New film from Denierbud -- Lying To The Troops: Early Origins Of The Holocaust Myth

[Wetzelrad]

So the German report apparently does cite specific mistranslations (but we don't know what they are).

One such mistranslation is "we calculated in advance the number of casualties". The words "in advance" were added by translators to make it sound incriminating.

Another is "We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day." which was another Frankenstein of actual words and imagined ones.

This I get from James Corbett.
https://corbettreport.com/alqaeda/

Who himself cites Craig Morris in a piece shared on David Irving's website. According to Morris the story was big in the German press but ignored by English-speaking media. That might explain why AI is unable to clarify the issue for you.
https://fpp.co.uk/online/02/01/Laden/ta ... nitor.html

[Joe Splink]

One such mistranslation is "we calculated in advance the number of casualties". The words "in advance" were added by translators to make it sound incriminating.

From the Michael translation

https://publicintelligence.net/osama-bi ... ranscript/

"UBL: (…Inaudible…) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (…Inaudible…) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.

Shaykh: Allah be praised."

You can strike 'in advance' in the paragraph and it doesn't make any difference at all. On the other hand it is truly an extraordinary paragraph ..... hard to imagine Bin Laden saying it ... it's too perfect ! I had not previously read it closely.

So, for me it's more inconclusive than ever. I'd like to see the German translation (although the issue is tangential to me because the hoax that we know is real, that 9/11 was unprovoked, it the most important factor. I dismiss the 'inside job' version as pure idiocy, the alternative to Bin Laden is Mossad, or both).

[Callafangers]

I suppose the classic bundling question in our circles is whether Holocaust revisionism should be bundled with larger discussions about Jews. Germar and others prefer to unbundle this and not play up "the JQ." I think that is fine as you can do an awful lot without getting into that. But to present the full revisionist case I think you have to give people some explanation of how such false history became established and avoiding talking about Jews at this stage starts to become counterproductive. So I personally support some judicious bundling of JQ discussions (at least in some of our materials) just because I think this is a rather essential aspect of the revisionist case.

It's critical. Without recognizing and being able to speak to the evidence of how some of the same power networks that peddled the 'Holocaust' myth still exercise the same power and deceptive tactics today, you're leaving out a massive chunk of relevant information (evidence) that obviously matters. Development into other less specialized areas is a natural progression of any specialized field (this is the basis for degrees in Interdisciplinary Studies), so I would say Holocaust revisionism is "right on time" in being more open to how other complex narratives might factor in. The early decades necessarily had to be about responding to all of the "hot questions" that people would expect be answered before ever taking "Holocaust denial" seriously. But Rudolf, Mattogno, and others have by now done an excellent job at making that foundation strong. While the majority of attention is still needed in critical analysis of Holocaust topics specifically, there's clear value in the periphery as well. Beyond just adding evidence, it makes Holocaust revisionism more accessible to those who might have uncovered other truths (e.g. Zionist networks' power or abuses) but have had reservations about this "holiest of holies" with a capital H...

[HansHill]

...So I personally support some judicious bundling of JQ discussions...

It's critical.

I agree with you both however there is some nuance to be had, in my opinion. On the one hand yes, Holocaust revisionism is indeed heavily heavily linked to "The JQ", and the Venn diagram of overlap is enormous. On the other hand, "The JQ" also has the same or similar overlap with other topics as diverse as JFK, 9-11 or Race Realism.

It's my view that an interested Revisionist will study the varying topics he is interested in, at his leisure. I for one am fascinated by JFK and Race Realism, but not so much by 9-11. It's also my view that, in the words of Mike "Enoch" Peinovich, if you're doing Holocaust Revisionism, then do Holocaust Revisionism. That is, to do it well, do it properly, and to avoid scope drift into muh dancing Israelis, muh Khazarians or muh Azov Battalion - or even, WW2 proper.

The latter only invites as I said, scope creep but also a credibility crisis. The named Revisionists, and Rudolf in particular have walked this line very well. I disagree with some of his politics, but I understand why a named Revisionist has taken that path, and honestly view it as a net benefit. In the case of Denierbud, i agree with CF that his haphazard and seemingly unweildy "shots fired" do not provide value add, and in fact seem out of place (Slavery??) in a Revisionist piece.

In summary, it would be a net negative for a forum like Codoh to, for example, open a JFK forum or a 9-11 forum, or a race realism forum, for obvious reasons - but an interested Revisionist will seek out and study the areas he enjoys, to bolster and support his Revisionism.