The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Joe Splink wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:34 pmSo 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

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).

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 12:19 am
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...

Callafangers wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 3:44 am

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 12:19 am
...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.

Joe Splink wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:34 pm

And what can be understood is often taken out of context, so that it cannot be used to construct any evidence.

And that convinces you ???
Not me.

Yes, that convinces me. Because it corroborates what I MYSELF CAN HEAR and WHICH IS NOT what the subtitles claim. I explained this to you and gave you a method to test for yourself.
Didn’t you try it?
Or perhaps you didn’t understand the explanation given to you? If so, perhaps re-read what I wrote.

Joe Splink wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:34 pm I don't necessarily believe the translation, but then again I don't necessarily disbelieve it. And, it's a pretty definite and damning translation…

Of course it is “damning”. That was the intention.

Joe Splink wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:34 pm…so I'd expect any serious effort to debunk it would provide an accurate translation. I.e. not vague allusions like the above.

Have you done a search? The three experts I mentioned did exactly that. You appear to be arguing from a position of ignorance. I recommend you do a search. Or ask for help. Understand that search engines and Ai aren’t programmed to help refute the western false narratives.

Joe Splink wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:34 pm And if the translation is bogus I'd expect a serious effort to debunk it. Plus, I'd like to know what they were really saying.

Then do a search. It isn’t wise to just believe the Americans and the dual-nationaly US-zios who were undoubtedly involved in this deception. It beats me why anyone would trust them when we KNOW WITH CERTAINTY that they lied on numerous other things related to Usama Bin Laden and 911!
We KNOW someone produced fake videos claimed to be of Usama!
And we KNOW that the Americans/Israelis released them to news outlets who shared them AS IF they were genuine.
Maybe you don’t know about this, Joe. If so, I encourage you to do a search and check for yourself.

Joe Splink wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:34 pm Hey, we can ask Deepseek…
We can also ask Grok…

Summary for Inaccuracy: The German "Monitor" analysis provides direct evidence of discrepancies through independent expert reviews, highlighting specific mismatches between the Arabic audio and English translation. Critics also point to linguistic ambiguities and potential U.S. bias as factors undermining the translation’s reliability.

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

CORRECTION: YOU currently “don't know what they are”. It is not wise to project your current ignorance upon others

Joe Splink wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:34 pm My conclusion - inconclusive

Your “conclusion” relies upon America Ai. Again, it is not wise to trust them.

Joe Splink wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:34 pm Note: it's not unusual for AI to contradict itself, and if you inform it of the contradiction it corrects itself (only in the current conversation) ... all and all .... I have found AI to be unbelievably good on most things (excluding anything involving Jews, e.g. the holohoax - ask it why the Soviets hid the Auschwitz records while saying the Nazis had destroyed them to see it scramble!)

In my experience Ai is hopeless on a great many topics. I’ve caught it numerous times giving me false information.
ChatGPT actually invented numerous rhyming quotes in a foreign language that it claimed included a specific term that I was researching and which it claimed were in a specific book on specific pages. I have access to numerous translations of that book plus to the vernacular original, so checked and couldn't find ANY of the five rhyming couplets it claimed were in there.
When I explained this and asked where it got the false info from, it lied and told me from other related sources.
When I asked it to specify which exact sources, it then admitted that it didn’t have any.
I then asked it why it had done that.
It told me it is programmed to give a reply that is based upon the most likely answer, based upon probabilities.
I then asked it to provide any reference to this particular term in those other related sources it had mentioned.
It gave me three references to three sources with a page number for each.
I checked one of them. It was again not there. It had ‘lied’ to me AGAIN even after I had just caught it doing that and had got it to admit and justify/explain why it had done that.
Conclusion:
ChatGPT is programmed to very convincingly invent stuff to match some programmed probability and to meet a predicted/suspected ‘want’ of the enquirer.

BOTTOM LINE:
EVERYTHING we in the west are told about Usama Bin Laden by our governments and msm is designed to portray him as an ‘evil enemy’ and as a ‘terrorist’, and relies on false and forged ‘evidence’, etc. If anyone believes that characterisation of him then they have been duped.

A RELIABLE SOURCE and REBUTTAL:
Here is what I consider a credible translation of an interview with Usama from a reliable source. It is from a Pakistani reporter and was conducted on the 28th September 2001.

https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.e ... 16/content

Here is the article’s preamble. It narrates how Usama correctly identified jews as the ones who were behind the 911 attacks. Something conformed by numerous others including Dr. Alan Sabrosky https://archive.org/details/israel-did ... ar-college; Christopher Bollyn in his book ‘Solving 9-11: The deception that changed the world’; Kourosh Ziabari https://kouroshziabari.com/2013/01/mos ... 1-attacks/; Philip Giraldi; Police Sgt. Scott DeCarlo https://archive.org/details/911copbrea ... 20Attacks/etc.

Interview published in newspaper Ummat Karachi
The Al-Qaidah group had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the USA, according to Usama bin Ladin in an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat.
Usama bin Ladin went on to suggest that Jews or US secret services were behind the attacks, and to express gratitude and support for Pakistan, urging Pakistan’s people to jihad against the West.
The following is the text of an interview conducted by a "special correspondent", published in the Pakistani newspaper Ummat on 28 September, place and date of interview not given.

Here is the answer Usama gave on his involvement in the 911 attacks:

UMMAT: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?

USAMA BIN LADEN: In the name of Allah (God), the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the Earth as an abode for peace, for the whole humankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and momin (true Muslim) people of Pakistan who refused to believe the lies of the demon (Pakistani military dictator General Pervez Musharraf).
I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.

Joe Splink wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 3:21 amI dismiss the 'inside job' version as pure idiocy. The alternative to Bin Laden is Mossad, or both).

You appear to not understand that Mossad ‘sayanim’ are successfully infiltrated ‘inside’ ALL European, Canadian, Australian and American institutions.
I recommend reading the exposé of how that works written by an ex-Mossad Jewish Israeli-Canadian agent, Victor Ostrovosky.
Here: https://archive.org/details/pdfy-fkyMnNzkeT5fzxTg

Victor John Ostrovsky is a former katsa (case officer) for Sayanim for the Israeli Mossad. He was born in Canada and raised in Israel. He authored two nonfiction books about his service with the Mossad.

When you understand what ‘sayanim’ are then you will be able to understand how 911 was BOTH a Mossad operation AND an ‘inside job’.

Wait a minute .... let's stick with the topic of the translations .... now we have 3, the original US, the Michael translation which agrees, and the German translation which is unknown to me. We do know that the report on the German translation on the Irving site gives the following example of a discrepancy found in the US translation - "in advance' was not present in the German translation. I cited the paragraph containing 'in advance' in the US/Michael translation -


"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.

And I claimed that striking 'in advance' doesn't change the meaning of the paragraph, as it is clear that Bin Laden is referring to what he thought before the attack ... e.g. "We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors."
Thus, I conclude that what I know about the German translation is inconclusive. Beyond that, citing the missing 'in advance' as disproving the gist of the US/Michael translation is misleading. True or false?

Note 1: for me 'inside job' equates to controlled demolition. That did not happen FRTMTL (for reasons too many to list).
Note 2: if Bin Laden did orchestrate the 9/11 attack it would not make him a villain in my opinion, for reasons cited, that the US had bombed the ME continuously, almost daily, for 10 years before 9/11. The 'unprovoked attack' is the real deception.

Joe Splink wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 1:18 pm Wait a minute... let's stick with the topic of the translations...
Note 1: for me 'inside job' equates to controlled demolition. That did not happen FRTMTL (for reasons too many to list).
Note 2: if Bin Laden did orchestrate the 9/11 attack it would not make him a villain in my opinion, for reasons cited, that the US had bombed the ME continuously, almost daily, for 10 years before 9/11. The 'unprovoked attack' is the real deception.

Nah! I’ve checked out the accuracy of the ‘translated’ subtitles aaaaaand …I’m 99.999% sure it is bogus on all the statements incriminating Usama.

Plus… Of course all three towers came down by controlled demolition. With WTC7 that is a no-brainer. Steel structures do not and can not collapse symmetrically at free-fall speed from office fires. It is physically I M P O S S I B L E. This is basic physics.

With all three towers it is extremely obvious — and was extremely clear from day 1 — that they were controlled demolitions.

So… Now I’m curious. Do you also believe the WHO and governmental statements, policies and their co-ordinated response around the western world to the Covid 19 ‘pandemic’ were genuinely motivated by concern for our health ? Do you think THAT the official narrative on that and around compulsory injections was also all above board and kosher?
Did you get ‘vaccinated’/injected and double boostered while wandering around with non-protective a fairly useless face-mask? I’m genuinely asking

Whatever… May I suggest you need to be more skeptical, mistrusting of government, and maybe do some research of the now voluminous evidence for controlled demolition of the three WTC towers.

In my opinion the most OBVIOUS evidence for an ‘inside’ Mossad orchestrated ‘job’ was that multiple levels of perfectly undamaged steel floors in the three towers CAN NOT collapse at almost free-fall speed; nor would they collapse almost totally symmetrically into their own footprints; nor would huge chunks ‘explode’ outwards during decent if it was a ‘pancake’ implosion.
If they could do all the above there would need to be a huge re-evaluation and overhaul of current engineering and architectural knowledge and appliance of it. Yet there wasn’t and hasn’t been. How do YOU explain that?

Usama bin Laden DID NOT have pre-knowledge of, nor did he orchestrate, the 9/11 attacks! He said so VERY CLEARLY.

Nor COULD he orchestrate the obvious cover up in the US government, law-enforcement and secret services;
nor could he arrange for the confiscation of all the video evidence from all the nearby cameras around the Pentagon;
nor could he arrange for the cover-up of missing plane parts, luggage, bodies, etc., at the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania where flight 93 is alleged to have vanished into a hole in the ground;
nor could he arrange for Bibi Netanyahu to say in a televised interview that this was good for Israel;
nor could he arrange for the dancing, celebrating Mossad agents to admit on Israeli TV that they had prior knowledge and were there filming to “document the event”,
nor could he arrange for all the steel from the debris be shipped out to be recycled in China BEFORE an investigatiin of it could be conducted;
he nor could he…
etc., etc., etc.

There is also able danger to consider, the fact that the CIA let some of the hijackers in to the us and did not alert the FBI, the fact that mossad had agents living 3 doors down from the hijackers in Florida, the fact that urban moving had a truck at Boston Logan, a truck in new York 'documenting the event', and a truck ik shanksville. The failed polygraph tests. There was another program tracking bin laden I forget the name of that had the hijackers under surveillance and wasn't allowed to alert the FBI.

This is scratching the surface only, I could go on for literally hours.

No need to get super deep in minutia though, building 7 should make things patently obvious. If it isn't enough, look at the nist study controversy and the clash between nist and UL.

There is the classic operations smoke screen of a training exercise on the day of the event as well, something you see in Iran contra and with 7/7 which is a tell of a false flag.

Usama bin Laden DID NOT have pre-knowledge of, nor did he orchestrate, the 9/11 attacks! He said so VERY CLEARLY.

Yes, I'm aware of that, and it is a very convincing statement. So, I was surprised when I came across the tape of him discussing the planning. But then, I couldn't find anyone debunking the tape, I wasn't aware of the German article, and the tape seemed legit to me, so ... i decided the question was open for me. And, I think I've clearly demonstrated the German article is suspect. So the question is still open.

We'll never agree on 9/11 ---- but --- the problem with the controlled demolition version is that in that version the only purpose of the planes (assuming you agree there were planes involved ) was to cover the tracks of the plotters. So, what's the obvious problem? My very short answer is at the bottom.

I posted this on Unz and got this very long response .... which ignored my question and answer ..... but he gave another example of the failure of 'epistemic contextualism' that I think it's brilliant ....
-----------
9/11 Truthers are not very skilled at epistemic contextualism. They don't track the plot; they don't think about how things would have to be done and what kind of preparations that would entail, and who would have to know about them; they don't care about who is saying what to whom and why, and what they knew at the time. They just lift facts and snippets of dialogue out of context and assemble them into alternative explanations of reality.

One particularly egregious example of this is the mythology they've woven around Larry Silverstein saying "maybe the best thing to do is to pull it."

The Truthers would have us believe that this was Silverstein giving the order to proceed with the controlled demolition of Building 7, but this makes no sense at all in context.

First of all, the quote comes from an interview Silverstein was doing for a PBS documentary. It was him talking about an event that occurred several years in the past. And what was he talking about? He was talking about a telephone conversation he had with the Fire Commander on 9/11. If this had anything to do with a controlled demolition, we would have to assume the following:

First, we would have to assume that Building 7 was already prewired for demolition. We would have to assume that both Larry Silverstein and the Fire Commander knew this and were in on the plot to demolish the building, since that is supposedly what they were talking about. We would have to assume that the Fire Commander, even though he intended to blow up the building, for some reason allowed his men in and around the building to fight the fires that were burning there, where they might be blown up or at the very least discover some evidence of the planted explosives. Then we would have to assume that the masterminds of 9/11, having no clear plan as to when they wanted Building 7 to come down, left this critical decision strangely in the hands of Larry Silverstein and the Fire Commander. We have to assume that either Silverstein or the Commander had access to the controls to initiate the demolition, or were in communication with the people who did have such access (in which case, since their locations and communications at the time were known, would be an easily discoverable smoking gun). And finally, to crown it all, we have to assume that, after going through all this elaborate maskirovka to pull off the crime of the century, Larry Silverstein decides to just casually admit to it all on national television.

This is the theorizing of people who cannot tell fantasy from reality, who never outgrew the phase of childhood when they think the people on sitcom television are both real and looking back at them, and who have a talismanic and magical conception of language rather than a logical one. These are the 9/11 Truthers.

The ineptly named "Truth" movement has done irreparable damage to the collective sanity of our society. It has accustomed tens of millions of people to the dangerous habits of sloppy, decontextualized thinking and of believing things without evidence and without reason. And it has created an heuristic out of the loopy notion that official sources always lie about everything, and since they always lie about everything, any crazy-ass alternative notion I come up with must be the truth. This is a recipe for civilizational disaster that has done more harm to our society than the 9/11 attacks themselves.
-------------------------
OK, that's one example of the truthers' failure of epistemic contextualism, i.e. considering things in context.

Here's another - back to my example - The truthers' scenario, that the plotters used airplanes to disguise the controlled demolitions, is absurd because they only flew planes into 2 of the buildings.

There is a long list of other reasons the truthers' version is ridiculous ... but this is not the place .

Joe Splink wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 5:45 pm

Usama bin Laden DID NOT have pre-knowledge of, nor did he orchestrate, the 9/11 attacks! He said so VERY CLEARLY.

Yes, I'm aware of that, and it is a very convincing statement. So, I was surprised when I came across the tape of him discussing the planning. But then, I couldn't find anyone debunking the tape, I wasn't aware of the German article, and the tape seemed legit to me, so ... i decided the question was open for me. And, I think I've clearly demonstrated the German article is suspect. So the question is still open.

We'll never agree on 9/11 ---- but --- the problem with the controlled demolition version is that in that version the only purpose of the planes (assuming you agree there were planes involved ) was to cover the tracks of the plotters. So, what's the obvious problem? My very short answer is at the bottom… [snip]

OK, that's one example of the truthers' failure of epistemic contextualism, i.e. considering things in context.

Here's another - back to my example - The truthers' scenario, that the plotters used airplanes to disguise the controlled demolitions, is absurd because they only flew planes into 2 of the buildings.

There is a long list of other reasons the truthers' version is ridiculous... .

There is nothing epistemically out of context about the basic laws of gravity, Joe.

And I don’t see how you “ clearly demonstrated the German article is suspect”. You haven't even seen it, read it or read a translation of it, have you?

This strikes me az the same type of argument as the exterminationist’s cherry-picked “convergence of evidence” with their bogus claim that somehow their carefully cherry-picked mish-mash of ‘evidence’ proves the legally protected ‘genocide-of-jews-by-mass-gassing’ narrative.
It obviously doesn’t. It just chooses to ignore all the empirical evidence that completely refutes their narrative.

Same with 9/11. You just ignored the relatively tiny amount of the huge collection of refuting evidence that I alluded to. And instead of the bogus “convergence of evidence” excuse you have bought into the equally vacuous term of “epistemic contextualism”.

In both cases — the false-flag 911 attacks and the ‘final solution’ WW2 extermination allegation — it is the empirical evidence that needs to be concentrated upon.
Why?
Because THAT isn’t so easily misinterpreted or misconstrued. Plus can’t be accused of lying, being biased, etc.

• Are there holes in the roofs of the krema at Birkenau? Answer: no.
• Does zyklonb continue to exude lethally poisonous, invisible HCN (hydrogen cyanide or prussic acid) for around 90 minutes at temperatures of approx 15°C? Answer: yes.
• Do these two empirical facts refute the legally protected, Auschwitz mass-gassing narrative? Answer: yes they do.

• Does burying around 400,000 gassed corpses in a small area then disinterring them, cremating them in open-air pyres and reburying the cremains leave empirical evidence of sizeable ground disturbance and tonnes of ash, bone shards and teeth? Answer: yes, most definitely it does.
• Is there any such requisite empirical evidence supporting the legally protected Treblinka II narrative. Answer: no. Definitely not!

Do you see, Joe?

People seeking to deny the considerable empirical evidence which categorically refutes the holocaust mass-gassing narrative, gain comfort and assurance in slogans like ‘convergence’.

I suggest the same applies to slogans like “epistemic contextualism”.

And I don’t see how you “ clearly demonstrated the German article is suspect”. You haven't even seen it, read it or read a translation of it, have you?

??? I've read the article on the Irving site, not the translation of the conversation, and I showed to my satisfaction that removing the 'in advance' from the US/Merkel translation does not change it's meaning one whit, and implying that it does, as per the German article, is misleading. The rest of the paragraph clearly shows it refers to events before 9/11.