You're right - the documentary stinks. Fully 1 100 seconds (out of 10 minutes) was devoted to planets moving around and other uninformative (but
emotional) irrelevance.
Since I know almost nothing about the London atrocity, I'm in no position to comment on whether any of the facts presented were accurate. I can say
that what this video tries to show isn't well supported. It makes claims without support; it dismisses some matters with a handwave - "It's
unlikely that...".
They dismiss the possibility that there could have accidentally been anti-terror exercises at the same three stations that were actually hit. True,
if there are indeed 270 stations, and if they were all equally likely to be hit, then certainly the odds of choosing the same three for both the
exercise *and* the attack are less than 1 in 3,000,000. The thing is, no one's going to blow up some out-of-the-way station that has little traffic.
They'll try to hit the busiest, most important ones. Now, I don't know which three stations were hit, but my guess would be that these three were
the busy ones, no? If so, then the strange odds are reduced to something far less sinister - almost obvious, in fact.
I would have liked to see far more facts, and far fewer assumption of what those facts might mean. I would have liked to get rid of all the
unsupported speculation. The fact that certain events make some speculation possible, isn't the same thing as showing that this speculation actually
happened. There's a world of difference between "it might have happened", and "it *must* have happened".

