Conquer Club

More experts say Gov. is lying about 911

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Postby xtratabasco on Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:47 am

heavycola wrote:
Marvin bush was head of security at WTC and airports before 911


you see what i mean? I just did some actual research for my last post - marvin bush was on the board of a company that did contract work at the WTC between 1993 and 1998. he left teh board in 200, and was anyway never head of the company, nor was this company in charge of security.
The Port Authority, as the WTC buildings' owner, was in charge of security. Many of their officers died on 9/11.

But you don't read anything up for yourself, much less read anyone else's posts. You just lap it all up.


he was the CEO....the boss


the buck stopped at him.

The companys contract ended on 911 because of 911, he worked up until there was no more WTC building to protect.


how can I make it any more clearer for you?
User avatar
Corporal xtratabasco
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:24 pm

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:05 am

jay_a2j wrote:Heavy... I used to argue the other side. I believed the terrorist plot. I called people like me crazies. I was dragged along by the "war on terror". Then something happened. I took a step back and pondered all the stuff I had been fed since 911. The fact that we stopped pursuing Osama...the one responsible for 911. Who WAS the greater enemy? Saddam or Osama? I started giving the "conspiracy" thing a look. So, many unanswered questions. Yet so many "grasping at straws" explanations. I couldn't sit back and be fooled any longer.


But that is entirely different from the conspiracy. The Iraq war has almost nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was attacked because he had oil, but that doesn't matter regarding the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.

Instead of questioning everything and getting a position of your own, you just flipped sides on this. From Pro-War bushsupporter to conspiracy nut, never stopping to think there may be other positions.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Postby heavycola on Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:08 am

xtratabasco wrote:
heavycola wrote:
Marvin bush was head of security at WTC and airports before 911


you see what i mean? I just did some actual research for my last post - marvin bush was on the board of a company that did contract work at the WTC between 1993 and 1998. he left the board in 200, and was anyway never head of the company, nor was this company in charge of security.
The Port Authority, as the WTC buildings' owner, was in charge of security. Many of their officers died on 9/11.

But you don't read anything up for yourself, much less read anyone else's posts. You just lap it all up.


he was the CEO....the boss


the buck stopped at him.

The companys contract ended on 911 because of 911, he worked up until there was no more WTC building to protect.


how can I make it any more clearer for you?


see, again, you just state this drivel without any research or thought.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ ... 000032.txt

This is a link to Stratesec's SEC filing for 1999. Scroll down to page 15 and you will see that Marvin Bush was one of 6 directors on the board. He was not the CEO. This is proof that you are wrong.

See also in this document that Stratesec's contract with the WTC ended in 1998, the year previously. This is on page 9 - here's the relevant info:

'Year Ended December 31, 1998 Compared with Year Ended December 31, 1997

Revenues decreased by 45% from $12.1 million in 1997 to $6.6 million in
1998. The decrease was due to the closeout of the World Trade Center Project.'


Do you have ANY evidence - and i would call SEC filings evidence - that this is not the case? Or are you going to ignore this because it doesn't fit twith your bullshit, spoon-fed ideas?
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:11 am

The latter.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Postby jay_a2j on Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:11 am

Snorri1234 wrote:
But that is entirely different from the conspiracy. The Iraq war has almost nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was attacked because he had oil, but that doesn't matter regarding the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.

Instead of questioning everything and getting a position of your own, you just flipped sides on this. From Pro-War bushsupporter to conspiracy nut, never stopping to think there may be other positions.



But our government said IT DID have something to do with 911....WMD's remember? Now they are talking about IRAN? I think the whole reason we went over there had nothing to do with 911. 911 was an excuse to go over there. It worked like a charm. Just like the reichstag building Hitler burned and blamed on his "enemies".
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby Snorri1234 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:18 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
But that is entirely different from the conspiracy. The Iraq war has almost nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was attacked because he had oil, but that doesn't matter regarding the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.

Instead of questioning everything and getting a position of your own, you just flipped sides on this. From Pro-War bushsupporter to conspiracy nut, never stopping to think there may be other positions.



But our government said IT DID have something to do with 911....WMD's remember? Now they are talking about IRAN? I think the whole reason we went over there had nothing to do with 911. 911 was an excuse to go over there. It worked like a charm. Just like the reichstag building Hitler burned and blamed on his "enemies".

Yes they said it did. Doesn't mean they were right, and it doesn't mean they've lied about everything. Ofcourse 9/11 was an excuse for the invasion, but that doesn't mean the government was behind 9/11. Just like Hitler took advantage of the reichstag fire to gain more support, but wasn't actually behind it all. The government took advantage of the attacks.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Postby Backglass on Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:28 am

xtratabasco wrote:despite the fact that over 500 experts say 911 was an inside job


BIG correction: Not one is an "expert" on structural engineering or building demolition..and neither are you. Wonder why that is?

Where are the building implosion experts? It would only take ONE to verify this, yet none have. Care to answer why?

People like the Loizeaux family of http://www.controlled-demolition.com.

Surely they would know a controlled demo from a collapse, yet they havent said so. Why? Are they on the take too? A family business for three generations of building implosions?

BTW...one of the "experts you often tout from this article: http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofc ... natwtc.htm has recanted. I guess the government robots got to him , huh. :lol:

Jerry Russell, Ph.D. wrote:On March 31, 2002 (just in time for April Fool's Day) I posted an article to the Usenet entitled "Proof of controlled demolition at the WTC". In fact I indulged in some rather egregious cross-posting, in order to attract attention to my theory. I was sincerely convinced at the time that my arguments were correct, but as it turned out, the April Fool's joke was on me.

The central argument in my essay was that the process of collapse should have involved enough friction that the fall of the building should at least have been braked significantly compared to the acceleration of an object in free fall. The argument seemed perfectly reasonable if not obvious to me, and I managed to trick some pretty smart people with it. But the truth is that it is possible for a building to collapse in a process which concentrates high leverage at certain joints in the structure. The result is a nearly frictionless collapse. This was very counter-intuitive to me, but people who work with structures seem quite aware of it. This technical article by Bazant & Zhou explains this in some detail, and although I believe their presentation is oversimplified, the basic message seems to be correct.

My article also pointed out that it is historically unprecedented for airplane strikes and/or fires to destroy large steel-frame structures. My opinion is that this should be good reason to be suspicious about the official story (and I'm still suspicious at least to some extent), but many readers pointed out that there is always a first time for everything. They note that in many ways, the events of 9-11 were indeed historically unprecedented, so it was hardly fair of me to use precedent as if it were substantial evidence.

At any rate, I claimed to have proof of controlled demolition, and I certainly did not. In retrospect, I should not have posted the article without checking it with a structural engineer.

But after all, it was only a Usenet post. I bravely waded through all the flames and insults in the many responses, and found that there was a residual level of useful feedback in the discussion. As soon as I understood my mistake, I posted a retraction.

However, some people apparently liked my April Fool's article, exactly as it first appeared. It has developed a life of its own. It has been posted to Mark Elsis' Attack On America site. It appeared on Rense.com one day, but they were gracious enough to take it down at my request. It's gone out in private mailing lists, and been re-posted to the Usenet by others. I get a more or less continuous stream of e-mail about it. Every time I hear from someone, I explain and apologize for my mistakes in the article.

Now the article has appeared again, but I am no longer given credit (or blame) as the author of the piece. In its latest incarnation in the Delphi Associates Newsletter (vol. 4, issue #81), it was written by a mole from inside the MI6 British intelligence service, writing under the alias of "James Bond". Under its new authorship, the article has been posted again to the Usenet.

A reader of my web page alerted me to the situation, and he was also kind enough to send me a scan of the newsletter article, which appears here: page 1, page 2, page 3.

But the article as it is published in the Delphi Newsletter is not exactly in its original form. There are a few additions -- for example, a mystical reference to Nostradamus, and an approving discussion of the French "Hunt the Boeing" web page. I suppose I did a good enough job of discrediting myself and my ideas, but "James Bond" has been able to add to the general level of hilarity by bringing in these other questionable threads.

I've written to Sean David Morton of Delphi Associates to ask him how this could have happened and how he mistook my article for something by "James Bond". So far, I haven't heard from him...
Image
The Pro-TipĀ®, SkyDaddyĀ® and Image are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Backglass
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: New York

Postby alex_white101 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:41 am

xtratabasco wrote:firefighters and cops said they heard explosions in the wtc buildings before the planes hit


exactly which ones? and why the hell where there firefigthers close enough to hear explosions before the planes hit?

also are you an expert on how steel buildings fall? how do u know there was not a structural fault in the building or some tiny discrepancy which could have made all the difference. you are quoting vague statements as if they are fact which are 100% proven and as if u have actually researched it rather than just read some crackpots blog.
''Many a true word is spoken in jest''
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class alex_white101
 
Posts: 1992
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:05 am

Postby jay_a2j on Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:46 am

alex_white101 wrote:how do u know there was not a structural fault in the building or some tiny discrepancy which could have made all the difference.



This is the "grasping at straws" I was talking about. :wink:
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby alex_white101 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:48 am

jay_a2j wrote:
alex_white101 wrote:how do u know there was not a structural fault in the building or some tiny discrepancy which could have made all the difference.



This is the "grasping at straws" I was talking about. :wink:


what and ''the government planned it to pass a bill'' is of course completely normal, as well as the fact that i have no idea about engineering as neither do u nor anyone else claiming to be experts (maybe a couple do) so there are a million reasons we could all be missing.

but if im wrong jay, at least u know ur taxes are going to a good cause, paying terrorists to crash into ur buildings :wink:
''Many a true word is spoken in jest''
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class alex_white101
 
Posts: 1992
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:05 am

Postby heavycola on Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:16 am

xtratabasco wrote:
heavycola wrote:
Marvin bush was head of security at WTC and airports before 911


you see what i mean? I just did some actual research for my last post - marvin bush was on the board of a company that did contract work at the WTC between 1993 and 1998. he left the board in 200, and was anyway never head of the company, nor was this company in charge of security.
The Port Authority, as the WTC buildings' owner, was in charge of security. Many of their officers died on 9/11.

But you don't read anything up for yourself, much less read anyone else's posts. You just lap it all up.


he was the CEO....the boss


the buck stopped at him.

The companys contract ended on 911 because of 911, he worked up until there was no more WTC building to protect.


how can I make it any more clearer for you?


see, again, you just state this drivel without any research or thought.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ ... 000032.txt

This is a link to Stratesec's SEC filing for 1999. Scroll down to page 15 and you will see that Marvin Bush was one of 6 directors on the board. He was not the CEO. This is proof that you are wrong.

See also in this document that Stratesec's contract with the WTC ended in 1998, the year previously. This is on page 9 - here's the relevant info:

'Year Ended December 31, 1998 Compared with Year Ended December 31, 1997

Revenues decreased by 45% from $12.1 million in 1997 to $6.6 million in
1998. The decrease was due to the closeout of the World Trade Center Project.'


Do you have ANY evidence - and i would call SEC filings evidence - that this is not the case? Or are you going to ignore this because it doesn't fit twith your bullshit, spoon-fed ideas?



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but i had to repost this or it was going to get lost. I would like to hear a response from one of the resident whackos. This research took me 5 whole minutes of my life goddamit.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby xtratabasco on Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:38 am

alex_white101 wrote:
xtratabasco wrote:firefighters and cops said they heard explosions in the wtc buildings before the planes hit


exactly which ones? and why the hell where there firefigthers close enough to hear explosions before the planes hit?

also are you an expert on how steel buildings fall? how do u know there was not a structural fault in the building or some tiny discrepancy which could have made all the difference. you are quoting vague statements as if they are fact which are 100% proven and as if u have actually researched it rather than just read some crackpots blog.



http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... 1483512003

we have been over this before.
User avatar
Corporal xtratabasco
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:24 pm

Postby heavycola on Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:41 am

heavycola wrote:Or are you going to ignore this because it doesn't fit twith your bullshit, spoon-fed ideas?
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby jay_a2j on Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:47 am

The 911 MYSTRIES........


SOLVED
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby xtratabasco on Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:49 am

heavycola wrote:
heavycola wrote:Or are you going to ignore this because it doesn't fit twith your bullshit, spoon-fed ideas?



the fact of the matter is that he was in charge of security at the WTC and the airports.


some always bring up the question "how did they plant the bombs"

well Marvin bush was a PNAC member that wanted a "Pearl Harbor" like event to push the American people into the war into the middle east in the late 90s, and then he becomes the head of securtiy and thus......


has the oppertunity to do so.


doesnt take a rocket scientist to connect the simpiliest of dots. :lol:


Now, Im not saying he did it, Im saying he had the oppertunity to do so.
User avatar
Corporal xtratabasco
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:24 pm

Postby heavycola on Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:04 am

xtratabasco wrote:
heavycola wrote:
heavycola wrote:Or are you going to ignore this because it doesn't fit twith your bullshit, spoon-fed ideas?



the fact of the matter is that he was in charge of security at the WTC and the airports.


I have just proved to you that you are wrong. he was on the board of a company that stopped work in the WTC in 1998 and was never in charge of security.

if you have any proof otherwise, and not just more speculation and regurgitated nonsense, please show me.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby xtratabasco on Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:10 am

heavycola wrote:
xtratabasco wrote:
heavycola wrote:
heavycola wrote:Or are you going to ignore this because it doesn't fit twith your bullshit, spoon-fed ideas?



the fact of the matter is that he was in charge of security at the WTC and the airports.


I have just proved to you that you are wrong. he was on the board of a company that stopped work in the WTC in 1998 and was never in charge of security.

if you have any proof otherwise, and not just more speculation and regurgitated nonsense, please show me.



just google marvin bush and 911


next.
User avatar
Corporal xtratabasco
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:24 pm

Postby alex_white101 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:12 am

ahahahaha, ''just google it''
''Many a true word is spoken in jest''
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class alex_white101
 
Posts: 1992
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:05 am

Postby heavycola on Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:24 am

xtratabasco wrote:
heavycola wrote:
xtratabasco wrote:
heavycola wrote:
heavycola wrote:Or are you going to ignore this because it doesn't fit twith your bullshit, spoon-fed ideas?



the fact of the matter is that he was in charge of security at the WTC and the airports.


I have just proved to you that you are wrong. he was on the board of a company that stopped work in the WTC in 1998 and was never in charge of security.

if you have any proof otherwise, and not just more speculation and regurgitated nonsense, please show me.



just google marvin bush and 911


next.


So the answer is no. You are SFOWNED xtra. That is your lamest post yet.

Next!
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby xtratabasco on Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:25 am

alex_white101 wrote:ahahahaha, ''just google it''



yep, just google it

theres 10,000+ items that talk about Marvin Bush as head of security at WTC.


go reasearch it, I know you have a hard time wiping your ass, but if your gonna be on this thread you gotta do the work yourself.




next :lol:
User avatar
Corporal xtratabasco
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:24 pm

Postby heavycola on Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:40 am

heavycola wrote:
xtratabasco wrote:
heavycola wrote:
Marvin bush was head of security at WTC and airports before 911


you see what i mean? I just did some actual research for my last post - marvin bush was on the board of a company that did contract work at the WTC between 1993 and 1998. he left the board in 200, and was anyway never head of the company, nor was this company in charge of security.
The Port Authority, as the WTC buildings' owner, was in charge of security. Many of their officers died on 9/11.

But you don't read anything up for yourself, much less read anyone else's posts. You just lap it all up.


he was the CEO....the boss


the buck stopped at him.

The companys contract ended on 911 because of 911, he worked up until there was no more WTC building to protect.


how can I make it any more clearer for you?


see, again, you just state this drivel without any research or thought.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ ... 000032.txt

This is a link to Stratesec's SEC filing for 1999. Scroll down to page 15 and you will see that Marvin Bush was one of 6 directors on the board. He was not the CEO. This is proof that you are wrong.

See also in this document that Stratesec's contract with the WTC ended in 1998, the year previously. This is on page 9 - here's the relevant info:

'Year Ended December 31, 1998 Compared with Year Ended December 31, 1997

Revenues decreased by 45% from $12.1 million in 1997 to $6.6 million in
1998. The decrease was due to the closeout of the World Trade Center Project.'


Do you have ANY evidence - and i would call SEC filings evidence - that this is not the case? Or are you going to ignore this because it doesn't fit twith your bullshit, spoon-fed ideas?


No, xtra, googling is not proof. This ^^^ is proof. It is documentary evidence. Itt is funny how when you are presented with cold, hard facts that disprove your bullshit the only response you have is 'er, google'.

Find some actual evidence, or admit that you are wrong. I think that's fair enough. If Marvin Bush was CEO of Stratesec, if he was in charge of WTC security, and if it's all over teh internetz, then there must be documentary evidence of these facts. Company records, for example. Bring it.

Respond. Put up, or shut up.

(hearsay, some dude's website or links to youtube are not evidence, BTW)
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby xtratabasco on Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:44 am

heavycola wrote:
heavycola wrote:
xtratabasco wrote:
heavycola wrote:
Marvin bush was head of security at WTC and airports before 911


you see what i mean? I just did some actual research for my last post - marvin bush was on the board of a company that did contract work at the WTC between 1993 and 1998. he left the board in 200, and was anyway never head of the company, nor was this company in charge of security.
The Port Authority, as the WTC buildings' owner, was in charge of security. Many of their officers died on 9/11.

But you don't read anything up for yourself, much less read anyone else's posts. You just lap it all up.


he was the CEO....the boss


the buck stopped at him.

The companys contract ended on 911 because of 911, he worked up until there was no more WTC building to protect.


how can I make it any more clearer for you?


see, again, you just state this drivel without any research or thought.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ ... 000032.txt

This is a link to Stratesec's SEC filing for 1999. Scroll down to page 15 and you will see that Marvin Bush was one of 6 directors on the board. He was not the CEO. This is proof that you are wrong.

See also in this document that Stratesec's contract with the WTC ended in 1998, the year previously. This is on page 9 - here's the relevant info:

'Year Ended December 31, 1998 Compared with Year Ended December 31, 1997

Revenues decreased by 45% from $12.1 million in 1997 to $6.6 million in
1998. The decrease was due to the closeout of the World Trade Center Project.'


Do you have ANY evidence - and i would call SEC filings evidence - that this is not the case? Or are you going to ignore this because it doesn't fit twith your bullshit, spoon-fed ideas?


No, xtra, googling is not proof. This ^^^ is proof. It is documentary evidence. Itt is funny how when you are presented with cold, hard facts that disprove your bullshit the only response you have is 'er, google'.

Find some proof, or admit that you are wrong. I think that's fair enough.



ok here you go (1 of 10,000 articles that all say the same thing)


'Secrecy surrounds a Bush brother's role in 9/11 security'

American Reporter | January 20, 2002
By Margie Burns

WASHINGTON -- A company that provided security at New York City's World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C., and to United Airlines between 1995 and 2001, was backed by a private Kuwaiti-American investment firm with ties to a brother of President Bush and the Bush family, according to records obtained by the American Reporter.

Two planes hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001 were United Airlines planes, and another took off from Dulles International Airport; two, of ocurse, slammed into the World Trade Center. But the Bush Administration has never disclosed the ties of a presidential brother and the Bush family with the firm that intersected the weapons and targets on a day of national tragedy.

Marvin P. Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush, was a principal in the company from 1993 to 2000, when most of the work on the big projects was done. But White House responses to 9/11 have not publicly disclosed the company's part in providing security to any of the named facilities, and many of the public records revealing the relationships are not public.



Nonetheless, public records reveal that the firm, formerly named Securacom, listed Bush on its board of directors and as a significant shareholder. The firm, now named Stratesec, Inc., is located in Sterling, Va., a suburb of Washington, D.C., and emphasizes federal clients. Bush is no longer on the board.

Marvin Bush has not responded to repeated telephoned and emailed requests for comment on this story.

The American Stock Exchange delisted Stratesec's stock in October 2002. Securacom also had a contract to provide security at Los Alamos National Laboratories, notorious for its security breaches and physical and intellectual property thefts.

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down." Yet instead of being investigated, the company and companies involved with it have benefited from legislation pushed by the Bush White House and rubber-stamped by Congressional Republicans. Stratesec, its backer KuwAm, and their corporate officers stand to benefit from limitations on liability and national-security protections from investigation provided in bills since 9/11.

HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., a reinsurance corporation on whose board Marvin Bush sat as director until November 2002, similarly benefits from terrorism insurance protections. (Bush's first year on the board at HCC coincided with his last year on the board at Stratesec.) HCC, formerly Houston Casualty Company, carried some of the insurance for the World Trade Center. It posted a loss for the quarter after the attacks of Sept. 11 and dropped participation in worker's compensation as a result. Bush remains an adviser to the chairman and the Board of Directors, as well as a member of the company's investment committee.

The former CEO of Stratesec is Wirt D. Walker III, who is still chairman of the board. Although he has also been the managing director of KuwAm for several years, Walker states definitively in phone interviews that there was no exchange of talent between Stratesec and KuwAm during the World Trade Center and other projects.

As Walker put it, "I'm an investment banker." He continued, "We just owned some stock." The investment company "was not involved in any way in the work or day-to-day operations" of the security company. He explained clearly and pleasantly that there was no sharing of information or of personnel between the two companies.

In December 2000 - when the outcome of the U.S. presidential election was determined - Stratesec added a government division, providing "the same full range of security systems services as the Commercial Division," the company says. Stratesec now has "an open-ended contract with the General Services Administration (GSA) and a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with the agency that allows the government to purchase materials and services from the Company without having to go through a full competition."

The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites." In 2000, the U.S. Army accounted for 29 percent of the company's earned revenues, or about $6.9 million.

The White House opposed an independent commission to investigate 9/11 until after the terrorism insurance protections and protections for security companies had safely passed Congress. It has also quietly intervened in lawsuits against United Airlines in New York, brought by relatives of the victims.

Marvin Bush joined Securacom's Board of Directors in 1993, as part of new management hired when the company separated from engineering firm Burns and Roe. The new team was capitalized by KuwAm, the D.C.-based Kuwaiti-American investment company. Bush also served on the Board of Directors at KuwAm, along with Mishal Yousef Saud al-Sabah, Chairman of KuwAm and also a Director on Securacom's (Stratesec's) board.

The World Trade Center and the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority - which operates Dulles - were two of Securacom's three biggest clients in 1996 and 1997. (The third was MCI, now WorldCom.)

Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.

When, following the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey began its multi-million-dollar, multiyear revamping of security in and around the Twin Towers and Buildings 4 and 5, Securacom was among numerous contractors hired in the upgrade.

The companies doing security jobs received due mention in print, in security industry publications and elsewhere. The board membership of a son of former President Bush went unnoticed, at least in print.

According to SEC filings, Securacom/Stratesec acquired the $8.3 million World Trade Center contract in October 1996. The project generated 28 percent of all revenues for the company in 1996. SEC filings indicate that revenues from the World Trade Center project commenced in 1996 at $1.6 million, peaked in 1997 at $6.6 million ($4.1 million in the first half), and diminished in 1998 to less than $1 million.

A key concept in security is "access control." In hindsight, as the security industry's reportage on the World Trade Center precautions makes clear, further attacks would have to come from the air. Unfortunately, such detailed reports did not convey that message at home. Nobody thought outside the box enough to deduce that a jumbo jet could overcome even the extraordinary controls at the World Trade Center. With 20-20 hindsight, it is obvious that the intricate procedures in the building's lobbies and on its perimeters were useless in trying to stop a 767 loaded with jet fuel.

Barry McDaniel, CEO of the company since January 2002, declines on security grounds to give specific details about work the company did at the World Trade Center. According to McDaniel, the contract was ongoing (a "completion contract"), and "not quite completed when the Center went down." The company designed a system, but - as he points out - that obviously "didn't have anything to do with planes flying into buildings."

The key words "access control" are less feeble and irrelevant, however, in regard to airports and airlines. Had the hijackers failed on the ground, they would have lost their airborne weapon.

Two of the hijacked planes were United Airlines planes, and another took off from Dulles International. Two hit the Twin Towers, leading to a collapse of both buildings that killed nearly 3,000 people.

McDaniel makes clear that Securacom's contract with United Airlines was a single-site contract, in Indianapolis (at least five years ago), and not local. The work was finished several years before he joined the board, and was not in or near Washington.

The Dulles Internation contract is another matter. Dulles is regarded as "absolutely a sensitive airport," according to security consultant Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, due to its location, size, and the number of international carriers it serves.

Black has not heard of Stratesec, but responds that for one company to handle security for both airports and airlines is somewhat unusual. It is also delicate for a security firm serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company: "Somebody knew somebody," he suggested, or the contract would have been more closely scrutinized.

As Black points out, "when you [a company] have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." And if another company is linked with the security company, then "What's on your computer is on their computer."

In this context, retired FAA special agent Brian F. Sullivan is angry, and eloquent. "You can have all the security systems in the world, but the people behind the systems make the difference." The Bush administration, says Sullivan, "spit in the faces" of the victims' families, in pushing for last-minute protections for foreign-owned security companies (in the Homeland Security bill). Sullivan points out that "not one single person" in an upper-level position has lost a job as a result of 9/11, "not in the FBI, CIA, FAA, DOT." As he sums up, "No accountability, no progress."

Stratesec got its first preventive maintenance contract with Dulles Airport in 1995, generating $0.3 million that year. The Dulles project generated revenue of $1.2 million in 1996, $2.5 million in 1997, and $2.3 million in 1998, accounting for 22% of the company's revenues in 1996 and in 1998

Like other specialists, Professor Dale B. Oderman of Purdue University's aviation technology department, concurs that Dulles "was considered a very high profile target" as the primary international airport near the nation's capital. It serves as port of entry to about 15 international airlines as well as serving eight of the 11 major us passenger carriers. In comparison, Reagan Airport hosts only Air Canada from outside the U.S., and Baltimore-Washington Airport hosts about a half dozen."

Stratesec did not handle screening of passengers at Dulles. According to a contracting official for the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, its three-year contract was for maintenance of security systems: It maintained the airfield access system, the CCTV (closed circuit television) system, and the electronic badging system.

In 1997, the World Trade Center and Dulles accounted for 55 percent and 20 percent of the company's earned revenues, respectively. The World Trade Center and Dulles projects figured largely in both Securacom's growing revenues from 1995 to 1997 and its decreases from 1997 to 1998.

Stratesec continued to refer to "New York City's World Trade Center" as a former client through April 2001. It listed Dulles Airport and United Airlines as former clients through April 2002.

As with the World Trade Center - which also had electronic badging, security gates, and CCTV - the ultimate problem with Dulles' security controls was not the controls themselves, but that they could be sidestepped. All the hijackers had to do was buy a ticket. As former FAA special agent Sullivan comments, "If they [attackers] knew about the security system, they knew how to bypass it."

One obvious question for investigators is how much potential hijackers could have known about the security system.

From 1993 to 1999, KuwAm - the Kuwait-American Corporation -- held a large and often controlling interest in Securacom. In 1996, KuwAm Corporation owned 90 percent of the company, either directly or through partnerships like one called Special Situations Investment Holdings and another called "Fifth Floor Company for General Trading and Contracting." KuwAm owned 31 percent of Securacom in 1998 and 47 percent of Stratesec in 1999. It currently holds only about 205,000 shares of Stratesec; Walker, KuwAm's managing director, holds 650,000.

Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000. Throughout, he also served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee, and his stock holdings grew during the period. Directors had options to purchase 25,000 shares of stock annually. In 1996, Bush acquired 53,000 shares at 52 cents per share. Shares in the 1997 IPO sold at $8.50. Records since 2000 no longer list Bush as a shareholder.

Stratesec and KuwAm were and still are intertwined at the top. Walker, while a principal at Stratesec (a director since 1987, chairman of the board since 1992, and formerly CEO since 1999), was also on the board of directors at KuwAm and is still managing director (both since 1982). Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah, the chairman at KuwAm, also served on Stratesec's board from 1991 to 2001. Walker and Al Sabah had major stock holdings in each other's companies. The sons of both also held shares in the two companies.

Stratesec, which currently lists 45 employees, hired KuwAm for corporate secretarial services in 2002, at $2,500 per month.

For several years, Walker has also been chairman and CEO of an aircraft company, Aviation General, about 70 percent owned by KuwAm.

The Saudi Arabian embassy, the Kuwait embassy, and KuwAm have office suites in the Watergate complex, where both Stratesec and Aviation General held their annual shareholders' meetings in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Bush was reelected to his annual board position there, across the hall from a Saudi Arabian Airlines office. (This year, the companies' shareholders meetings switched to the fifth floor, in space also hleased by Saudis and Kuwaitis.)

Incidentally, Saudi Princess Haifa Al-Faisal had her checking account at Riggs Bank, which has a large branch in the Watergate. Given that Jonathan Bush, the president's uncle, is a Riggs executive, it is difficult to understand any obstacle for American authorities pursuing the recently reported "Saudi money trail." The princess's charitable activities were processed through Riggs, but attention focused on the Saudis seems not to extend to the politically-connected bank they used.

McDaniel was asked in a brief telephone interview whether FBI or other agents have questioned him or others at Stratesec about the company's security work in connection with 9/11. The concise answer: "No." Asked the same question regarding KuwAm, Walker declined further comment, and referred a reporter to the public record.

According to a spokesman in an FBI regional office, since October 2001, "the investigation [of 9/11] is being coordinated at the national level, directly from the White House." If so, you'd think that an administration that could seriously consider infiltrating American mosques would ask a few questions closer to home.

But the suggestion is inescapable that any investigation into security arrangements preceding 9/11, at some of the nation's most sensitive facilities, has been impeded to this day by narrowly political concerns in the White House.

Margie Burns is a Texas native who now writes from Washington, D.C. Email her at margie.burns@verizon.net.

Copyright 2003 Joe Shea The American Reporter.

Reprinted from The American Reporter:
http://www.american-reporter.com/2021/3.html





next :D
User avatar
Corporal xtratabasco
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:24 pm

Postby heavycola on Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:02 pm

xtratabasco wrote:Marvin P. Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush, was a principal in the company from 1993 to 2000

...

When, following the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey began its multi-million-dollar, multiyear revamping of security in and around the Twin Towers and Buildings 4 and 5, Securacom was among numerous contractors hired in the upgrade.

...


According to SEC filings, Securacom/Stratesec acquired the $8.3 million World Trade Center contract in October 1996. The project generated 28 percent of all revenues for the company in 1996. SEC filings indicate that revenues from the World Trade Center project commenced in 1996 at $1.6 million, peaked in 1997 at $6.6 million ($4.1 million in the first half), and diminished in 1998 to less than $1 million.




oh my god. You don#'t even read the shit you copy and paste?

Please read the quotes. Nothing in this contradicts what I said, although it does, again, prove you wrong.

Xtra, this must be starting to hurt.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby xtratabasco on Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:05 pm

not at all


It clearly says that Marvin Bush was voted the Board of Director with the company that did security for the WTC and airports on and before 911.


thus he had the oppertunity for bombs to be placed there.



Its just that simple.


but you disagree theres a problem with Marvin Bush being the board of directors for the security company that was supposed to protect the WTC on 911, and thats cool cuzz there thousands and thousands of problems with this governments story.
User avatar
Corporal xtratabasco
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:24 pm

Postby heavycola on Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:41 pm

xtratabasco wrote:not at all


It clearly says that Marvin Bush was voted the Board of Director with the company that did security for the WTC and airports on and before 911.


Not CEO, as you stated. And nowhere does it state that this company 'did security' for the WTC on 9/11. They were contractors and they finished worj there in 1998. As the SEC company filing that I have linked to shows.


I'm just that simple....


but you disagree theres a problem with Marvin Bush being the board of directors for the security company that was supposed to protect the WTC on 911, and thats cool cuzz there thousands and thousands of problems with this governments story.


'Supposed to protect the WTC on 9/11'? They left a contractor that had finished work 3 years previously in charge of security?

Stop doing this to yourself. It's getting sad.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users