because the content is formed by little puzzle pieces, forming a large picture? Somehow I don't catch the sense. seerassel

I've always assumed it refers to loose pieces of a puzzle, which they believe they've uncovered. Change likely refers to the noise of loose change, so that it cannot be ignored easily. So pieces of a puzzle that can't be ignored. Only aspect of the video I find clever. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you,I had to read it three times over, but now I think I understand. Could you or somebody else please add an explanation of this kind to the article itself? Not for everybody English is the native tongue. seerassel

Banned from the US?

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)

Highly doubt any documentary, even one against the government can be outright 'banned' in the traditional sense of the word. Would the media not give it any credit or exposure owing to its 'far-out' theories? Probably not, but I don't think that could be considered a 'ban.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.193.201 (talk • contribs)

IMDB has no page for this movie(http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=loose+change). As this is a very comprehensive site and Loose Change is a very notible movie that to me would appear to be blatant internet censorship and that could suggest that it's been banned in America (?).

It's likely that there is no page for this movie on IMDB because the director has yet to find a distributor. Mentioning a ban would have to be referenced, and that's gonna be difficult, since the movie was not banned. As for IMDB's message board policies, how is that relevant to the article?Unmitigated Success 13:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering Louder than Words has no entry, nor do any of its members, and Loose Change is their only film, distributed only via word-of mouth, private film festivals and internet sales, I'm not surprised it's not on IMDB. I don't consider this censorship.--Rosicrucian 17:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Prehaps it's not that relevant, i'll remove the boards comment. However I think that IMDB has purposefully not made a page for this movie. The site is EXTREMELY comprehensive and the film is very notible. I don't think a film necesserily needs a distributour to be logged in at IMDB but i might need to check this. If you've ever browsed the site you will see they have some of the most obscure films imaginable. I just thought this could suggest a ban (no page on IMDB due to it being prohoibited in the states).

You seem to have the same, sound investigation methods as Dylan Avery: a hunch is not evidence. Unless you find a credible source saying the movie was banned (you won't, because it wasn't), there is no point in discussing this. And obscure does not mean it wasn't distributed. Unmitigated Success 06:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for everyones information, the fact that this film doesn't appear on IMDB doesn't mean much. It is extremely hard to get a new film added to the IMDB - you need far too much information that this film does not have (mainly the mainstream studio/distributor) - I've tried to add many direct to video releases to no avail. Secondly - even if a film was banned, it would still appear on IMDB as it still exists. :: ehmjay 04:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Gold Claims

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)

Oddities section

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)

Fuel Safety Crash Test Video

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)

Hmmm, there's some information on it here, but all it says is that the additive suppresses fire. Perhaps trying to e-mail someone at NASA? (Might sound farfetched, but it's worth a go.)--Jsloan31 11:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

False allegations of vandalism

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)

Moved from page

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)

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)

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)

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)

Currently, that section reads: "As Wikipedia is not a primary source it is a poor reference for a documentary." That's a terribly subjective sentence; and assuming everyone else agrees, it won't be missed. --Sestet 05:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Defense?

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)

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)

Removed a misleading sentence

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)

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

"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).

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)

As clarified by anyone with proper expertise (even the first expert referred to, who clarified his opinion days later when he realized his first opinion was ill-informed), understand any local failures near the crash site can and will lead to a cascade effect. As weakened floor(s) below simply aren't capable of holding the weight of the above collapsed/collapsing floors. When enough weight and heat is applied the floor will fail and collapse onto the one below; the increased weight and force (momentum) of the fall leads to a cascade. As the WTC has a very strong exterior, this focuses and contains the collapse. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Pentagon Crash

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.144.55.6 (talk • contribs) .

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)

Why is video required to debunk a theory that is based of very poor evidence, and ignores eye witnesses and the deaths and families of the those on the plane. Willful ignorance needn't be debunked by a video; it can be debunked with an open mind and competent research. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

People can be paid off, swayed, intimidated, "disappeared," or have their words (and identities) easily fabricated. Videotape -- particularly, videotape of the same event from four different cameras -- cannot be swayed so easily. Lobsterkins 04:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. That requires coordination, cover-up and untold headaches, making people "disappear" is not easy... not to mention astounding speed to get to most of the witnesses before they call 911 or a news agency. With todays technology, especially with poor quality video, video is much easier to edit than peoples free will, motivations, perceptions and the urge to tell others what they just witnessed. Getting my hands on 4 video tapes and getting them processed by one video expert who can be paid off is no problem. Getting to dozens of witnesses and convincing them they didn't see what they saw, without arousing suspicion is pretty damn hard. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean that video where there is still now plane to see? Which is being promoted by a right-wing nut president of Judicial Watch who is currently being sued by the founders of the very ngo he highjacked and have stolen money from? Good try but Karl won't be impressed with you performance on this one.. [[4]]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.42.179.208 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC).

I'm not sure what relevance this has to the article.--Rosicrucian 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The "relevance" here is that unlike WTC impacts there is no documented video evidence of Flight 77 impact into Pentagon. Loose change builds substantialy on the non-impact theory. NGO named Judicial Watch piggybacked on an earlier separate legal request under FOIA made by another unrelated party, where the FBI agents now had to declare that there is no visible "impact" on the other soon to be released 84 video records. Obviously, another additional material might be filed under another gov. agency and its existence or possibility of surprising leak out is unknown at the moment. [[5]]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.42.179.208 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

Okay, but what's the deal with the big long rant about Judicial Watch being a pawn of Karl Rove? Seems to me it's a can of worms that doesn't need to be explored within the context of this article.--Rosicrucian 22:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Judicial Watch under Tom Fitton is implicated in fraud scandal, linked to Tom DeLay/Abramoff/Florida CIA airline fronts/mafia machine network, which puts any recent Judicial Watch claims and activities so widely well recepted in masmedia into different perspective. [[6]][[7]] That Karl comment is not a suggestion for article content, obviously..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.42.179.208 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

Given that you seem to be flogging this Judicial Watch issue in nearly every 9/11 article's talk page, I might remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Rosicrucian 00:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rosicrucian for revealing your true role here to attack and censor crucial information about the case, this is a major and disproportionally unreported info related to the recent Pentagon footage release case, yet for you it is "flogging". No wonder given wikipedia overall reliability..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.42.179.208 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

What I'm saying is more that first and foremost I don't see an article about Loose Change to be a forum to discuss Judicial Watch or its possible ties to Jack Abramoff. To pepper various talkpages with links to the Saving Judicial Watch homepage smacks of advocacy, which as the wikiproject page I linked to states is not something that Wikipedia provides a forum for. If you want to truly do it justice though, I might suggest you work on the Judicial Watch Wikipedia article, where the discussion would be more germane. Just keep it NPOV. --Rosicrucian 11:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not accurate to state that the footage released May 16th is of "the airliner striking the Pentagon". An airliner is not visible in any of the footage released.

Article Poorly Written

This article has a TON of grammar mistakes... it's really poorly written. Worst offender:

Asserts that cellular phone calls could not be made from American Airlines flights at the time of the crash, citing as evidence the "cell station that was installed into [an American Airlines] plane" to allow the use of cell phones in flight on July 15, 2004, and questioned the need for the booth if, according to the recordings heard, cell phones could already make calls.

That makes absolutely no sense. I can't even begin to figure out where to edit that. There are many other sentences that need work, though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.253.26 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC).

I've reworked this passage. It should make much more sense now.--Rosicrucian 03:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologist too strong a word?

Personally I was going for accuracy and brevity, as the original passage was just redundant. Looking up apologist yeilds this: [8] which seems to me to be on the nose. --Rosicrucian 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree as to the literal definition of the word (but the inference, and common usage is they write/argue regularly on the subject), but people who defend this documentary do not make it their hobby, goal or profession; as religious apologists can and do. Some anon removed the entire "Defense" section, trying to figure out if it should even be put back. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the "Defense" section. As common sense dictates, given that there exists a "Criticisms" section from people debunking the documentary, there should also be a section that includes the retort from the other end of the spectrum. Please try to think in a neutral manner. Also, "apologist" carries quite a heavyweight connotation with it. I would change it to "defender," as it carries less of a "radical" or "devoted" feeling to it while being a synonym. Sestet 20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Common sense does not dictate that... and refrain from telling people to be neutral; unless they aren't editing in good faith. The section addresses non-notable petty criticism. (continues below) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How about advocates, or supporters ? Apologists is just weird. As for the necessity of a Defense section, I disagree. If counterpoints were made to the criticism, they belong in the article, but I just don't see what would go in a defense section. Right now there's just that thing about the 14 planes.Unmitigated Success 21:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a slippery slope. If you have counters to the criticisms, then you'll have criticisms of the counters, and the whole article turns into a discussion forum.--Rosicrucian 22:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

While there should be Defense section (because of its popularity)... as it stands it doesn't rebut anything meaningful. Indeed, just as with the documentary, they are selective with the things they focus on. As such, I guess it should stay; as it's ironically another nail in the coffin. Also provides a ready made section for other stuff to be put in... instead of being put all over the article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant no offense in my statement of "please try to be more neutral." I'm sorry if I offended anyone; it was merely a good-faith reminder to everyone who edits on Wikipedia, leveled (at this moment) specifically at this article, and was not intended as an accusation of irrational thinking on anyone's part. -Sestet 19:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand its intent, just noting it was preemptive. On articles like this, you should save your neutrality, policy reminders and patience for POV warriors. They'll be along. :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Clinton Budget Cuts?

The low number of jets isn't much of a surprise due to budget cuts from the Clinton Adminstration.

I've removed this for now because I'm not sure if it belongs. If you can come up with a better justification for it, or a cite, feel free to put it back in.--Rosicrucian 14:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert PoV

Nevertheless, never in history has a steel building collapsed, and on 9/11, on the same day 3 of the WTC buildings which had been overdesigned to whitstand such potential terrorist attacks all collapsed in a spectacular fashion. Building 7's collapse is particularly suspicious as it wasn't hit by airplanes and had only minor fires burning. It was not only housing various intelligence agencies offices but also a sophisticated emergency response center and could be expected to have been designed to much higher standards than hotels or residential buildings. No plausible explanation for its collapse has ever been put forward by the authorities. The documentary implies the emergency response center was used for other designs, namely to either guide the planes to their targets or to orchestrate the demolition of the towers with planted explosive devices, or both, after which building 7 was 'pulled' to eliminate the evidence. Loose change possibly erred in a couple of its statements and has obviously edited its presentation in a slightly biased way to be shocking enough to generate interest, but the mainstream media's total blackout on dissenting reportage, the govenment's unwarranted secrecy and misinformation campaign to win domestic approval for its war and the arm twisting at both domestic and international levels are exponentially shocking. So are the societal and legislative changes occuring after the 9/11 event. Loose change is a must-view documentary as long as you keep an open mind and ask yourself the right questions. Most importantly, it is important to review those events in the light of the events that followed. The war on terror, Iraq, Guantanamo bay, the energy crisis... Who benefits from all this. The plot is very plausible although some details re bound be different from the truth. After all, The perpetrators of such crimes would be in a measure to conceal a large part of what really happened for a long time if not forever. This documentary is a must see!

I've removed this passage. This article is not a forum for personal opinion.--Rosicrucian 17:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, off the top of my head, while the WTC could handle a plane impact; it was not overdesigned to handle an immense explosion and fire. (the majority of emergency exits being destroyed contradicts notions of "overdesign") As to building 7... might have had something to do with two of the most massive buildings in the world collapsing in its proximity. Calling the WTC a "steel building", and comparing it to others on that basis is an oversimplification. Why not compare a Pontiac and Porche? They are both steel framed cars... but the devil is in the details. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Partial revert

An anon has done some good editing, shortening some sections. I have reverted the In flight systems (addresses issue mentioned above) and Wikipedia as a source, though I summarized it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Cui Bono?

Perhaps I'm misremembering the film, but wasn't this the actual title of the section in question? If so, shouldn't we keep it?

I'm somewhat loath to rewatch the film to find out if I'm right, just because of the length of it. Does anyone who has watched it more recently remember?--Rosicrucian 23:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• You are correct, that's the actual title of the section. -- 23:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted it back. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

World Trade Center gold

"The articles cited appear to be unvandalized and match the producers' claims of their content, except the one about Kuwaiti gold in the World Trade Center." I don't think that's right. Part of the information described in the video has since been removed from the World Trade Center article. But at the time it was correct.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC).

If you can find the revision that matches the producers' claims, feel free to document it in that section.--Rosicrucian 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the article as of December 2005. Read the bottom paragraph of the "The Twin Towers" section. [9]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.6.169.187 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC).

I've added the cite to the passage, then.--Rosicrucian 14:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

Much of the film, is based on Dylan Avery's naive opinions and personal conclusions, often times, he brings to light only the evidence that would support his opinions, and far reaching conspiracy theories.

I've removed this sentence. It's a mess of commas, only reiterates information the prior sentence stated more elegantly, and uses strong PoV language such as "naive." --Rosicrucian 02:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The in-flight systems

The new in-flight systems allows phones to work over the ocean and at lower power levels as the signals are relayed using a satellite uplink; making interference far less likely.

But did this system exist in September 2001?

Possibly, but it wasn't implemented on any planes. The point of the section is to respond to the documentary questioning the need for the system if calls could already be made. I'll try to clarify. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bias, much?

The neutrality of this articale is at best, troubling.

And it starts early on: "Loose Change is approximately an hour and a half long, and is largely amateur quality in apperance. The movie instead consists mostly of still photographs and news footage of events relating to 9-11, which are shown against techno, or soft melodic background music, while the narrator makes various claims and observations. Video and still footage used includes considerable video content from CNN, NBC, and FOX News, as well as a number of other public domain sources. There is no original 9-11 footage or interviews.

It is narrated by Dylan Avery, though he himself is never actually seen in the film."

The first is completely subjective, the second implies a negative contation.

---

And then we get onto the good stuff: (And these are a fews thing I picked up on prima face)

"The film also gets the wrong engine used for Flight 77. Bollyn, the reporter of American Free Press that Loose Changes uses, had contacted the factory in Indiana which makes engines for small planes like the Cessna Citation and Global Hawk, rather than the plant in Quebec that overhauls the 757 engines or the factory in Derby, England. Loose Change also claims that Flight 77 uses two Pratt & Whitney engines made of steel and titanium alloy. This is false, because the engine used in Flight 77 are Rolls-Royce engines. [5]"

The irony that the person editing/writting negelected to pay attention to the movie itself, is higly amusing in the fact that they have a factual error in the factual error section. In the most recent edition, the narrator cleary mentions Rolls-Royce and is told by Pratt and Whitney to see them.

The point remains that the engines are made of the same steel titanium alloy. And that the engines were never recovered, an "oddity" in such a situation.

"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 [11] 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, does not mention the large body of witness reports in support of a commercial jet. Not a single witness at the scene has ever reported seeing a missile. "

I took a look at those nearlly 100 witness reports from the source listed, interstingly they all describe a shockwave explosion which does not, contradict, dirctly what the author is proffering as a possible theory.

Which brings me to my whole point. The author is offering, and it says so early in the begining during the interview with Hunter S. Thompson, something to think about.

Not that it can't be critized, but having watched the film and being stunned by it, you started wondering, but as a journalist at heart (I am finishing degree work now) I'm curious about the sources, which 'would' be a legitmate critcism. Not to mention obtaining verification on the potentially damning explosion videos.

To put my point more succiently, instead of being a neutral articale it comes off as something you could read on FoxNews Blogsphere or the Drudge Report or NewsMax.com. And I think it needs to seriously be looked at several, several times.

Winducorizon 09:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

>>"I took a look at those nearlly 100 witness reports from the source listed, interstingly they all describe a shockwave explosion which does not, contradict, dirctly what the author is proffering as a possible theory."

The shockwave could be from explosives placed on the plane or the plane being hit by missile defense just before it hit, or any number of things -- it does not mean that AA77 was not there. The authors contend that AA77 did not create the damage, and therefore, was not at the scene. 198.207.168.65 23:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is ridiculously biased and isn't in fact an article about Loose Change, the movie, but is more an article about how ridiculous the claims made by Loose Change actually are. Or aren't, if you have an ounce of brain-power and are not working to preserve the status quo. This article should be renamed "Debunking Loose Change", for that is what it amounts to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.166.116.237 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC).

You're plainly quite biased yourself. You'd do well not to insult the opposing viewpoint.--Rosicrucian 13:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And YOU would do well to ALLOW the opposing viewpoint, without splattering "conspiracy" all over it in order to discredit it.

Remain civil please. The article will obviously allow an opposing viewpoint, but the representation of both sides of the argument must be candid, relevant, factual, and must follow NPOV. Thanks. -- D-Katana 16:51, 29 May 2006

Do you actually have anything to reply regarding the engines issue or does the lack of argumentation mean that you have nothing against this person's claims for bias and that it should be edited?
I too noticed right away the false claim about the engines (pratt vs. rolls) which Loose Change does point out very clearly. Even if they didn't, when they mention the PRatt engines, they say that "a 757 has two Pratt & Witney engines" and everyone can read anywhere the 757 was offered in both Pratt's engines (PW2037, PW2040 or PW2043) as well as Rolls' RB211. They don't mention flight 77 actually had them and that's not contraditory to the point they make afterwards. If this is intended to be unbiased, it would be a good start to be accurate about the videos contents to say the least. So, I propose the whole paragraph should be removed on the grounds of sheer inaccuracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.35.82 (talk • contribs) .

I don't understand. Because the complete information is available "anywhere", we should not mention the documentary does give incomplete information on engine types for a 757? Incomplete, can be the same thing as inaccurate in my book. The implication in the documentary, is that the engines do not match a Pratt engine, hence could not have come from a 757. That argument is based on inaccurate information, which is 757's only have Pratt engines, as the documentary implies. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No. They don't relate the engine found to the Pratt's, actually they don't relate them to anything found, much on the contrary, they relate it to what's NOT found. They only compare their construction materials to temperatures at which they would be able to 'evaporate'. The Rolls part comes later and that's the one related to what's found in the Pentagon. I really suggest you watch the doc. again. Could they have been more precise and clear? Sure, but that's not the point here. What was listed and the way it was listed came out as Loose Change being completely off base and that's not correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.35.82 (talk • contribs) .

As I've only seen 1/3 of the documentary I'll take your word for it, and remove the paragraph again until this is sorted out. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, this is the paragraph that was removed. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The film focuses on the wrong type of engine for Flight 77. Bollyn, the reporter of American Free Press that Loose Changes uses, had contacted the factory in Indiana which makes engines for small planes like the Cessna Citation and Global Hawk, rather than the plant in Quebec that overhauls the 757 engines or the factory in Derby, England. Loose Change implies 757's only have Pratt & Whitney engines made of steel and titanium alloy. This is incorrect, because the engines used in Flight 77 are Rolls-Royce engines.

Judicial Watch

Watch's Director of Investigations & Research, Chris Farrell, stated in an interviewwww.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/180506moretapes.htm ^{prisonplanet.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} that his organization "could be the water carriers for a honey pot operation, in which the government attracts overwhelming attention to the Pentagon issue, making it the cornerstone of the 9/11 truth movement, and then blowing it out of the water by releasing clear footage of Flight 77." He stated, "Let's just call it a baited trap, it draws somebody into a situation in which they're compromised." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.207.168.65 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC).

I've removed this. Again, I have to urge those who want to call into question the credibility or integrity of Judicial Watch to that organization's wikipedia article. --Rosicrucian 22:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is questioning the credibility or integrity of Judicial Watch, nor do these quotes do that. Please do not remove these statements. bov 21:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Then could you explain how these quotes are germane to an article about the Loose Change documentary, as opposed to the Judicial Watch article?--Rosicrucian 21:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Flight 93: vocabulary errors

Changed two instances of the word "sight" to "site". Sight has to do with seeing; site comes from Latin situs (place). Homophones. Also removed dash from hi-jack. Unneccessary. Tonyfv 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Screening in British Parliment

This claim needs to backed up by something more substantial than the filmmaker's blog. -- MisterHand 14:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to put some qualifiers in there that at present the only thing backing it is the producers' claims.--Rosicrucian 19:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph completely. Wikipedia is not the place for rumor and dubious claims. If a more reliable source surfaces, we can add the information back in as appropriate. -- MisterHand 10:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding the paragraph again. It was reported in "Broadcast magazine the weekly newspaper for the UK TV and Radio industry" (as defined by Wikipedia). To read the entire article you need a subscription, but you can get the necessary excerpt from a websearch for 'loose change'[10]. This is enough for at least a mention in the wiki article.

" MPs to watch cult 9/11 documentary

11 May

A controversial US documentary that casts doubt over the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center during 9/11 is to be shown to MPs next month. "[11]

Thanks. I've removed the subscription-only link per WP:EL, but left everything else. -- MisterHand 19:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Naudet Brothers

Some theoretists suspect the Naudet brothers to be part of a governmental conspiracy, because their presence nearby the North Tower could not be accidential and the way they catch the plane crashing into the building is allegedly suspicious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.173.147.78 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC).

I've removed this from the Legal Problems section, as it is not relevant to the Loose Change article, and only serves to discredit the Naudet Brothers with spurious and uncited conspiracy theory.--Rosicrucian 15:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I found a example here. On a German site you can see something semiliar (you gotta scroll). The relevance is obvious. I think, it is the reader's case to appraise that the passage could really discredit anybody.--Katev 15 17:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That does provide a source, but it doesn't strike me as relevant to this article. Whether or not the Naudet brothers are part of the conspiracy or not is irrelevant to Dylan Avery's legal problems from allegedly using footage from their film. Now, if Avery himself comes forward and somehow tries to use it as a counterpoint to the lawsuit, then it would be relevant. -- MisterHand 17:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant because Loose Change contains Conspiracy Theories. And it is better to mention that suspicion in this context than in the article about Naudet brothers. But if you wish to delete this passage because it is not stringent enough, you are free to do it--Katev 15 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to smear the Naudet Brothers in an article only peripherally related to them.--Rosicrucian 21:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alleged?

I appreciate "alleged" is the standard term when talking about pending letigation... but isn't it clear "Loose Change" borrows footage and interviews from the Naudet brothers documentary? I guess we have to await a response/resolution to the legal action prior to changing it... just wanted to mention it anyway. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We could perhaps rephrase it as an "alleged copyright infringement." Leave no doubt that the footage was used, but the allegations are on the legality of that use, not whether the usage happened.--Rosicrucian 21:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

World Trade Center Collapse

None of this presents however answers to the discovery of basement-level hot spots of molten steel discovered more than a month after the collapse which the authors present as one of the possible reasons for the building's collapse.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.10.254 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC).

As stated in the edit summary, I am uncertain of the purpose of this in the criticisms section. Can you elaborate?--Rosicrucian 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading this explanation, I thought that it didn't offer any reason for the almost simultaneous explosions heard upon impact of the plane and in the basement as explained by the maintenance man in the movie or the lobby explosions so early on. The government must really think people are a bunch if idiots to accept such a weak explanation. Aes333 16:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Claims and points which are still to be addressed, answered or debunked

There has to be a more concise title we can use for this section.--Rosicrucian 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the entire section needs to be done away with. It's unencyclopedic, hard to read (and a possible copyvio). This is a Wikipedia article, not a viewer's guide. -- MisterHand 18:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's like having the movie's script on the page, no point in keeping it.Unmitigated Success 18:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to chime in here too. After finally looking at the section and not just the title, it's like a whole other article was shoehorned in at the end. If it's to remain in there it needs to be trimmed severely, but I'd be more in favor of deleting it and telling the author to go back to the drawing board. It's a pretty blatant c/p --Rosicrucian 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course... because there can't be any space for so many things left unanswered. God forbid anyone touching Factual inaccuracies or Criticisms, but so many things being pointed out and left unaswered clearly have no place here. If there's room for the cons, there has to be room for the pros. If not, rename the whole thing as "Loose Change: news, myths debunked beyond reasonable doubt."
Most of the stuff pointed out on criticisms and factual inaccuracies loses importance in the light of what's shed by the documentary and that's reason enough for the Defense section to be there and complete. It doesn't look good and is in fact lenghty but hey, that's another issue.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.5.207 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

It's a mountain of extremely dense text that is almost larger than the article it was added to. If you are adamant that a section like this remain, it is going to need to be more concise, at the very least.--Rosicrucian 19:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Why should it be more concise? How could it be? To be more concise it would lose everything that makes it so hard to the critiques to swallow. That would actually be biased.
To put it in another way, if everything in this documentary was about factual errors, in different fashions one from the others, how would you be concise? If you were to be concise, you wouldn't be able to point out how they were erroneus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.5.207 (talk • contribs)

I've moved the problem section here for now: /claims -- MisterHand 21:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about points for and against the movie's claims, it's only a question of style. Articles shouldn't be too long or too obscure, as it would make them unreadable and useless (Bible doesn't display the entire text of the Bible). If this material is so vital to the article, there is no reason it can't be added with some structure and actual sentences, not just a long bullet list of independent factoids . -- Unmitigated Success 21:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, too much of it is just a rehash of the film's claims. Much of it is word-for-word.--Rosicrucian 21:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet the the neutrality of this page is seriously in doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.210.40 (talk • contribs) }

Jet Fuel

Loose Change claims that the engines belonging to the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, made of steel and titanium alloys, could not have melted, because the burning temperature of kerosene in even a pure oxygen environment is below the melting point of titanium. Critics contend the melting point of titanium is irrelevant since the motors involve steel-titanium alloy rather than pure titanium, although Ti alloys melt at temperatures (1668 °C) [21] significantly closer to titanium (1725 °C) than to steel (1500 °C).

The above passage is pretty much worthless. The discussion in the documentary is about whether or not the engines evaporated, not melted, since the documentary claims that the evaporation claim was made by whomever (some official whose exact nature I don't recall).

What's needed to counter the claim that the engines could not have evaporated is information on the maximum burning temperature of the jet fuel used in the plane (< 1000°C according to Jet_fuel), and then a comparison to the boiling points of the alloy from which the engines are made. Comparing the melting points of titanium, steel, and a particular Ti/Steel alloy does not add anything to the article and is irrelevant in isolation.

Even in discussion of whether or not the engines melted, the melting points of the Ti, Steel and Ti/Steel are not sufficient on their own. ChrisLawson 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim Loose Change makes in reference to the engines is as follows:

Therefore, it is scientifically impossible that 12 tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by kerosene.

However, they seem to be the only ones claiming that the engines were "vaporized" and also seem to be operating from incomplete information regarding what remains of the engines were found. Their claims seem rather undersourced in this respect. They keep asserting that due to the size of the engines they should be relatively intact, and they keep playing a game of "well where are the engines, huh? Huh?"

All the same, we might still need to strike that passage, as it smacks of original research, which isn't the purpose of this article. A general review of similar passages is probably in order so we can keep this article from being "The Wikipedia Crew Debunk Loose Change." Keep it to official statements, findings of the 9/11 Commission, or other citations where you can take the source into account.

I'm not sure how to go about it though. Anyone else have thoughts on it?--Rosicrucian 02:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark Roberts

In the introduction to his "Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide," Mark Roberts states, "I counted 81 errors of fact (statements like “1+1 = 3”). In addition, I counted 345 instances of conjecture not supported by evidence, logical fallacies, uses of images that do not support the conclusions being drawn, and other flubs. And that’s only counting errors of commission. The errors of omission are more serious."

For example, major omissions about the Pentagon attack include not mentioning that dozens of eyewitnesses state that they saw an American Airlines jet strike the Pentagon, that tons of Flight 77 debris was recovered there, along with numerous personal effects of passengers, and that all but one of Flight 77's victims' remains were positively identified by forensics experts. No attempt is made in "Loose Change" to interview – or to present the findings of – the thousands of experts who were involved in the 9/11 investigations.

I'm unclear as to why it's innapropriate for a WP editor to make assertions without references in an article but it's OK to quote someone else doing so.

I'm pretty sure the film does in fact mention that some people of the witnesses stated they'd seen a large jet crash into the Pentagon (along with some saying they'd seen a small plane, etc.). ChrisLawson 20:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you, Chris. We removed that passage sometime in the past and I hadn't realized it'd snuck back in.--Rosicrucian 02:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That passage "snuck back in" again, and I removed it today. Also, I reviewed the Mark Roberts commentary and I find that it would not pass the Wikipedia quality standards (especially due to weasel words and bias), and as such it should not serve as adequate source for information on the documentary without further references.

Factual Inaccuracies/Criticisms

There seems to be a lot of redundancy between these two sections. Do we really need both? I think the article would be cleaner if we merged them and sorted out what parts of Factual Inaccuracies go into what subsections of Criticisms.

In addition, as I stated above in another section of the talk page, we really do seem to be going out of our way to do original research to debunk this film. While I do feel many of the film's claims need addressed to do a properly balanced article, we do seem to be straying away from what a Wikipedia article should be.

I think we need to review these two sections, decide if we want to merge, and afterwards do significant revision to show dissenting opinions rather than straight debunking. It's not really our place to debunk the film ourselves, but if we can show properly sourced dissent on the film's claims that should be kosher.

What do you guys think?--Rosicrucian 02:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

-to me, it seems as though the 'factualt inaccuracies'/'criticims' section seeks to aggresivly disprove the video rather than to provide an alternate point of view, and should be re-written to be more detached/neutral. -the article cliams that the video does not consulte the findings/interview of any expert on the subject,but this is not the case.The video quotes Van Romera, Vice President for research at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, for example. -it just doesn't seem to me as though this article fulfills wiki's neutrality/quality standards. [I also put something that should be here in the section below, sorry.] 67.101.135.33 02:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

50% decrease in strength

Critics of this assertion point out to the time-temperature curves of the steel and the fact that even a 50% decrease of the strength of the steel shouldn't cause critical failure in the towers. The testing by NIST used twice as much load on the floors during testing and the measured sagging of the floors was increased almost tenfold in the computer simulation of the collapse. The latter data can be found in the NIST report.

Whoever posted this, could you make this a little clearer ? First maybe explain what time-temperature curves are, or preferably have a link to the relevant wikipedia article, the same goes for NIST. You can't just write the testing by NIST, a little more context is needed. What is this test they conducted ? Also, this paragraph says that this decrease in strength shouldn't have caused the towers to collapse, and at the same time it says that the measured sagging of the floor as increased tenfold in the simulation. Isn't that contradictory ? Unmitigated Success 11:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A time-temperature curve is graph that display the relation the temperature of the steel and the time it takes to heat. If you hold a torch that is burning at X degrees the steel won't be instantly at the same degree. The temperature of the torch would be the gas temperature and the other the steel temperature. Ofcourse there are several ways to measure the temperature (local, maximum, minumum, average,...) so standard methods were put in place. One of those methods is ASTM E 119.

I need some more time to dig up the sources about the sagging, but it IS contradictory. NIST issues some real life tests that measure a sagging of X inches, and as an input into the computer simulation they enter an amount of sagging that is a lot higher.

Check out the table on page 96 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6B none of the tested floors failed when they had been subjected to higher temperatures for a longer time than the wtc buildings were burning. 84.195.248.248 07:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, it might be easier for me when people who refer to the official version mention which official version they are using, NIST, FEMA or the silverstein/<forgot the name> report. There are differences between those reports. For example, in this particular discussion I stuck with the NIST report because the FEMA report said that fires alone could NOT cause the collapse (chapter two). But then again, that would bring up other issues. So if I take the FEMA report as truth the entire paragraph needs to be rewritten.

84.195.248.248 06:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) -the 'factual inaccuracies' section, the article claims that "major ommissions include....not mentioning that dozens of eyewitnesses state that they saw an American Airlines jet strike the Pentagon" despite the fact that the video states that "....the eyewitnesses: some of them saw a huge, hundred-ton commercial airliner....".The article's claim of what the video states directly contradicts what is actually stated on the video.[sorry if this is in the wrong place, move if neccesary]. 67.101.135.33 02:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ad Hominem

I believe this is the term you're looking for.--Rosicrucian 02:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. If I look at the entire article which CLAIMS to be about loose change but if count the lines which actually deals with the movies and compare it to the number of lines about the attempting to debunk it with vague science (don't even understand time-temperature curves and most importantly most who have written it don't know sh*t about the NIST report, FEMA report, etc.. Let alone the most basic physical notions of conservation of momentum and energy. Anyway, have fun with this article and next time when someone says that wikipedia is a bad reference, you can pat yourself on the back and say you've done a heck of job! I won't bother correcting the stupidities here, although some counter arguments are valid but they are more in the order of lines, not paragraphs.

Debunking Loose Change, as far as I know, is about Loose Change. If you can point out how this makes the article poor, apart from you not understanding it, please let us know. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

ahm.. Is this a joke? ok, let's start by this: ...Mark Roberts states, "I counted 81 errors of fact (statements like 1+1 = 3). In addition, I counted 345 instances of conjecture... I challenge you to list all of them (or at least _count_ them) or otherwise mention in the article that none have verified the claims of Roberts. This is ONE of the many things that makes this article poor. Oh yeah, in one of the versions of that paper he claims (or hints) the towers didn't come down in approximately 10 seconds. Was that part of 345 instances or was it part of the 81? I'll disregard your remark about me not understanding the article. <sarc> Your debating skills are excellent! </sarc> 81.165.192.118

I wasn't aware there was a debate, thanks for the invite though. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of Mark Roberts, while he does make some important points about the movie, some of his 'errors' are bogus. In his 'Viewers Guide' he says 'if you find a mistake here, email me'. I have personally e-mailed him pointing out a number of mistakes, including his claim that the towers didn't fall in free fall (he is contradicted on this point by the US government, NIST and FEMA) and he has refused to correct these mistake. This behaviour makes it difficult to decide which of his 'errors' are valid and which are bogus. His viewers guide should not be taken as 100% truth.Seabhcán 10:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And where in the article does it say that his viewer's guide is 100% truth? Unmitigated Success 11:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that's your standard for including something in this article I'll put a webpage claiming the authors of loose change are in fact from the planet zentron. If I follow your logic this would be ok as long as I don't claim it's 100% truthful. Is it really that hard to see my point about this? 81.165.192.118

It's not my standard for including a reference. A reference should be included if it's relevant and if it's credible (and I'm not saying this guy is), I'm only saying that the article never says he's 100% true, it's just quoting his reaction. Unmitigated Success 15:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure I have no problem with including references, but I'm sure you guys can find better references to debunk loose change than this one. When I read that paragraph I'm under the impression that it is fact since nothing in the article states the inaccuracies in the viewers guide. Somehow it feels wrong to add a debunking piece on the debunking piece which I think is necessary to get this thing back to a NPOV. 81.165.192.118

Another thing: What is the procedure to locking down the article? I've noticed every time I add something to the article which to the "pack" seems "wrong" it gets deleted without refering to the discussion pages. I've mentioned several things here that no-one contradicted because I was refering to the "official" reports.. Now if I added NIST data to the critisms, WTC section, it will get deleted again(!). What is the right procedure to get it prevented from happening again. I'm a newby in all this.. 81.165.192.118

An article would be locked if it experienced repeated/organized vandalism or edit/POV warring. If that occurs (or even one or two reverts happen) bring it to the talk page and it can be worked out. After being supported/reasoned out, the addition can be grabbed from the article history and restored as per the consensus; few things are truly ever "deleted" in Wikipedia. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Can someone please justify the notability of this movie? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been well-covered in the major media. Do a Google search and you'll see that it's got a lot of attention. -- MisterHand 16:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Cite please Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for but here's a search of recent news articles on the film: [12] and here's a web search: [13] There are 532,000 google hits for "'Loose Change' 9/11". Are you trying to argue that this film is not notable? -- MisterHand 17:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for you to demonstrate it's well covered in the major media status. A link to coverage in the major media would do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article from Salon cited in the article (http://salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index4.html) mentions 100,000 DVDs sold. I think that makes it notable (and sad). Unmitigated Success 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Salon puts purported before that statement, but the salon article is relevent. Please note my merge proposal. Is there notability in the video outside of the conspiracy theories? I don't know. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should define what you consider 'Major media status', but in the mean time how about these:

1. USAToday
2. Guardian
3. BBC
4. Chiago Sun Times
5. Google Current TV
6. etc

Seabhcán 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Oppose. I would say this deserves its own article, since the film seems to have become a populist "gateway" into 9/11 conspiracy theories. Interestingly, a lot of conspiracy theorists have distanced themselves from the film. Anyway, I oppose the merge, just as I would oppose merging Super Size Me into McDonald's. -- MisterHand 18:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The movie is notable and deserves its own article. And I'll throw in an analogy as well, I would oppose merging The Protocols of the Elders of Zion with Antisemitism. Unmitigated Success 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per MisterHand. Seabhcán 18:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, film has received network news coverage as well as substantial print and internet coverage.--Rosicrucian 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Google Video Removed

Just wanted to point out, it seems as Google has removed Loose Change from its site, most likely due to the copyright infringement issues the video had (see this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/911_documentary_removed/). This removal just happened today -- as the video was working earlier this morning but now is unaccessible. Maybe we should edit this into the article and include a note next to the Google Video links? --smileyborg 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That copyright infringement story is a month out of date. Loose Change' producers cut some deal with the Naudet brothers and settled the copyright dispute. But it seems that the movie's english language edition has been removed, for unknown reason. But infact there are currenly about 100 different versions and language translations of the documentary online. Seabhcán 08:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its still available here: (Google Video). Google Video is still in beta software version - it might be down for maintainance or software update, or some glitch. Seabhcán 08:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I actually watched it using that link, but the main links are completely gone... --smileyborg 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias, Cleanup

As someone reading this for the first time through, this article comes across as extremely biased and seems only to exist to flog this film. This article needs to be rewritten to include only the facts surrounding the creation of the film and what is contained in the film without actually turning the article into some debate surrounding the content itself. The point of the article is to convey information about the film and general information about its contnet (as in, the film addresses these areas, thats it. No need to go into the various things it says about those areas), not nitpick everything it says. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for discussing conspiracy thoeries and trying to debunk differing viewpoints. --Crossmr 07:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

as a starting point I would suggest something like this: remove the criticism section, remove the factual innaccuracies section, take the content section and shrink it significantly. Don't discuss in detail what each section alleges. For example, the time frame section isn't bad, but drop the last sentence. Speak generally about what the movie talks about. Going into unncessary specifics is what leads to PoV issues. The Pentagon section should be rewritten to say something like "The film covers the various aspects of the flight 77 crash at the pentagon, including eye witness, media and government reports." Infact breaking it into sections might not even be necessary. A general synopsis of the various general areas covered by the film would suffice. I realize this is a hot topic, but hopefully objectivity can prevail here. Keep the legal section, keep the parody mention and the other media. Shrink the debunking links down to a few of the more notable links. Shrink the external links down to the official site, the DVD itself, and one or two notable links for viewing. --Crossmr 07:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It might also be intersting to examine the film's internet marketing campaign, if there is any information about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes something like that would also be okay and informative without delving into a PoV shoving match. I can probably begin the cleanup on this article over the next two days if you have anymore thoughts. --Crossmr 14:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with some of your points (reducing links), wholesale removal of the criticism section doesn't seem appropriate. For example Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, Intelligent design detail rebuttals to the assertions of their proponents. I see this as no different as Bowling for Columbine. People come to Wikipedia to get both sides of the issue, or film. Removing one side doesn't necessarily improve the article; any bias this article has can be directly attributed to the biased nature of the documentary itself. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So you admit this article is biased? 81.165.192.118

It is certainly negative; I don't consider that biased as mostly negative things have been said about the documentary. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to Apollo moon landing hoax accusations and Intelligent design is not appropriate (and equals assuming a negative point of view on the movie). Bowling for Columbine does not present any kind of rebuttals but just critical opinions. Maybe it would be more appropriate to compare the status of this article to Fahrenheit 9/11.--Pokipsy76 08:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, however discussion regarding including criticism has recently begun. I also noticed this in its talk page.

Any errors, distortions or omissions in the film should be dealt with seperately. This sort of editing is equivalent to an argument about the impossibility of space battles with audible explosions in a discussion of the specific content and plot of Star Wars.

I suppose I can agree with that. But if the criticism is pointed, brief and notable (audible explosions isn't notable), I don't see a problem integrating it in the main article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats why I also suggest removing both sides, by not delving into the points the movie makes either.Go back and reread what I suggested. Present a factual account of the general areas the movie covers, i.e. the pentagon, the time frame before, the collapse of the towers, gold reserves. You mention they talk the pentagon, you don't say "They suggest a cruise missle hit the pentagon". An encyclopedia exists for information, not a forum for debate. I'd also argue that the content section of Farenheit 9/11 is way too long, but one artilce at a time.--Crossmr 13:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree it is not a debate forum, listing arguments/assertions a documentary makes is entirely encyclopedic. As is providing notable criticism, by that standard the criticism can be trimmed down and even integrated into appropriate sections in a counter point style; but I cannot entirely follow the rationale a Wikipedia article exists just to present the facts. Notable opinions/critics are permitted. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As you might have guessed from my comments above, I agree with you. We need a clear roadmap for revising the article and properly sourcing criticism. While debunking may be useful, it is probably beyond the scope of a wikipedia article, and it is best to point to specific critics rather than attempting original research.--Rosicrucian 20:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say as a starting point to that map, we should begin with removing specifics of arguments presented in the film and the counter-arguments to those points. Trim the list down to a handful of notable links. --Crossmr 23:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, I'm going to make a request for comment on this to allow us to move forward. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see us being anywhere near a spot to require an RfC, a very short debate doesn't put us in that position. You might want to consider straw poll instead if you feel its necessary. A wikipedia article does exist just to present facts. That is why everything requires a citation. You can mention that there are critics of the film, perhaps even why in a general sense (i.e. they felt the movie glossed over points, or didn't make strong enough arguments), but debating the content of the film will end up turning into an endless pissing match as people try and use wikipedia for a soapbox to push their PoV. Constantly tweaking language, etc. That type of environment serves no one looking for information on the film.--Crossmr 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Apt observations, but nothing new to controversial issues on Wikipedia; of which I am pretty familiar having worked on Abortion and Evolution related articles. In short, "this will be disputed" isn't a sound rationale for article decisions. This doesn't take away from your overall argument being valid that criticism was disproportionate in the article. However, simply removing criticism leaves a vacuum that will be repeatedly filled by good faith editors adding factual criticism; which is entirely encyclopedic. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

When a movie was made and what's in it is not all that's encyclopedic. Notable, sourced, critisism and commentary is essential in a Reception. As for the facutal inaccuracies section, those arguments should also have sources. Removing all critisism from the article makes it POV and removing even the allegations it contains makes it somewhat of a stub. --GunnarRene 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What I would agree to is implementing something similar to Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy, where the majority of the criticism is moved to a sub article. However, I would include a brief summary lead paragraph in the criticism section; which has a Main article link to the sub article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This film isn't as notable as Farenheit 9/11 and doesn't warrant that kind of attention.--Crossmr 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Farenheit 9/11 #1 in google video? This film is. --Striver 19:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability isn't a fine gradient, where we can decide or argue the appropriate article length based on perceived or relative notability. This film is notable, once it has achieved notability we write the most complete encyclopedia article(s) possible using notable verified sources (as they relate to the subject matter). Meaning for example, 2019:Off-World is not a notable site; but regarding Blade Runner it is very notable. (Also, even though Star Wars is more notable that Blade Runner, that in no way limits the extent of Blade Runner articles) Likewise notable websites for Loose Change and their criticisms are entirely appropriate to include in Wikipedia, if they are sufficient in number and popularity they can even be presented as the mainstream/majority view. (meaning they can elaborated on) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats a pointless comparison. Farenheit isn't available on google video. Here's a better question, which does Blockbuster have more copies of? Which has sold more copies? And actually yes. Similar works that are not as notable as other similar works do get less attention. Large popular anime for example, pokemon, has more articles than most people could read on the subject covering all kinds of various parts of the series and franchise. However a brand new anime that had 200 different species of character in it, woudln't warrant 200 articles on the various species in it. Notability does determine the amount of coverage, it might not dictate what you cover in the main article, but it does govern sub or additional related articles. --Crossmr 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

An excellent argument, but fails to recognize that many species can and should be catalogued in a List (sub article) regardless of the subjects notability. This documentary is popular and notable; despite your valid points above, and the criticism is numerous and notable enough to illicit a sub-article. The mere existance of the criticism, just as with the species, requires a sub-article. In both instances notability has no bearing on these decisions. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

break out

I broke out the critisism section into Criticisms of Loose Change, it was geting out of hand, and it wanted to get even bigger. --Striver 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you wanted to "hide" criticisms of the movie to push a POV. I reverted you removal and am afding your article. Next time try and get consensus on the talk page before making such a move.--Jersey Devil 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. --Striver 21:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering your past actions there is no reason I must abide by that nor does the agf policy state that I must. I assume good faith from newcomers and in general most wikipedians but not from people who frequently get into edit warring, go against consensus, and relentlessly promote their POV in articles. I will also revert your edits back if you decide to take out the information again.--Jersey Devil 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Good to know were you stand. --Striver 21:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found a precedent on wikipedia for separating criticisms from the subject article. The articles 9/11 conspiracy theories and September 11, 2001 attacks have been separate for some time now. Seabhcán 23:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain that a documentary without any formal distribution outside of independent film festivals, website sales, and Google Video merits two seperate articles. There is enough notability to support the Loose Change article, and perhaps the Louder than Words article, but I think we are stretching the notability a little thin here.--Rosicrucian 02:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

While its a concern, as I noted above, quantity rather than notability dictates whether there is a sub-article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If the quantity exceeds the notability needed for two articles, it is the quantity that should be remedied.--Rosicrucian 02:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

While there is always more than one way to skin an article, I've never come across a metric of notability to judge appropriate quantity of an article, let alone a sub-section. I tend to shy away from such ... problematic ... assessments. Sure limit the original research, but don't get ahead of yourselves by arguing via notability. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As noted there are precedents for Striver's actions. It is likely the correct solution to remove (move is a more accurate word) the perceived "bias" in this article to a sub-article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but to my frustration, bringing something to the talk-page amounts to nothing in regard to this article. For example, the collapse of wtc, the fact that the Mark Roberts webpage has not been peer-reviewed and has not been checked and is included. If we can keep this article to only what the video of loose change asserts and link to a page which contains criticisms (some of them are valid). We can keep this a clean encyclopedic entry without.. umm.. hocus-pocus-science which thrives in this article, and is directly contradicted by official sources (nist, fema and others). If you and most disagree then I think it's fair we have a chance to reply to the criticisms.. Despite the fact that it makes the article less about loose change 81.165.192.118 13:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

JD started a AFD in relating to this :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of Loose Change --Striver 01:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Collapse of the World Trade Center

We have an article that details the collapse. I think this page should just describe what the video says in one short paragraph, with maybe another short paragraph of notable criticism. The word "Pan-cake" doesn't occur in the NIST report mentioned. Is it the video that calls it the pan-cake theory? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As for notable criticism, how do you suggest we select what's notable? Both the fema and nist report are notable, but their technical description of the collapse differs. So how do you choose which report to follow and which to ignore if the criticism has a reference in one report that the other contradicts? It's the fema report that called it a pancake type collapse. (Since you like sources ;): Fema report chapter two page 2-25:

In addition to overloading the floors below, and possibly resulting in a pancake-type collapse of succesive floors, local floor collapse would also immediately increase the lateral unsupported length of columns, permitting buckling to begin

81.165.192.118 08:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure neither the FEMA or NIST report says anything about Loose Change, one way or the other. I think we determine what's notable in context, by discussion and consensus. It could be that there is very little criticism of the video from any notable source. In spite of the producers' diligent internet-based marketing efforts, I'm not sure many people outside of the walled garden know or care. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's start by Mark Roberts. To me it's just someone with a web-page and should be removed for the same reason you first removed my entry, namely, it's not sourced, it's not verified, it's not peer-reviewed. What do you think about it? I'm bringing it up because this article is very biased, it's not substanciated with *any* scientific review, and everything that regugitates what people think is the official view point is added. Or you say, well FEMA is wrong, or you say NIST is wrong, and everything in this article is deleted that uses those sources. To be honest, that would be only fair since that was the same standard that was applied to sources of loose change.81.165.192.118 18:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We should probably mention him and link to (but not re-state) his criticisms; it seems to be a somewhat well-known critical site. I'm not sure we need to do much more than that. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ looks like the best-known critical site. I'd like to hear from other people before we do any major cutting from the page though. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be a lot better than what it is now. Now it seems like he has any scientific evidence against loose change (he might have, but his ad hominem attacks and some other unsubstantiated claims really clouds it). 81.165.192.118 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is rather like herding cats, and it's not unusual for relatively new users to get frustrated. That said, I do support your calls for revision, and wish I had more time to dedicate to this article to help produce something we can all agree on.--Rosicrucian 00:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While the section can be shortened, removing it entirely is silly. Re-inserting summarized section that contains key points. Actually screw that, the fact it was removed by an anon quoting a defacto conspiracy theory site and asserting it constitutes the whole of "modern science" forces me to reinsert the entire thing as it was. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If its deemed necessary I can remove the truss discussion, which then allows the NIST vs. FEMA paragraph to be removed. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I highly object to removing the the FEMA vs NIST paragraph because it shows that different scientists still haven't figured out how the wtc collapsed. If you remove this how can you present any criticism to loose change? It's like saying: "hey, I'm smarter than everyone who wrote these documents". If you remove it, I'll put it back in to show that this isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. 81.165.192.118 09:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it prior to coming here. The point of removing the discussion on the collapse is because it doesn't necessarily belong here, but rather in WTC collapse article. As to scientists not figuring it out, they have, they simply don't agree on which one it was. Also the blockquote is there to address the "explosion" meme, not to assert once and for all how the WTC collapsed... and I removed the Truss assertion. I'll put a line and a link to the disagreement of the experts. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We need a tight focus on the Loose Change video, and reproducing reference that would fit better in other articles only serves to make this one bloated and redundant.--Rosicrucian 15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I also found when I read the WTC article that there isn't a contrast of the reports. Hence I tweaked the emphasis on FEMA being preliminary and the NIST being comprehensive. Presenting them as equal and/or contradictory is inaccurate and misleading; and it certainly doesn't provide an opening to say "the experts don't know, hence our conspiracy theory is therefore plausible." - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite the section of the FEMA report where it says this report is only preliminary? 81.165.194.5 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not there. The intent of "preliminary" is to clarify which report was done first and with less analysis, time and funding. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. FEMA's report was chronologically earlier, and much more superficial. In-depth investigation of things like this is not FEMA's job.--Rosicrucian 04:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So when in the very first chapter of the fema report they stated (under the heading 1.1 Purpose and scope of this study) This includes determining the probable collapse and identifying lessons to be learned. They have failed in this regard? Can this be put in the article? You said it was preliminary and also said they got the reason of the collapse wrong. So the conclusions about safety and the areas for further research in securing building is also in question or am I missing something? 81.165.194.5 05:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They didn't fail, however, they are likely wrong about the precise catalyst of collapse. I base this on the relative expertise and notability of the NIST study, not my own opinions, as I had none when I started editing the section (with one exception, that Loose Change was presenting a simplistic incomplete picture of the WTC collapse).

If I thought about it now and formed my own opinion ... if indeed the collapse occurred as FEMA has concluded, I would expect to see far more blow out from windows as floors pancaked between the (temporarily) intact central and exterior columns. This would occur prominently just prior to the top collapsing... there may actually be one example of this in Loose Change; although I'm pretty sure the top started to collapse just prior to the blowouts; strongly indicating central collapse.

Issues of furthering safety etc. are great, but not within the purview of the section in question. And why would we include that in the article? I do feel preliminary best describes the analytical scope and expertise FEMA brought, specifically, to the WTC collapse. Issues of building safety, etc etc... aren't my focus for this section. Also the section now includes "Either way" making it clear that a firm conclusion hasn't occurred among experts. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough :) 81.165.194.5 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Came across preliminary for FEMA report in my recent internet travels. It's in the Popular Mechanics 9/11 debunking website. [14] - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Still.. If it was meant to be preliminary, I would assume it got mentioned in the FEMA report itself. 81.164.41.210 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Condensing redundant sections

I've moved several passages from the Factual Inaccuracies section to their respective subsections in Criticisms. There's no point in going over things twice. May need minor copyedit, and if I find the time this afternoon I'll go over them again for readability. I've left some passages in Factual Inaccuracies, especially the inaccuracies the producers themselves have admitted to. If anyone sees a way to organize this better, feel free. I just felt there was too much overlap between Factual Inaccuracies and Criticisms.--Rosicrucian 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms Subheaders

I do like the style of linking to the main article where applicable. Looking at the Criticisms section though I see an issue with our choice of subheaders. The way I see it, we could either go with titling them after the relevant main articles, or perhaps more appropriately after the corresponding subheaders in the Content section. At present we seem to be doing neither, and that doesn't seem to be very useful to me.

If we go with the latter of the two suggestions, we might be able to eliminate the Factual Inaccuracies section entirely and just go in the order the film did, with perhaps one spare subsection for the Wikipedia as a Source bit.

Your thoughts?--Rosicrucian 04:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, but get a semi-broad consensus prior to a section re-org... might want an RfC or better yet illicit the opinions of the WikiFilm project. ... I mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. :"D - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As a preliminary and just general cleanup, I've moved the WTC subsection to before the Flight 93 subsection (to mirror the film's order), and merged the two subsections that both deal with Flight 93.--Rosicrucian 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources of Information?

Seems more than a little redundant, and not directly related to Loose Change. We can probably safely remove it, don't you think?--Rosicrucian 01:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In a way it is related to the article. It wasn't my first choice to add in the article all the debunking info. But if it's there, it only seems fair that other related info about this is included as well. 81.164.41.210 09:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We've already got a massive reference table linking everything cited. I don't really see the purpose of a table of links that only relate to 9/11, and not to support or criticism of Loose Change. This is not a general page about 9/11, nor should it be.--Rosicrucian 14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

More information about 9-11

I've removed this, as well as the subsection above. If we are making link tables they should either be directly mentioning Loose Change, or sourcing claims from the article.--Rosicrucian 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Classification

Isn't this video more properly classified as a hoax, rather than a documentary, since it uses, among other things, photographs selected to be visually misleading, and falsifies the meaning of several quotes to "prove" its key claims? TheKaplan 00:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's place to make value judgements like that. The producers call it a documentary, and we can present that there is controversy and criticism surrounding it, but the worst we can call it is a conspiracy theory, not a hoax.--Rosicrucian 02:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have evidence that it is a hoax I'm happy to hear about it. Well? Have you any? Notable persons who think that the official explanation is a hoax is a lot larger. Look it up, you might be surprised to find several defense experts and even a german defense minister. Oh yeah, also several professors in the field of physics and material sciences. 81.164.41.210 08:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, considering the state of the world these days, the statement, "[the group of] notable persons who think that the official explanation is a hoax is a lot larger [than the group that don't]" may actually be true. Unfortunately, it is irrelevant. Notable is the wrong criterion. The statement, "[the group of] respectable, notable persons who think that the official explanation is a hoax is a lot larger [than the group that don't]" is quite clearly false (Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro: all are examples of how notability does not neccesarily confer respectability). That aside (it's not the real issue), the classification of the film as a hoax does not require judging the worth of 9/11 conspiracies in general or as a group, but rather merely recognizing that this particular film uses made-up facts, doctored quotes, and misleading photos in an attempt to influence the public into believing a certain thing, and that the fact that it uses these made-up facts, doctored quotes, and misleading photos is well documented and not something about which rational people can disagree, whatever their opinion on the larger issue of the conspiracy theories is. That is why it is properly classified as a hoax. TheKaplan 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about made-up facts, doctored quotes, etc? I really fail to see why you're bringing up Kim Jong, etc.. in this discussion. I mentioned an german ex-defense minister, are you implying that this person is in the same category as Saddam Hussein? 81.164.41.210 17:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)::::Several, but not all, of the made-up facts, doctored quotes, are highlighted in the "factual innacuracies" section of this very wikipedia article, as well as the criticism section (much of what is in the criticism section belongs in the factual innacuracies section). The rest can be found at the comprehensive guide to the film at [15], while other relevant information is at [16]. To answer your second question, I am in no way implying that this german minister or any of the several defense experts you mentioned are properly categorized alongside Saddam Hussein, et al. I merely brought up several easily recognizable names to prove the point that notability does not neccesarily mean repectability. This was dealing with the claim that "[the group of] notable persons who think that the official explanation is a hoax is a lot larger [than the group that don't]". Despite the probable truth of this statement, the group of respectable notable people who think this is much smaller. The german minister and the cited defense experts are members of the minority of repectable notable people who believe that the official story is a hoax. That group only becomes a majority if you discard respectability as a criterion for admittance into the group. However, as I was saying, that whole issue is a tangent to the primary one concerning this film in particular. Happy editing, TheKaplan 18:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark Roberts report is not very respectable. It contains a lot of errors and statements he cannot back up. Here's are some of his claims refuted [17] and that article also contains a link to an answer to the popular mechanics article. [18] 81.164.41.210 08:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Respectability? Your line of argument is rather distorted. At the moment Fidel Castro enjoys worldwide more genuine respect than dubious characters such G.W. Bush and at the same time acknowledging that Castro is indeed in many ways an authoritarian ruler.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.42.179.208 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC).

The first linked document does not contest, and actually reinforces, the existence of the made-up facts in this particular film, it contests the dismissal of these conspiracy theories in general. This is a direct quote from the article: "I do not contest the grievous factual errors in the third of the film that deals with the Pentagon." TheKaplan 16:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said there were no mistakes in the movie. I implied that the Marks Roberts rebuttal cannot by any standard be viewed as respectable, notable or anything else but an ad hominum attack on the movie. There are enough rebuttals to this piece. The official story that a guy on kidney dialysis in a cave and 19 people with the awesome advanced weapons that are boxcutters were able to fly and manoeuver planes into buildings that were designed to withstand the impact of fully loaded planes without collapsing. The planes were domestic flights and definitely not fully loaded. This is one of the many reasons why the fbi to this day has no proof that bin laden is guilty of 9/11.[19]

An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy which seeks to discredit an argument by attacking the one who makes it. It is improperly applied to the Loose Change Guide, which features not attacks upon the film's maker, but rather a rebuttal/analysis of the claims. There is no conceivable way it could be classified as such. The "rebuttal to the rebuttal," however, is both unproffesional in nature and often bordering on ad hominem itself. TheKaplan 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first claim: the towers came down in near free fall speed. Do you agree or disagree? (and, yes, I'm aware that you're ignoring my other claims) 81.165.162.161 08:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was choosing to look beyond an incredibly oversimplified and in no way backed up statement that I assumed was not an actual argument presented for discussion. This is not a forum on 9/11 conspiracy theories, but rather on the article recording a particularly feeble attepmt to prove them (the film). TheKaplan 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You didn't watch the movie did you? That claim was in the movie. And it is backed up. Try reading the 9/11 commission report. It is stated on page 305.

What speed should it fall at? Floor trusses designed to hold X number of tons, being suddenly impacted with 2 or 3 times that weight from collapsed floors above wouldn't put up much resistance. Every subsequent floor would give out ever faster. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It should fall at a rate less than free fall. You have, amongst other things, conservation of momentum. In a very simplified case, suppose m is the weight of the floors. v1 the velocity the floor hits the floor beneath it. v2 is the speed of the floor beneath it (which is zero since it hasn't collapsed yet) than the total momentum is (in this very simplified case) m*v1+m*v2 = m*v1. Now the two floors are collapsed on each other and start moving which has a momentum of 2*m*v3. Since there is a conservation of momentum that means that m*v1=2*m*v3 or in other words v3 (the speed of collapse of the two floors) is smaller than v1. To be more correct you need to use the gravitational force and the formula would dP/dT=F but since the mass increases you'll reach the same conclusion. Resistance would reduce the speed even further. I'm baffled you didn't even know this elementary fact of physics 81.165.162.161 23:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, who said I didn't? I'm baffled as to how this argument is in any way compelling, since you got your m's wrong. Why would a floor offer any significant resistance to the 15 floors+ (15m+) of debris falling onto it? Granted not all of the debris from the top floors hits immediately at the same time, but within 3 seconds the entire top section of the WTC would be at the first formely "intact" level, within 1.5 seconds there would be enough debris to smash through each intact floor instantaneously (way more than 1m). It's a freight train versus a car, yes there is resistance, but nothing to write home about. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And if the WTC collapsed as the NIST concluded, the floor velocity wouldn't be zero, as the interior column collapse would cause multiple floors to collapse at the same time. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You offer absolutely no quantification to back up your statements. Here are my variables, please feel free to correct them. I've put this together rather quickly in maple, so there might be some mistakes in it:

Floors := 110; FirstChunk := 16; Gravity := 981/100; HeightFloor := 417/110

Here are my formulas

1/2*Gravity*t^2+v*t-HeightFloor = 0;
TimeFreeFall(v) = -v+sqrt(v^2+2*Gravity*HeightFloor))/Gravity; Free fall for one floor
VelFreeFall(v) = Gravity*TimeFreeFall(v)+v; Velocity after the block fell for one story with a begin-velocity
VelCollision(v) = n*v/(n+1); Velocity after n blocks fell on the floor below (cons. of momentum)

And here's the loop it went through:

TotalTime := 0;
TotalVelocity := 0;

for i from FirstChunk to 110 do
TotalTime := evalf(TotalTime+TimeFreeFall(TotalVelocity));
TotalVelocity := evalf(VelCollision(VelFreeFall(TotalVelocity), i))
end do

TotalTime is calculated from free fall with a certain begin velocity. That begin velocity is calculated when I use conservation of momentum to calculate the speed the new block would have. Please notice that I assumed that there is no friction The upper block touches the floor below it and both collapse without even spending anything to 'break' it. The result when I ran this loop was 11.5139 seconds. Free fall is 9.2. About a 25% increase. And this is without calculating the time for the block you started with to collapse completely to the ground. Again, I assumed no friction from air or the force required to fragment concrete, office materials, columns etc. Your second point about that the floors were already moving has another problem. Conservation of energy which is explained in more detail here: [20] 81.165.195.209 16:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You could start by changing 110 to the # of floors below the impact zone, then calculating the effect of the above floors smashing into the ones below. In the WTC scenario you do not have floor 110 hitting floor 109, you have the floors above the impact crashing down (simultaneously) on the floors below. As to the floors not moving, I acknowledge that is probably the case for the floors below the impact zone, but then again I cannot say for sure one way or the other. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I should've been more clear on this point. I've numbered the floors backwards. So the first floor is the top floor. The last one is the one at the bottom. The loop goes from firstchunk to 110. FirstChunk is 16, so at the start of the loop the top 16 floors fall on the floor below that, then the top 17 floors fall on the floor below, etc.. until you reach the final floor. The loop should actually only go 109 and when I fixed this, the time is still 11.44 seconds. This number is as close to free fall as I could get it. The floor fall, collide, then magic happens, and the total falls down as fast as the conservation of momentum allows. 81.165.195.141 06:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, it was my bad as I use to do programming and just didn't look close enough at your loop statement. Well, I guess the towers did something different. (ie: interior collapse that had floors moving prior to total collapse) I find this a far more reasonable explaination than a controlled demolition. Furthermore many experienced engineers have looked and even analyzed the WTC collapse using sophisticated models and understanding of WTC construction. They don't have a problem with it's collapse speed ... the fact some young conspiracy enthusiasts can't get the numbers to work is a) unsurprising and b) inconsequential. Unless there are some physicists coming out to say its impossible; since there isn't I can only assume its a red herring. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the nist hasn't released any information about their simulation as far as I know. They didn't report their input parameters, etc.. If I'm wrong about this you could always show what program or what calculations they used to arrive at this point. 84.195.124.111 09:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

O unnamed one, in reference to the presumptuous, "You didn't watch the movie did you? That claim was in the movie. And it is backed up. Try reading the 9/11 commission report. It is stated on page 305,": I did indeed sit through the entire film, although I admit I was more than ready to turn it off when I realized it got so many basic facts wrong (i made myself sit through it). The "oversimplified and in no way backed up statement" i was referring to was your previous response: "The official story that a guy on kidney dialysis in a cave and 19 people with the awesome advanced weapons that are boxcutters were able to fly and manoeuver planes into buildings that were designed to withstand the impact of fully loaded planes without collapsing," which technically was not a claim in any case because it lacked a verb. Happy editing, I'm getting weary of this. TheKaplan 09:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

O named one :) You're wrong again. The movie also had doubts about the confession video from Bin Laden and even whether he was involved in 9/11. This quote goes to show that even the FBI can't prove this. If you are certain that Bin Laden did it, please contact the fbi with your information so we can put this behind us 81.165.195.209 16:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is moot. Wikipedia is no place for Original Research.--Rosicrucian 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This article on WIKIPEDIA has turned into a hit piece. I have attempted to correct statements of fact or counter points and they have been consistently deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.52.36 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

It's hard to really put this in perspective, considering youd haven't registered and thus we don't know which edits you're talking about.--Rosicrucian 19:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Misleading light poles

The following comment, albeit true in a general sense, is horribly misleading: Light poles are designed to detach on impact to save lives if cars crash into them. What happens when a car crashes into a light pole? Both the car and pole are designed to deform in order to absorb impact power to less lethal levels. However, when a car hits a pole with enough speed to collapse the pole the car will be in practical sense be destroyed, like this. I'd rather see a mathematical physical proof (momentum and stress needed to collapse a pole vs wing/hull durability) used instead of this completely useless anecdote. - G3, 03:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the pole. And although you may have a point, that car is looking not bad at all, especially considering it "probably flipped"; also the anecdote does serve to remind casual viewers light poles are installed with due consideration to impact safety. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What the "light poles are designed to detatch" factoid provides is an illumination of either the intentional deception or very poor research in the film, which misleadingly states that the light poles were "uprooted," among other things. TheKaplan 07:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A light pole detaching and falling of a car wouldn't really pose much a threat other than denting the car. TostitosAreGross 16:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Archived

Since the first archive was a three-month span, I've added a second archive. If discussion continues at this rate, I'll probably also continue the three-month pattern as it seems to make for decently beefy archive pages.--Rosicrucian 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the page be updates to talk about the claim that some of the alleged hijackers are still alive. I could not find the related Orlando Sentinel articles that were cited in the documentary.

~~August 10, 2006~~

141.158.35.205 13:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Kelly

Criticism vs Factual Inaccuracies

A lot of the material in "Criticism" belongs in "Factual Incaccuracies." In regards to the recent move of info (about the air traffic controllers quote), I would put forth that it is a factual inaccuracy, because it presents as fact that the air traffic controllers thought the plane was military because it did things civillian planes couldn't do, while the fact was that they thought it was military because it did things that civillian planes wouldn't do. Thus it is a factual misrepresentation of their views. TheKaplan 16:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, that is an omission, not an inaccuracy per se. Just because it is a valid criticism does not make it a factual inaccuracy. --Rosicrucian 20:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with TheKaplan. An omission of someone's words is a factual inaccuracy. An omission of that nature is NOT simply a criticism. The section of the ATC's quote that was cut from Loose Change completely changes the statement. Whether the omission was intentional or not (the filmmakers could have got the out of context quote from another source)...it's still a factual inaccuracy. --Adamreuter 06:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Video title

The article doesn't explain the title of the video. What does "Loose Change" have to do with the 9/11 attacks? Could someone shed some light on this? -Joshuapaquin 22:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's never really been explained. They don't mention the reasoning behind the title in the film, nor on the website attached to the film.--Rosicrucian 23:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the archived discussion page, the title likely refers to loose pieces of a conspiracy puzzle that cannot be ignored. Just as loose change cannot be ignored — as it jingles — that is until you take it out and expose it for what it is ... various denominations of unrelated and trivial monetary leftovers. :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Well, if that's right, it's pretty bizarre. -Joshuapaquin 13:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Again with Maddox

Is Maddox himself adding his links to these Loose Change profiles? Who in their right mind believes he is relevent to this video, or the creator? Perhaps people are forgetting amongst their arguments that this is still an Encyclopedia. -Yaldabaoth

It can be argued since Loose Change is an Internet phenomenon, it is appropriate to note an internet humourist's criticism. Certainly Maddox is not standard encyclopedic fare, and if he did place it himself that wouldn't be good, but Wikipedia is not a standard encyclopedia. For better or worse. (as a standard encyclopedia wouldn't even have an article on Loose Change to begin with) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Somebody with a multi-million person audience certainly is worthy of having his critiscm posted here, as an encyclopedia we should be mentioning as much relevent information as possible for readers because they deserve to hear every aspect of the story. I really doubt he placed it himself, he simply is one of the main critics and should be listed as such, personnally I don't think any of the larger articles are complete without a critiscm section. Any attempt to remove maddox's mention will be readded unless otherwise noted. TostitosAreGross 16:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the opinions of somebody with such a large audience are relevant, but I'm replacing the word 'criticized' with 'lampooned' as it is much more accurate. Bear.owned 16:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

His criticism is valid. With the power the government has, and the theorists' belief that they have no morals, ethics, and don't care about their county, his criticism stands up. The government would easily wipe this off the internet and execute the people involved. Or wait are they suddenly too scared to execute military procedure on some pardon my POV here, fools. Youknowthatoneguy 07:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you read Maddox, you'd know he would give a rat's ass about what wikipedia has to say about him. I'd bet a large sum of money he's never edited this page...hell, probably hasn't even looked at it. -- Dan N.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.144.217 (talk • contribs) 05:06, September 9, 2006

Possible Explanation?

How are we supposed to know it's a "possible explanation" as opposed to an "impossible" one? That sounds like an endorsment of the theory right off the bat; not npov —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.63.155 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It says it is a "possible" explanation, not a "probable" or "likely" explanation.--Rosicrucian 23:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

--- But it may be an "impossible" one! To declare it "possible" is to make a value judgment on the piece. I've seen the video, and find it unreasonable. If I felt otherwise, I might say, "hmmm, interesting take on 9/11. It just could be possible..." But that would be an endorsement of the filmmaker's pov. Would a wikipedia article on, say, the "theory" that Apollo 11 never landed on the moon characterize such a contention with a phrase like "possible explanation" ? Does the Wikipedia article on Lamarkism call it a "possible explanation" of evolution? (maybe it does, I haven't read it, but I doubt it.)

"Alternative explanation" would be far more neutral.

---

oops, well I have to laugh at myself -- I should have checked the article again before posting my last remark; evidently someone else agreed that "alternative explanation" was preferable and changed it; thank you. I should have just made that edit myself without complaining about the original.

WTC collapse counter-arguments

However proponents of flaws in the official government line point out that if steel components could withstand temperatures of ~2000 °F under test conditions, then how could they behave any differently as "assemblies under actual fire conditions"? Further if test conditions can not be related to how materials or assemblies behave in the real-world, then the science of testing itself would be a pointless exercise. The fires were seen to be burning black smoke, this would indicate that they were oxygen starved, many people are seen at the sites of the airplane impact within minutes waving for help, this would suggest the temperatures at the impact zones were "normal enough" for human beings to tolerate. However this very same fire had melted the steel all the way down in the basements of the three buildings, where incidentally there was no actual fire reported.

I removed the above as its rhetorical nonsense. It entirely misses the point of why assemblies may actually perform different than specific components in controlled conditions (ie: no office equipment on top; likely no wind/structural stresses). Anyone who needs that explained to them, does not inspire my confidence in editing this article. Kept physicist mention for now, but if found to be wanting... it will be removed as well. At the very least it should be reduced in size, not only to give it summary style, but to reflect to its actual notability/relevance. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the nist report then you're wrong. They loaded the assemblies to design load not actual load before doing the tests. It's mentioned in the NIST report. Look it up. I think they also took into account other stresses, but it's too long ago when I last read it. 84.195.124.111 09:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Informative. Did they include fireproofing? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

All of these theories however ignore one important event in the historical record of the Twin Towers. On the 13th February 1975, the 11th floor of North Tower of the world trade center did endure a fire which raged for three hours, where temperatures reached 2000°F. The fire consumed 65% of the floor and involved the core columns. However no significant structurally threatening damage was recorded to the steel in either the core, floor trusses or exterior & importantly no trusses were replaced. This fire prompted an investigation, one of the results of which was the installation of a spinkler system in the towers. The fire of the 13th February 1975, would have more than satisfied structural engineers via a real-world test, of the "steel assemblies under actual fire conditions".

Removed the above as original research. It makes no attempt to add references, and presumes what structural engineers would have concluded. It also misses there was no explosion involved in that fire, and that it occurred on a lower floor which likely use asbestos fireproofing. It like the other high-rise fire comparisons simply isn't analogous. It should certainly be mentioned along with the physicist in a reduced and merged paragraph. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Proponents of conspiracy theories argue the temperatures involved cannot account for the molten steel present deep in the basements of the twin towers and building seven weeks after their collapse. Professor Steven Jones, a Brigham Young University physics professor, published a scientific paper concerning the collapse of the buildings which provided an explanation for the molten steel. The paper proposed that the explosive Thermate was strategically placed inside the World Trade Center to cut supporting steel beams so that they would collapse in a controlled demolition.

I was also thinking it belongs on the 9-11 conspiracy theory article. If so, then it merits a mention and link here; however a one sentence or two deal. Which I have no issue with since the documentary and Thermate theory both refer to molten steel and free fall speed "problems". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Added a paragraph at the end. This could also go at the beginning of the paragraph section, depending on the order in which the documentary brings up these points. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the points made in the loose change video are countered in a recently released point-by-point article by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Trypsin24 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I've used the link to answer molten metal question. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No evidence steel was tested

This sentence needs to be changed “While the steel components of the WTC were certified to ASTM E119 requiring them to be exposed to ~2000 °F for several hours;…” unless someone can come up with evidence that it is true other than Kevin Ryan’s claim that it was. The NY Times and UL said it wasn’t. The linked article supporting that claim is deceptive it omits that Ryan worked for a water testing company that UL only bought a few months before 9/11 and had nothing to do with the standards testing division.

If no evidence in support of this claim is forthcoming I will edit the sentence.

I propose “Kevin Ryan who worked for a water testing company owned by UL claimed that the steel components of the WTC were certified under the ASTM E119 standard to with stand being exposed to ~2000 °F for six hours. His claim however was refuted by UL, and article in the NY Times also indicated the steel was never tested.Lenbrazil 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision plans?

I'm crossposting this from a user talkpage to try to foster some debate here. Recently there has been a lot of dispute about the factual inaccuracies and criticisms sections.

Really, I can sympathize with people who think the criticisms section is a bit unbalanced. It's riddled with borderline OR and needs a significant trimming and re-evaluation. We also (as I stated on this talk page) need to list what changed between the original and 2E, and between 2E and the recut. We'll have to do likewise when the final cut comes out next month. Being an article on the video itself, the revision history is more important than "debunking" it, and it's completely absent while the criticisms section is larger than any other.

So we need to look at what better belongs in other articles, make better use of the Main Article tags, and bring the focus back to the video itself. Roy and Tom have been heading in that direction, and I unfortunately haven't had the time to take a long hard look at it and put some effort in.

Wildnox has suggested an alternative to Demosfoni's "balancing" of the criticisms section, that being a seperate section of supporting opinions. I could potentially go with this, but it's going to have to be commentary directly on the video itself, not just sources that support the video's claims.

And as I just said, I believe we should hold the criticisms to the same standard. We need to make sure that any references there are not OR, and are referring directly to the Loose Change video, or at least directly to the theories it espouses. Material references, calculating freefall rates, and things like that are right out.

At least that's the way I see it. Hopefully we can achieve consensus and bring the focus back to the video itself. Trim out all the dross that belongs in the 9/11 conspiracy article or the individual 9/11 event articles.--Rosicrucian 23:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Website down

The http://www.loosechange911.com/ website referenced in the article as the official source for the video is now down and leads to a generic godaddy.com page. Does anybody know if another official site exists? if so the link needs to be replaced, if not it needs to be removed. 70.108.97.172 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Apply fact tags where it is used as a source, then someone will hopefully see it and source it. Off hand I'm not sure where else would be a good source. --Wildnox 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead links can usually be found at the internet archive. Although it isn't responding right now. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Links

Somebody removed a bunch of links from the botttom, I'm assuming that this was because they were about debunking 9-11 conspiracies in general instead of about debunking the video. I agree that these should be removed but I put the links back on until there is some input in discussion. As the removal might seem questionable to some. If I get no response I'll remove the links again, just assuming nobody has any serious objection. --Wildnox 19:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The links and criticism section is too long. WP:NPOV it falls under undue weight. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia WP:NOT not a debate on the merits of the content of the movie. Though I suspect any effort to bring this article up to standards would result in a massive edit war by PoV pushers.--Crossmr 23:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I started brainstorming on a revision roadmap above, but nobody seems to be biting.--Rosicrucian 23:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to. I've made several comments before regarding clean up of this article, so my support is there, but no one really seemed that interested. Given the environment currently surrounding this article and my past experience in similar cases, any cleanup to bring it up to policy won't be easy. I might recommend creating a temporary rewrite and seeking concensus on it. Once concensus is achieved on it, it will be easier to put it into place.--Crossmr 23:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of my frustration here is that there are individuals editing both the article and the talkpage that have information I don't. For example, the claims that the recut version fixed all known factual inaccuracies. I would dearly love a list of what was changed from first edition to second, and what changed from second to recut. I feel it would be an asset to the article. However I don't have the time to make the comparisons myself, and I just know somebody out there has such a list handy.--Rosicrucian 23:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the change doesn't have to be a complete "final version" change. I think a start is trimming out the criticism section and trimming the debunking links. Then going back to focus actually on the video, when it was released, where it can be seen, a "general" synopsis of what the video is about, without delving into the need to get into a debate about the content. WP:NOT clearly states that doesn't belong here, and removing it shouldn't be an issue, but we know almost for certain that doing so would result in an edit war.--Crossmr 23:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As you can see on my revision proposals above, I very much agree with you.--Rosicrucian 23:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

On the very recent revision, I agree with all the removals, except for the 3 part debunking, as that seemed like a pretty good link. A little explaination for that one maybe, I'm probably just missing something here. --Wildnox 00:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see why it was removed now. Good job by the way. --Wildnox 00:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Its a blog, this isn't a debate forum. I've recatagorized all notable links as "media coverage". Blogs and other non-notable "commentary" whether its positive or negative, doesn't really have a place here. The official media outlets provide enough external links on the subject that we don't need to delve into blogs or other coverage at this point.--Crossmr 00:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

911TM Critisism

See this --Striver 11:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Official Site

We have 2 official sites listed there. One is an official website for the video, the other is the "official site" in general. Any idea whats going on with those? Are those both official sites, and is there a way we can combine them? Does one link to the other?--Crossmr 00:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be the official site, the other one makes no indication of being official, that I see at least. --Wildnox 00:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section reduction

As I've stated above, WP:NOT clearly details that articles are not a forum for debate. This article is about loose change as a video and is to detail its content accurately and neutrally. That doesn't mean a neutral representation includes paragraphs of debunking. It means we present the content without saying "I as an editor feel this movie is 100% correct, or I as an editor feel this movie is 100% wrong". It means we write in the article "The movie talked about this subject and that subject. It is not a forum to debate the content in the video. If you'd like to do that, there are some forums for the video, or I'm sure someone has set up a blog or other forums for which to do so. While the criticism can be mentioned with some appropriate links (which I feel the the first paragraph of the criticism section does) it is not a place to spell it all out.--Crossmr 00:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants access to the removed content, I've stored it here for easy access User:Crossmr/lccrit.--Crossmr 00:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a big cut, but I think it needed to happen. Might get built back up some afterwards, but it's a better structure. We don't need to be doing OR or duplicating work that would be better served on other articles. Good job.--Rosicrucian 02:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The key is not to let it get built back up. We need to maintain the policy that this isn't a debate forum for debating the merits of the content of the film. Anyone who wants to do that can find a better venue for it, this isn't the place to do it.--Crossmr 04:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A little short, but good job nontheless. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually no. After thinking about it for a second, Wikipedia is not a link repository. It is entirely insufficient and unencyclopedic to simply list links for knowledge and criticism levied against this film. Perhaps the criticism could have been better presented and summarized, but redirecting people elsewhere isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. Anything remotely controversial gets criticism, and Wikipedia articles list, and are relied upon to summarize notable criticism. (eg. Brokeback_Mountain#Controversy and Bowling_for_Columbine#Criticism among many others. This video is controversial and as such has MORE than its fair share of critics. To reduce the criticism section to 4-5 sentences is in no way representative of the criticism it did receive. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because articles get criticism sections, doesn't mean they're appropriate. While the actual subsection labelled criticism is only a few sentences that entire section speaks to the errors in the film and questions the content. Its about 5 or 6 paragraphs, and even in that short criticism section there are links to 7 different rebuttals of the film (which is honestly a bit much for such a short paragraph) but nonetheless it gives the reader access to a lot of debunking links. That could possible be retitled as criticism as the main title, then subsections--Crossmr 13:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That would help, but it is the "appropriateness" which is at issue. One of us is incorrect on the function of a Wikipedia article; and I want this cleared up before either of us proceed further here or on any other article. And I'll reiterate Wikipedia is not a link repository, debunking or otherwise, we summarize and catalogue knowledge from sources and provide access to it here. Further the other paragraphs you speak of repeatedly point out it has been addressed in the recut. So essentially that makes it out of date criticism; and if anything that should be summarized by half or put in point form with it all listed as correct in the recut version. I'll do that now since it's such an awkward mess. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And that is it. Wikipedia is not a place to debate content or views held by an individual. It would be like an article on "Joe Blow" which contains the sentence "Joe blow has stated in numerous interviews that he feels all people from ireland possess a tail". Its not wikipedias place to then turn around and say "Doctors have repeatedly examined people from ireland and not found a tale". Because we're now providing point of view on his comment. The same thing occurs here. This article is about Loose Change. It is not an article who's place it is to either promote or debunk the content of loose change. its a place to accurately write in a neutral manner what is in loose change. In this case a neutral manner is not providing opposing view sources. On the other hand there has been a lot of criticism of this article and that makes the criticism notable and a couple of links to a major criticism (i.e. the point by point ones) would be appropriate in this context as its a notable thing in relation to this video. However its not appropriate to spell out the criticism itself and begin to argue the various points made in the movie. I haven't completely read those other 2 criticism sections you pointed to, but I'm almost expecting there is some of that going on there and its not appropriate. The paragraph that talks about the existence of the various criticisms is okay to me. The rest I'm still going over to see how it is.--Crossmr 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not what he's suggesting. He's more suggesting that for each of the fiskings and for the NIST report we should summarize, perhaps in just a sentence or two, their major points of contention with the film before dropping the ref link.--Rosicrucian 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well we have 7 different links there, if we did that for each we'd easily approach upwards of a couple paragraphs just summarizing what is debunked in each. Since between the 7 its quite likely the entire film has been debunked. We could write a short couple of senteces to that effect, or include a very short line if a site has focused on something specific. I haven't visited all of those sites, but I notice that at least a couple are reported to provide point by point debunking. We might tighten that section up, indicate that those two sites exist and then mention a couple notable debunkings that focus on something specific like NIST. but if we're going to extend the descriptions of the sites, we should tighten up the actual amount of sites, as 7 is really too many when you take into consideration most of the media coverage is of the negative viewpoint as well.--Crossmr 23:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rosicrucian got it right, but I'm willing to even go further and do categorical points. This isn't about listing something from each link (the current number of links is fine), its about addressing fundamental habitual flaws made by LC which aren't addressed on this article.

These include, but are not limited to, quote mining (especially air traffic controllers, leaving out "unsafe"), quoting non-experts, not doing follow up interviews (especially with the New Mexico guy that changed his opinion; and the guy from the flight school), leaving information out (generator outside pentagon being smashed), and most significantly just bad research. (nose of plane not being the hardest, light poles safety mechanism, the fact steel buildings have collapsed, and the fact steel doesn't have to melt for it to be structurally compromised) Essentially all of this needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia as generic criticisms leveled at LC from multiple sources. I am certain it is an encyclopedia's responsibility to note that steels strength is reduced by 50% at a given temperature. However, perhaps if you prefer, that point can be made in paragraph dealing with LC being selective with its facts; rather than in a detailed WTC collapse rebuttal I created before.

Please keep in mind now and in the future, these are meant to be stand alone (Wiki-connected of course) articles which may not have access to the internet. (either because they are in print form, or given to a disadvantaged market with little or no internet access) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And then you fall back into the debate again. We're not here to judge the content in the video. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article, but to provide a neutral representation of information about the video in question, i.e. who made it, when it was released, general information about how it was received, where it played, a general synopsis of the film, who was in it, etc. The purpose of this article or any other article on wikipedia isn't to tear apart the content thats actually in the film and debate whether or not its valid. I am certain it is an encyclopedia's responsibility to note that steels strength is reduced by 50% at a given temperature. If this was an article about the steel used in the world trade center, then yes. It would be the encyclopedia's place to write about that. However that isn't what this article is about which is what some people seem to be missing. This is an article about the video, not a debate about the content in the video. It isn't wikipedia's place to say that the content is valid or not. If people want to research themselves and find information about the various issues, questions and theories provided in the film they can do so. --Crossmr 04:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is why we have wikilinks. If during the synopsis we reference their theory on steel, we wikilink to it, and that information should be contained on the steel page. That is how you write about a subject while maintaining NPOV. We let the reader draw their own conclusion as to whether or not they want to believe whats in the video.--Crossmr 04:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that isn't why we have wikilinks! (WP:NOT a link repository also applies to Wikilinks; if something can be explained in context in a sentence or two... it shouldn't be hidden in a Wikilink, but merely explained in the article. To do otherwise fragments the article and makes its prose bland and disjointed.)

Wikilinks are there to link to other subjects. Placing the 50% steel point in another article removes it entirely from this context. There is nothing stopping it from being in both articles; since that is a fact about steel and a notable part of how it [LC] was received. LC was received with criticism, not including repeated critical points of LC in this article is unencyclopedic! This isn't about a debate, it is about documenting notable criticism. Does LC quote mine? Yes, critics point this out and demonstrate it in the links you provided; it is our mandate to make note of that... not in steel, not in 9/11 conspiracy theories, right here. Because it is pertinent to this video, this video alone hence it goes in this article. (of course this point can be repeated in 9/11 conspiracy theories, as its also levied at them in general) I'm done discussing these fundamental editorial concepts; I'm doing an RfC and getting some guidance here.

Simply put, adding notable criticisms does not turn the article into a debate forum. Besides, making note of the debate is also encyclopedic. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

(back to the left)Considering there are some sites which have reported to debunk "hundreds" of errors in the film, delving into the criticism is beyond the appropriate length of this artcle, see WP:EL. When an external link delves into detail beyond whats appropriate for the article, it should be linked to with a description of whats on the page. That doesn't mean a detailed description of all its criticism, but instead something along the line of: "site x contains a point by point debunking of the film in a text format. This site provides the points made in the film and then debunks each one in turn before moving on to the next one". "Site y debunks all claims made surrounding the World Trade Center. It does this is a video format, by overlaying new narration over appropriate parts of the film". Wikipedia isn't a link repository but in that context, the link to steel would be appropriate. The fact that LC was received with criticism is notable, the individual criticisms (since there are literally hundreds or probably thousands) are not. We already have a handful of "factual innaccuracies" which give an example of what the criticisms are like, so picking 3 or 4 of the notable critical sites and describing them as above provides plenty of context for someone to find out what the criticism is about. Including finding out what response these people have to the steel issue raised by the film. We have 3 things detailed there, if you'd like to change any of them to a different factual innaccuracy thats fine. If you want to remove one and refer to the steel one instead you can. You can also pick 3 or 4 of the most notable critical sites and write descriptions if you like. I'm not overly familiar with all of them. We may also change the title of "factual innaccuracies" to "Examples of factual innaccuracies alleged by critics". They're just too numerous and extensive for this article. Perhaps lead with that, then go with the descriptions of the critical sites which people can follow to for more reading, but this is not a place for an extensive rebuttal of every major point raised in the film. Doing so places undue weight on the criticism, and places a highly negative spin on the subject.--Crossmr 14:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Back from my mini-wikibreak; feeling better. Granted. But simply because they are too numerous does not keep us from including a few notable examples of categorical criticisms (criticisms many have put forward). *Quote mining*, *selective facts* and *one source assertions* is something critics repeatedly point to in multiple links; adding one or two examples of each isn't merely a good idea, it's a requirement of being an encyclopedia article. Furthermore if done correctly it would take one or two paragraphs max. This isn't about a "rebuttal of every major point", this is about including the notable fact there are rebuttals; and providing notable examples (not point by point disections). Saying there are rebuttals doesn't cut it. Factual inaccuracies is fine just the ways it is; and is addressing something else, noting blatant mistakes from previous versions of the video. (I suppose given that, it could use a header tweak.) We also need to note *some* aspects of the current "cut" which are heavily and repeatedly criticized. It also has appropriate narative flow; examining previous versions; then examines the currect version. Although I'm in a much calmer mood now; I will be implementing this. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll reserve opinion on that until you've implemented what you have in mind. I can agree to that as long as its not too long and doesn't delve in to the type of situation we had before.--Crossmr 04:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Added the first paragraph on quote mining and cherry picking. I may have underestimated the categorical approach, and it could take 3 or 4 paragraphs. But I hope they are all as short as the one I just did; so they could be merged into 2 if need be. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comming in from RfC. Just linking to criticism is not enough, the most important claims should be reproduced in the article. As noted in the "Joe Blow" example above, the sources themselves have to critcize Loose Change (directly or inderectly) and just making up your own (albeit good) points is not sufficient even if you can prove them with facts. --GunnarRene 17:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

and with that, you have to decide which are the most important and how many to include. The film is 120 minutes long, and I guess some of these sites are debunking 3 points a minute or so, with major topics of discussion coming every few minutes. We certainly aren't going to be giving space to 20 or 30 major criticisms in the article. You also have to remember its the extensiveness and volume of the criticisms I think that makes them notable (as opposed to criticism of random film y, I'm not just talking about 9/11 documentaries like Moore's) While some examples could be provided to indicate what the nature of the criticisms are and how they take shape, its not the article's place to debunk the content in the film, but simply to indicate that there is extensive criticism of this film, here is an example of it, and it can be found at these sites, this is what each site covers. The article is about the video as a whole and not just the criticism it received, the content within it, or any other individual aspect surrounding it.--Crossmr 19:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that "Mark Iradian prepared a video version of Loose Change, subtitled with criticisms" makes no sense. A video version of a video? What the heck is that? I have changed to a "counter-video version of Loose Change subtitled with criticisms" which seems more accurate.Brainster 09:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've revised it further to "an edited version of Loose Change" which is hopefully clearer.--Rosicrucian 19:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Producers

Is there anyway to contact the producers and just personally tell them that... their "talent" for researching stuff should be focused on something more important, rather than on raving conspiracy theories. Here look, I have a theory, beings from another dimension used gateway portals to our universe to do it using as of yet undiscovered physical techniques that bend the laws of physics. Let's add some more shall we? Ants did it. With meticulous precision and using stealth technology that can't be detected by modern human technology. I'm sure their were ants around the buildings. These ants were the agents using their invisible technology. I'm assuming good faith with the wikipedians, just not the makers of this "documentary." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Youknowthatoneguy (talk • contribs) 08:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

I think you're quite right! Science has NO purpose in this article, ask rosciwhatever(!). Consensus is what matters. Never mind for example that the 50% reduction in steel strength gets discredited within the NIST report itself! Having any scientific viewpoint whatever is frowned upon! In this context I totally agree with your viewpoint and say, let these terrorist ants answer to the judicial system!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.195.124.111 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

For someone who has supposedly left Wikipedia in a huff, you just can't resist the urge for personal attacks, can you? You've long since stopped offering anything constructive, and ignored the admins repeatedly. Leave this article and this talkpage alone.--Rosicrucian 22:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added that 50% reduction in strength doesn't explain the collapse of the towers it's in the NIST report. Of course, this is science, is confirmed by NIST but who cares, since you're not biased I'm probably am... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.195.124.111 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 8 September 2006.

Most of my problem with you has been your attempts to disrupt this talkpage, your use of personal attacks, and your legal threats. I've also objected to you using the talkpage as a forum to discuss physics formulas, as Wikipedia only cites information from other sources rather than performing original research. Citing NIST is okay, but you've taken this a bit too far, and it's obvious you have an emotional stake in this and have gone too far on numerous occasions because you're frustrated. At this point the best thing to do would be what you've been saying you're going to do for weeks. Take a wikibreak, stop using this talkpage as your personal sniping forum, and get some perspective.--Rosicrucian 15:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is bullshit. First you said I didn't bring anything constructive in this argument; I've proved you wrong. No offense, but you are extremely biased. If you read the NIST report closely you'll notice that they do NOT explain the collapses. I've talked this over with many and they all agree. Secondly, if I'm biased and EVEN the NIST disagrees with certain portions of this article, then I assume you have the guts to say you know more and therefor pretty please with sugar on top contact NIST and contact the FBI because they need your guidance.

Which portions of the article does the NIST report contradict? I've read the report and their FAQ, and they do explain the collapse quite well. So I'm uncertain as to what you are trying to say. The NIST does not seem overly concerned with the time temperature curves you and others are interested in. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Then in your own words tell me how NIST thinks the collapse itself happened. I'm not talking about conditions before the collapse, I mean the collapse itself and please cite page numbers and/or sections

Okay, but their words are pretty clear. They concluded the columns were compromised, softened, sagging floors pulled and ultimately "buckled" the wall columns, nearby supporting columns became "overloaded" and failed; the buildings then "tilted" South (WTC 1) and East & South (WTC 2) and began their "descent". (Pg. 40, Executive Summary, first two paragraphs) If you are concerned with what happened after they began to collapse; indeed the NIST report does not elaborate on it. And when I stated "explain the collapse quite well"; perhaps I should have said explained the "reason" for the collapse quite well. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Restructure of Content

I think the "content" section of the article needs a bit of a restructure. its not bad overall, I think it needs some slight rewording, and I'd like to see if come out of bullet point form. Its a bit heavy on that. Perhaps someone could turn those into paragraphs while maintaining a neutral representation of whats in the film.--Crossmr 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, and Jason Bermas

None of these individuals are noteworthy enough to merit their own articles. I've proposed they all be merged into Louder than Words.--Rosicrucian 20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And I've now proposed that Louder than Words be merged here (see below). If that proposal is accepted, Louder than Words, Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, and Jason Bermas will all become redirects here, and we'd probably expand the text about each of the three guys in the "History" section of this article. Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Democracy Now" Interview

On 11th Sept. 2006, Avery and Bermas appeared on Democracy Now on Pacifica to debate with several editors from "Popular Mechanics" regarding the claims made in "Loose Change". Someone should perhaps add some information about that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.14.178 (talk • contribs) 01:19, September 12, 2006.

Thanks, will do. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, the interview was quite good and would serve as a good case study for a class in the sociology of conspiracy and the power of delusional thinking—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.80 (talk • contribs) 00:33, September 13, 2006.

Screws Loose

This can't be used as a source. Its a blog and blogs aren't acceptable sources. If you have another critic making that claim that can be used, otherwise it will have to be removed. In the same vein neither can this source under the legal problems [21].--Crossmr 13:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Finished the new Criticism section, I use lots of blog links; however, other links can certainly be used for most claims. If anyone gets around to reading the Debunking book put out from Popular Mechanics; it would likely contain most of what we need. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Other links need to be used. We can't keep the information sourced off of blogs, and needs to come from a reliable source. I'll let you have some time though to find the proper sources for anything from screws loose or any other blog. I'm looking at the new criticism section, I'm iffy on the length. it feels long to me, but it does seem to cover what should be covered. I certainly don't want to see it get any longer than it currently is. --Crossmr 21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove blog links. Couldn't find corroboration for cell phone vs. airphone ratio; so replaced it with cell phone system explaination. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that works much better and makes the section much more credible.--Crossmr 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Blog links should be removed, yes, unless of course they meet the strict WP:SOURCE demands for a blog, or if a reliable source mention the exact claims, and name the blog. The Popular Mechanics book does mention the airphones, but not the cell/airphone ratio. --GunnarRene 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see not using blogs as a source, but is there a good reason why they cannot be cited as offering debunking of the film? How different is a blog from a website? Full disclosure: I am one of the bloggers at Screw Loose Change.Brainster 01:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Blogs have no confirmable editorial oversight, hence they fail to qualify. · XP · 16:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision history

I've added three bullet points to the History section regarding the broadest changes made between the three versions of the film we have to date. The information is taken from the Louder than Words article.--Rosicrucian 23:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Roberts critique

I am new to Wikipedia. Recently I came across the link to Mark Robert's critique on this wikipedia page. I followed the link and examined the site. In the spirit of this whole matter I asked myself a basic and obvious question: Who is Mark Roberts. I started researching Mark Roberts and I found almost nothing about him. Also, there is no bio information on the site. I had the nagging feeling that I have seen this kind of thing before.

There is a well established and documented site about electronic voting problems and fraud. In discussions with my local Registrar of Voters, she cited a site countering its claims. I went to the cite to investigate. There was no bio information about the author on the site. I and others made inquiries asking the person to identify himself. No answer was received. About a year later it was discovered that the "person" was a paid hack for Diebold, a vendor of electronic voting systems with an obvious vested interest in countering the negative publicity they were receiving.

I have emailed Mark Roberts and asked him to identify himself by providing some bio information. To date I have received no response. In the interim I searched through the loose change web site forums and found that I was not the first person to question the identity of Mark Roberts, and posters cited evidence that Mark Roberts was positing on other forums under different names.

It is far too easy for a "Mark Roberts" to seed doubt and confusion, and to sap time and energy from people who are fighting the "conventional wisdom". This is not to say that the information in the Mark Roberts critique is wrong, it is to say that full disclosure should be required when linking to an information source. If Mark Roberts is a person, let him identify himself and provide background about himself and his many sources. If not a person, then let the group identify itself and its many sources. Until then, I urge you to pull the link, any link, unless the source can be reasonably verified as being who or what it purports to be.--jonb 18:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

While it is preferable to have full disclosure, it is by no means required. Reading the introduction 911myths.com has been involved in editing it, and a quick read through shows many things are sourced; others indeed are not. However, it remains a notable critique of Loose Change. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Roberts posts on several web forums under the screen name "Gravy"--for instance, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) forums: [22]

He is a tour guide living in NYC, and can often be seen at Ground Zero confronting 9/11 Deniers.

He can be seen talking to William Rodriguez in the following post: [23] --206.17.172.5 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Roberts is only notable in being the author of one of the more complete fiskings of the film. I'm not sure what you're getting at here Jonbarril.--Rosicrucian 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Roberts recently told me by email that a revised version of his Viewers Guide will be out sometime in mid-September, with approximately twice the information, twice the sources, etc. He had apparently wanted to do a major revision since May, but the Loose Change guys got embroiled in copyright disputes and didn't release the recut version until recently. It mentions that he's a Tour Guide where the paper is hosted on 911myths.com.

Not sure what you're getting at, Jon. Whose "time and energy" is he "sapping?" That sounds like a comment out of "Dr. Strangelove." If you have a critique of his work, let him know. Nothing complicated about that, is there?

I was impressed to learn that he had only been looking into 9/11 conspiracy issues for three weeks when he wrote the Viewers Guide. Impeachy 17:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

1) I thought my request and its motivation were quite explicit. Please reread what I wrote.

I checked out the comments from others and Mr. Roberts seems genuine, but it would be better if he himself were to provide some bio info rather than getting it second hand, especially given that he is so widely quoted and linked regarding this matter -- I think, given the topic, it would help bolster his arguments if the reader knew the author was a real person representing himself. Note that I feel the same applies to all sources regarding the bunking or debunking of conventional wisdom (known to some as "conspiracy theories").

2) I finally received a reply from Mark Roberts (at itmatters@mail.com). It was received two days after my email, which is odd for an "out of office" reply, which are usually immediate. Also, the email text is embedded with a lot of cryptic gibberish of the form:

BarrilleauxChek
Chek=No
Hold Not Approved
NoDirectAuth
ttBlockSatAutoresponse
UpSat
...
Waiting
Rerouting
ConnectNSAConnectprotocolNSAMD-NSANYC003
Waiting for authorization
NSApga1rraunogitd1lkg10r018y5h82_qrnbpif2h-85u1njb3]0I)OOOafbabqo__*MarkRobertsPseudoGo
EncryptAuthMarkRobertsMerck1ConAg1Archer1Archer2KBR18yq3iujyo
...

Anyone want to venture a guess as to what this might be? I've never seen this before and neither have any of my colleagues.

3) The Talk Page FAQ mentions a "Post a comment" feature. Could someone clue me in as to where it is. I've looked all around, and no doubt it is right under my nose, but I can't find it.

4) I too am a fan of Dr. Strangelove, but your (Impeachy) comment strikes me as off topic.

--jonb 19:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you make a sub-page with all the email headers and contents? If you would authorize the release of your ISP's and mail provider's logs pertaining to you, we can trace it back to were any error occured. The only word I recognize in that is UpSat, a maker of GPS systems. And could you give us a full name and bio of yourself? --GunnarRene 20:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

These e-mails won't pass WP:V just so you know, nor are subpages of this article an appropriate place to host those headers and contents.--Crossmr 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if they passed WP:V they would not pass WP:OR.--Rosicrucian 02:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research is allowed on talk pages. But I agree with the overall complaint, and suggest to Jonbarril that he contacts a newspaper, radio station, or some other reliable source and suggest that they do an interview with mister Roberts. That would be the best way of answering his questions.--GunnarRene 03:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Documentary

(A documentary video is a video that presents facts. A debunk video of Loose Change was made to prove that some of the data presented by Avery was false (citations of counter-claims were given)) --207.193.126.66 [24]

(That's PoV.) --Rosicrucian (reverted) [25]

Just a comment here: "Alleged documentary" isn't in itself POV, but separating films into documentary and "alleged documentary" violated NPOV. What matters is what those distributing the film claim about it. Spinal Tap could be a documentary in the sense that it purports to be a documentary, but it isn't presented as one by those distributing it, is it? So it's not a documentary. Bowling for Columbine is not a documentary according to its director, and critics agree with him, but the distributors call it a documentary and entered it into the Oscars competition in the documentary category, so it's a documentary despite what the director says. --GunnarRene 16:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The word choice is unencyclopedic, at the very least.--Rosicrucian 17:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging Louder than Words here

I've suggested merging Louder than Words into this article. As far as I can see, the non-redundant content (excluding external links) consists of just two sentences:

After releasing the film, Avery, Rowe and Bermas set up an independent film production company called Louder that Words. The company is also a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement and holds yearly protests in New York City on the anniversary of September 11.

I've WP:BOLDly added those sentences at the end of the "History" section. This puts a contradiction into the article: the lede says Loose Change "was released through Louder than Words", but the text I merged from the Louder than Words article says LtW wasn't set up until after LC was released. Would someone who knows which is true please fix the article? Thanks, CWC(talk) 09:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(I forgot to mention this earlier.) If the merge happens but LtW later release another WP:Notable film, we could (and probably should) then turn change Louder than Words back into a separate article. Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Rosicrucian has pointed out to me that someone had removed lots of biographical info from the LtW article at the time I looked at it. Now that he's restored that info, merging that article into this no longer looks like a good idea to me. I'll remove the merge tags, and try to temper my WP:BOLDness with more caution in future. Cheers, CWC(talk) 16:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

The Louder than Words article currently has three external links which aren't in this article:

(1) 9/11 Myths Site

Critiques 9/11 myths in general.

(2) Loose Change Guide

Detailed viewer guide to the video; critical.

(4) Loose Change 2nd Edition Online Version (Google Video)

I haven't got the bandwith to check this out.

I'll leave it up to other editors to decide whether/where to add these links. Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we already link the Mark Roberts viewer guide.--Rosicrucian 14:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You people finally allowed mention that wikipedia is their source

You people finally allowed mention that wikipedia is their source after all this time of removing any reference whenever anyone put it in. Well all I can say is finally. Anomo 04:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We avoid self reference, and as Wikipedia has been removed from the recut version... it is old news by now. But certainly worth a mention. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms section

The Criticisms section references an outside source that would fall under Original Research. I was about to remove it when I was made aware that using the same logic to remove that particular source, I'd have to remove the others, meaning the section would probably be devoid of references. I am aware that most Loose Change critics publish their critiques independently, this person being one of them, so is keeping with the No Original Research policy a wise move here?--DethFromAbove 10:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A valid concern, but while some of it is OR, there are plenty of sources cited; so the link also qualifies as a secondary source. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reason for Final Cut delay?

I have added the {{Fact}} tag to the introductory statement that LC: Final was delayed due to copyright concerns. Dylan has gone on record at the LC forums as stating that LC: Final is nowhere near being completed. This would not be the case if the delay was for copyright concerns. Additionally, LTW have expressed no regard for copyright violations in the past, so why would this be a problem now?

Qarnos 07:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps since they got sued, or at least threatened with being sued, by the Naudet brothers they're taking more care with the clips they include? I know I would!

194.72.35.70 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Archived

Latest three-month talk archive is up. Will be archived again in another three months.--Rosicrucian 16:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

GA notes

A few problems with this article:

1. Too many unreliable sources. See the WP:RS guideline for more information on that.
2. Prose is messy. Too many section breaks where they aren't needed.
3. Too many bullet points. If you work them into the prose, it'll look and read nicer.

It needs a lot of work, but has a lot of potential. Good luck with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree there is no need for the use of bullet points. I would like to change the history section to remove the bullet points and was wondering if anyone else agrees. Lonnyz 16:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"accurate comparison"

Is a citation really needed? I think it self evident a direct impact is a more accurate comparison than accidental crashes. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The differences:Fighter Jet vs passenger jet (shape, design, materials,...), Engines did the most damage vs fuselage, Different wall material (?), etc... Some high speed crashes with passenger jets into mountain walls did leave debris. I think it would helpful if a material scientist discusses this in detail why this is an accurate comparison instead of people assuming it is one. The claim in loose change that a plane can't desintegrate is clearly false, but claiming that this fighter jet crash is a good model for what happened at the pentagon is something else.81.165.161.21 15:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What mountain wall? I think you are talking about a mountain face rather than a wall. Granted a fighter jet is smaller than a passenger plane, but overall they both are planes made of light weight strong and flexible alloys with fuel and some heavy components. Also the article did not stipulate it was an "accurate comparison" but rather a "more accurate comparison". I don't think we need a materials expert to tell us a concrete barrier is "more accurate" to the reinforced Pentagon walls, when compared to mountain terrain/face. You're absolutely right though on it not being a good model, but the article does not maintain it is. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first of all this is WP:OR. Secondly, do you have a degree in physics? Civil engineering? etc? Can you clarify what knowledge you have to make this case? In any case, the wording in the article is much better now. 81.165.161.21 07:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No really what are your qualifications? You made a lot of judgement calls on this article. I want to know?

I have no degree, merely a passing interest in physics and a active interest in clarifying misleading information. The knowledge I have is minimal, but certainly sufficient to know the difference between a mountain "wall" and a mountain "face"; and how a mountain face isn't close to the same thing as a concrete wall, and that a concrete barrier is a "more" accurate comparison to a concrete wall. It's not a terribly complicated "case" requiring substantial expertise. I have yet to see a valid reason to question this, as pointing out the obvious does not qualify as WP:OR. I do like the new (precedent) wording though. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian, and as I've been on Wikipedia a while... encountering other languages is normal. As to breaking up, all modern aircraft share a common set of parameters; they must be lightweight so that they can fly efficiently. This means materials that are resistant to stress, but are not exactly robust to hard impacts... like aluminum and the like. So any direct impact with any hard surface (assuming enough velocity) is enough to rip a plane apart like a tin can. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"documentary"

Is there some sort of taboo against the word "documentary" beings used in reference to this film? The entire article gives no mention to the word expect, form what I can see, in a picture caption! --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 10:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Documentaries are generally expected to be factually accurate. I would liken LC more to a propaganda video. Qarnos 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Then the page for White Wilderness should also be changed to reflect this? 84.195.126.73 21:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be trend of calling Loose Change a commentary, instead of a documentary. In many respects Loose Change fails to adhere to the basic principles of a documentary, perhaps the most prominent being setting out to prove a point regardless of evidence. (Wow, if those sentences weren't chock full of weasel words, I don't know what is..! I couldn't be bothered to write it better, but still, this is a Talk page, innit?) --Tirolion 09:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I changed White Wilderness to commentary. 81.165.161.151 17:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

From documentary "In the 1930s, Grierson further argued in his essay First Principles of Documentary that Moana had "documentary value". Grierson's principles of documentary were that cinema's potential for observing life could be exploited in a new art form; that the "original" actor and "original" scene are better guides than their fiction counterparts to interpreting the modern world; and that materials "thus taken from the raw" can be more real than the acted article. In this regard, Grierson's views align with Vertov's contempt for dramatic fiction as "bourgeois excess," though with considerably more subtlety. Grierson's definition of documentary as "creative treatment of actuality" has gained some acceptance, though it presents philosophical questions about documentaries containing stagings and reenactments."

As someone with a degree in non-fiction, or if you prefer "documentary" film, both Loose Change and Wild Wilderness qualify as documentaries. They are creative interpretations of reality. In film history, documentaries are not held to the same standards as journalism. In fact, almost all important documentary films contain obvious fabrications of reality. See Nanook of the North the first film you will watch in almost every non-fiction film class. Unless you plan to go through every single self-identified and historically classified documentary film that contain incorrect or fictional elements, and make the bad faith edit you did on Wild Wilderness, this is Wiki vandalism, pure and simple. I'm not touching Loose Change, but Wild Wilderness is clearly a documentary film.66.77.144.5 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer this question, a "theory" is not the same as a "fact", and documentaries focus around facts and concrete objects or ideas. I mean I guess if you call Michael Tubby Moore's film a 'documentary'... Zchris87v 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily true: there are many documentaries out there about scientific theories that are not yet facts. There are not documentary police out there (yet).. if the filmmaker calls it a documentary, it is. Otherwise the film industry will have to have some kind of regulatory and judicial board, then we get into the territory of potential censorship.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.19.50 (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Given that the article seems to have stabilized out and the talkpage calmed down, I'm going to relax my three month talkpage archiving schedule. We're at four months and counting, and I'll begin archiving again once I get a better feel for the pace the talkpage is moving at now.--Rosicrucian 21:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read To Kill A Mockingbird? 67.162.76.82 22:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Release date of film

The release date is now listed as March 2007. Thanks for deleting the reference to Feb 2007 - clearly, this didn't happen - but I'm not sure listing a March date is appropriate either (if a March release were due, surely they'd have already had the film scheduled in cinemas etc?) Maybe we could just say "A further "final cut" version was originally planned for release on September 11 2006, but is now delayed" Jon m

The release date is now "late summer 2007."--Joseph.nobles 03:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the info. Jon m 11:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Who Merged the Production Team Bios?

Avery and friends used to have separate Bios on wikipedia, which seem to have been merged into this article. Their infamy or fame warrants separate bios. At the very least, we should see their dates of birth. It is significant that these men were below drinking age when this film was made. Maxanova 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How is 'drinking age' relevant in this case? The events of 9/11, and the Truth Movement, have no connections to the consumption of alcohol. If they were below the age of majority of 18, I see a point, but seperate from the consumption of alcohol, once someone is over 18 they are deemed to be an adult.Rgroen 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There were originally four articles dedicated to Loose Change. One for the film, one for the production company, and one for each of the filmmakers. However, Loose Change is their only claim to fame, and thus there is no reason for these to be separate articles.--Rosicrucian 21:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I Disagree. Biographies of persons (either living or dead) should be kept seperate from articles about their work. Irregardless of what their claim to fame is, biographies of people do not belong in an article about a movie 82.34.244.60 (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

try regardless 20.139.226.50 (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't this article be at Loose Change (documentary) or Loose Change (2007 film) or something along those lines? The "video" qualification seems a little incongruous, and it doesn't sufficiently distinguish this article from the other two movies (and one television miniseries) called Loose Change. 217.155.20.163 21:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Stronger objection to the current name: it doesn't even fit. It has never been released on VHS or DVD as far as I know. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Putting in a request for a name change now. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 film works for me. Anything with Internet in it won't work, and documentary is a tough sell. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also they do have a DVD, and have offered it for free to 9/11 relatives. Perhaps that should be in the article. Renaming now to 2007 film. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But it wasn't released in 2007 (and probably wont be, either)! Qarnos 07:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, however (I think) there is an implied consensus we will put the year of the last version the Loose Change producers deem to be definitive. Hopefully 2007 will be the year, if not then we may have to change the year to reflect the release of the latest version. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not shot nor released on "film", such a label does not apply.

GA comment

These are just some suggestions of things that should be fixed before another reviewer looks it over. The first image needs a fair use rationale and a film infobox should also be added. The second and third images look like they are about to be deleted, and probably should be removed from the article anyway, as it is likely they will not qualify for fair use. There are a few sections that rely on the bullet lists, and some of these should be converted to prose. Please consider fixing these things before the article is reviewed, as at least the lack of a fair use rationale is grounds for failing the article. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 06:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the original version was released in 2005, should I change the name of the article to 2005? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

An interesting article. I'm not 'officially' reviewing this: just some observations.

• Airings' and 'In other media' should be converted to prose.
• I'd like to see the references developed to include access date: using the cite templates would help, but if you don't opt for them try to include the information they might present: Author, Title, Work, Date, Date accessed.
• Per badlydrawnjeff's review from a previous GA nom, the article contains some dodgy sources.
• Images need fair use rationale.

Good luck, and well done so far. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Three suggestions I have for this:

• More sources, and possibly further expansion, for the "history" section.
• Creation of a proper "reaction" section incorporating the current "Criticism" section.
• Complete the sourcing of, and/or possibly liquidate (it's a bit triviaish), the "In other media" section.

Please consider. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Nehrams request that the lead image needs a Fair Use rationale, the article could be failed because of this alone, (It is currently at the front of the line for oldest articles on the GAC page) and I think that'd be a shame when its such an easy problem to fix. Homestarmy 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to clarify, just saying where it came from isn't the same as spelling out an individual fair use rationale. Homestarmy 23:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the article could be failed as a lot of the above concerns remain unaddressed. I'd encourage its editors to begin working on them ASAP. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I might sound like a broken drum right now, but it looks like the second image also doesn't have a real Fair Use rationale written for it, it just says what the image is and where it came from, not why its usage qualifies as fair use. Homestarmy 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed

This article has too far to go to make it to GA, and as others have looked at it and made comments without much improvement there is no need for a hold.

• Reasons for fail:
  • As now marked, there are entire sections lacking references, including the largest section. Simply watching the movie and then descriping what one saw is original research. A reliable third party source must be used.
  • External links: Part of the WP:MOS covers external links, both inline and in a seperate section. Please read and note that external links are to be kept to a minimu and see if the External links section meets that criteria.

Aditionally, the previously mentioned items by other editors need to be addressed. Also, in the lead there is a reference to the film coming out on pay-per-view. Is this needed, should we also say where the DVDs are available to but? It looks more like advertising than content needed in a encyclopedia. Overall, this article does cite quite a few items, but it needs many more. Aboutmovies 20:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

co.nr link needs replacement when article is unprotected

The domain co.nr is a URL shortener/redirect. When such a link is clicked, the user is taken to some other page besides the URL he/she clicked. The link, www.lolloosechange.co.nr (labeled "Subtitled critical version of Loose Change"), in the "Criticism" sub-section of the External links section is just such a link -- it deposits the reader at http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/MarkyX/index.html.

URL redirect sites have been used in some cases by persistent spammers to bypass the spam blacklist filters in our MediaWiki software, so our standard practice is to blacklist redirect domains. Prior to blacklisting, we try to replace all legitimate instances of such a link with the actual web page. After blacklisting, a page with a blacklisted link cannot be edited until the blacklisted link is deleted or "disabled" (by removing the "http://" or by putting a space between it and the rest of the link).

The co.nr domain is slated for blacklisting this week; see: meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#700 URL redirection links to clean up. I tried to swap out the link above but found the article protected today; when it's unprotected, someone will want to make the change. The lolloosechange.co.nr link is not one of the spam links we've seen abused; like many co.nr links, the co.nr domain was used here as a link shortener. (I've got 500+ more pages to fix, so I will not be monitoring this article for follow-up. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Link Fix

In the third paragraph of the Content section, The link about the E-3 points to the E-3 disambibuation page. It should point to the page for the E-3 Sentry (a plane).

(The correct URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry)

FuzzyCuteness 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do it, then! It would have been quicker to correct it than to type that message! The JPS^{talk to me} 22:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sources

Good article, but I have a couple of problems with the criticism section - WP:RS in particular. Sites like Screw Loose Change and wtc7.info needs to pass WP:WEB before we can mention them in an encyclopedia. I would also like to see the alligations of Popular Mechanics being sold to the US government in this article - something folks Alex Jones has charged. — Selmo ^(talk) 17:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link for the Popular Mechanics thing. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm ^{prisonplanet.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} — Selmo ^(talk) 17:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The header of Screw Loose Change would appear to easily meet WP:WEB.

As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!

As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!

As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!

As to the prisonplanet link, unsure what you are attempting to demonstrate.

I can tell you any article making a comparison of the WTC to the Windsor building is misinformed, and it is a clear case of "shoddy research". The steel sections of of the Windsor building collapsed early in the fire, [26] this can even be plainly seen in the prisonplanet six section photo. Concrete performs far better in fire than does steel; this is why fireproofing is added to steel in the first place. Also to state the obvious, since the WTC was massive, its stronger core, is also under far more stress (from the floors above) than the Madrid building, which had merely 29 floors above ground! Simply a very bad comparison no matter how you look at it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the template. The section seems to me to be thoroughly and reliably sourced. Perhaps you could point out which statements you feel need more sourcing? Qarnos 07:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The "eye witnesses" claim's source is a self published website! Not to mention the article presents it's opinion as fact. Ignoring Jones based on RoyBoy's opinion is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, regardless of the self-published counter arguments (read WP:RS, WP:SOAP, WP:COI WP:Undue Weight and WP:NPOVT to get where I'm coming from). I can see SLC is notable (I didn't need your sarcasm to figure that out thank you). If you want to cite (and attribute) popular mechanics, fine, but I want to cite (and attribute) Jones, thus the article becomes more neutral (since we have added a counter-argument to PM.) — Selmo ^(talk) 18:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay Perhaps I was wrong about it being self-published website. Regardless, look at this article from the same site that attacks PM. — Selmo ^(talk) 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What sarcasm? It was easy to confirm SLC notability, you asked an easy question, I gave you the easy answer; but that isn't my fault. I took the liberty, and my time, to explain that the link you provided is not only not notable, but is full of misinformation of its own. Posting further links simply isn't constructive. Also do not attempt WP:Wikilawyering anyone, especially me, as you've already shown an inability to apply policy with WP:WEB. Neutrality isn't about balancing out opinions; if that were the case every argument in every article could descend into point, counter-point and counter-counter-point. If an opinion is notable, we add it... I did that for "firing shotguns on fireproofed steel; critics find this unconvincing." I didn't need to, and perhaps it should be removed as their opinion is not-notable, but I did add it. Asserting conflicts of interest has little to do with the content of the debate, and even less to do with Loose Change. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted your Response section, as it was poorly written. I started to correct it, but then removed it entirely as this has more to do with Popular Mechanics, not Loose Change. Also, I'm unsure how Alex's allegations are notable... cousins, uh... so what? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't wikilawyering. I was simply writing down some policies i felt may have applied. I thought you were being sarcastic when you were suceeding every statement with an explanation point. Thirdly, please retact your "poorly written" and "you obviously know know policy' comment as I have interperted them as insulting. Finally, if you want to remove Alex, I will remove all sources that have nothing to do Loose Change that are negitive. He's perfectly notable, he was the father of 9/11 truth!

Anyway, I still dont see why your opinion matter so much. If by "correcting" Jones, you mean "Alex Jones is an idiot" or "Jones article is wrong in many places ['Source whitehouse.gov']" then I don't know how you are going to grasp the WP:NPOV, let alone see past your biases.— Selmo ^(talk) 12:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not use policy to justify you edits, please use reasoning. Of course, people may disagree with you... if they do and you continue to belittle them and push your edits, it won't reflect well on you will not help you achieve what you think is fair.

If you bothered to look at the website, I merely copy and pasted the sentences from it, including the exclamation points.

Your addition was full of typos, and again has nothing to do with Loose Change itself; so why I would retract anything because of you're sensitivities is beyond me. You used WP:WEB inappropriately, stop using policy as a lazy way to justify you're edits.

I didn't say Alex wasn't notable. (He obviously is since he has a Wikipedia article) That does not mean every opinion/link he has is notable.

Do not give ultimatums, especially if it involves article content. Disruptive editing isn't looked upon kindly. Do you think this is a forum where you can act badly to get your way? It isn't. You simply undermine yourself by doing that, regardless if you are right or wrong.

If you don't see why my opinion matters, then why should I care about your opinions? Wikipedia is edited by consensus, if you ignore other people... you have automatically removed yourself from that process.

Alex and other non-expert crusaders tend to be wrong (and usually not-notable) because their arguments aren't very good; its as simple as that. Questions raised by a minority of experts, are answered and/or have alternative explanations (ie. unidentified molten metal, cell phones, WTC 7 collapse). People tend to accept or reject these either based on their biases (follow authority, skeptical of authority) or based on their understanding of the concepts involved.

Many people can make up their own minds based on more than whether or not they trust a given authority. I generally don't trust politicians/military/bureaucrats... does that mean I think they are capable/smart enough to pull of 9/11 for their own gain. That's giving them WAY too much credit! They ARE smart enough to cover up their mistakes (they make plenty, like the rest of us do, then a few more because they are corrupt), and then take advantage of the aftermath for their own gain. But that doesn't mean they planned it; they merely took advantage of it. (see: Hijacking Catastrophe) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed two of the templates. Merging the criticism section into other sections isn't an option; as criticism sections are common for controversial films. Unreliable template is removed, as it has not been established there are any unreliable sources. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the claims in this section that the film is criticized and unsupported by the 911 Truth Movement. This is plain wrong since the film was made by members of the 911 Truth Movement. Also, can anyone confirm who Michael B Green is? I can find no evidence of his affiliation with the 911 Truth Movement. If this is the case, then the criticisms section needs significant editing.

Film school

Given that Avery most likely would not have made Loose Change had he been accepted into film school, I think it is important to have this fact in the article. It is written in an NPOV way. I don't see the issue. -- Qarnos 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm the heck down. If you don't like it, fine I won't revert you. Writing with anger is counterproductive. — Selmo ^(talk) 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I have added the original research and unreferenced tags to the "Content" section. I suggest that we should revamp the content and criticism sections to deal only with the film itself, not the claims it makes. We already have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories and we don't need to deal with it here. -- Qarnos 21:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That sounds good with me. — Selmo ^(talk) 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Simplify the criticism so that it contains only generic criticisms of Loose Chaange the film? A quick glance through other controversial documentaries, do list generic and specific criticism of a films content. Please clarify. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just not sure a point-by-point debunking of the films claims is necessary when we have a whole article which does exactly that. Most of the claims in LC are recycled garbage anyway. Likewise - there is no need to list the specific points made by the film. It's all the same old crap and we can link users to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.

That's not to say there should be no criticism - of course there should be. We could simply have a section titled "Factual accuracy" and detail the general response by critics with links to the work of Roberts, et al.

Just a thought.

-- Qarnos 08:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand, yes we came across this before when the criticism section was much larger and was taking the form of a point by point rebuttal. It was significantly reduced and was designed to cover the main topics and several types of criticisms made by most critics. The actual length of the section can be certainly be tailored according to taste, however a large criticism section for a controversial film – which has received a lot of criticism – is appropriate and neutral.

"Factual accuracy" would very much restrict what could be included, and I see no reason to start a precedent... especially for a heavily criticized documentary. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I spend so much time in debunking forums that I sometimes forget how very few people in the real world swallow this stuff. -- Qarnos 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Since User:Qarnos has shown aagression towards me shown here and the above section, where he bold words which to me looks like he was angered by my edit regarding Avery's schooling. RoyBoy seems to be acting like the boss of the article; edit warring, calling me a "WikiLawyer" when it wasn't my intention, reverting me based on his opinion and ignoring my views because I'm "wrong", going through what I posted was loosly related policies which he used to attack my ill-considered "unfamiliarness" with Wikipedia, responded to my mistake about sarcasm with hostility. I am going to request informal mediation, since I'm being targeted as one of those "truthers" that dosen't know anything. I am calling a truce and I hope the two other parties will join me. — Selmo ^(talk) 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The case has been accepted, thusly I am removing the template here. The Rhymesmith 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, my so-called "personal attack" was my response to Selmo leaving a warning on my talk page for edit-warring after I reverted one of his/her edits:

Generally speaking, the 3RR warning is given when users make 3 reverts, not one. If you wish to flag the section as POV, then do so. But do not flag it as having unreliable sources when this is not the case.

Or perhaps you feel we should just replace the page with "LOL inside job!!!11!!1"

Now, moving on, for the second time you have removed this quote from the article:

“ We know there are errors in the documentary, and we’ve actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves. ”

You claim it is from an "attack site" which is a blatant falsehood. It is an interview with Korey Rowe from a website which has nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories. The quote is entirely pertinent to the film Loose Change. It is not a POV issue. If a real film-maker said "I left this scene out because I wanted the audience to think about X", would you take issue with that?

In this case, Rowe stated that they left mistakes in on purpose. Why should we exclude this from the article?

Update: I will also add that since the comment is regarding the movie, it does not fall under WP:BIO in the first place.

-- Qarnos 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Like many new passionate editors Selmo believes that because ze has a perspective not in the article, it should be automatically included because of X, Y and Z policy ze glanced through; and as such has continued to push edits (creating said edit conflict(s)) contrary to opinions of those who have been involved with the article slightly longer than ze has... and doing so by vaguely referring to policy. I'll give Selmo credit in that they are using appropriate dispute resolution. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Im not a new editor! No, I do understand policy. Please don't belittle me by claiming I don't. Look at my edit history and you'll see I have some experiance. Please stop ignoring me. — Selmo ^(talk) 12:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of talking to me as if I had a valid perspective; you rhymed off policy and continued editing as if my objections meant nothing. As a result you ignored me and others who have been maintaining this article; that was incredibly rude... but you seemed to be more concerned about exclamation points. You're right, I should have said inexperienced editor. I checked you're entire edit history; you are new compared to me.

As Qarnos has already told you, grow a thicker skin and focus on reasoning for your edits not other users. If you do that, people might be more helpful and less hostile to your suggestions. Demands and ultimatums have no place here; and few serious Wikipedians have patience for people who think they can make them, waste time on petty points, and take editorial control of articles based on their interpretation of policy. I do have patience; that's why I even bothered writing this. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be rude. I deidn't mean to push POV. Please assume good faith. I hoinestly ddon't care anymore. If my edits are close to vandealism, so be it. Everyone makes mistakes, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Selmo (talk • contribs).

Absolutely, for example I created a list which was eventually deleted; it annoyed me because it seemed notable and useful to me, and I wasn't very nice to an editor who listed it for deletion (I think he was still wrong the first time)... the 2nd time I had to concede it was hard to maintain and complete.

I have always assumed good faith, you obviously felt your Response section balanced and improved the article. So it wasn't vandalism at all... but for reasons I've stated above it unfortunately did not accomplish that. One thing that I feel was behind your actions was your interpretation of WP:NPOV.

Neutral in NPOV does not mean balancing points back and forth and allowing people to defend their ideas/work on Wikipedia. It is about trying to ensure that the conventional wisdom about a certain subject is in the article. If there is unconventional wisdom, it needs to be stated by someone truly notable. For example Matt Taibbi quote is unconventional and he's not that well known... but he does write for a notable publication. Alex Jones is notable, but his opinions need to have made an impact on the subject at hand in order to be included in the article. If his allegations were published, responded to, by a notable publication... or even included in a new version of Loose Change, then they could possibly be added to this article. As it stands he's a notable guy with a non-notable website/publication and some unconventional allegations. We also try to avoid allegations unless they are mentioned by the media and/or court precedings.

No hard feelings I hope. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Biographical Section

Has someone fack-checked the biographical information for Rowe which emphasises milliary service in light of his arrest on 7/23/2007 for desertion?

Current event?

I noticed someone added the current event tag. Am I alone in thinking this should be removed? At least until there is a definitive date for the release of Final Cut? Anything else is just guessing. -- Qarnos 08:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the "current event" refers to Korey's legal troubles. Has he been released yet? --Aude (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How is that specifically relevant to the article about the film?--ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You might do some fact checking of your own since the charges were dropped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.239.130 (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"supported by the 9/11 truth movement"

I have removed (for the second time) a statement added by User:Knarly that Loose Change is "supported by the 9/11 truth movement" (which leads into "and disputed by the counter video...").

The reason I have done this is because this claim is totally false. The 9/11 Truth movement has no unified voice. There are many in the truth movement who dispute the claims of Loose Change and instead favour such ideas as space-based energy weapons, elaborate Pentagon "fly-overs" and the use of CGI to create the "false" impression of aircraft being involved in the attack.

In addition, the statement seems to be used in this context in an attempt to diminish the substance of the "disputed" statement. However, I will ignore that for now and try to assume good faith.

If anyone can provide a reliable source for the claim that Loose Change is supported by the 9/11 truth movement, then we can make some progress. Otherwise, I do not expect to see that statement being re-inserted into the article.

-- Qarnos 10:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and your patience as I am relatively new to Wiki. You are correct about the amorphous nature of the 911 Truth movement; however, by definition (of a 911 Truther) those who seek 911 Truth want answers to the questions raised by Loose Change - therefore the claim that Loose Change is supported by the 911 truth movement is NOT totally false.

Nevertheless, I see your point of view on this issue.

BTW, a lot of peripheral claims have been parachuted into 911 Truth (such as CGI no-plane proponents) whose only purpose seems to be to discredit others who have valid questions and concerns about the official explanation a.k.a. the official conspiracy theory.

Knarly 08:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. I'm glad I didn't jump to conclusions when I first read your edit summary.

Your argument for the inclusion of the statement, to me, seems to be that all "9/11 truthers" support the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. This is very different from claiming that they all support Loose Change. I could delve further into this issue but the point of this talk page is to discuss ways of improving the article, not debating the various different positions.

If you want to include a reference to the general support that Loose Change has from the 9/11 truth movement, then I would suggest two things:

1) Find a reliable (ie: not Prison Planet) source for the claim: That a significant majority of the movement support Loose Change. It might also be a good idea to state whether they support the film as a whole, or just it's general line of reasoning.

2) The way you phrased it seemed pretty POV to myself. Instead of writing "The accuracy of Loose change is supported by X and refuted by Y" (which sounds too much like a tit-for-tat argument), perhaps we could write something like, "The accuracy of Loose Change is the subject of some debate. Members of X claim the film is (etc, etc) whilst Y says (etc, etc)."

Even then, I am not happy with the example I posed. It is still giving too much weight to the conspiracy side of things. The aim of Wikipedia is to provide a description of the consensus (majority) view on a particular topic - whether or not it is true. The consensus view of 9/11 (at least amongst Wikipedia editors) seems to be that 9/11 was a terrorist act. This means that we should report on 9/11 related issued in this light. That does not mean we exclude the conspiracy theories altogether (there are actually quite a few articles devoted specifically to them), but they must be represented as a minority view.

On the other hand, since this article is about Loose Change, which is a conspiracy video, you could perhaps give a bit of leeway to the undue weight issue. I'm not sure. Perhaps the other editors could contribute to this discussion?

-- Qarnos 12:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MY TWO CENTS, (OK, MAYBE THREE)

---

Re: The comments in the more recent postings above:

"Find a reliable (ie: not Prison Planet) source for the claim:"

as well as the comment:

"Alex Jones is notable, but his opinions need to have made an impact on the subject at hand in order to be included in the article. If his allegations were published, responded to, by a notable publication..."

are peculiar in light of the references in the main article discussed here.

1. Have the authors of these quotes even visited Prison Planet? I just visited Prison Planet and selected the first heading.

I found articles from, among others: Financial Times, Los Angeles Daily News, St.Petersburg Times, Reuters, AP, The Oregonian, Oakland Tribune, World Net Daily, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, London Evening Standard... Is there a question as to the "reliability" of these, and if so, what is the concern? If not, then exactly whay does the author of the comment means regarding Alex Jones' sources? Might he want to retract, or elaborate?

2. While visiting some of the "references" in the Loose Change main article page, I was aghast to notice that some were to home pages without an author's name, discussing unsourced photos (which have the label 'FARS' right on them) and stating "facts" without qualification or references. See for example: "Reference" 30: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html.

My question is: If Alex Jones' Prison Planet is not "reliable" when he sources the media outlets above, then why is a webpage such as the one above, not objected to as a "reliable" reference? Maybe we need a "Media Watch" of Wikipedia!

P.S. #1: I also looked for the Wiki Page on "Prison Planet" to consult any discussion on the "reliability" of the information or views expressed on Prison Planet, but alas, there was no page!.

P.S. #2: Prison Planet is currently getting FOUR TIMES MORE daily internet hits than Wikipedia, which has continued to drop in daily hits since April, and is now around 5,000 daily hits compared to Prison Planet's 20,000 hits. http://www.quantcast.com/prisonplanet.com

I guess we know which one is considered more relevant by the internet community!

I eagerly await a reasoned response to the points I raised above.

First you would need to post something rational to respond to. Alex Jones & co. are well known for taking credible sources then interjecting their own bits of insanity afterward to make it appear as if what they are saying has some basis in fact. I would cite the Hardin, MO incident as they cited local news sources, yet remarked how the "local population" might end up being the residents of the jail or how the APF was patrolling the streets, harassing citizens, and blockading roads; when there was no supporting evidence. In fact as far as I can tell he & is flock are the source of all the hysteria beginning on 9/29/09. www.infowars.com/montana-town-occupied-by-private-paramilitary-security-force/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}

Second to suggest a website has inherent validity because more people visit it is pure nonsense. See "appeal to popularity". BillL1978 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles 24.92.180.212 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:14:22, August 18, 2007 (UTC).

I dispute the accuracy of the web traffic statistics you've cited. Wikipedia receives far more than 5,000 hits a day; that number is several orders of magnitude off. According to Alexa, Wikipedia has a traffic rank of 9, and Prison Planet has a rank of 9368. That would place Wikipedia as one of the top ten most visited sites on the web. According to Netcraft, Wikipedia has a site rank of 31, and Prison Planet has a site rank of 7495. --Zantolak 09:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

MY BAD

---

You are right. It wasn't Quantcast, but my mis-reading of it. Wiki gets 46 million unique hits monthly, way more than Prison Planet. I believe the rest of my statements are correct. I welcome constructive criticism, as should we all. Thank you.

Charles 24.92.180.212 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:05:23, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Simply because Prison Planet uses some reliable sources, does not make it reliable... likewise for Wikipedia. In my opinion Prison Planet isn't notable either... as it doesn't seem to have impacted significantly on the conspiracy debate. 911review.com has impacted that discussion, and can be seen as more reliable/notable as a result. Though that indeed doesn't make it reliable and can/should be corroborated/replaced by another source.

Wikipedia improves by everyone watching it, besides there already is an unofficial Wiki-watcher. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Funding for Film

Is there information on who financed the creation of this film? --Doctorfoxxe 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was self-financed by those involved in its production. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

According to http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/business/18insider.html? Mark Cuban helped to fund it. Or at least, was accused of helping to fund it. --212.247.57.60 (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Loose Change (Screening flyer).jpg

Image:Loose Change (Screening flyer).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Versions

The description of versions is utterly confusing. It became famous when the second edition was shown and then they created a second edition? 217.37.109.17 15:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I will clarify in the article. There was a "second edition", and then "second edition recut". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Refuted" vs "strongly criticized"

ManySome of the claims contained within the film have been strongly criticized refuted by mainstream media outlets

Having been asked to consult a dictionary, I find that "refute" can mean "to prove wrong by argument or evidence; show to be false or erroneous" or "to deny the truth or accuracy of" according to Merriam-Webster. American Heritage Dictionary backs this up, although WordNet and Dictionary.com record no such second usage, and the Online Etymology Dictionary notes that "Since c.1964 linguists have frowned on the subtle shift in meaning towards 'to deny,' as it is used in connection with allegation." This squares with what I already believed about the world, namely that in normal speech it almost always denotes truth or accuracy of criticisms.

While it would appear based on some of the dictionary definitions that "refuted" could be read in NPOV-fashion, it would also appear that the more natural reading is "proven wrong by mainstream media outlets". And I am not sure how anything is gained from the "strongly criticized" wording; perhaps the constant tendentiousness of the tinfoil-hat crowd has some editors a bit punchy? Eleland 12:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A bit, wasn't intended to you specifically; sorry about that. :"p Indeed I was referring to the secondary definition. On top of that however, I would say having read many criticisms of Loose Change, these media outlets, books and researchers do not merely criticize the documentary. Many deny (refute) the basis of its arguments. (ie. quotes, physics, factoids) Since they go that far, I believe we should as well. Take for example:

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true. [27]

The entire nist.gov link does not criticize Loose Change; but it outright refutes (denies accuracy of) steel certification meme (does this for seismic meme too)... a point Loose Change (2nd edition recut) makes. Compromise is good in Wikipedia, and indeed there is little harm in changing to "strongly criticized", but I feel it is a weaker statement and less accurate. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget the fact that Wikipedia is about "representing fairly and without bias all significant views." It is not supposed to be a reflection of your own personal views, opinions or intuition on the subject. The fact remains that there are some rather vocal and strong proponents of the claims made within the documentary, as well as the critics. See WP:NPOV. 79.75.129.50 10:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that is why there is a link to Scholars for 9/11 Truth is in the lead, they are the minority; and they therefor given appropriate weight in the article, as per WP:NPOV. I'm sorry it does not met with your POV; but I understand Wikipedia policy quite well. "Refuted" is strong, but as I've stated below that is an accurate characterization of some of the reviews and responses to some of Loose Change claims. I just realized it says Many, I will change many to some. Sorry for not changing that beforehand. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed many to some. Only some claims are refuted, while many are criticized. Mental note for future reference. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also delineated Scholars from refuted claims, they focus on more debatable aspects of conspiracy theories. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

That any any of the 9/11 alternative media have "peer-reviewed, open-access, evidence-based research" is disputed, even if referenced. The details of the dispute are such that it probably shouldn't be in the lead.

That the editorial board has prominent members is also disputed, and is not referenced.

This article is supposed to be about the film, not the TM's view of the film. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The link and citation provided, http://www.journalof911studies.com/ , explicitly states that:

"The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is freely available online.

Our mission is to provide evidence-based, peer-reviewed research that furthers the cause of truth and justice. More about our efforts toward this goal can be found at the website for Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Sincerely,

Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, co-editors"

Then on the "Contact Us" page, it goes on to further state:

"Manuscripts to be considered for publication should be sent to one of the Editors. All papers will be subjected to peer-review prior to online publication."

It also lists the following "Advisory Editorial Board" members who provide this peer-review:

"Frank Carman (Ph.D.), Alex Floum, Prof. Marcus Ford, Derrick Grimmer (Ph.D.), Prof. Richard McGinn, Kimberly Moore, Robert Moore, Joseph Phelps (MS, PE), Prof. Diana Ralph, Lon Waters (Ph.D.) and Prof. Paul Zarembka."

Are you seriously trying to suggest that this is a bogus website and that these people simply do not exist??

It seems very biased to me to mention critics of the claims made within the film, and then try to censor any mention of the proponents. The childish edit war that ensued strikes me as WP:POINT '-ing' and Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Not the sort of behaviour I would expect from an adult administrator. Knowledge Enabler 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that J911S has such a fast publication turnaround that any peer review is at most nominal. That's WP:OR on my part, but it seems to require an external source that it's peer-reviewed.

And I'm objecting to

1. References to peer-reviewed studies, real or imagined, in the lead. The disputed sentences could be expanded to a paragraph in the body, noting that they claim to be peer-reviewed, not that they are peer-reviewed.
2. The word "prominent" anywhere.
3. The list of editors. That should only be in an article on J911S. (If J911S has an article, or a section in 911TM, we probably should link there.)

As I said before, this is supposed to be an article on the film, not on the TM's view of the film. As the TM is a small fraction of the relevant communities (film critics, engieneers, scientists, etc.), their views should only be given a small part of the article.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is a peer-reviewed journal run by dozens of Nobel Prize winners. See how easy it is? We said it, so it must be true. Okay, </sarcasm>. We certainly cannot cite the Scholars for 9/11 Truth as a proper scientific journal based solely on its own word. We need the word of someone generally perceived as credible. Furthermore, the extensive exposition about "peer reviewed" is actually well-poisoning in reverse: buffing up the source to predispose the reader to believe it. Eleland 19:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an interesting irony here, as it appears that you are both trying to prove a negative. If you are assuming that what is stated on The Journal of 9/11 Studies own website is nothing other than false claims about itself and its nature, and that the names listed as Editorial Board members are bogus, where is your own evidence or citations to suggest that this may be the case. It seems very implausible to claim that such an organization is bogus, and that the people who claim to be involved simply do not exist, just because you might disagree with it. Occam's razor would suggest that this organization is real, the Editorial Board members are real people, and their claims to peer-review material submitted to thier own website is real. There is no evidence, other than your own prejudices, to suggest otherwise. Attempts to try and censor this body out of existance, based on baseless claims that it might not be "real", seem ludicrous.

I'd tend to agree with Arthur Rubin that noting that they claim to be peer-reviewed, not that they are peer-reviewed, seems to be the most rational course of action here. Nevertheless, the fact that there are indeed proponents, as well as critics deserves to be mentioned. Knowledge Enabler 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Proponents are being mentioned; "peer-review" means zero, evidence based... huh? What else would it be, faith based? Naming barely notable people, another no go, reverting. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RoyBoy, why are you taking unilateral action to revert a paragraph that is part of an ongoing discussion before a consensus has emerged? As already mentioned previously there is no need to indulge in a childish edit war, and I suggest that you familiarize yourself fully with WP:NPOV and WP:POINT. Firstly, your irrational claim that peer-review means "zero" is ridiculous, as it is a very important, well recognized and long-standing concept within the publication of academic works. It is also a cornerstone of the modern scientific method. Secondly, the statement: "are only supported by a minority of academics within the Scholars for 9/11 Truth movement." is a blatant lie. The following link, http://stj911.org/members/index.html , provides a list of the 400+ current members, the general consensus amongst them being that the "evidence suggests the World Trade Center Towers were destroyed by a controlled explosive demolition". Your inclusion of the word "minority" is nothing other than a fabrication with no basis that serves to support your own POV. 79.75.129.50 10:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what peer review means, I also know its a term with no meaning if the reviewers are not independant experts in relevant subjects. I could do my own "peer reviewed" publication, but if the only people reading it are my immediate circle of like/open minded contemporaries; then it wasn't a rigorous review. 400+ current members is a drop in the bucket given there are millions of academics. Some creationists proclaim 200+ scientists are skeptical of evolution... taken from a pool of 100's of thousands, that speaks more to the minority status of those scientists... rather than putting doubt in the subject they are critical of. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Having conclusively knocked down your straw man, will you now address what I actually said? We certainly cannot cite the Scholars for 9/11 Truth as a proper scientific journal based solely on its own word. We need the word of someone generally perceived as credible. Furthermore, the extensive exposition about "peer reviewed" is actually well-poisoning in reverse: buffing up the source to predispose the reader to believe it. Eleland 19:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible anon WP:3RR violation

I assume all the reverting 79.* anons are the same person. They have the same argumentative edit summaries. (Note also that there is clearly no consensus to include the material quoted from Truther websites in the lead. It might be acceptable elsewhere in the article, but no one has tried that.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Music and narration criticism

Is the oft-encountered critical point of poorly edited, messily articulated narration with quite largely varying loudness and overly prominent "background" music universal enough to warrant entry to the article, or even a mention under "criticisms"? As an HND qualified sound engineer, I would say so. Perhaps - however - the fact that this piece is categorised under "B-films" is a prerequisite for poor production qualities. In my experiences of reading reviews of this film, it is a common point. - Thejerseybean 11:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Final Cut

Should we create a new article for the Final Cut or just edit the 2nd edition. The final cut had completely new martial. --Evanw 17:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A new article /sub article is doubtful, since even with new material, it essentially is the same documentary as before. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the 'Final Cut' is an almost completely different film, and effectively renders the previous two films completely irrelevant. So either a new article should be done or this one should be completely overhauled with the content of the 'Final Cut'. Wallacefan 05:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I too, think, the Final Cut deserves a new article and the differences between the two films (Loose Change x edition and Final Cut) should be clear to everyone, mostly because the major criticism apply to the the first and not the last film. New article. Up. Pain 08:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't know the major criticisms will not apply to the last film, because it hasn't been released yet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Final Cut was released on 11 November, and is very different to earlier editions. The criticisms here are all aimed at the 2nd Edition; many of them do not apply at all to the Final Cut (eg Pentagon missile).

I would support the creation of a new article (and renaming of this one), as the majority of this article (from the 'Presentation' section onwards) is essentially obsolete and should not be in the same article as information about the Final Cut. Corleonebrother 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. My mistake. There's still not enough time for the critics of V1 and V2 to have seen and commented on V3, even if they are inclined to do so, so unless you have a source, it would be incorrect to say that the critics of V1 and V2 see a difference between those and V3, even if there is a clear difference. (What is the grammatical form for "I don't know if the depedent clause is accurate, but the sentence makes sense either way. The conditional tense, such as this, implies that I believe it's accurate, and the subjunctive tense implies that I do not believe it's accurate.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

But it's also incorrect for us to assume that the criticism of V1 and V2 automatically applies to V3, isn't it? Corleonebrother (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Hence we cannot have a separate article for V3 until the matter is resolved, but it must remain a single paragraph in this article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A single paragraph is NOT enough, we should differentiate the article very clearly and start off with a new one. Currently it's a mess, it is unclear how the timeline goes and how the films developed, at least for a first time reader with no prior knowledge. I'm for changing the article and make a new one.

There is a list of differences in this article here (Italian + English):

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/loose-change-final-cut-in-tv-in-italia.html

It's pretty solid evidence that we need a separate article. Pain (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What matter needs to be resolved and how would that happen? And what "single paragraph" are you referring to? I think we at least need to gives dates for when the criticism was made, so that the reader knows they were criticising V2. Corleonebrother (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph, in the present version:

In November of 2007 a fourth version of the video entitled "Loose Change Final Cut" was released online pay-per-view and is no longer available for free on Google Video due to a reported cost of over $200,000 to produce, financed by outside parties such as Alex Jones. This version removes still more errors from previous versions, and presents more of a LIHOP ("letting it happen on purpose") thesis than the previous versions. The running time of Loose Change Final Cut is over 2 hours.

That seems to be about all we can say, except I added the {{cn}} tag, as we need a source for any errors removed or added. (We probably need sources for most of the #History section, but....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the tone of the #History section now that the final cut has been released. I removed that sentence you tagged, as I don't think we'll find a source for that in the near future (and I also didn't get the impression that V3 was more LIHOP when I watched it - the term is poorly defined anyway). Tag anything in that section you feel needs a source, and I'll have a scout around. Corleonebrother (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing WP:SYNTH

Just to clarify my recent deletions to the criticism section (so that they are not misinterpreted)... they are all SYNTH because they are not direct criticisms of the film. If this section is to include that level of detail about criticism of the claims in the film, they need to be sourced to direct critiques of it (such as the three mentioned at the top of the section), and be essentially paraphrases (or better still, direct quotes) of the criticisms those sources make. Corleonebrother (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I concur with that. However, likewise, we cannot use the movie's web site as a source for the content of the film, whether they "corrected errors" or added new ones, etc., but only as to what they intended to put in the film. I added a few appropriate tags. Others may feel that the unreferenced sections need to be excised entirely. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

They were wise and necessary edits. I had assumed without checking that the cited sources were actually anti-Loose Change sites offering critiques, rather than just supporting the assertions made to contradict the film. <eleland/talkedits> 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On the up side it does make it shorter; though new refs shouldn't be too hard to find... I would like to get the flight instructor meme back. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed several verify tags, the one for the Content section... its an uncontroversial retelling of what is in the film; there isn't a need to footnote everything, one ref covers it all. If something is contested (within the context of the Content section), then ask for verification of the source. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Loose Change compares the collapse of the World Trade Center to other notable high rise fires. However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), clarifies the differences in building design, size and structural damage, and contends that compromised fireproofing should also be taken into account. Popular Mechanics points out in many conspiracy theories there is no exploration of the effect of fire on unprotected structural steel, which "loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F." The "expert" Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories was actually employed in a water testing subsidiary, Underwriters Laboratories does not certify structural steel, and ASTM E119 certification involves intact fireproofing as conducted by Underwriters Laboratories for the NIST in 2004. The NIST could find no record of any previous certification tests ever being conducted on the novel WTC floor system. The NIST demonstrated that fireproofing could be dislodged by firing shotguns at fireproofed steel.

I'm posting this for future reference, it is a key paragraph about central claims in the film. While much of this is Synth, some of it is not... such as Kevin Ryan's credentials. I intend to rework it with appropriate references. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Finished new section. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Loose Change compares the collapse of the World Trade Center to other notable high-rise fires which did not collapse. Internet Detectives rebuts there are differences in building design, significant structural damage and intact fireproofing; as most steel loses over half its strength at 600°C (1112°F). They also found firefighters during those fires were pulled back for fear of collapse and that The Windsor Building comparison fails to mention that its perimeter floors supported by steel columns collapsed during the fire. The "expert" Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories (UL) was actually employed in a water testing subsidiary, UL does not certify structural steel, and ASTM E119 certification is not meant to predict performance in real uncontrolled fires. UL found no evidence of any firm conducting tests on WTC materials in the past.

Obnoxious vandalism

I swept through this article today and found SEVERAL vicious comments that were put into the article to slant it in a negative light. I removed the comments, can people save their debate for this page please?--24.22.29.170 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the biased tone in this article. Also, some contributors seem to be confused about which version to debunk. Many of the citations point to the 2nd edition, which the producers made when they were kids.M. Frederick (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>When they were kids, two years previous. Yes, they must really have been kids then.</sarcasm>

Yes, it's biased. The claims that the producers actually found facts contrary to the mainstream story seem to be unsourced, except by the producers themselves. There is some question as to which version the critism relates to, but any claims that the 3rd revision improves the 2nd have to be sourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vicious comments indeed have no place here. But "biased tone" is another matter. The amount of criticism of Loose Change is overwhelming. To reflect this in the article is accurate. NPOV does not stipulate we treat a subject in a positive or neutral tone. It is about presenting them in full context; if there is a lot of negative press about them, then that should be reflected in the article. Kids, yeah well this is a mature and important subject they choose to handle; they seemed to have taken the gloves off when they infer prominent people committed mass murder. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of factual information, and whether editors agree with the points of view of the film's creators or not, the idea of this article is to give factual information about the film and its creators. Listing controversies and criticisms is fine, but mindless vandalism is unacceptable irregardless of how "hot" the topic is. Bias has no place in a factual article. 82.34.244.60 (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)