Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion - debate forum?

[Moderator]

There has a been numerous requests, most recently & rather strongly by participant Callahan, for a separate forum to discuss the activities of '9/11'.

I have generally been opposed to it, it's not part of CODOH's job description, so to speak, and I thought it may be a distraction from our prime directive.

However, in lieu of Callahan's recent impassioned plea and weighing past suggestions of others, I think it's time to re-evaluate and consider creating such a forum. I'm not 100% sold on it, but am leaning that way.

Rather than make a simple yes/no poll, I would like to solicit opinions & suggestions to see if this is something we should do.

I will set up such a 9/11 Forum if there is a reasoned consensus in favor.

Let me hear from you. Thanks.

M1

[JLAD Prove Me Wrong]

I support it. Here's why.

1. The parallels between 9/11 and the Holocaust are too big to overlook. These parallels include using both events to justify war crimes in the Middle East, there being an 'official' version for both events, and ignored, but very thought out arguments against each 'official' version.

2. Although 9/11 is not the Holocaust, the parallels deserve their own sub-forum, and what better website than https://forum.codoh.com?

3. This forum is very structured, and a great place to debate. Adding 9/11 in with the mix would be spice in this wonderful bowl of soup.

4. It would by default bring 9/11 truthers who believe in the Holocaust, and would further demolish 'the Industry' by showing him facts. And people who are looking for the truth, such as a 9/11 truther, would be much easier to convince than an antifa terrorist or a warmongering, Israel loving Republican. It would be a win-win.

5. People such as Callahan and myself both favor this proposed sub-forum. If people don't like it, or aren't interested, they simply can avoid it. It really is that simple.

6. This isn't flat earth or reptilian, or fringe beliefs. This is a position which very intelligent people disagree, and by no means would it make us look bad. The ADL and SPLC already defame us.

For these reasons, I support a separate sub-forum for 9/11 on this website.

[Dresden]

I agree with JLAD on all points.

The 'Holocaust' and 9-11 are really joined at the hip.

It might be/probably will be, more difficult to Moderate a 9-11 Forum than a 'Holocaust' Forum because it is so much more important to the perpetrators to keep the lid on 9-11.

No doubt, there will be infiltrators and agent saboteurs who will join the 9-11 Forum with the intent to start fights and heated arguments in order to get the Moderator to close the Forum own, but hopefully whoever the Moderator will be, will be able to spot them.

[Werd]

If someone wanted to talk about 9-11 and the Israeli connections to it, does that mean we will then have to open up the forum to Israeli connections to

1. JFK
2. USS Liberty
3. Lavon Affair
4. Jewish AIPAC lobby/spy rings
5. Jews and immigration

and any other number of false flag or conspiracies? When will it stop? I have things to say about 9-11 and that list of 5 things. But I don't see the need to drag them in. I can do without it. I don't mind a strictly holocaust forum staying that way.

[JLAD Prove Me Wrong]

If someone wanted to talk about 9-11 and the Israeli connections to it, does that mean we will then have to open up the forum to Israeli connections to

1. JFK
2. USS Liberty
3. Lavon Affair
4. Jewish AIPAC lobby/spy rings
5. Jews and immigration

No, and those examples lack the parallel that the Holocaust has with 9/11. See my post above.

and any other number of false flag or conspiracies? When will it stop? I have things to say about 9-11 and that list of 5 things. But I don't see the need to drag them in. I can do without it. I don't mind a strictly holocaust forum staying that way.

False, this is not a 'strictly holocaust forum'; there already is a WWII sub forum. Should that be removed because it talks about things not necessarily Holocaust related?

[Werd]

The parallels between 9/11 and the Holocaust are too big to overlook. These parallels include using both events to justify war crimes in the Middle East, there being an 'official' version for both events, and ignored, but very thought out arguments against each 'official' version.

Upon reflection, this makes a lot of sense.

The reason we have an additional section on codoh for other aspects of world war II, is because the gas chamber/gas van holocaust of the Jews is claimed to have happened at this certain time. Exposing other lies and deceptions about world war II, such as
1.how many really died at Dresden
2. Stalin's aggressive plans that were thwarted by Barbarossa
merely justify the right and duty to investigate wild holocaust claims.

The holocaust is connected to world war II like these other things because that is precisely when they occurred.

You say 9-11 and the holocaust are connected to perpetual war and slaughter of innocent in the middle east? There is a parallel with JFK. One of the reasons he was taken out is because he was opposed to Israeli dominance in the middle east and them having nuclear weaponry. JFK also wanted to stop the Vietnam war, a war in which Jewish technocrat Henry Kissinger was involved in prolonging.
https://truthout.org/articles/millions-died-because-kissinger-prolonged-the-vietnam-war-for-years-after-betraying-peace-treaty/

Other false flags like the Lavon Affair were to be used to demonize Arabs and justify further repression of them, ala, 9-11. So again I ask, why do we get selective with some false flags that are used to justify war and perpetual slaughter overseas, but not others? This is just me being devil's advocate. I don't care either way if we add a 9-11 forum. But if we are going to do it under the guise of destroying fables that are used to justify war and perpetual slaughter, then why not other false flags that have also been used for that? Where is the cut off?

[Callahan]

Moderator, first of all, thank you for your openness to this. I think JLAD and Dresden sum up a very large portion of why I find a bridge between Revisionism and 9/11 studies to be so important, and why I think this forum would benefit from incorporating such an element. However, truly, my own greatest intention is to share something a bit more specific with you all, here. There is a relatively unheard-of, evidence-based approach to 9/11 that I am extremely confident members here will find value in. I do think this will inevitably become the foundation for all 9/11 research going forward (once it becomes known), and it very much pertains to the distinction between Revisionist research (which is strictly evidence-based, critical, and open) and establishment Holocaust research (emotionally-driven, fallacious, etc.). It won't be possible to explain here without a more proper introduction to it (which I offered in the thread I attempted to post here previously; fortunately, I saved the text for future use, just in case). If an entirely new forum for 9/11 isn't something most members here would appreciate, I would very much value the opportunity to at least post the thread I had initially intended to share. As hard-to-believe as it may be considering the ridiculous spectrum of 9/11 theories and many hostile, fruitless debates since 2001, I can very near guarantee that--regardless of what you have heard about either "side" or fringe in the debate on 9/11 previously--this will be new to you, and will provide a refreshing style of technical analyses that will open your mind to this subject in new and productive ways.

As far as having a separate 9/11 forum, I think this could be a great idea as well however I do recognize the challenges that might come with moderating such a forum. The problem is, people are very passionate about whatever theory they end up aligning with, one way or another. Each theory relies on a vast amount of information from within its own paradigm and the heated debates between people of competing paradigms are often so ill-informed and grounded in so little actual, immediately verifiable evidence that the whole debate becomes a petty argument rather than an analysis of grounded, indisputable facts. The "evidence-based approach" I refer to is a solution to this problem, and I have seen it work. But beside this approach being introduced I have several ideas that might help alleviate certain problems. Since there are, at this time, at most five or six major technical theories about 9/11 (some of which are patently ridiculous, in my opinion, such as DEW energy beams, mini-nukes); it may be advisable to have a separate pinned thread for each of the competing technical theories. This will enable those who align with (or are passionate about) a particular theory to share what they regard as plausible evidence within their assigned thread. Those who are interested can add-onto what they find credible, or challenge it there. Viewers of the forum can tour each proposal for technical theories and appraise credibility. Then the unpinned, general posts can be any discussion of compatibility or consensus between these technical theories as well as any discussion of the means/motive of 9/11 (which I think most of us here already possess enough knowledge to make a clear case for).

While I would understand the basis for Werd's concern about the Revisionists' forum if 9/11 topics were casually permitted throughout, I do not see the harm if a 9/11 forum is kept strictly separated as its own (perhaps even on a "trial basis"?). As JLAD mentioned, if people don't like it, they can simply scroll past. The parallels between 9/11 and the Holocaust are undeniable. 9/11 is far more relevant to the Holocaust than any other Zionist-Jewish crimes of the last century (Lavon affair, USS Liberty, etc.). It is the "Big Lie" of the 21st century, demonstrably so, and for nearly the same purposes.

[borjastick]

No.

[Pia Kahn]

I support it. Here's why.

1. The parallels between 9/11 and the Holocaust are too big to overlook. These parallels include using both events to justify war crimes in the Middle East, there being an 'official' version for both events, and ignored, but very thought out arguments against each 'official' version.

2. Although 9/11 is not the Holocaust, the parallels deserve their own sub-forum, and what better website than https://forum.codoh.com?

3. This forum is very structured, and a great place to debate. Adding 9/11 in with the mix would be spice in this wonderful bowl of soup.

4. It would by default bring 9/11 truthers who believe in the Holocaust, and would further demolish 'the Industry' by showing him facts. And people who are looking for the truth, such as a 9/11 truther, would be much easier to convince than an antifa terrorist or a warmongering, Israel loving Republican. It would be a win-win.

5. People such as Callahan and myself both favor this proposed sub-forum. If people don't like it, or aren't interested, they simply can avoid it. It really is that simple.

6. This isn't flat earth or reptilian, or fringe beliefs. This is a position which very intelligent people disagree, and by no means would it make us look bad. The ADL and SPLC already defame us.

For these reasons, I support a separate sub-forum for 9/11 on this website.

Great post.

I am for such a separate forum for the reasons posted above. I have talked about the parallels between both events on a few occasions and they were eventually deleted because they are supposedly off topic. 9/11 is a huge crack in the matrix and many people who eventually start doubting the holocaust are 9/11 "truthers". The 9/11 movement is humungous compared to holocaust revisionism. Generally, people who have that guts to think for themselves and rely on solid forensic evidence instead of hearsay. Those are the people we should attract and you will find lot's of 9/11 truthers among them.

[Callahan]

The reason we have an additional section on codoh for other aspects of world war II, is because the gas chamber/gas van holocaust of the Jews is claimed to have happened at this certain time. Exposing other lies and deceptions about world war II, such as
1.how many really died at Dresden
2. Stalin's aggressive plans that were thwarted by Barbarossa
merely justify the right and duty to investigate wild holocaust claims.

The holocaust is connected to world war II like these other things because that is precisely when they occurred.

You say 9-11 and the holocaust are connected to perpetual war and slaughter of innocent in the middle east? There is a parallel with JFK. One of the reasons he was taken out is because he was opposed to Israeli dominance in the middle east and them having nuclear weaponry. JFK also wanted to stop the Vietnam war, a war in which Jewish technocrat Henry Kissinger was involved in prolonging.
https://truthout.org/articles/millions-died-because-kissinger-prolonged-the-vietnam-war-for-years-after-betraying-peace-treaty/

Other false flags like the Lavon Affair were to be used to demonize Arabs and justify further repression of them, ala, 9-11. So again I ask, why do we get selective with some false flags that are used to justify war and perpetual slaughter overseas, but not others? This is just me being devil's advocate. I don't care either way if we add a 9-11 forum. But if we are going to do it under the guise of destroying fables that are used to justify war and perpetual slaughter, then why not other false flags that have also been used for that? Where is the cut off?

I think the degree of 9/11 in it's ability to change the entire social paradigm of the West is obvious, as with the Holocaust. The scale of this lie and the extent that Zionist-Jewish and corrupt Western elements were so directly involved, for the purpose of proliferating Israel and justifying wars to that end, makes this event a clear distinction from the others and far more in parallel to the Holocaust. This also entails that the social activism and research in this regard is of a similar degree of importance as the Holocaust. Understanding the evidence surrounding these lies will invariably lead to openness to consideration of the others, but that doesn't mean other forums should be created for each of these topics. Creating a "bridge" between 9/11 and the Holocaust is good for Revisionism because it reaches out to another movement with similar goals and values and offers resources for those who are already at least open to being critical of Jewish power networks, and may be ready to ask even bigger questions about the historical record as it has been presented to them.

[borjastick]

So here we are already turning this simple question into a 911 thread.

My answer is NO. I should explain that but won't because whatever I say will invite the usuals from responding in detailed opinion again...

There are many good reasons for not hosting a 911 section here. Surely to God there must be hundreds of sites where the topic of 911 is tediously dissected by those who start from the wrong place in order to end up when they want to be.

[Kingfisher]

No.

Agreed. It is completely off topic for this forum and would create the impression that to if you question the Holocaust you must automatically be a 911 "troofer". Some posters may think there is a link but to make accepting a Revisionist approach to the Holocaust appear conditional on that link is a sure way to alienate most of our potential audience.

It's hard enough already to get people to open their minds to asking questions about the Holocaust. This would be yet another reason for them not to take Revisionism seriously. "They're just a bunch of conspiracy theorists."

You persuade people one step at a time. Even limiting ourselves to the Holocaust we have to have to work step by step. First show the bodies at Belsen have nothing to do with it. Then maybe some doubts about Treblinka or Auschwitz or Babi Yar.

It's also a slippery slope. Once we have a forum on 911, why not one on the Kennedy assassination, or the moon landings, or flying saucers, or evolution or the Abominable Snowman? Each one will muddy the waters further. We have widened the remit of the forum to cover other aspects of the two World Wars. This is good. They are closely and obviously related, and do not create the impression that to question the Holocaust you have to buy into some wider view of the world.


Please, don't do it!

[Moderator]

Kingfisher:

Some posters may think there is a link but to make accepting a Revisionist approach to the Holocaust appear conditional on that link is a sure way to alienate most of our potential audience.

That has always been my concern, alienating potential supporters of "holocaust" Revisionism is not acceptable for a CODOH site.
But then, as stated by Callahan and JLAD, there is the potential of gaining new "holocaust" Revisionism supporters by attracting to CODOH those who debate 9/11.

I could simply add a notice at the the top of a 9/11 Forum making it clear that "holocaust" Revisionists are not all in agreement about the various arguments concerning 9/11. The mere fact that we will get & allow competing views would hopefully make that obvious.

M1.

[Callahan]

So here we are already turning this simple question into a 911 thread.

My answer is NO. I should explain that but won't because whatever I say will invite the usuals from responding in detailed opinion again...

There are many good reasons for not hosting a 911 section here. Surely to God there must be hundreds of sites where the topic of 911 is tediously dissected by those who start from the wrong place in order to end up when they want to be.

Offering a detailed analysis of the pros and cons of a 9/11 forum accessible through a Revisionist forum (the purpose of this thread) does not mean we are now debating 9/11 here.

I wanted to provide as much insight as possible on the matter as I think this is very important and it's obvious others here feel the same. Your own incredulity and ignorance toward important elements of this topic, Borja, don't refute its benefits for the cause we are all fighting for here; that is, exposing the greatest lies of the liars that manipulate the historical record to serve their warmongering political agenda.

Currently, the 9/11 forums that are out there do not typically permit or consider Revisionism, despite the fact that the recent growth of Revisionism can be directly attributed to growing awareness of certain details surrounding 9/11. By treating 9/11 as an entirely foreign topic relative to Revisionism, you're preventing pathways that could very well lead here. As much as 9/11 bickering annoys you (and believe me, I understand why), I think there are ways we can limit that here in a properly-structured forum.

It is obvious that some of the "old school" folks here want to keep things the same but we should really consider the obvious benefits of reaching out to the 9/11 research community and showing the ways we can align.

Kingfisher says we can't take on a separate forum for 9/11 because we might not be taken seriously--CODOH has been around for 20 years! At what point has the establishment and/or the mainstream ever "taken it seriously"?! The 9/11 truth movement has been taken at least as seriously as Revisionism, and it's popularity among professionals in the establishment reflects that. Can you really not see the difference and applicable relevance between 'moon landing fakery', 'flat earth', etc., and 9/11?

The notion of a "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy. We aren't going to degrade into oblivion if we have a discussion forum that allows 9/11 research to occur here. There will be no "official theory" of this 9/11 forum. We will acknowledge evidence, discuss parallels to Revisionism wherever applicable, and encourage visitors to also check out the Revisionist forum. We give it six months, and if all your worst fears come true, we cancel the project. What have you got to lose?

[borjastick]

What have you got to lose?

- Callahan

Kingfisher has explained very clearly above.

This is my last post here on the subject. Me and my 'old school' mate Kingfisher have made our case.