Substantive arguments against 'facts' in F9/11?

[techweenie]

There were a few dismissive comments from people who [mostly] didn't see Fahrenheit 911 about claims made in the movie. Most of these comments were borrowed observations from columnists -- not surprisingly, with right-leaning opinions.

If I'm not mistaken. lendaddy joined 14,000,000 other theatergoers to see the movie, so that his comments would be credible. A laudable and refreshing decision.

For the rest of you, here's a chance to follow the movie's claims and the backup used to support them without giving money to Moore:

http://michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

I'm posting this in the hope that substantive rebuttals can be made against Moore's movie.

From my viewpoint, there were several misleading things in the movie -- they do not rise to the level of outright "lies" but half-truths. But I encourage some of you Moore haters to post yours, first.

Please, look at the claims and the sources. Moore's appearance and cartoons about him have already been thoroughly covered elsewhere. And 'I wouldn't give the guy the time of day' posts don't serve you well, since enough people have already seen the movie to swing the election. So where are the fallacies?