Talk:Loose Change

message: Some of the current dispute relates to whether this is a 9/11 Truth Movement site?  I say it clearly is, and  says it isn't.  Comments?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Jim Hoffman's site, with Jim Hoffman being a very prominent figure in the 9/11 Truth Movement.  It's also a top external linked site on 911Truth.org.  I don't see how it could have any stronger stamp of approval than that.  Wildbear (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   911research.WTC7.net  

message: I thought IMDB was generally considered reliable for some information; that which is not subject to public editing.  I believe the release date falls into that category.  But I'm not certain.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I lost my internet connection yesterday and today I'm in a rush and only have a few minutes free to post on Wikipedia.  Please see this for my attempt to sum up past discussions regarding IMDB at WP:RSN.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the IMDB : Loose Change (original). I have read Phil Jayhan was the original producer, but he is not listed.72.161.226.181 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDB revisited 

message: I've moved the following content from the summary to the talk page because the content is cited to dead links and non-reliable sources:
The first film, Loose Change, was originally released through the creators' own company, Louder Than Words, and received widespread attention after Loose Change 2nd Edition was featured on a Binghamton, New York local FOX affiliate, WICZ-TV (FOX 40).NY FOX affiliate airs alternative 9/11 theory, "Loose Change"
The original film was edited and re-released as Loose Change: 2nd Edition, and then subsequently edited a third time for the 2nd Edition Recut, each time to tighten the focus on certain key areas and to correct some inaccurate claims and remove copyrighted material. Loose Change: Final Cut, deemed "the third and final release of this documentary series" was released on DVD and Web-streaming format on November 11, 2007. Despite the title, however,
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I see, I will fix. I made a mistake by not taking this section into account, but I know what I'm doing. Please allow me more than 5 minutes to complete some major edits. Thanks. - RoyBoy 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved content from summary to talk page 

message: Removed the following because of no or dead citations. --RoyBoy 17:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA editing 

message: The assertion which an IP editor is attempting to make, "The film's main claims have been refuted by journalists", is not supported by the referenced source.(ref)  There are several problems with attempting to use this source to support the assertion:  first, it does not say or imply that "the film's main claims have been refuted by journalists"; it says that some publications (i.e. Counterpunch and Popular Mechanics) queried experts concerning the conclusions.  Second, it says that these "experts" concluded that in Building 7, "thousands of gallons of diesel [were poured] on to the fire"; a conclusion discounted by NIST.  If the "experts" don't agree on what happened, then how can they be "refuting" someone else's hypothesis?  Third, the referenced item is an opinion piece, which makes it a poor reference for an encyclopedia.  Because of these conditions, I am reverting the change to the original wording.  If you feel that the change should stand, then please discuss your reasoning here (or provide a better reference).  Wildbear (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "refuted by journalists": unsourced 

message: In regards to these documentaries, the article states, "Several claims made by Loose Change were investigated and specifically rebuked.  Dylan Avery was interviewed for the program, which cast him in a negative light."  I just watched both programs, to determine whether or not this is an accurate description.  For the first of the two programs, "9/11", this wording appears to be a fair assessment.  Avery is shown advancing certain conspiracy theories, concerning matters such as the plane at the Pentagon and "disappearance" of flight 93, which appear dubious when contrasted with other information given in the program.  The second of the two programs, "The Third Tower", shows Avery in a much more positive light.  Nothing that Avery presents is contradicted by the program; to the contrary, there is much in the program which legitimizes the questions which Avery and others bring up about Building 7.  The program does show Barry Jennings expressing displeasure with the way that his story was represented in the Loose Change series.  Avery responds that he did not misrepresent what he was told by Jennings, and presents an actual recording of Jennings as evidence.  The BBC drops the issue at that point, rather than examining it further.  My conclusion from viewing the programs is that it is fair to say that "several claims made by Loose Change were investigated and specifically rebuked", if applied specifically to the first of the two programs.  Saying that "Dylan Avery was interviewed for the program, which cast him in a negative light" is acceptably accurate for the first program, but I would not call it an accurate for the second program.  I may attempt to adjust the wording to reflect how Avery was portrayed in each of the two programs.  Lumping the two together with a single blanket statement does not (in my opinion) adequately convey the differences in Avery's presentation between the two programs.  Wildbear (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Conspiracy Files Documentaries 

message: I think the article is good, but it is often edited by those on two sides, much like most Wikipedia articles that deal with controversial topics. I have watched all Loose Change documentaries and have really studied the 9/11 Truth Movement, as well as the explanations provided by official government agencies. I want to try and keep the article neutral and factual about the documentaries' information. If talking about "debunking", I think it would make sense to show the other side's views if necessary. I think since this is a widely discussed topic, it is important to keep it neutral. For example, there is one side that says such and such happened (controlled demolition), but popular mechanics states that "fires/jet fuel caused it to come down", without necessarily saying they are successfully debunked or not. Agreeing and disagreeing are words that work. But yeah, I may try and clean up the article in subsequent weeks and months when I have time. I want to keep it Loose Change-related and about the legacy, the information, etc. Marty2Hotty (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of article? 

message: Why is it called "Loose Change"?--89.146.173.101 (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Loose Change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080415085614/http://loosechange911.com:80/lc3.shtml to http://www.loosechange911.com/lc3.shtml
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.microcinemadvd.com/product/DVD/1282/Loose_Change_911_An_American_Coup_Limited_Edition_Bonus_Disc.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131215025514/http://internetdetectives.biz:80/case/loose-change to http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Loose Change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121021111954/http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_YIXNBIp6gXCY7JzIdwd7jJ;jsessionid=1ED6372CC2FED0FCFAFB10517F2786A9 to http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_YIXNBIp6gXCY7JzIdwd7jJ;jsessionid=1ED6372CC2FED0FCFAFB10517F2786A9
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Loose Change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120112135332/http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_YIXNBIp6gXCY7JzIdwd7jJ;jsessionid=1ED6372CC2FED0FCFAFB10517F2786A9 to http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_YIXNBIp6gXCY7JzIdwd7jJ;jsessionid=1ED6372CC2FED0FCFAFB10517F2786A9
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Loose Change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100208102940/http://www.loosechange911.com/about/bios/ to http://www.loosechange911.com/about/bios/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_YIXNBIp6gXCY7JzIdwd7jJ%3Bjsessionid%3D1ED6372CC2FED0FCFAFB10517F2786A9
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/broadcastnowsearchResults.aspx?strSearch=loose%20change&x=0&y=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215025514/http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change to http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100317153323/http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050210033600/http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html to http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Loose Change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105233923/http://www.loosechange911.com/about/synopsis/ to http://www.loosechange911.com/about/synopsis/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212232137/http://emptv.com/research/loose-change to http://emptv.com/research/loose-change
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212232137/http://emptv.com/research/loose-change to http://emptv.com/research/loose-change
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212232137/http://emptv.com/research/loose-change to http://emptv.com/research/loose-change
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212232137/http://emptv.com/research/loose-change to http://emptv.com/research/loose-change
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212232137/http://emptv.com/research/loose-change to http://emptv.com/research/loose-change
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212232137/http://emptv.com/research/loose-change to http://emptv.com/research/loose-change
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212232137/http://emptv.com/research/loose-change to http://emptv.com/research/loose-change
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * "..many websites (such as this one) exist to assist the viewer in recognizing the techniques utilized by Avery for what they are: propaganda techniques designed to persuade you to believe the U.S. Government got away with the biggest cover-up of all time. Loose Change is a form of documentary propaganda..." 
* "This investigation examined the boundaries of inoculation theory by examining how inoculation can be applied to conspiracy theory propaganda... The attack message was a 40-minute chapter from the 9/11 Truth conspiracy theory film, Loose Change: Final Cut."  
* ""Loose Change" ist nicht einfach ein Dummejungenstreich, sondern ein erstaunlich eindringliches Stück Propaganda." ("Loose Change" is not just a silly prank, but an amazingly haunting piece of propaganda"). 
* "The man who created the single most influential piece of propaganda about the 9/11 conspiracy is now ambivalent about the movement he helped make popular. "There's a certain thing called tact that you need when you're dealing with the public," says Dylan Avery, director of the film Loose Change, released in 2005 and since viewed tens of millions of times online." 
* [Review of "Loose change"] "The Western world surely has enough flawed orthodoxies of thought vulnerable to factual, intellectually honest critiques that we can get by without relying on absurd conspiracy theories and propaganda films to challenge our thinking!" 
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda 

message: In the introductory section the statement is made that "The film's main claims have been debunked by journalists, independent researchers, and prominent members of the scientific and engineering community." This is incorrect because one of the main claims in the documentary are that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was a controlled demolition, as supported by a University study  and the Europhysics News article.  Yet the 3 sources cited to support the erroneous statement do not address the university study and magazine article.
So, if the two supporting pieces of evidence to support one of LC's main claims have not been addressed it means the statement that LC's main claims have been debunked is an incorrect one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.151.238 (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: One study which was funded and conducted by AE911Truth (an organization with a dubious record, to say the least), and a single article about a study published in EuroPhysics News, a source which is not even peer-reviewed (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/) do not strike me as reliable. 2A00:23C7:99A4:5001:C9AC:4B0D:C0A2:9B31 (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Statement Needs to Be Removed 

message: It's, uh, literally NOT a documentary considering how thoroughly it's been debunked. The entire reason it exists is to push weird conspiracy theories. Jtrainor (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this have the documentary cat again?