• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

cooperativeresearch.org

Oliver

Penultimate Amazing
Oliver
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
17,396
General question about Paul Thompsons newsarchive:

I know that many in here think that Thompson is biased and this
may be true - but what about his Newsarchive? Is it neutral or are
there also biased flaws in it?

Did he just collect the Articles and added the Information or are
his summings in some way altered regarding a possible Bias?

- Oliver
 
At least he runs into false conclusions. This one example was in my post, regarding the Suqami passport.

Co-operative research writes:

"Barry Mawn, the director of the FBI’s New York office, says police and FBI found it during a “grid search” of the area. [CNN, 9/18/2001] However a senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission later claims it was actually discovered by a passerby and given to an NYPD detective, “shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.” [9/11 Commission, 1/26/2004]"


But if you actually read that CNN article, it says:

"Police and the FBI completed a grid search of area streets near the site of the World Trade Center looking for clues, said Barry Mawn, director of New York's FBI office.

The searchers found several clues, he said, but would not elaborate. Last week, a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was found in the vicinity of Vesey Street, near the World Trade Center. "It was a significant piece of evidence for us," Mawn said."


This does NOT say the passport was found during grid search. It says grid search was conducted, then separately that the passport was found last week.

So they run into false conclusions. I don't know how widespread this is.
 
I think it's reasonable to assume a lot of the news articles say what he claims they say - although obviously ref's example is evidence that it's not always the case.

What is more important, I think, is the assumptions and conclusions he draws FROM these news articles. That's where his full-blow CTer nutty Troofism comes to the fore.

He's also following the "quantity not quality" maxim of troofers "If I throw enough suspicious stuff at them they will have to agree there's something suspicious."

-Gumboot
 
It's all in what you include, and what you leave out. So the part of the timeline that talks about the hijackers maybe still being alive, for instance, will tell you this:

The Saudi government insists that five of the Saudis mentioned are still alive.
http://cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091601stillalive
Click to expand...

But "forget" to tell you this:

Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
Click to expand...

So they can mislead by omission.
 
Last edited:
ref said:
At least he runs into false conclusions. This one example was in my post, regarding the Suqami passport.

Co-operative research writes:

"Barry Mawn, the director of the FBI’s New York office, says police and FBI found it during a “grid search” of the area. [CNN, 9/18/2001] However a senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission later claims it was actually discovered by a passerby and given to an NYPD detective, “shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.” [9/11 Commission, 1/26/2004]"


But if you actually read that CNN article, it says:

"Police and the FBI completed a grid search of area streets near the site of the World Trade Center looking for clues, said Barry Mawn, director of New York's FBI office.

The searchers found several clues, he said, but would not elaborate. Last week, a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was found in the vicinity of Vesey Street, near the World Trade Center. "It was a significant piece of evidence for us," Mawn said."


This does NOT say the passport was found during grid search. It says grid search was conducted, then separately that the passport was found last week.

So they run into false conclusions. I don't know how widespread this is.
Click to expand...


So he sums up his information/articles - or shrinks them down to
the "relevant" parts. So if he's biased, a wrong interpretation and
summing could be misleading - like your example showed. But in
general the site sounds pretty neutral and the links to the articles
are also there.

I guess i have to look into the linked articles in the future, too.

Thank you. :)
 
gumboot said:
I think it's reasonable to assume a lot of the news articles say what he claims they say - although obviously ref's example is evidence that it's not always the case.

What is more important, I think, is the assumptions and conclusions he draws FROM these news articles. That's where his full-blow CTer nutty Troofism comes to the fore.

He's also following the "quantity not quality" maxim of troofers "If I throw enough suspicious stuff at them they will have to agree there's something suspicious."

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


But you are talking about his personal assumptions and conclusions
here - i mean exterior to the site itself, beside Ref's example, right?

I will keep my eyes open and check the sources whenenver i have to
look up something in the future...

Thank you. :)
 
Oliver said:
But you are talking about his personal assumptions and conclusions
here - i mean exterior to the site itself, beside Ref's example, right?

I will keep my eyes open and check the sources whenenver i have to
look up something in the future...

Thank you. :)
Click to expand...



No, I am talking about the site itself. There is a lot of his own speculation and interpretation there. Simply reading the entire timeline literally takes weeks. I doubt anyone actually has time to read all of the news articles AS WELL. Many of the links are also now defunct.

-Gumboot
 
MikeW said:
It's all in what you include, and what you leave out. So the part of the timeline that talks about the hijackers maybe still being alive, for instance, will tell you this:

But "forget" to tell you this:

So they can mislead by omission.
Click to expand...


I agree - this is misleading. But a short research about the saudi
hijackers revealed that he does not skip them completley:

Abdulla Noman, a former employee of the US consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers got their visas, says that...
Click to expand...

...many other al-Qaeda members) and Saudi Arabia (the home country of bin Laden and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers).
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia refuses to help the US trace the names and other background information on the 15 Saudi hijackers.
Click to expand...

...the visa applications for all 15 of the Saudi Arabian 9/11 hijackers should have been...
Click to expand...


So what are his personal believes - did he ever mentioned them
in an explicit statement? I mean he's not the guy who read all these
articles and connections and believes in controlled demolitions or
such nonsense, does he? :boggled:
 
gumboot said:
No, I am talking about the site itself. There is a lot of his own speculation and interpretation there. Simply reading the entire timeline literally takes weeks. I doubt anyone actually has time to read all of the news articles AS WELL. Many of the links are also now defunct.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


That would be pretty bad for his reputation if he twisted his summings
because his assumptions. And the dying links are also pretty sad. One
day they all will disappear and then there's nothing left beside his site,
being the only source to research the press at that time.
 
Oliver,

He's a prime example of what I mean. This is the 6th entry in the timeline:
October 1980: Osama’s Oldest Brother Allegedly Involved in ‘October Surprise’

Salem bin Laden, Osama’s oldest brother, described by a French secret intelligence report as one of two closest friends of Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd who often performs important missions for Saudi Arabia, is involved in secret Paris meetings between US and Iranian emissaries this month, according to a French report. Frontline, which published the French report, notes that such meetings have never been confirmed. Rumors of these meetings have been called the “October Surprise” and some have speculated that in these meetings, George H. W. Bush negotiated a delay to the release of the US hostages in Iran, thus helping Ronald Reagan and Bush win the 1980 Presidential election. All of this is highly speculative, but if the French report is correct, it points to a long-standing connection of highly improper behavior between the Bush and bin Laden families. [PBS Frontline, 2001]
Click to expand...


This entire entry has only one newspaper article attached to it. If you actually read the Frontline article (which is a background piece on the Bin Laden family) only one minor passage mentions the event in passing:

Like his father in 1968, Salem died in a 1988 air crash...in Texas. He was flying a BAC 1-11 which had been bought in July 1977 by Prince Mohammed Ben Fahd. The plane's flight plans had long been at the center of a number of investigations. According to one of the plane's American pilots, it had been used in October 1980 during secret Paris meetings between US and Iranian emissaries. Nothing was ever proven, but Salem bin Laden's accidental death revived some speculation that he might have been "eliminated" as an embarrassing witness. In fact, an inquiry was held to determine the exact circumstances of the accident. The conclusions were never divulged.
Click to expand...

However there's also an editor's note following it:

FRONTLINE Editors' Note:

The above paragraph is inaccurate. Salem bin Laden was piloting a light aircraft, not a BAC 1-11, when he crashed. As for "secret Paris meetings between US and Iranian emissaries" in October 1980, such meetings have never been confirmed.
Click to expand...

So while Paul Thompson is claiming Frontline published a secret French report about said meetings, the article he links to makes no mention of French intelligence whatsoever and denies the existence of the meetings at all. Thompson's entry is also full of errors, for example it claims Salem bin Laden was "one of two closest friends of Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd who often performs important missions for Saudi Arabia" and yet in 1980, when the alleged event occured, Fahd was not the king of Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Salem died only 6 years into Fahd's reign. He was also only Osama's half-brother and cousin.

This entire entry in his timeline is essentially a fabrication.

-Gumboot
 
Last edited:
And, at least on one occasion, he can just be plain wrong.

Paul Thompson said:
The book and website contain statements that Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi has funded, supported, or is in some way associated with the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist network. They also state that Mr. Al Amoudi is a defendant in a litigation commenced by the families of the victims of the 9/11 attack in the United States of America.

The references in the book and website were based on previously published reports that were subsequently retracted. We are aware of no evidence to suggest that Mr. Al Amoudi has ever supported, advocated, financed, or has otherwise been linked to, Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda terrorist network, terrorism or terrorist groups. His name has been withdrawn as a defendant in the 9/11 litigation and the case against him dismissed. We are further informed that Mr. Al Amoudi was not an investor in the El Shifa chemical plant; has never been affiliated with the Al-Haramain Foundation; and does not have (and never has had) any involvement in Delta Oil.

We have deleted all entries related to Mr. Al Amoudi from the Complete 9-11 Timeline on the website and will be deleting the references in the revised printing of The Terror Timeline book.

We therefore retract the statements and apologize to Mr. Al Amoudi for any embarrassment or damage to his personal or professional reputation that such statements may have caused him.
Click to expand...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=al-amoudi_correction
 
gumboot said:
Oliver,

He's a prime example of what I mean. This is the 6th entry in the timeline:

This entire entry has only one newspaper article attached to it. If you actually read the Frontline article (which is a background piece on the Bin Laden family) only one minor passage mentions the event in passing:

However there's also an editor's note following it:

So while Paul Thompson is claiming Frontline published a secret French report about said meetings, the article he links to makes no mention of French intelligence whatsoever and denies the existence of the meetings at all. Thompson's entry is also full of errors, for example it claims Salem bin Laden was "one of two closest friends of Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd who often performs important missions for Saudi Arabia" and yet in 1980, when the alleged event occured, Fahd was not the king of Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Salem died only 6 years into Fahd's reign. He was also only Osama's half-brother and cousin.

This entire entry in his timeline is essentially a fabrication.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


Wow! This is a pretty crass example. A pure goldmine for
truthers - if they skip the "unnecessary" disclaimer.

So he tend's to be a LIHOP'er... I have to take a look into his
articles about the towers or terms like "expolosives, thermite...".
 
Oliver said:
So he tend's to be a LIHOP'er... I have to take a look into his
articles about the towers or terms like "expolosives, thermite...".
Click to expand...


I'm not so sure. I think her's a MIHOP, he just thinks they made it happen by getting their underlings (Al Qaeda) to carry out a terrorist attack.

This is, of course, the only form of 9/11 MIHOP theory that cannot be disproved easily.

-Gumboot
 
One of the few times that I've called in to a radio show was when I heard Thompson on Randi Rhodes talking about NORAD's "stand down" on 9/11. I was ripping mad, because he tries to foster the impression that he's an objective presenter of information. Unfortunately I didn't get through to express myself.

MikeW is exactly right: Thompson's most egregious errors are those of omission.
 
I agree with Mike and Gravy. Omission can be far more deceptive than adding false facts. That way, your audience won't call "BS" on your facts, because they are true. But if you fail to complete the puzzle, the listeners will complete it with their own pieces of speculation and imagination.

For example:
"Did you know that "pull" is a demolition term and was used when WTC6 was brought down after the attacks?"

Fair call. But the omitting of information (that WTC6 was pulled over with cables) makes this statement far more intriguing doesn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom