"The Reflecting Pool", controversial and highly anticipated 9/11 film finally on GoogleVideo!

reply to post by impressme


Securacom, installed security systems (and at that were released from their contract because they were not going to be able to finish the job on their own), they didnt provide security for the complex. In addition, Marvin Bush left the company in 2000.....before his brother was even nominated for President (for those of you in the "Bush Crime Family sect". In normal operations, the Board of Directors do not conduct day to day decision making for the companies they sit on the boards of.

So, any story saying Marvin Bush ran security..or that his company ran security...or that he was on the board of a company that ran security at the WTC is a lie.

reply to post by tezzajw


And if they cannot make through the synopsis without such a blatant falsehood, why should I waste my time on a movie that is most likely filled with more falsehoods?

I mean, if I want to watch some good fiction, I will pop in one of Obama's speeches.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x

 

And you fall prey to another lie. Wirt Walker, is NOT related to the Bush family. If you do a little bit more research on Ms. Burns you will see that she was wrong.

I only have your word for that. Furthermore, I think I should point out that unlike me, Ms. Burns was clear as to her source for that information. From the same article as before:

Stratesec and Aviation General shared top executives, including Wirt D. Walker III, a distant relative "in the Walker branch of the Bush family," according to a former colleague [emphasis mine], and Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah of the Kuwaiti ruling family. Walker and Al Sabah also headed KuwAm, the backer of Stratesec and Aviation General.

I will acknowledge that perhaps the colleague Ms. Burns spoke to was mistaken, but I'd still like to see your evidence that he's not related. Regardless, it's clear that he's definitely intimately involved in companies with which the Bush family was closely involved in.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by impressme

 

Securacom, installed security systems (and at that were released from their contract because they were not going to be able to finish the job on their own),

There is controversy on this point. Margie Burns first wrote that they had a contract up until the towers came down, while later she said that they did indeed stop before. I think that further investigation is necessary in order to ascertain what truly happened. Then, ofcourse, there is also the many 'jewish art students', the same type as the ones caught with enough explosives to take down a bridge but then released, who were there, apparently illegaly, and yet very well trained to escape detection of their being their illegally. This was all mentioned in another thread...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
they didnt provide security for the complex.

Last I checked, a company that installs security systems to a complex is providing security to that complex. I think you're focusing solely on manpower, which is only one aspect of security. Securacom was clearly given a lot of access to the complex, as I go into later in this post. I'd wager that between them and the "art students", plus the power down the weekend before 9/11 to fit in the detonators or what not, they were able to rig those buildings up to go off the way they did.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
In addition, Marvin Bush left the company in 2000.....before his brother was even nominated for President

Yes, I know, he left in 2000. However, remember who owned a significant amount of shares of Securacom/Stratesec: Kuwam. From Margie Burns' article Family Business at the Watergate:

In 1996, KuwAm owned 90 percent of Securacom, directly or through partnerships with names like "Special Situations Investment Holdings" and "Fifth Floor Company for General Trading and Contracting." KuwAm owned 31 percent of Securacom in 1998 and 47 percent of Stratesec in 1999.

Margie Burns makes no mention of what it owned in 2000, or 2001. I find it interesting that Stratesec went bankrupt in 2002, however; if one considers the possibility that its main use was to pull off various aspects of 9/11, it stands to reason that it would have outllived its usefulness after that date. From the same article:

Stratesec, which was de-listed on the American Stock Exchange in the fall of 2002 and went bankrupt,...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
(for those of you in the "Bush Crime Family sect". In normal operations, the Board of Directors do not conduct day to day decision making for the companies they sit on the boards of.

Perhaps that's true, but it doesn't apply in this case. Once more from the aforementioned article:

The boards and shareholders of the three companies—the investment firm KuwAm, the security company Stratesec, and the aircraft company Aviation General—were tightly connected. Walker, a director at all three companies, was at various times CEO and chairman of the board at Stratesec while at the same time managing director at KuwAm, including when Stratesec hired KuwAm for corporate secretarial services at $2,500 a month.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So, any story saying Marvin Bush ran security..or that his company ran security... or that he was on the board of a company that ran security at the WTC is a lie.

As to Marvin Bush's precise role, it's rather hard to tell, considering the fact that he wasn't exactly one to follow rules on reporting his activities in the companies. Again, from the aforementioned article:

ENLARGING MARVIN—Among his other business interests, Marvin Bush also served on the board of directors of HCC Insurance (formerly Houston Casualty Company), one of the main insurance carriers for the World Trade Center. Thus Bush, paradoxically, was connected to two companies with a significant interest in security at the trade center. In spring 1999, Bush was simultaneously a nominee for the boards of both Stratesec and HCC Insurance.

Bush's directorship at Stratesec was not included on the proxy statement for HCC that year, and his connections with HCC were not included on the proxy statement for Stratesec. SEC regulations require directors and officers of public companies to list their other directorships and business connections. In addition to Bush's violations of the SEC regulations in these instances, his directorship at Fresh Del Monte, where he and a longtime friend who brought him into HCC were also on the Audit and Compensation committees, was also omitted in the Stratesec proxy filing.

Bush's HCC proxy information did disclose his positions at his own firm, Andrews-Bush, and at Fresh Del Monte, but in addition to not disclosing his Stratesec connection, he omitted yet another association, with Kerrco, an oil company in Houston.

As to Securacom/Stratesec as a whole, I believe it's clear from Margie Burns' article that they were intimately connected to WTC security. Quoting:

According to Jeff Gallup, a former Stratesec manager who left the company for a position at Landtek, Inc., Stratesec installed the initial security-description plan—the layout of the electronic security system—at the World Trade Center. Gallup knows the WTC site well, since Landtek, like EJ Electric, was a prime contractor at the trade center. He was "intimately involved" with WTC security, he said in a phone interview last year, up to September 12, 2001, when "the F.B.I. left my office with all the contents of the WTC visitors database," by then three-quarters of a million visitors' badges. It is regrettable that the F.B.I. has not been equipped with an adequate computer system to analyze this information.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

So, any story saying Marvin Bush ran security..or that his company ran security...or that he was on the board of a company that ran security at the WTC is a lie.

Wrong.

Stratasec had contracts to provide security for United Airlines, Dulles International Airport (the airport from which American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, took off), and the World Trade Center in New York up to 10 September 2001, just before the September 11, 2001 attacks.[2]

www.statemaster.com...

Published on Tuesday, February 4, 2003 by the Prince George's Journal (Maryland)

Bush-Linked Company Handled Security for the WTC, Dulles and United
by Margie Burns


George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.
The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."
It also had a three-year contract to maintain electronic security systems at Dulles Airport, according to a Dulles contracting official. Securacom/Stratesec also handled some security for United Airlines in the 1990s, according to McDaniel, but it had been completed before his arriving on the board in 1998.
McDaniel confirmed that the company has security contracts with the Department of Defense, including the U.S. Army, but did not detail the nature of the work, citing security concerns. It has an ongoing line with the General Services Administration - meaning that its bids for contracts are noncompetitive - and also did security work for the Los Alamos laboratory before 1998.

www.commondreams.org...

reply to post by scott3x

plus the power down the weekend before 9/11 to fit in the detonators or what not, they were able to rig those buildings up to go off the way they did.

You mean the power down that only affected a few floors in ONE tower that lasted less than a day? I truly wish someone would find this crew of Supermen that can wire three buildings for demolition from a couple of floors in less than a day. I am sure that would be a fat finders fee from a demolition company....

reply to post by impressme

Wrong

I know from past experience that it is useless to point out facts to you...and yet for some reason I am going to try again....

The PAPD, and the department headed by John O'Neill took care of security at the WTC complex. NOT a company that installs security systems.

Then there is this little blurb about what Securacom was working on at the WTC (dated 1997)....

The lobby access control system will include Perey turnstiles. New, Motorola Indala proximity cards will be issued, which will be read by Motorola Indala readers when the holder places them just above the turnstiles. Visitors will be issued plastic photo ID cards with magnetic stripes that they will swipe through readers. The contractors for the permanent security system are E.J. Electric and Electronic Systems Associates, both of New York. Securacom, Woodcliff Lakes, N.J., is responsible for system integration.

securitysolutions.com...

reply to post by scott3x

I will acknowledge that perhaps the colleague Ms. Burns spoke to was mistaken, but I'd still like to see your evidence that he's not related.

Umm, no, its up to you to provide proof they are related. I will post this however....

Walker is the great-grandnephew of his namesake Wirt D. Walker (1860-1899), a successful railroad entrepreneur and philanthropist from Chicago who became blind and helped found the Art Institute of Chicago. They are descended from James M. Walker of New Hampshire. Although frequently cited as a cousin of Marvin Bush, who is a descendant of George Herbert Walker of St. Louis, there is no proven connection between the families.

en.allexperts.com...

Of course if you want to, you can look for a genealogy site and do some research on the Bush family....going back to the 1700s, I have yet to find a common ancestor between the two.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

I know from past experience that it is useless to point out facts to you...and yet for some reason I am going to try again....

wrong! And wrong again.

I can't wait to see to watch this video....I haven't heard anything about it until now. I am new to the board and joined because I have a question to ask that is really bugging me and no one has seemed to mention it at all as far as I can tell on the 9/11 sites. I firmly believe that the quilty parties in the murders of so many thousands that day and since were elected and non elected officials within our own border. I do not need to name names....I cannot judge them either. That is for the Lord to handle when that time comes.

However, away from all of this, I was watching the video that was released in 2006 dealing with the alleged 757 that hit the pentagon, the site is

www.youtube.com...

for any that is interested in what I'm about to ask. At 0:26 second the "plane/missle" enters the field of view and hits the pentagon. 8 seconds later there is a huge blast that washes all color out of the scene from the camera except for the orange/yellow of the blast. However if you go to

www.youtube.com...
(which is the first video dealing with the new release in 2006)....the "plane" enters at 1:27 seconds and hits the pentagon at 1:27. If you pause the screen on 1:27, you notice that the "bright flash" on this video occurs right before the large explosion and not 8 seconds later. So how were there 2 explosions on the first site mentioned in this post and only 1 in the last one? Also it is harder to see on the second video but if you watch the first video I have referenced, exactly 1 minute after the explosion occurs, at 1:26, if you look to the left of the screen, a white or silver car appears through what looks to be a dust shadow or cloud at the side of the building. It turns the corner, left, and heads down the side of the pentagon toward the crash site where it then turns right and speeds off away from the pentagon. When I first saw this I saw it on the second video but only as it came from the crash site...I thought maybe it was debris. But when I watched for it on the first video and started going back one frame at a time, I realized that it was a car and could follow it all the way to the side of the building...

My question is who would have had time to get into their car, exit through a hole that was not there maybe earlier upon arrival and speed across the lawn away from where your colleges were possible hurt and dying unless you knew that the edited version that would be released for viewing would hide the getaway, in which it almost did..... looking back at the video now it is clear that the gray area covering the portion closest to us of the pentagon has been overlayed with a dark smoky image. And if you watch the 2nd video closely from 1:25 on, you will see that in the distance on the other side of the pentagon, there is no shadow on the lawn before the crash and a shadow that looks like the middle railing in the video from that point on. So was it a plane? I don't care because these two facts alone are irrefutable evidence of a major cover up, as we all know there was. If we find out who was driving that car exactly one minute after the explosion, OR talk to the guy that started to walk across in front of the camera at 0:53 seconds (on the first video) and then vanishes only to reappear at 1:43 seconds as if nothing is happening . He's not in a panic, not running to try and help, in fact it almost appears as if he realizes something amiss only after he comes back into view the second time. And then, why is it that to the far left of the screen and almost exactly half the way up, does the sunny area on the ground and the shadowed part of the ground not match? But when the van shows up at 2:50, he pulls forward, stops and gets out, parking directly on top of these 2 areas....and where is the detail on the plane like the tower planes that were so far away? We SHOULD have an even better view from of details..

omigoodness.....the "why"s.....there are so many......and what really throws my over worked mind into a dizzying spin is how so few are able to lable so many of us as ignorant and looking for a conspiracy so we are crazy and creating them when the evidence is so damning sometimes it seems????? But I know for the most part we all are stuck on the answer to that one.................

"Mind controlling the public" by the government in all of its media filled glory

Originally posted by scott3x
there is also the many 'jewish art students', the same type as the ones caught with enough explosives to take down a bridge but then released, who were there, apparently illegaly, and yet very well trained to escape detection of their being their illegally.

Stop right there. There is nothing resembling a fact here.

In the confusion and hysteria immediately following the 9/11 attacks there were many false reports from authorities and the media. Some Israelis were stopped driving a van by the George Washington Bridge. Anxious police arrested them. They were held for weeks then released. In fact they have launched a law suit against the Department of Justice in the United States District Court in New York.

www.kokhavivpublications.com...

Police tried to give an explanation their sniffer dogs acted 'odd' in the back of the van. But nothing was found. There were no explosive materials, no devices or anything remotely connected with explosives found on them or their premises - or of any Israelis for that matter.

Yet 8 years later this and numerous fabricated stories, instead of being dropped when proven erroneous, are repeated endlessly, become embellished and absorbed into the 9/11 conspiracy mythology.

Malicious fabrications and outright lies are primary components of the so-called Truth Movement. It has degenerated to pure folklore with an inability to separate fact from fiction. Youtube is the delivery medium.

M


[edit on 19-10-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
they didnt provide security for the complex.

Last I checked, a company that installs security systems to a complex is providing security to that complex. I think you're focusing solely on manpower, which is only one aspect of security. Securacom was clearly given a lot of access to the complex, as I go into later in this post. I'd wager that between them and the "art students", plus the power down the weekend before 9/11 to fit in the detonators or what not, they were able to rig those buildings up to go off the way they did.

You mean the power down that only affected a few floors in ONE tower that lasted less than a day? I truly wish someone would find this crew of Supermen that can wire three buildings for demolition from a couple of floors in less than a day. I am sure that would be a fat finders fee from a demolition company....

1- Do you now concede that a company that installs security systems in a complex is, in fact, providing security to the complex?

2- The power down was only one part; the quote of mine you put up, which started with "plus", truncated what I said. The preceding part was relevant as well, as can clearly be seen from the full quote I've used above; I will highlight the point: there were also the 14 "art students", that were apparently in the building for a full month. And as I've mentioned before, Securacom was there for several years.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by scott3x
I will acknowledge that perhaps the colleague Ms. Burns spoke to was mistaken, but I'd still like to see your evidence that he's not related.

Umm, no, its up to you to provide proof they are related.

You claimed they weren't related. As such, it falls upon you to provide the evidence for your claim, which you apparently allude to further below; I'll get into that below as well. As to my own claim, I have already stated the source for my information: Margie Burns. She, in turn, has stated her source for the information.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I will post this however....

Walker is the great-grandnephew of his namesake Wirt D. Walker (1860-1899), a successful railroad entrepreneur and philanthropist from Chicago who became blind and helped found the Art Institute of Chicago. They are descended from James M. Walker of New Hampshire. Although frequently cited as a cousin of Marvin Bush, who is a descendant of George Herbert Walker of St. Louis, there is no proven connection between the families.

en.allexperts.com...

First, you say there is no relation. No you say there is no -proof- of a relation. Do you even realize that you've modified your initial statement?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Of course if you want to, you can look for a genealogy site and do some research on the Bush family....going back to the 1700s, I have yet to find a common ancestor between the two.

Thank you; you may have found some good evidence here. Can you link to the genealogy site you used?

reply to post by mmiichael

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
there is also the many 'jewish art students', the same type as the ones caught with enough explosives to take down a bridge but then released, who were there, apparently illegaly, and yet very well trained to escape detection of their being their illegally.

Stop right there. There is nothing resembling a fact here.

There are many facts alluded to there. There was a -book- written about these art students in the World Trade Center. Have you read it? I haven't yet, but I'd like to. As to the alleged "art students" who were found with explosives and such, some were confirmed to be Mossad agents.

Originally posted by mmiichael
In the confusion and hysteria immediately following the 9/11 attacks there were many false reports from authorities and the media.

Indeed. I think the problem here is that you believe many of those false reports :-p.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Some Israelis were stopped driving a van by the George Washington Bridge. Anxious police arrested them. They were held for weeks then released. In fact they have launched a law suit against the Department of Justice in the United States District Court in New York.

www.kokhavivpublications.com...

Alright, perhaps they were not treated according to the Geneva Conventions and I agree that if that was the case, it was wrong. But that doesn't mean they weren't guilty of being part of the 9/11 conspiracy.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Police tried to give an explanation their sniffer dogs acted 'odd' in the back of the van. But nothing was found. There were no explosive materials, no devices or anything remotely connected with explosives found on them or their premises - or of any Israelis for that matter.

Yet 8 years later this and numerous fabricated stories, instead of being dropped when proven erroneous, are repeated endlessly, become embellished and absorbed into the 9/11 conspiracy mythology.

I haven't seen you show any evidence that any of the stories mentioned in the article I cited were erroneous.

Originally posted by scott3x
I haven't seen you show any evidence that any of the stories mentioned in the article I cited were erroneous.

Your exact words

there is also the many 'jewish art students', the same type as the ones caught with enough explosives to take down a bridge but then released

I replied accordingly.

You made an outrageous claim about people caught in the act of perpetrating a criminal offense. Attempting to implement destruction of a public thoroughfare and mass murder. But you have provided no itemization, quantification, description of any explosive materials or devices. No named credible source. Just gross distortions and disinformation of an unwarranted detainment in 2001 resulting from a police error on 9/11.

So tell us please where are those "enough explosives to take down a bridge"? There's no report or record of them anywhere.


M



[edit on 19-10-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by scott3x

You claimed they weren't related. As such, it falls upon you to provide the evidence for your claim, which you apparently allude to further below; I'll get into that below as well. As to my own claim, I have already stated the source for my information: Margie Burns. She, in turn, has stated her source for the information

No, thats not how it works. Margie Burns posted a lie on the internet and you are accepting the lie as the truth. It is up to YOU to provide proof. "Some guy I work with told me..." isnt a source.

reply to post by mmiichael

Originally posted by mmiichael
So tell us please where are those "enough explosives to take down a bridge"? There's no report or record of them anywhere.

There is, and I've seen it; but it's -not- what Margie Burns talked about. You quoted me, not Margie Burns.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by scott3x
You claimed they weren't related. As such, it falls upon you to provide the evidence for your claim, which you apparently allude to further below; I'll get into that below as well. As to my own claim, I have already stated the source for my information: Margie Burns. She, in turn, has stated her source for the information

No, thats not how it works. Margie Burns posted a lie on the internet

You haven't provided any evidence that she has ever lied. If you have evidence that she lied, present it. If not, you should retract your statement.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by mmiichael
So tell us please where are those "enough explosives to take down a bridge"? There's no report or record of them anywhere.

There is, and I've seen it

Well please do tell us where you've seen it. No police force or any independent journalists, investigators (reliable ones) have come across these explosives that could take down a bridge. Thousands have looked for suspicious activities on 9/11 in the last 8 years. This would be highly significant, if it were true.

Are you sure this isn't just another of those invented stories you see on those disinfo websites and Youtube?


M