The video is as much a diatribe against the governments' strengthened 'anti-terror' legislation and the apparent curbs to civil liberties as it is any factual expose as to what went on that day, in fact probably more so.
I find it hard to take it seriously when it makes so many snide comments about Blair, repeated comdemnation of the Iraq war, the Hutton enquiry, and the shooting of Charles de Menezes, Forest Gate, the Heathrow terror alerts, and so on, which are at best tertiary issues to what the video sets out to show - which is the flaws in the 'official story'.
This heavily politicised tone is not that of a serious documentary maker IMHO. Then theres the appeal that 'a rational person can only come to the conclusion that we're being deceived', in an attempt to re-enforce his argument by suggesting that unless you believe him you're somehow irrational. If the strength of his argument would stand on its own, why would the documentary maker adopt such a tone?
The bloke contradicts himself somewhat a bit too - early in the film he completely discredits the eye witness account of a guy who saw one of the bombers on the train, because the guy sold his story to the papers six months afterwards, and as such is unreliable, then later on in the film bemoans the lack of eye witnesses to the bombers as proof of some cover up
I find the narrators voice is deeply annoying too
It raises some interesting points, for sure, and the civil liberties issues are something to be concerned with, but as an expose of some sort of conspiracy it falls flat IMHO, being overly politicised and is in itself as much based on hearsay and allegation as any official report of the event that it seeks to criticise.
