[newbeliever]

"...it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed..."

Actually, this is probably a factual statement. I am quite sure that mre buldings are razed by "controlled demolition" than are destroyed by crazed terrorists flying hijacked jets. Therefore, if a building is destroyed it IS more LIKELY to have been destroyed by "controlled demolition." Statistically speaking it is.

Aditionally "'If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job'"

This too would be factually coreect as the person would necessarily have to have been "inside" to plant the charges.

So then, this artice is defintely "FAKE BUT ACCURATE." Could Dancing Dan be far from here?

[Leo Carpathian]

Moron, should have been in one of those buildings!
Like we didn't see the planes hit the buildings, like steel did not melt from the heat at the point of impact, like top floors did not start pancake collapse from the top.

What about the heroes who took that plane down in PA? Inside job, decided to take the plane down just for heck of it?

Freak! FRepee on him!