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

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.

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.

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.

Werd wrote: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.

Werd wrote: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?

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?

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.

JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote: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.

Werd wrote: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.

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.

borjastick wrote: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!

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.

borjastick wrote: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?

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.

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.

borjastick wrote: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.

Callahan wrote:

borjastick wrote: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.

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.

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.

EtienneSC wrote: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

EtienneSC wrote: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 wrote: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

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.

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?

Hoff Meister wrote: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 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.

Dresden wrote: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.

I have my own quibbles with AE911T but that discussion is best saved for the proper forum, once it becomes available. I think they are correct that fire should not have caused the collapse but I disagree with the notion of “controlled demolition” at the WTC.

I don’t want to discuss/debate it here, just pointing out that there is a spectrum of ideas on what happened and having the ability to showcase our ideas and have them challenged and refined by other informed, critical minds who may already be on the same page about Revisionism seems like a great opportunity.

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

Exactly. There is less fear to walk into the “realm of Revisionism” when society already sees you as being halfway there. For those recognizing Zionist influences regarding 9/11, even moreso.

Callahan wrote:I have my own quibbles with AE911T but that discussion is best saved for the proper forum, once it becomes available. I think they are correct that fire should not have caused the collapse but I disagree with the notion of “controlled demolition” at the WTC.

Exactly, we need a separate sub-forum to hash out our differences, and this is the perfect place to do it.

Moderator, it is Christmas Eve. Can you please give us this sub-forum as a gift to us on this website?

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a goodnight, JLAD.

All of the comments are certainly appreciated, there are many thoughtful points to both sides of the argument.

After considering them all, and after feedback from the CODOH Board, I have decided to go ahead with the ‘9/11 Forum’.

The fact that so many people worldwide now disagree with the ‘official’ conspiracy theory was key in that decision. It is no longer a ‘fringe’ opinion to question the promoted narrative, in spite of ‘the media’s’ attempt to claim it is.

To those that disagree with my decision, I will not indicate in the ‘9/11 Forum’ description and guidelines that CODOH as a whole endorses or opposes the alternative views to the government’s narrative.

The intention is to provide a higher end debate choice where reasonable guidelines are in place to prevent the usual childishness that is the norm when discussing a controversial subject.

Thanks, M1

Thank you for the decision, Moderator!

Moderator said:

“The intention is to provide a higher end debate choice where reasonable guidelines are in place to prevent the usual childishness that is the norm when discussing a controversial subject”

That’s the idea.

Moderator wrote:All of the comments are certainly appreciated, there are many thoughtful points to both sides of the argument.

After considering them all, and after feedback from the CODOH Board, I have decided to go ahead with the ‘9/11 Forum’. …

Thanks, M1

Great news and smart decision. If this forum provides an orderly and rational discussion of 9/11 then it may attract many 9/11 truthers who wish to discuss controversial topics in a polite, respectful and rational manner without flame wars, ad hominem attacks, and all that.

Currently, this forum has three main headings: “Holocaust revisionism (English)”, “Holocaust revisionism (International)” and Finally, “Revisionism”. I suggest adding the subforum “9/11-revisionism” under the “Revisionism” header and side by side with WWI and WWII revisionism. This would fit nicely into this forum.

Happy Christmas everybody.

Moderator, I am very happy you chose to go along with this this addition.

If I may ask, when should we expect to see it in it’s completed status?

Soon, JLAD,

How about some suggestions about guidelines for the new forum from everyone.
Thanks, M1

As mentioned briefly before, I suggest pinned posts for presentation and criticism of evidence of the following theories on WTC collapse mechanisms:

– NIST Fire-Driven Collapse Theory
– AE911Truth Controlled Demolition Theory
– Mini-Nuke Theory
– Direct Energy Weapon (DEW) Theory
– ROOSD Theory

I think a separate area for each of the major competing theories will help prevent the hodgepodge of heated, disorganized debate that discussions on 9/11 are most famous for.

If you’re not yet familiar with ROOSD theory, not to worry, I will help get us started there. Others who recognize another theory as most sound should perhaps introduce the topic by explaining which evidence they find most convincing.

Other pinned posts may include:

– Motive: Pretext for Zionist Imperialist Wars
– Motive: Jihadi Terror Assault on Western Values
– Means: Positions of Authority Surrounding 9/11 Events
– Means: Terrorist Cell with Hijacked Planes

Moderator wrote:How about some suggestions about guidelines for the new forum from everyone.

The guidelines would be as follows; changes were made when necessary. Are these good, or would you change anything?

The Moderator retains the right to reject a username if he considers it offensive, obscene, or deliberately distracting.

Do not register under more than one username, aka: a ‘sockpuppet’. If for some reason you wish to change your username please contact the Moderator and / or Webmaster about doing so.

No name calling, period.

The CODOH 9/11 Forum forbids any threats or personal attacks against others, we will not tolerate links to sites which do engage in such behavior. We’re about debate and only debate.

On topic posts only. The topic of the Forum is 9/11. Debating whether or not the United States government or others had preknowledge of the event, if there was or was not controlled demolition, and if 9/11 is or is not used to justify the TSA, NSA, surveillance cameras, internet surveilance, military occupation in Middle Eastern nations, is the reason that The CODOH 9/11 Forum exists. Associated subjects are bound to come up, be sure there is a tie-in, show the tie-in. Each topic represents a separate point, a post to a topic must be pertinent to that point.

Posts by new or infrequent participants will be spam / troll checked by the Moderator before they appear on the Forum. They will not be censored for on topic opinions they present.

Keep your threads / posts limited to one point.

Voluminous, lengthy, and redundant posts are not welcomed.

Do not edit after posts after someone has responded in the same thread.

If you post a quote or link from or to a book, a news article, magazine story, another website, etc., you must also comment on the quote or the link content. Tell the forum what you find wrong, compelling, unique, or important about the quote or link content. Flippant, overly brief comments are not acceptable. We want commentary and discussion.

Posts which lack focus or specifics are not welcomed.

No ‘dodging’. When questioned or challenged on claims, or assertions you make in a thread you must respond directly / specifically by providing the information requested in the challenge or you must leave the topic.

You will address registrants only by the one name that he/she uses at the Forum.

Offenders will have their posts deleted, repeat offenders will be removed.

Reasons for deletions may or may not be stated. The Moderator will endeavor to notify the offender and the Forum in general, but not in every case; especially when it is obvious why the post was deleted.

Registrants who do not post within 30 days from date of registration are subject to deletion, they may re-register should they decide to post.

OK then the decision has been made so can we block this thread now please as it’s lowering the tone of holocaust debate.

When the new thread starts I’ll be waiting for the loons to come out to play, posting all manner of nonsense to claim this and that and completely ignoring the rational and scientific answers to what really happened on that day.

borjastick wrote:OK then the decision has been made so can we block this thread now please as it’s lowering the tone of holocaust debate.

When the new thread starts I’ll be waiting for the loons to come out to play, posting all manner of nonsense to claim this and that and completely ignoring the rational and scientific answers to what really happened on that day.

On the contrary, I think disinformation will be easily dismantled by the regulars on this site, and establish us as discerning and sane.

Depth Charge wrote:

borjastick wrote:OK then the decision has been made so can we block this thread now please as it’s lowering the tone of holocaust debate.

When the new thread starts I’ll be waiting for the loons to come out to play, posting all manner of nonsense to claim this and that and completely ignoring the rational and scientific answers to what really happened on that day.

On the contrary, I think disinformation will be easily dismantled by the regulars on this site, and establish us as discerning and sane.

Good luck with that one…

borjastick wrote:

Depth Charge wrote:

borjastick wrote:OK then the decision has been made so can we block this thread now please as it’s lowering the tone of holocaust debate.

When the new thread starts I’ll be waiting for the loons to come out to play, posting all manner of nonsense to claim this and that and completely ignoring the rational and scientific answers to what really happened on that day.

On the contrary, I think disinformation will be easily dismantled by the regulars on this site, and establish us as discerning and sane.

Good luck with that one…

Why do we need luck? There is only one truth. It’s like hacking ice off a windscreen. Easy.

All:

The new ‘9/11 Forum’ will be built within a few days after 1/1/19.
When it’s launched I will lock this thread and immediately ask for feedback in a thread at that forum.

And remember, if it becomes unmanageable, I can always “pull it”.

Thanks, M1

Moderator wrote:
And remember, if it becomes unmanageable, I can always “pull it”.

That’s right, Lucky Larry!

When is this forum going to be created? New developments are happening as we speak…

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti … k-overlord

“On Monday, New Year’s Eve, a hacker group announced it had breached a law firm handling cases related to the September 11 attacks, and threatened to publicly release a large cache of related internal files unless their ransom demands were met.”

Lamprecht asked:

When is this forum going to be created?

On the previous page I stated:

All:

The new ‘9/11 Forum’ will be built within a few days after 1/1/19.
When it’s launched I will lock this thread and immediately ask for feedback in a thread at that forum.

And remember, if it becomes unmanageable, I can always “pull it”.

Thanks, M1