Yeah, no. The video seems to fall victim to the
ad hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
Beyond that, while some of the factoid-like points are interesting, the whole falls far short of any reasonable expectation of evidence.
We turn to conspiracy theories to explain the inexplicable; when events happen that seem impossible, or impossible to explain. These odd events crop up -- Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, 9/11 -- and we turn to a multitude of theories that purport to explain the unexplainable.
My first response is that sometimes, human events are
weird or difficult to understand or difficult to believe or unsatisfying to the narrative sense. This, the fact that things are weird, does
not mean that a secret cabal of powerful men are controlling world events. Conspiracies in the real world are fragile things, difficult to pull off, difficult to avoid defection of the participants, difficult to conceal. I do not mean that conspiracies are impossible, or never happen. Just that they are highly, highly, highly unlikely.
My second response is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I see none here.
My third response is that this is the same federal government that can't figure out it's own email system in the wake of Hurricane Katrina -- and you think they can pull off a highly technical, international, outlandish, horrifying, and evil-minded attack in the center of the world's media capitol and escape detection?