RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500

Talk:Loose Change

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon conspiracy.svg

This Conspiracy theories related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Can someone at least attempt to give this a NPOV? I'm no conspiract nut but this the article is blatently anti-Loose Change. The Anti-Conservapedia 08:11, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Eh. We're not Wikipedia. Hell, there isn't even a "-pedia" in the name of this site. Have you noticed that things at rationalwiki tend to have a slight bias against things that aren't rational? DickTurpis 08:16, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

I wonder have you actually seen the film. Some of the charges they level are insane, but the use of explosives in the World Trade Center has not being adequately refuted. The Anti-Conservapedia 08:28, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I saw the film a year ago, so my memory of it is not perfect. I almost thought it was a comedy. The scary thing was that some people I was with (who I would otherwise consider intelligent human beings) bought the whole thing hook, line, and sinker. But in a way you're right, they have not 100% disproved that there were no explosives in the towers. Nor did they 100% disprove that magical fairy dust combined with unicorn blood created a weakening of girders, leading to the collapse. People saw puffs of smoke coming out of the windows just below the collapsing floors, and instead of considering that the interior structure was collapsing slightly sooner than the exterior, they assumed it was a demolition. People want to believe that it was a Bush conspiracy plot, so they believe it was a Bush conspiracy plot. DickTurpis 08:40, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
I have not seen the film - but we are not NPOV. We are skeptical point of view. see RationalWiki:Project Whitewash/What is a RationalWiki article--Bob_M (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Personally, I don't believe BushCo would be competent enough to pull off something like this. --Gulik 11:58, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

That's pretty much the thought that made me wander out of the 9/11 conspiracy ranks. Now, I do think that if they knew about it a bit, sometime before, they might have been dumb enough to let it happen. But not if they knew a lot about it. And as you say, there is no evidence that BushCo is any good at doing much besides manipulating elections and, to an extent, public opinion. I also got bored of the 9/11 nuts when looking at a photograph of a plane wheel at the pentagram that said it wasn't the same as a 767 (or whatever) wheel. Oddly enough, it planely was the same object. My favorite all time 'theory' was the one that involved four dummy planes full of barrels of explosive fuel, swapping them below radar, and ditching the real planes in the ocean. Yah. humanbe in 18:39, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

"While they denied that planes crashed into Arlington and Shanksville" - shouldn't the "Arlington" reference be the Pentagon? Or, (doh) is the Pentagon in Arlington? I thought it was in W DC? ħumanUser talk:Human 15:42, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

The Pentagon is in Arlington, near Arlington National Cemetery. Secret Squirrel 15:53, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
Ah, ok. Should we make that clearer in the article? Since that's the first mention of Arlington, (and Shanksville) it forces the reader into a bit of a geographic brainstretch. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:59, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

One of my old teachers handed out copies of it after showing it to us. Granted, he would only give you one if you asked for it.--Nate River 23:39, 22 December 2008 (EST)

'To coin a phrase' - much loose change short of rational. (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That Cracked.com article[edit]

Is fucking awesome! Just saying. Carry on. --DamoHi 20:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something here?[edit]

The article mentions that Loose Change suggests 9/11 was faked in order to convince the US' populace to support a war with Iraq. Now, I'm not sure about in the US, but over here at least, we were led to believe that Iraq was invaded in order to secure WMDs Saddam allegedly had. Wasn't 9/11 the cause of war for Afghanistan, rather than Iraq? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Though arguably without an event to bring the region to the attention of Americans and instill a hatred of Muslims and the middle-east, it wouldn't have happened. Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
One good argument against the "inside job" idea is that instead of the lame and convoluted Iraqi WMD and "Saddam meeting with terrorists" stories which were so easily disproved, if Bush & Co. were responsible for the attacks they could have linked 9/11 directly to Iraq by making the hijackers Iraqi nationals or some such. That it wasn't like that strengthens the case that the attacks were real and the neo-cons were just exploiting the opportunity. --Pere Ubu (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The number of intuitive ways to deconstruct 9/11 conspiracy theories are essentially infinite, because the conspiracies themselves are totally shaky. You think about any aspect of it, and it's pretty easy to go "no wait, that doesn't make any sense". Like if the goal was to make Al Qaeda look bad, why did they take credit for it? Or if it was a controlled demolition that the planes hid, why not just make it a less controlled demolition so that idiots on youtube couldn't figure it out. Ikanreed (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but that's what they want you to think.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Cruise Missile[edit]

So, this just came to mind while reading this article. Suppose that Loose Change is right, and the US government created Sept. 11 as a excuse to attack Iraq. Why on earth would they need to cover up the use of a cruise missile? Wouldn't it be EVEN MORE USEFUL to the shadowy cabal's cause as a cause of war if iraqi terrorists (or whoever) had been able to take control of a cruise missle and fire it at the pentagon on 'merican soil? Yet another example of how dumb this conspiracy theory is, I guess. -- (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Should we make an inventory of all of the different versions of Loose Change out there ? I believe there are four of five (the latest is called "An American Coup", and is apparently a top hit on torrent sites). Should we also explain the different theories supported by each version, since apparently the creators change their minds between each release ? --Kungo GumiQui ça ? 15:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)