The guy is basing a lot on what appears to be rumor and speculation: if he bothered to document and/or substantiate a lot of his stuff (like the Customs Dept. evidence including heat-sensitive cassettes in a tape), and then bothered to figure out the location of the safe in relation to the fires, the thermal conductivity and heat capacity characteristics of the safe, etc. rather than saying "It looks funny -- must Be A CONSPIRACY!", he'd have more credibility.
Another example would be this quote:
"We are asked to believe that all four of the “indestructible” black boxes of the two jets that struck the twin towers were never found because they were completely vaporized, yet I have footage of the rubber wheels of the landing gear nearly undamaged, as well as the seats, parts of the fuselage and a jet turbine that were absolutely not vaporized. This being said, I do find it rather odd that such objects could have survived fairly intact the type of destruction that turned most of the Twin Towers into thin dust."
Ever hear of "scattering of debris"? The entire towers were not engulfed in flame. And "turned into dust" is not the same thing as "vaporized" -- he is conflating two different things and relying on the association between the two vaguely "bad, nasty destructive" terms to convey the notion of a sinister conspiracy, when it is really just his own confusion being shown. And why doesn't he check with Boeing about the parts which comprise a turbine, to see if the surviving piece in the article is a well-known subassembly?
Finally, I tend to have a personal rule not to trust people whose publicity shots look so d*mned supercilious:
See also Jeff Goldblum:
