Talk:Loose Change/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rewriting the Article 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup / NPOV 

message: ::"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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Missiles/Fuselage 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Use of "strong" is not neutral 

message: [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  tag. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for more info on how this works. -- MisterHand 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction within Snopes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: have added the pic you suggested into the article (further down the page) for comparison. TehQ 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better picture please 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Debunking? 2 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of Wikipedia as a Source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms: Other building fires. 

message: ...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)
thread_title:  "Factual Accuracy" section  

message: 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)
thread_title: Added Influence On Pop Culture Section

message: 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)
thread_title: Black Propaganda

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Weasel Words

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: On the contrary

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Banned from the US? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gold Claims 

message: 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)
thread_title: Oddities section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fuel Safety Crash Test Video

message: 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)
thread_title: False allegations of vandalism

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Moved from page

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Defense? 

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Pentagon Crash 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've reworked this passage. It should make much more sense now.--Rosicrucian 03:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Poorly Written 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Apologist too strong a word? 

message: ::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)
thread_title:  Clinton Budget Cuts? 

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Revert PoV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Partial revert 

message: 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)
replies: text: Reverted it back. - RoyBoy 800 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cui Bono? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I've added the cite to the passage, then.--Rosicrucian 14:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Trade Center gold 

message: ::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)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: 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)
thread_title: The in-flight systems

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Judicial Watch 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flight 93: vocabulary errors 

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Alleged? 

message: ::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)
thread_title:  World Trade Center Collapse 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Claims and points which are still to be addressed, answered or debunked 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mark Roberts

message: 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)
thread_title:  Factual Inaccuracies/Criticisms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for assuming good faith. --Striver 21:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to know were you stand. --Striver 21:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: break out

message: 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)
replies: text: Good work. - RoyBoy 800 23:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condensing redundant sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms Subheaders 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources of Information? 

message: 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)
thread_title: More information about 9-11

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Misleading light poles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism vs Factual Inaccuracies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Again with Maddox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Possible Explanation?

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: No evidence steel was tested

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revision plans? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Website down

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I started brainstorming on a revision roadmap above, but nobody seems to be biting.--Rosicrucian 23:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: As you can see on my revision proposals above, I very much agree with you.--Rosicrucian 23:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

text: (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)
thread_title: Links

message: See this --Striver 11:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 911TM Critisism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Official Site 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restructure of Content 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Dylan Avery]], [[Korey Rowe]], and [[Jason Bermas]] 

message: 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 .--Crossmr 13:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, that works much better and makes the section much more credible.--Crossmr 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revision history 

message: (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 
(That's PoV.) --Rosicrucian (reverted) 
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)
replies: text: The word choice is unencyclopedic, at the very least.--Rosicrucian 17:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Documentary 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, we already link the Mark Roberts viewer guide.--Rosicrucian 14:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  You people finally allowed mention that wikipedia is their source 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms section 

message: I have added the  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)
thread_title:  Reason for Final Cut delay? 

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

message: A few problems with this article:
# Too many unreliable sources.  See the WP:RS guideline for more information on that.
# Prose is messy.  Too many section breaks where they aren't needed.
# 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)
thread_title: GA notes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "accurate comparison" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: 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)
thread_title: Release date of film

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: try regardless 20.139.226.50 (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Merged the Production Team Bios?

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA Failed 

message: 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)
thread_title: co.nr link needs replacement when article is unprotected

message: 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)
replies: text: Do it, then! It would have been quicker to correct it than to type that message! The JPStalk to me 22:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Fix 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Film school 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think the "current event" refers to Korey's legal troubles.  Has he been released yet? --Aude (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that specifically relevant to the article about the film?--ZimZalaBim talk 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current event? 

message: Is there information on who financed the creation of this film? --Doctorfoxxe 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that it was self-financed by those involved in its production. - RoyBoy 800 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding for Film 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible anon [[WP:3RR]] violation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Music and narration criticism