Podcast Show #54

The Boiling Frogs Presents Paul Thompson-Part II

BFP Podcast Logo

This is Part II of our three-part one-of-a-kind interview series with author and researcher Paul Thompson. For additional background information please visit the complete 9/11 Timeline Investigative Project at HistoryCommons.Org and Richard Clarke’s interview by John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski at SecrecyKills.Com.

Paul Thompson joins us to discuss the latest revelations by former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke and his explosive allegations against three former top CIA officials – George Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee – accusing them of knowingly withholding intelligence about two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who had entered the United States more than a year before the attacks. He provides us with the most comprehensive history and context to date on Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 with three other terrorists and flew the jetliner directly into the Pentagon killing 189 people. Mr. Thompson takes us through a mind-boggling journey through the Yemen Hub, the highly critical Malaysia Summit, Thailand, USS Cole bombing, CIA’s Alec Station, NSA, FBI and beyond!

ptPaul Thompson is the author of the Terror Timeline, a compilation of over 5,000 reports and articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. His research in the field has garnered over 100 radio and TV interviews. Mr. Thompson holds a psychology degree from Stanford University obtained in 1990. For the complete 9/11 Timeline Investigative Project visit HistoryCommons.Org

Here is our guest Paul Thompson unplugged!

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to listen to the audio

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. Thank you Sibel and Paul for this stellar series!

  2. I’d like to see an org chart or graphic representing some of these folks and their connections.

  3. jschoneboom says:

    Paul Thompson is awesome, I could listen to him for hours. Thanks Sibel and Paul for getting him on and setting him loose on the right questions. I like what Jon Gold said, he really is the most dangerous man alive re 9/11, he’s got so many of the threads in his random access memory…

  4. I just finished recording our Part 3 with Thompson: by far the best, most interesting, interview in the series. We covered the Al Qaeda Central Asia-Caucasus-Balkans angles and US partnership and joint operations in that region with Bin Laden group which went on through the 90s…My most favorite segment, and you know why:-)

  5. I know why!

    In this, you talked a bit about accountability, and how with regards to 9/11… it doesn’t apply. Here’s a video I made on the subject. It’s short…

  6. Rather than chalking things up to lies to cover incompetence, I say its more like lies to cover intentional incompetence. And the reason for al qaeda’s laziness is because they knew they didn’t have to worry. Al qaeda was fostered and nurtured by the USA they are modern privateers. Rent-a-terrorist useful for the MIC. Look at the lies about Iraq, that was not incompetence, it was on purpose. You can’t accidentally forge documents. You don’t accidentally destroy ames strain anthrax. You don’t accidentally refuse to allow searching Moussaoui’s computer. You don’t release Israelis busted filming the first plane hitting. Midar and Hazmi were living in the US with a Saudi GID agent on load to the FBI. Come on! The government lies get over it. They didn’t just allow 911 to happen they assist it, same as OCK and 7/7.

  7. This video is related to what you were talking about in part I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIm8SwQlbVw Sen. Shelby is spot on.

  8. I had the same issue as Ry. I found this a grueling listening experience. Highly informative, but at a same time a fundamental failure to apply Ockham’s Razor and the accept the consequences of your own narrative.

    Both Paul and Peter B. keep talking and reasoning from the incompetence perspective. The incompetence of highly trained professionals who passed selection after selection to end-up in geopolitically important positions where errors have great financial consequences for the people and corporations they are accountable to. If these people support international and domestic terrorism, or help to cover it up by thwarting investigations, this is NOT a sign of incompetence: on the contrary, it is business as usual (which is abundantly clear from the podcast).

    The aim of this podcast is “take back our hijacked nation”, If you choose to think that the nation is hijacked by a number of incompetent hacks, you’d better stop now with the “taking-back” process.

    Give the hijackers their dues: they are highly competent people who provide every indication of being solely interested in their own benefit. They divide the world in an in-group (us) to which they are loyal and an out-group (them) which they exploit. By now regular americans have joined the rest of the world as members of their out-group. Whatever they do to the rest of the world can and does happen to the US.

    At least Sibel made some attempts to start an interpretation from the competence angle. The ambiguous reaction of Paul and Peter in supporting it with facts, while shying from accepting it wholeheartedly might be indicative of deep cognitive processes. Accepting that the most influential part of your government aims to exploitation in the most effective way possible is much more consequential and less attractive than believing in a caring government with the occasional rotten apple. The official 9/11 version is also more palatable than doubting it.

    I’m glad James Corbett is on board. He accepts the consequences of reasoning, even if he doesn’t like them.

  9. jschoneboom says:

    I don’t buy the incompetence theory either, but I am deeply grateful for people like Paul Thompson who are strictly conservative in terms of the conclusions they are willing (publicly) to draw. We need people like that. Paul has collected a devastating arsenal of facts that really speak for themselves, and what they say is, there is no excuse for what happened no matter what you believe, and people need to be held accountable.

    Take one step beyond the facts and draw a conclusion or make an inference, no matter how logical, no matter how well supported, and you expose yourself to political, emotional, and other criticism. Which is fine, for some of us. We need conclusion-drawers too. But Paul’s thing, taking the criticism-proof approach, just laying out indisputable facts, that’s extremely useful. It makes him a more potent weapon. Take it and do with it what you will, and let him do his thing. It’s very good for us.

    I think Sibel takes the same approach, she seems to me quite reluctant to make accusations that go half an inch beyond what she personally knows, and I think that’s why she has retained her credibility. You don’t need Paul to think for you, you don’t need Sibel to think for you. You don’t need anyone to say for you what you think. Know what I’m saying?

Speak Your Mind