Fahrenheit 9/11

First, the basic background of 9/11
September 11, 2001 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency


Second, this website contains an exhaustive timeline record of 9-11. From media reports, established fact, and testimony to the seeds of the 9-11 conspriracy theories. It's all here: 9/11 Timeline

Thirdly, here's a brief sampling of some of the discussion surrounding Moore's last film. Here is are the references and footnotes Moore offers to support the movie: Welcome to MichaelMoore.com : Books Films : Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader: "Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11: Section One"

Then this is a rebuttal by Dave Koppel, as part of the Independence Institute, a Colorado Thinktank: Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911, Dave Kopel, Independence Institute:

"...I was struck by the sheer cunningness of Moore's film. When you read Kopel, try to detach yourself from any revulsion you may feel at a work of literal propaganda receiving such wide-spread accolades from mainstream politicos, as well as attendance by your friends and neighbors. Instead, notice the film's meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) 'true' or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression. In this way, Kopel's care in describing Moore's 'deceits' is much more interesting than other critiques I have read, including that of Christopher Hitchens. Kopel's lawyerly description of Moore's claims shows the film to be a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime is impressive)--a case study in how to convert elements that are mainly true into an impression that is entirely false--and this leads in turn to another thought. If this much cleverness was required to create the inchoate 'conspiracy' (whatever it may be, as it is never really specified by Moore), it suggests there was no such conspiracy. With this much care and effort invested in uncovering and massaging the data, if there really was a conspiracy of the kind Moore suggests, the evidence would line up more neatly behind it, rather than being made to do cartwheels so as to be 'true' but oh-so-misleading. If the facts don't fit, shouldn't we acquit?"

Is F9/11 propaganda? Propaganda and Fahrenheit 9/11

Kopel posts some emails he got in response to his criticism of F9/11. They're not all Moore-ons, Dave Kopel, Independence Institute

Here is some criticism of the criticism. (We could go on and on.) Deception; Desperate Right Wing Attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11;