Talk:Loose Change

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good article nominee
Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

911research.WTC7.net

Some of the current dispute relates to whether this is a

9/11 Truth Movement site? I say it clearly is, and DoctorNeutralNoBias (talk · contribs) says it isn't. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]

IMDB revisited

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)[reply]

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)[reply
]
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)[reply]

Moved content from summary to talk page

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).[1][unreliable source?]

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"[2][dead link] was released on DVD and Web-streaming format on November 11, 2007.[3][unreliable source?] Despite the title, however,[citation needed]

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ NY FOX affiliate airs alternative 9/11 theory, "Loose Change"
  2. ^ "Loose Change 911". loosechange911.com. Retrieved 2008-04-24. {{cite web}}: Text "Loose Change: Final Cut" ignored (help)
  3. ^ "Loose Change: Final Cut (2007) (V)". IMDb. Retrieved 2007-12-16.

GA editing

Removed the following because of no or dead citations. --RoyBoy 17:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian

TV 2 aired it at 23:50 CET on July 10, 2008 and August 31, 2008 under the Norwegian title "Fiksjon eller fakta?" which translates to "Fiction or fact?"[1][dead link
]

References

  1. ^ "Tv2.no: 9/11 - Fiksjon eller fakta?". Retrieved 2009-08-25.

"refuted by journalists": unsourced

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)[reply]

Agreed. The sentence should say that the claims are "disputed," not that they have been "refuted," or proven false. As of 09-20-2015, it still says "refuted," which is inaccurate. 70.173.92.113 (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Conspiracy Files Documentaries

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)[reply]

- Interesting. I think the BBC Documentary was deliberately one-sided and to make conclusions that there is no credibility in any of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The program tried to make Avery look like he made up stories about Barry Jennings. Jennings had to retract because this controversial topic has cost many their jobs. I don't think it's fair to say that they were "specifically rebuked" by the BBC documentary. I am trying to clean up this article a little more, but want to keep it completely neutral as it deals with a very sensitive topic. Marty2Hotty (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Distances Himself From Films, Truthers

There has been a series of articles at SLATE this week discussing 9/11 Truthers and featuring an interview with Avery. He basically now rejects both the films and the entire movement beyond a lingering suspicion that some politicians and officials engaged in cover-up activities to hide their incompetence; and purposefully exaggerated WMD claims, etc., in order to justify the war in Iraq. That's it. Avery says that he has basically cut ties with what's left of the Truther movement, and offers some brief psychological insight into what made him and so many others want to disbelieve that the "official" version was basically true. I would think that this remarkable change of direction should be added rather prominently to bth this entry and Avery's own entry. In so many words-- he is admitting that almost everything in "Loose Change" is bullshit.222.230.126.96 (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Vainamoinen[reply]

Your assertion is both exaggerated and misleading. Here is the relevant text from the article:
What does Avery think of 9/11 conspiracy theories now? He thinks that while orchestrating the attacks was beyond the scope of the Bush administration, there was "considerable foreknowledge" within the government so that it should have been able to prevent them. Why it did not is his new focus. "Where I am now is, I've whittled it down to a very basic statement that I think a lot of people can agree on: There was a cover-up of some kind," Avery says. "The only question is what they were covering up, how far [up] it goes, how deep it runs, and how many asses would be on the line if the truth actually came out."
He says he still "support[s] the movement," but he also acknowledges getting "sucked in" deeper than he should have been, into a "hardcore mentality that it was almost too easy to get into back then, because the war had just started and everybody was just so pissed off."(ref)
The reference doesn't quote him as saying that "he rejects the films"; it doesn't say that he has "cut ties with what's left of the Truther movement"; and it doesn't say that he "is admitting that almost everything in Loose Change is bullshit". Wildbear (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I re-read it on SLATE and on another site with similar comments, and you're right, my 'summary' went too far, sorry; and it was another conspiracy theorist, a 'Ruppert,' who was quoted as having "cut ties" with the 9/11 Truth Movement. But there are more Avery quotes in some of the other SLATE articles (same series) that are pretty close. While he doesn't say that he rejects the films, the articles state that he is now "ambivalent" about the "movement he helped create," that the Truther mentality "...has pushed Avery away from the movement," reports that he sympathizes with a former British Truther who has now recanted (as it were), and ends with the quote that the true-believer fanaticism of the Truth movement was "...one of the reasons I had to back away from the movement in general; I was afraid i was becoming one of them-- someone who sees conspiracy around every corner." The interview implies pretty heavily that Avery doesn't really believe much of what's in 'Loose Change' anymore, even some of what's in the final, weaker version. He's become a 9/11 Truth apostate. I think all that's worthy of prominent inclusion in this article.222.230.126.96 (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Vainamoinen[reply]

I reade the same ones, yeah he basically says now that he doesnt believe whats in his own films. But try and tell the true believers that! Even with Avery walking back from it all, they still have to believe. Really strange, but i guess when you are so emotionally invested in things, you just can't give it up easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.217.222 (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- If you look at a YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmDBWxKjrGo&t=8m30s , Avery seems to not want to talk about logistics and argue with people anymore. He merely states that there is a "cover up" and doesn't use "inside job" anymore. He was still there at 9/11/11. He later gets into a verbal argument with a person who was trying to harass him. Avery defends a new investigation and challenges the person who says the 9/11 Commission was not lying. I think this is proof that Avery still stands for most of the arguments presented in his film and this is not relevant to be put in his article. I think he is just tired of arguing about the same logistics. It's up to the experts now. Marty2Hotty (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's very clear, and indeed he has explicitly stated, that he does not believe the "inside job" controlled demolition theories which form the very core of the whole "Loose Change" idea and Truth movement. Rather, he believes the government ignored warnings and then covered up its incompetence; and opportunistically used 9/11 to justify its Middle-east war plan. An extremely negative critique of the Bush Administration; but a far, far cry from the "coup" of the Truthers. 219.101.196.2 (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Whistlewhileyouwork[reply]

Cleanup of article?

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)[reply]

Title?

Why is it called "Loose Change"?--89.146.173.101 (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Cuchullain's arguments are compelling and have not been refuted in the two weeks since he posted them. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– Currently, there are no notable results for "Loose Change" other than a virtually unknown book. For a while, the title of this article was "Loose Change (film series)" and Loose Change redirected there. At this time, I would like to request that Loose Change be the name of the film series article and that the disambiguation page be linked at the top of the article since anyone searching Loose Change will be searching for the film series Marty2Hotty (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. bd2412 T 15:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The film series uses the title of a generic concept. The nominator has presented no evidence to support the assertion that the film series is the only topic of this name which anyone will search for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Unfortunately, the conspiracy films are the clear
    WP:DICDEF that's not covered anywhere on Wikipedia so far as I can tell. The dab page itself received 1398 hits in 90 days, meaning a large proportion of readers are being misdirected.--Cúchullain t/c 16:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 07:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 12:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 22:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda

  • "..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..." [1]
  • "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." [2]
  • ""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"). [3]
  • "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." [4]
  • [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!" [5]

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Statement Needs to Be Removed

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 [6] and the Europhysics News article. [7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Why does this have the documentary cat again?

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loose_Change&oldid=1207275126"