Guardian, yes; seen elsewhere
I visit the Guardian frequently enough that I pay an annual subsidy to them even though they haven’t retreated behind a paywall. From a comment thread at the New York Times, which generally polices these things rather rigorously (the comments sections of most US newspaper sites could be charitably described as cesspools), comes this bizarre observation:
cordially,
Please provide some actual evidence physical, analyzable and evidence corroborated and reproducible to prove this supposed bombing, if such evidence is not provided or does not exist, then the obvious result is that nothing occurred, especially in such a supposedly catastrophic event there should be thousands of detailed pieces of physical evidence. Right now there is nothing but suspicious pictures that prove nothing and a cloudy narrative that proves nothing.I am inclined to think this is clumsy trolling, but after last year’s election, who is to say?
cordially,
