For the most part the research was in line with the fundamental premises of Trench (Synonyms of the New Testament). However, when a JW doctrine was at stake, they employed the usual "pick-and-choose" proof quote approach. E.g. Rom 1:20 (theiotes) compared to Col 2:9 (theotes). Trench (pp. 7-10) says: "...there is a real distinction between [the words]..." The WTS seizes upon that phrase, and asserts that this distinction is very substantial and definitive. They ignore what Trench goes on to say: "In...Rom 1:20 St. Paul is declaring how much of God may be known from the revelation of Himself which He has made in nature...But in...Col 2:9 St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead...and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son...It may be observed, in conclusion, that whether this distinction was intended...or not, it established itself firmly in the later theological language of the Church--the Greek fathers using never theiotes, but always theotes , as alone adequately expressing the essential Godhead of the Trinity." (There was a Questions from Readers on this, as I recall, but I don't have the Watchtower CD yet, so I can't provide a reference).
As a result, WTS makes much more of the distinction between these 2 words than does Trench, and that to support their Arianism. They also choose to ignore the fact that 1st century Greek, like any other language, was an evolving thing that, even in the short span of 20 or 30 years, could see the original distinctions between various words soften, or even disappear.
This is just one example. Most of the time WTS made "...the assumption that different words meant different meanings...," generally to support one of their unorthodox doctrines.
Craig (of the brain in overdrive mode class)