Who is "Paul Thompson"?

[Allen773]

Has he ever revealed himself? I wonder why he needs an alias....

[Tweeter]

Dont know,could be worried about stalkers.
Most people here on jref have that problem too.

[beachnut]

Has he ever revealed himself? I wonder why he needs an alias....
If you mean the timeline guy, he has been on news programs I think.

[Caustic Logic]

As far as I know his real identity is Paul Thompson. However, Wikipedia does say of The Terror Timeline "The book was compiled by a Stanford University alumnus and 9/11 researcher who goes by the pseudonym "Paul Thompson", and by other contributors to the History Commons website (formerly operated by the Center for Cooperative Research)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terror_Timeline
Huh!

Well the rest of the page says, as I've heard around, "Paul Thompson was born in Pacific Beach, California and currently holds a psychology degree from Stanford University obtained in 1990.[10][16] He now spends time there and in New Zealand. He is a freelance researcher and has worked in the past as an environmental activist at an environmental-protection firm."
So he's apparently one set guy of possibly that name, or another. He does good work in general, as do the other commons contibutors, like myself. (I consider myself more of a short-term contract contributor on the Pentagon evidence - my few entries compiled here (http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/03/my-history-commons-contributions.html).)

So Allen, why do you suspect he might be using an alias? Something shady, or what?

[gumboot]

He lives in Nelson, New Zealand, and his real name is not Paul Thompson.

[T.A.M.]

Well I remember seeing the man who says he is "Paul Thompson" and who is responsible for the time line, in a video. I cannot recall if it was truther or neutral.

TAM:)

[gumboot]

Well I remember seeing the man who says he is "Paul Thompson" and who is responsible for the time line, in a video. I cannot recall if it was truther or neutral.

TAM:)


That was probably 9/11: Press For Truth; the self-debunking Truther video.

[ref]

I just found this. Paul Thompson revealing his trutherism tactics (as some have speculated whether he's a fullblown truther or not).

As far as removing the comments go, I agree with Redsock's comments on that. Basically, the more neutral I can make the timeline, I think the more impact it will have and the more people it will influence. It is ironic, but I've found that the less I try to push my point of view, the more people look at the timeline and change their point of view about the official story. This is a paradox that MA apparently cannot understand. If the work cannot be marginalized and derided as a biased conspiracy theory, it spreads to new places and reaches new people. And the facts are so strong in themselves that there's really no need to comment. Any intelligent people who takes the time to read will see how the facts are at odds with the official story.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=78977&mesg_id=80030

[RedIbis]

Regardless of what his real name might be, The Complete 9/11 Timeline is an indespensible resource. If he's a twoofy twoofer, as you guys say, you might be concerned that his project is by far the most comprehensive collection of 9/11 related news accounts in existence. In fact, it makes Gravy's exalted "research" appear scattershot in comparison.

[T.A.M.]

Regardless of what his real name might be, The Complete 9/11 Timeline is an indespensible resource. If he's a twoofy twoofer, as you guys say, you might be concerned that his project is by far the most comprehensive collection of 9/11 related news accounts in existence. In fact, it makes Gravy's exalted "research" appear scattershot in comparison.

1. Paul Thompson does appear to fall on the Woo side, wrt his personal views.
2. His timeline is a thorough, excellent resource for media coverage on the 9/11 attacks.
3. Insulting Gravy was really, an uncalled for cheap shot. You may not agree with Mark what so ever, but his work is far from scattershot.

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

Regardless of what his real name might be, The Complete 9/11 Timeline is an indespensible resource. If he's a twoofy twoofer, as you guys say, you might be concerned that his project is by far the most comprehensive collection of 9/11 related news accounts in existence. In fact, it makes Gravy's exalted "research" appear scattershot in comparison.
His dots (meaning the actual references) are fine but when he tries to connect the dots it is when his paranoia comes blaring through. Why do you find it necessary to take a pot shot at Mark? Whatever your reason is, you just reduced yourself to non-credible about anything in my eyes and I am sure others feel the same. Thanks for revealing your true colors.

[RedIbis]

1. Paul Thompson does appear to fall on the Woo side, wrt his personal views.
2. His timeline is a thorough, excellent resource for media coverage on the 9/11 attacks.
3. Insulting Gravy was really, an uncalled for cheap shot. You may not agree with Mark what so ever, but his work is far from scattershot.

TAM:)

1. That's a cheap shot in itself in that you are disparaging his POV as "woo" whatever the hell that is.
2. True.
3. I did not insult Gravy. I described his "research" as scattershot. It has always been a bit mysterious to me why he has been exalted to guru like levels, especially (and as was my point in the comparison) when you put it up against cooperativeresearch.org

The irony here is that a twoofy woo woo has compiled an exhaustive site that is generally regarded as a indespensible resource by anyone who takes the time to go through it, regardless of POV. I wonder why nothing has ever been compiled coming from the official theory side. If Gravy's links is what you have, you just don't have all that much.

[RedIbis]

His dots (meaning the actual references) are fine but when he tries to connect the dots it is when his paranoia comes blaring through. Why do you find it necessary to take a pot shot at Mark? Whatever your reason is, you just reduced yourself to non-credible about anything in my eyes and I am sure others feel the same. Thanks for revealing your true colors.

You should be the very last person on earth to accuse anyone of taking potshots. How polite the jreffers become when one of their own is the focus of some mild scrutiny.

[DavidJames]

Red's actions are consistent with the other CTists here. They all "know" the U.S. government is complicit in the 9/11 attacks but instead of actually doing anything to achieve justice, they would rather debate, argue, attack, belittle JREF posters. Somehow, they feel their role in seeking justice for the murder of 3000 people on 9/11 is to attack Gravy or Ryan or others.

Disingenuous? liars? cowards? trolls? mentally ill? Maybe, maybe not, but it's safe to say "honestly seeking the truth" is a phrase that doesn't apply

[RedIbis]

Red's actions are consistent with the other CTists here. They all "know" the U.S. government is complicit in the 9/11 attacks but instead of actually doing anything to achieve justice, they would rather debate, argue, attack, belittle JREF posters. Somehow, they feel their role in seeking justice for the murder of 3000 people on 9/11 is to attack Gravy or Ryan or others.

Disingenuous? liars? cowards? trolls? mentally ill? Maybe, maybe not, but it's safe to say "honestly seeking the truth" is a phrase that doesn't apply

Your actions are completely consistent with those who wouldn't dare compare the informational value of cooperativeresearch.org to Gravy's links.

FTR, I never attacked Gravy or Mackey. I took a shot at Gravy's research.

[~enigma~]

Disingenuous? liars? cowards? trolls? mentally ill?
I would say all of the above.

[funk de fino]

Your actions are completely consistent with those who wouldn't dare compare the informational value of cooperativeresearch.org to Gravy's links.

FTR, I never attacked Gravy or Mackey. I took a shot at Gravy's research.

When you have completed something similar you may have the right in some people eyes to slate his research. Unfortunately you would rather spend the time accusing people of heinous acts without a shred of evidence. We can all see who cares more about the truth between you and Gravy.

I have found both to be valuable surces for discussions with truthers. The same cannot be said for any of your postings.

[gumboot]

Regardless of what his real name might be, The Complete 9/11 Timeline is an indespensible resource. If he's a twoofy twoofer, as you guys say, you might be concerned that his project is by far the most comprehensive collection of 9/11 related news accounts in existence. In fact, it makes Gravy's exalted "research" appear scattershot in comparison.



Actually it's the other way around - it's Paul Thompson's research that is scattershot. One massive uncontrolled blob of scattershot. Gravy's links website directs readers to the proven, evidence supported accounts of what happened.

Thompson's timeline links to each and every possible misinterpretation, assumption, and speculation by the media and treats each with the authority, scientific rigor, and accuracy of the NIST Report.

It's pathetic.

I'm not fooled by his timeline, unlike some other gullible fools. It's next to worthless, frankly.

That he would have the audacity to then appear in 9/11 Press For Truth and complain that the media has failed to report 9/11 is just a signpost for what a dishonest little man he is.

[MaGZ]

Isn’t Gravy’s "research" just repeating what the government says in their official reports? Has Gravy ever had an original idea or questioned anything the government has claimed?

[T.A.M.]

Mark's "research" (as we seem to be putting everything in quotes now), is a fairly large collection of links etc... from all sources, news media, govt, private, etc...

Paul Thompson's Timeline, is thorough as well.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

Mark's "research" (as we seem to be putting everything in quotes now), is a fairly large collection of links etc... from all sources, news media, govt, private, etc...

Paul Thompson's Timeline, is thorough as well.

TAM:)
I find the timeline filled with suggestive false ideas and subtitle suggestive of things 9/11 truth falls for. I find many of the added statements by the author to be anti-intellectual, at best.

Why am I able to see this? I am gullible and highly susceptible to suggestion. We can skip further teasing, I will buy the beer and we can skip exposing my weakness of being easy!
I use the time line for research, the added comments are worthless. I mainly use the timeline to find references, and those referenced debunk the worthless comments, so the time line is useful despite the bias I see in it.

[Björn Toulouse]

Isn’t Gravy’s "research" just repeating what the government says in their official reports? Has Gravy ever had an original idea or questioned anything the government has claimed?



You mean like a missile at Ground Zero or Eisenhower being a war criminal?

[Allen773]

Isn’t Gravy’s "research" just repeating what the government says in their official reports? Has Gravy ever had an original idea or questioned anything the government has claimed?
Yes. In fact, Gravy just e-mailed me that he now ignores all of the scientific evidence and facts regarding 9/11 and instead believes that the JEWS!!!!! did 9/11...







MaGZ, seriously. Get help.

[RedIbis]

Actually it's the other way around - it's Paul Thompson's research that is scattershot. One massive uncontrolled blob of scattershot. Gravy's links website directs readers to the proven, evidence supported accounts of what happened.

Thompson's timeline links to each and every possible misinterpretation, assumption, and speculation by the media and treats each with the authority, scientific rigor, and accuracy of the NIST Report.

It's pathetic.

I'm not fooled by his timeline, unlike some other gullible fools. It's next to worthless, frankly.

That he would have the audacity to then appear in 9/11 Press For Truth and complain that the media has failed to report 9/11 is just a signpost for what a dishonest little man he is.

You've got to be kidding. One site uses a tremendous amount of subjective analysis, personal reflection, and appeal to emotion. The other site is a collection of mainstream media references organized by date, time, and relevance to 9/11. Let's see if you can figure out which is which.

[HyJinX]

Isn’t Gravy’s "research" just repeating what the government says in their official reports? Has Gravy ever had an original idea or questioned anything the government has claimed?

Awwwwe...what's the matter, Magz, can't stand it when others outsmart, outwit, out-logic and out-reason you at every level of your intellegence? It's ok, lil' buddy. Someday you'll learn to be a critical, precise, concise and logical thinker, too. We hope. Until then, you just go ahead and revel in your generation's version of Dungeons and Dragons. It's fun to be silly and engross yourself in fantasy time.

<pats lil' Magz on the head and tossles his hair>

[Oliver]

Has he ever revealed himself? I wonder why he needs an alias....


Paul is quite famous around people in 9/11 CT's. So even if there are some people who distrust his personal assumptions, including me, his collection of Media-Articles is a gold mine for everyone interested in 9/11.

... Even if I have no Idea what he does nowadays ... Last thing I heard from him personally was that he lives/is on vacation in Australia...

[gumboot]

Last thing I heard from him personally was that he lives/is on vacation in Australia...


New Zealand, not Australia. We're a different country, thank you very much.

[gumboot]

You've got to be kidding. One site uses a tremendous amount of subjective analysis, personal reflection, and appeal to emotion. The other site is a collection of mainstream media references organized by date, time, and relevance to 9/11. Let's see if you can figure out which is which.


I think you need to go back and actually look at the two websites. Seriously.

[MaGZ]

Yes. In fact, Gravy just e-mailed me that he now ignores all of the scientific evidence and facts regarding 9/11 and instead believes that the JEWS!!!!! did 9/11...


Are you suggesting that I believe the Jews did 9/11?
If so, then you are mistaken.

[chillzero]

Off topic conversation moved to Community. Please keep on topic.
Thank you!

[Oliver]

New Zealand, not Australia. We're a different country, thank you very much.


Same region - you might agree... [Despite the fact that he personally referred to Australia] ....