When I say "extremely annoying", I'm looking at it from the point of view of those who don't want you to have any knowledge at all about these events, other than perhaps some vague impressions of the official narratives.
But it's anything but annoying to those of us who want to know the truth about important events, but missed these articles the first time -- or the first dozen times -- that they appeared.
Today's case in point is a fine piece of research and analysis by Graeme MacQueen, whose piece about anthrax attacks we were reading just a few days ago, and Ted Walter.
In 9/11 News Coverage: How 36 Reporters Brought Us the Twin Towers’ Explosive Demolition on 9/11 the authors report on their study, in which they collected the day's news reports pertaining to the attacks on the World Trade Center, from the major networks and the local NYC stations. The looked at reporting from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, WABC, WCBS, WNBC, and NY1, and examined the work of each individual reporter to determine how many of them reported the buildings having been brought down by explosives, and how many reported them having been brought down without explosives.
As they say:
The widely held belief that the Twin Towers collapsed as a result of the airplane impacts and the resulting fires is, unbeknownst to most people, a revisionist theory. Among individuals who witnessed the event firsthand, the more prevalent hypothesis was that the Twin Towers had been brought down by massive explosions.Their article is full of evidence of explosions, including transcripts of on-scene reporting and embedded YouTube videos. They've even made their video archive public, so we can download it and see for ourselves. (The archive is 13.6 GB, so it's not to be taken lightly, nor downloaded quickly. But I want a copy, because I don't trust YouTube to leave all these clips available forever.)
All defenders of the official story deny that anything important happened to the towers except that were struck by airplanes. And they all say, "There is no evidence of explosions in the towers."
This article, and the evidence associated with it, proves beyond any doubt that the defenders of the official story are lying. And it's not as if we didn't know that already, but this is still a very valuable addition to the "discussion", even if it only helps to keep the discussion alive, and presumably that's why Michel Chossudovsky has never broken this very annoying habit.
Of course I congratulate him on this.