Like Ruppert says, he's not qualified to analyse video and photographs to determine physic irregularities, so he doesn't. For some 9/11 researches, they get turned off by that thinking he's not interested or doesn't believe anything was wrong which isn't true at all, he simply isn't going to rest his case on something he's not qualified for and that a court of law wouldn't accept and it's obvious you can get two scientists to say the exact opposite if you want anyway.

He sticks to evidence which has paper trails and 9/11 isn't his main focus, that's just a by-product of what he's been talking about for years, he said it would happen, that something had to happen soon and it did.

He was writing articles about Bin Laden being a CIA asset long before it was fashionable, i think around 1997 was his main article on that link.

Like all researchers, he has his areas of expertise and does amazing research in those areas - mainly issues dealing with the CIA which has connected itself with drugs, weapons and eventually 9/11 and beyond.

He needs to be listened to and taken in along with the rest as he fills in some major holes in the 9/11 puzzle which are left behind by those who only focus on the details that come with photos and video.

9/11 would be busted wide open by now if the amount of researchers who focus on the videos and photographs actually focused on the business, trades and money trails.