I don't think you're understanding; My argument ALREADY ASSUMES the information that you've presented is correct. There is no need to further discuss it. But that question was a good one, because if he was being fed intel by a govt agent that shows that 9/11 was a false-flag as has already been revealed, then any predictions he makes for 2016 would also have a high likelihood of being similarly fed to him and planned. In other words, the fact that he was right about 9/11 holds A LOT OF VALUE for the matter at hand. If you're correct you've proven govt coercion in false-flag attacks, which implies the NEXT ONE will also be a govt event, so preparing for it is possible. I don't think you are paying attention to this aspect of it; everyone almost already agrees on 9/11, no one is concerned about that, what's concerning is the possibility that someone has been fed info by a govt agent prior to a known attack, which lends credence to the idea that a future attack may have similar leading. I cannot stress ENOUGH how important this is.