Basically. Unless they've totally overhauled the 'documentary' then, yes, it's a few facts, often exaggerated, that were mixed with a lot of fiction, conjecture, and editing - something that resulted in nothing more and nothing less than a perfect example of how conspiracy theories become popular and 'respectable.'
Yeah, but only the first doc, but it's only the points about 9/11...
Not really, no. Although I will admit that I've not seen the follow-up videos the first had issues with all three of its sections. Not that I want to get into a giant debate about this, but there's enough problems in the first film alone that I'm highly skeptical of anything coming from that source and, frankly, think that there's better uses of my time than watching any more of his stuff.