I noticed that your mention of 9/11 in the false flags section did not touch demolition. Why? It seems odd that you would use Wayne Madsen for a lot of articles -- who tanked his credibility by suggesting that nukes were used on 9/11. Here's what he said in September of 2006, a key anniversary, about "radiation" at the WTC scene --

"Sources close to FEMA in New York confirmed to WMR that the lymphoma cases are believed to be the result of a release of extremely high levels of radiation from a series of nuclear events on the morning of 911. They believe that explains the reason for the "pulverization" of concrete, molten metals, pyroclastic surges and fallout, and other anomalies resulting from the catastrophe. It was also pointed out that some vehicles parked on the west side of the World Trade Center were "fused" on the sides facing the towers -- the doors being melted into the body frames. Other cars parked nearby were not similarly affected. There is also evidence of explosions and fires on top of the Woolworth Building, three blocks away from the World Trade Center, during the attack on the towers."

I also feel concerned about the mixing of health info with political/truth issues. For those who are looking for real evidence and credibility, that combo is often formula for "hoax" and non-scientific stuff being advocated. It's like the new-age mantra -- hair loss products, floride contributes to heart disease, so buy this product. We see it on the more slick productions out to make money, the ads on here, and the big sites like WRH, Alex Jones, etc., and so for a lot of people it's like an automatic knock-out of credibility to see the mixing of what most people consider fringe health claims with political and "truth" issues.

But doing a newspaper is a good idea.