Ruppert's Aproach

Every cop and criminal lawyer knows that technical evidence, whether physical or psychiatric, can always be disputed. The winner will probably be the side that can afford to pay for the testimony of more experts. Much more weighty is testimony placing the defendant at, or displacing him from, the scene. As a former cop, Mike Ruppert is well aware of this. He structures his book accordingly, eschewing physical evidence, and advises others to do the same.
I can't agree.

What is technical changes with time. Fingerprints were technical when they were first used. DNA evidence is certainly technical, and it has passed beyond the stage where it can be disputed. It has resulted in any number of decisive outcomes and will prevent many future disagreements, investigations and trials.

The WTC events can be described plainly enough to be comprehensible to the average man, without the use use of terms that are even remotely technical.

The leading contender for an official account of those events, the pancake theory, when put into plain and accurate words, consists of the assertions that an airplane hitting an immense steel-framed concrete building caused that building to crumble into dust in a perfectly symmetrical fashion at the rate of ten floors per second, and that the plane's burning fuel melted the building's steel girders into equally long segments, of a size convenient for hauling away quickly, and then, in its fury, tossed those girder fragments three hundred feet sideways from the building. (Or perhaps the powdery floors, somehow, did the tossing.) A public defender of this theory must rely on the footage of the actual events being kept out of the public eye, because putting the relevant images in the public eye with appropriate information would have an effect that cannot be counteracted by all the bullshit in the world.