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

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

I'm not a 9-11 Truther, but I know 1 or 2 prominent revisionists who are. I think we should have it because I think it's always good if someone out there wants to say something about a taboo subject then they should be allowed to. I myself probably wouldn't be participating on it.

But keep in mind how we should be grateful to those who run this forum. Because it must take significant time every day to moderate. You have to follow every thread, read maybe every post! Because of that, I'd like to see someone who is currently not a moderator, become a moderator so that the current people who volunteer without pay, to run this forum are not given extra work.

[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.

Nothing wrong with being old school and for the record I respect you guys for being in the game so long, I just think it might cloud your judgment on this.

Kingfisher explained that he is concerned consideration of Revisionism will appear conditional upon the acceptance of "9/11 truth" arguments. This need not be the case. It does not threaten the image of revisionists to acknowledge the following:

- There is intense controversy surrounding 9/11
- There is some evidence of possibly-significant parallels between 9/11 and the Holocaust
- There is a demand among many of those who embrace Revisionism to also discuss 9/11 (e.g. Rudolf, who addresses it briefly in his 2017 edition of Lectures...).

And as far as outreach goes, the pool of candidates potentially-interested in Revisionism is much larger among "conspiracy theorists" than it is among those who resent them. As much as we will have to try a bit harder to set some critical thinking "ground rules" for some of these 'eccentric thinkers', I think the benefits of reaching a much broader audience far outweighs any potential costs. And again, nothing is irreversible. If we try it out and it goes nowhere, backtracking is always a possibility. But considering that what lies beyond this door/bridge could be revolutionary, I think it's worth a shot.

[Pia Kahn]

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.

Nothing wrong with being old school and for the record I respect you guys for being in the game so long, I just think it might cloud your judgment on this.

Kingfisher explained that he is concerned consideration of Revisionism will appear conditional upon the acceptance of "9/11 truth" arguments. This need not be the case. It does not threaten the image of revisionists to acknowledge the following:

- There is intense controversy surrounding 9/11
- There is some evidence of possibly-significant parallels between 9/11 and the Holocaust
- There is a demand among many of those who embrace Revisionism to also discuss 9/11 (e.g. Rudolf, who addresses it briefly in his 2017 edition of Lectures...).

And as far as outreach goes, the pool of candidates potentially-interested in Revisionism is much larger among "conspiracy theorists" than it is among those who resent them. As much as we will have to try a bit harder to set some critical thinking "ground rules" for some of these 'eccentric thinkers', I think the benefits of reaching a much broader audience far outweighs any potential costs. And again, nothing is irreversible. If we try it out and it goes nowhere, backtracking is always a possibility. But considering that what lies beyond this door/bridge could be revolutionary, I think it's worth a shot.

Someone, who is willing to seriously look at the arguments of holocaust revisionists, won't be put off or back off because of a 9/11 subforum. 9/11 is kindergarden comparted to the holocaust and 9/11 truth is on the verge of becoming mainstream. This is my take.

Sure, the focus of this forum must remain on the open debate of the holocaust.

[Depth Charge]

I would say yes. 9/11 revisionism is trendy and more acceptable, yet has similar glaring plot holes. 9/11 is a shooting gallery, fish in a barrel, chutzpah writ large that aimed too high and paid the price. Why shouldn't we use their other mistakes against them and bolster the destruction of holocaustianity? These people are criminals, murderers. Why separate their crimes?

Does a serial rapist get to avoid evidence presented to the jury for priors, simply because it would 'dilute the discussion' of the current charge?

It's high time 9/11 activists stepped up to the plate and out of their comfort zone. And with the quality of posters here we can damn well help them on their way.

[katana]

First off, a thank you to the Moderator for putting a 911 forum up for consideration.

Next off, I'm in the YES camp. "911 Discussion Makes You Free!"

As others here have indicated, 911 can be a great stepping stone towards moving more people into questioning the "Holocaust". I quite agree with that, and I believe it will help CODOH in its core mission, and not detract from it, as some have expressed concern about.

The "Holocaust" is the giant, rogue African bull elephant in the room, while 911 is like a baby rogue elephant in the room. The fact that there's any kind of elephant in the room in the first place makes it invisible to most people, and the larger it is, the more invisible it becomes, because it just shouldn't, couldn't be there! Yet there they are, waiting to be seen by those with curiosity, desire for truth, and a nagging feeling that things are terribly wrong.

I came to know about the "Holocaust" and the fraudulent nature of it because of the great work of the revisionists. Around the same time and in parallel to that I became aware of the fraudulent nature of 911. Yet I think most people find 911 truth far more approachable, after all, its just a rogue "baby elephant". After that though, only a brave minority go on to open their eyes wider and see the bull elephant in the room.

A good example of that are the Schaefer siblings, that I have been following from the beginning. Alfred and Monika Schaefer came to "Holocaust" revisionism through 911. As Callahan, JLAD, and Dresden argue, there are strong similarities operating here. The culprits are the same, and both these major events fit in with an organized jewish agenda. 911 has launched the jewish War OF Terror on the world, while using the "Holocaust" as a shield and sword to repel criticism.

So, I support CODOH giving a 911 forum a go.


https://katana17.wordpress.com/2018/09/11/know-more-news-christopher-bollyn-the-man-who-solved-9-11-transcript/

[EtienneSC]

I am strongly opposed for the following reasons: Firstly, 9/11 is outside CODOH's stated purpose. It is largely an American interest and CODOH is an international forum. It would expose participants to "guilt by association" without their permission.

Secondly, there are enough jihad attacks in Europe and around the world - hundreds, if not thousands every year - to make it plausible that a few Saudi Muslims would wish to damage the USA given the opportunity.

Thirdly, it would make CODOH look like a conspiracy site and thus compromise its hard-won and constantly challenged credibility on the holocaust. It would undo decades of work by serious people for the sake of appealing to a fringe element in the USA.

[Moderator]

it would make CODOH look like a conspiracy site and thus compromise its hard-won and constantly challenged credibility on the holocaust. It would undo decades of work by serious people for the sake of appealing to a fringe element in the USA.

The recent poll results I saw stated that 50% of Americans did not believe the 'official' 9/11 conspiracy theory.
"Fringe' is clearly the wrong word here.
That number would suggest that CODOH could potentially attract a wider audience.

As far as CODOH itself is concerned, I suggest:

9/11: Terror Attack or Government Fraud?, by Germar Rudolf:
https://codoh.com/library/series/1477/?lang=en
and a CODOH main site search for 9/11 yielded 96 results:
https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=9%2F11

[Callahan]

I am strongly opposed for the following reasons: Firstly, 9/11 is outside CODOH's stated purpose. It is largely an American interest and CODOH is an international forum. It would expose participants to "guilt by association" without their permission.

I think such a forum would only acknowledge that many of those who embrace Revisionism also find this topic to be a major and relevant concern. It would be the error of the accusers to claim that all those who visit the CODOH forum are also necessarily supportive of alternative 9/11 theories for several reasons:

- As this thread clearly shows, we already do not agree what happened; hence, discussion and defense of the established narrative will be encouraged as well as any others
- Discussions of 9/11 will all take place outside of the Revisionist forum (which will be left as-is)
- The intentions of having this forum will be stated clearly, which may include: to circumvent censorship attempts and welcome historically-enlightened minds into open debate for the second-most controversial historical event of the last century, which is said by many to have considerable parallels to the Holocaust

Also, while 9/11 is an event which took place in the US, it affects communities all around the world (e.g. War on Terror, which also brought European nations in to participate in the Al Qaeda witch hunt and militant occupations); much as the Holocaust, while set in Europe, affects policies which shape the US and much of the globe today.

Secondly, there are enough jihad attacks in Europe and around the world - hundreds, if not thousands every year - to make it plausible that a few Saudi Muslims would wish to damage the USA given the opportunity.

It is definitely possible. But keep in mind, these attacks mostly happened after 9/11. Iraq had never had a suicide bombing pre-9/11. In any case, this might be something worth discussing in the proper forum.

Thirdly, it would make CODOH look like a conspiracy site and thus compromise its hard-won and constantly challenged credibility on the holocaust. It would undo decades of work by serious people for the sake of appealing to a fringe element in the USA.

Holocaust Denial is considered much more of a fringe element than is having doubts about 9/11. Surveys have already shown that the majority of the population, both in the US and internationally, have doubts about the official version of events. If nothing more, it is worth discussing. And I can think of no better place than in close proximity to a forum of critical minds who have a proper understanding of historical events and context of the last century.

I do not see how this would/could plausibly "undo" Revisionist work. The books and articles are written, published, and relevant ideas are discussed and shared in this forum. This will remain to be the case, whether or not 9/11 is also discussed here. It should not "poison the well" for many who don't already regard "Holocaust Denial" as extremely poisonous. But it will open the door for many critical minds who are missing an even larger piece of the historical puzzle.

[HeiligeSturm]

If 9/11 debate is considered, there should be a whole After the "Holocaust" sub forum.

[Dresden]

If 9/11 debate is considered, there should be a whole After the "Holocaust" sub forum.

Would that include the Korean War, the McCarthey era, the Beatnik g-g-g-generation, the Hippie movement and a thousand other things?

What purpose would that serve, besides trivial pursuit?

9-11 and the Holohoax are closely related, or, as I said earlier ..... "they are joined at the hip".

'Gas chambers' and 'box cutters' are what "justifies" the War of Terror. or, as they are alternatively known, "The 9-11 Wars".

In such a Forum, there would be a lot of overlap and people from both sides would become convinced of the truth of the other subject.

Also, the people that are against having a 9-11 Forum could simply ignore it, like I ignore the

"French Revisionist Forum" viewforum.php?f=21

"German Revisionist Forum" viewforum.php?f=8

"Spanish" viewforum.php?f=11

"Scandiavian" viewforum.php?f=10

"WWII Asia/Pacific Theater" viewforum.php?f=26

and the

"WWI" Forum" viewforum.php?f=27

[Hoff Meister]

The moment CODOH allows or enables such discussion, it is done. This applies whether one believes in the alternative 9/11 theory (which I currently do not) or whether they do.

That's essentially the case.

It will, as it is in every other forum, be used against revisionism in order to make it seem absurd and dismissed without looking at it.

An opinion.

[Werd]

While it is easy to pinpoint what revisionists believe because we are pretty much united in denying the same things...

1. All Auschwitz gas chambers.
2. Overall German/Berlin/Hitler plan to physically exterminate Jews.
3. Gas vans.
4. All AR gas chambers
5. Many so called Mengele survivors

In other words, each revisionist owns this aspect of revisionism and does so easily. If there are any revisionists that we castigate, it's not because they make us look bad with their revisionism. It is because they are traitors to the cause. Mark Weber and David Irving are two examples of gas chamber turncoats. They don't make us look bad or hurt us necessarily, they are just dead weight. I also think that most revisionists recognize that whatever Richard Krege allegedly did at Treblinka doesn't help anyone so by and large we all reject his work in favour of better, more high quality revisionism.

That being said, in 9-11, you have a WIDE VARIETY of skeptics who are at war with each other and accuse other sides of being agents or stupid by planting certain false theories into the 9-11 field. Many say that those buildings were wired to be blown up instead of planes coming down. Others go WAAAYYYY far out and claim that the reason much of the concrete was pulverized, was because of something like a high powered laser beam. I'm thinking Judy Wood. The majority of 9-11 people don't like her or her work and have suspected her of being an agent. Not to mention Alex Jones in the last few years has gotten more bizarre and animated and people use his strange behaviours to "discredit" 9-11 truth. Mind you he is not the only one to look into 9-11 since it happened, but others use that as a smear on 9-11 people.

If revisionists pick up 9-11, do they want to adopt this other burden of being someone who could be in the "crazy" or "bullshit" realm of 9-11 truth? They already have to deal with being a gas chamber denier. I think in these times, it is PARAMOUNT that avoiding 9-11 be considered just to avoid further smears. Such as "oh you gas chamber skeptics are also 9-11 skeptics? Is there anything you DO believe in?" Because what if non 9-11 skeptics wanted to consider holocaust revisionism? Is the point not to grow revisionism? Or does linking up to 9-11 really look like more of an advantage because allegedly more people are 9-11 skeptics nowadays than are not and they can be persuaded by revisionism?

[Callahan]

The moment CODOH allows or enables such discussion, it is done. This applies whether one believes in the alternative 9/11 theory (which I currently do not) or whether they do.

How would CODOH be "done" just by acknowledging a controversy having some possible relevance to the Holocaust?

It will, as it is in every other forum, be used against revisionism in order to make it seem absurd and dismissed without looking at it.

How many people who don't already dismiss Revisionism (or aren't likely to) would do so on account of a forum about 9/11 existing here as an auxiliary? On the other hand, how many establishment-critical minds might consider Revisionism if they found some quality discussion on 9/11, locally?

I would estimate the numbers for the latter are at least an order of magnitude higher than the former.

No specific theory need be endorsed here. This is merely an opportunity to iron out the questions of relevance between these events which many have claimed there are striking parallels. Since it isn't possible to contain such a broad topic within a single thread on the Revisionists' forum, a separate one is being created to isolate, identify, and hopefully/eventually work toward some degree of consensus in what Revisionists have to say on the matter.

I think it makes beautiful sense and I have confidence in the quality of discussions that might come out of this.

[spaceboy]

I say no. This is a Holocaust revisionist forum, so I think it should be limited to only the Holocaust and to a lesser extent, World War II revisionism. There is a plethora of forums on the internet for debating 9/11 - why not just simply go to one if you want to debate 9/11? I see more harm than benefits by having 9/11 discussed here. It will create the appearance that Holocaust revisionists are susceptible to conspiracy theories, thereby undermining credibility. I've always had more confidence in revisionists who are not 9/11 truthers than ones who are.

[Dresden]

spaceboy said:

"I say no. This is a Holocaust revisionist forum, so I think it should be limited to only the Holocaust and to a lesser extent, World War II revisionism"

But, there are the WWI Forum and the WWII Asia/Pacific Forums that are unaffected by "Holocaust Denial" -- nor do they affect the Holocaust Revisionist Forum.

"There is a plethora of forums on the internet for debating 9/11"

There are no intelligent, moderated forums on which to debate 9-11.

"I see more harm than benefits by having 9/11 discussed here. It will create the appearance that Holocaust revisionists are susceptible to conspiracy theories"

"Holocaust Denial" is universally seen, throughout the whole world, on every TV station, in countless "documentaries", in school text books ..... EVERYWHERE ..... as the Great granddaddy of all "conspiracy theories".

We are seen as neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, anti --- "semites" and dangerous people.

"...thereby undermining credibility"

The 9-11 Truthers outnumber Holocaust Revisionists by at least 10 or 20 to 1.
If anyone was to lose credibility, it would be the 9-11 Truthers for embracing Holocaust Denial.

Richard Gage's Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth( https://www.ae911truth.org/ ) has the signatures of over 3,000 Architects and Engineers(many of whom own their own companies) who have given their names, addresses, phone numbers and places of business, calling for a "new" investigation of 9-11.

Nothing remotely comparable can be said for Holocaust Revisionism.

The Physics department of the University of Fairbanks, Alaska recently finished an evaluation of the collapse of Building 7 and decided that it could not have come down due to fire or damage: http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

To think that the physics, or chemistry department of any American University would even contemplate doing an unbiased, tranparent evaluation of Treblinka, or Auschwitz is simply out of the question, to put it as mildly as possible ..... it would actually border on "nutty".

"I've always had more confidence in revisionists who are not 9/11 truthers than ones who are"

I am of the exact opposite opinion.

9-11 Truthers are already Politically Incorrect truth seekers ..... many of them would see the truth of Holocaust Revisionism.