Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Marvin Bush- The Truth!

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Marvin Bush- The Truth!




So above we have Alex Jones making a claim that has been made by a number of people in the “truther” camp, that Marvin Bush the brother of George Bush was the head of security for the World Trade Centre Complex right up until that day on 9/11.

And here it is again on Prison planet(link)


The often-overlooked Bush family member held a key security role during the apparent false flag attack on the United States-- he was on the board of directors for Stratasec, the security firm in charge of the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks.


And it is repeated in a number of 9/11 truther “documentaries” such a loose change.


This is one of the big coincidences that those in the truthers camp like to highlight, they quite rightly point out that if indeed Marvin Bush was head of security for WTC then he was in a prime place to have been one of the leading conspirators along with his older brother, the president, his father, former CIA director and president and all their cronies. They argue that this would have provided they would be conspirators a means to have access to the buildings to enable them to plant the bombs with greater ease and remove the sniffer dogs prior to 9/11 and so on.

Only problem is that’s based on a lie, a lie perpetuated by some prominent truthers because Marvin Bush was not head of security at the WTC nor was some guy called Wirlt Walker III working for Securacom (later Stratesec). The truth is that the man in charge of security on 9/11 was actually John O’Neil who was working for Larry Silverstein and started that job on August 23rd 2001 and other than that it was the Port Authority Police Department (PAPD) who had the responsibility of maintaining day to day security in the area around WTC.

According to one PAPD Officer


A little known fact was that we were always there. Since the Port Authority owned the buildings, we (the Police) were responsible for the public safety therein. We were there in 93' as well as on 9/11. We were in fact the first responders to this tragedy & in conjunction with the NYPD, FDNY, EMS & other Emergency Service Units actively participated in the greatest rescue effort this city had ever seen


So why do people then seem to have this bazaar belief that some company called Securacom has responsibility for WTC security and has Marvin Bush as over all head of security for WTC?

Its clear that PAPD had overall responsibility for security and Silverstein had hired John O’Neil as his head of security for the WTC complex.

Well it is true that Marvin Bush did indeed hold a senior role for a company called Securacom who had an open contract with PAPD to handle some security matters at WTC since 1996.

However....


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.


In other words, Marvin stepped down from his job over a year before the attacks of 9/11.

Which kind of debunks Alex Jones claims highlighted at the start of this thread, Securacom was not actually in charge of security, they just had a contract. Marvin Bush was not “in charge of security” at the WTC complex because at the time of the 9/11 attacks he wasn’t with Securacom anymore and John O’Neil was Larry’s new head of security.

So what about that claim that the contract ended on 9/11, they very day itself.

Well it ended because the buildings ended, Securacom had a Security contract for the WTC complex, but that was kind of voided with the destruction of the WTC complex.

Just thought i would expose another truthers lie...

Marvin Bush was not Head of Security for WTC on 9/11




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


S&F

I’m not sure this actually disproves his involvement. His own mother claims that Marvin and a cousin of his were both in NY at the time of the event. Marvin was conveniently underground in the subway at the time of the attacks and his cousin, Jim Pierce was supposed to be in a meeting in the south tower. Conveniently enough the venue for this meeting was changed the night before.


See excerpt from the book 'Reflections' by Barbara Bush

His involvement is still suspicious but thanks for the info!



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Well it is quite clear that he was not involved in the WTC security at the time of the attack, that is what i was trying to point out because there are many truthers who like to remind us that on 9/11 Bush's brother was in charge of security at WTC and the contract ended on that day. Such a claim is utter rubbish.

About him heading to a meeting, I don't really see the significance of that, that quote does not explicitly say the meeting he was going to was in the WTC complex, only that his cousins was. At that time of day there would have been loads of people on the subways heading to meetings.

Lots of people had narrow escapes that day.
edit on 23-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

Wirt is Bush's cousin......and you have only touched a teensy bit of this...get a book called "The other 19", by Kevin Roberts Ryan,...read it...then tell me Wirt Walker/all the Bushes aren't only "in on it"...they facilitated 911, and they and their cronies were made fabulously rich in the aftermath....



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by doryinaz
 


At best Wirt is a distant relative or suggested distant relative he is not Bush's cousin.

that is why i have not bothered to pay all that much attention to him and just glossed over him.

Besides this thread is more about debunking the idea that Marvin Bush was head of security at WTC as Alex Jones and others have claimed when he wasnt.

Even assuming that Wirt is a cousin of bush his position at Securacom did not make him in charge of security at WTC so its still a mute point.

and I am sorry if you find "truther" offensive but it is the term used in common usage to describe one who believes in a 9/11 conspiracy/false flag.

if you dont like that tough.

PS:




get a book called "The other 19", by Kevin Roberts Ryan,...read it...


emmm I think you mean Another nineteen, if your going to ask me to read a book at least get the name of the book right...
edit on 23-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 



Well it is quite clear that he was not involved in the WTC security at the time of the attack, that is what i was trying to point out because there are many truthers who like to remind us that on 9/11 Bush's brother was in charge of security at WTC and the contract ended on that day. Such a claim is utter rubbish.


True, but during his tenure at Securacom, they installed a new security system throughout the towers. Wirt Walker III, a cousin of Marvin, was CEO of Securacom until 2002. Was it really a security system they installed? There were unprecedented intentional power outages in the towers the weekend prior to the attack that were approved and scheduled by Port Authority. During that time there was no security (no locked doors, no cameras, no surveillance of any kind, etc).

I still question their involvement and believe they were at least complicit with the attack. Their involvement with Securacom and the towers is a little too suspicious to dismiss totally IMO.




About him heading to a meeting, I don't really see the significance of that, that quote does not explicitly say the meeting he was going to was in the WTC complex, only that his cousins was. At that time of day there would have been loads of people on the subways heading to meetings.


Lots of people had narrow escapes that day.
Very true. I have no details about Marvin’s exact whereabouts that day except what I provided earlier. A lot of people did narrowly escape and AJ's claim was inaccurate but don’t you find it odd that two prominent executives from Securacom (one current and one former) were in the vicinity yet out of harm’s way that day?

Regardless, there are MANY aspects to the day's events that don't add up. Marvin's involvement (or lack thereof) doesn't make or break the validity of the conspiracy theory surrounding 911.



edit on 23-7-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Yeah but good ol Marvin is ranked about
1049 out of the 1200 anomalies for 911.

That's why I stick with buildings and planes.
There is no getting around WTC 7 for example.

People who say the truther movement is dead,
are whistling past the graveyard. If the JFK conspiracy
is any indicator; Questions about 911 and the people
seeking truth will only grow in the coming years.
edit on 23-7-2013 by sealing because: grammmarr



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Wirt Walker is only a cousin of the Bush's in the world of 9/11 conspiracies but I don't think that really matters because i am really talking about Marvin who was not the "head of security" as some truthers have tried to claim.

If it wasnt a security system that they installed then what was it and do you have any details of what it was that they did instal.

To try to say well they used Securacom as a front so they could plant explosives in the building has no more wight to it than me saying "the tooth fairy puts coins under my pillow", unless you can actually prove that Securacom actually were up to no good.

Just saw your edit, and i want to make a point.

Me saying that Marvin was not actually head of security as some truther's would like to claim is in no way going to put asside the whole of the 9/11 conspiracy theory. I don't expect it to rather all i was expecting to do was just point out a small hole in some of their claims.
edit on 23-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
*cough cough*

Kroll


WTC and Sears Tower security[edit]

Kroll were responsible for revamping security at the World Trade Center after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. They also took on responsibility for security at Chicago's Sears Tower following the September 11, 2001 attacks. Just prior to the September 11 attacks, Kroll Inc., with the guidance of Jerome Hauer, at the time the Managing director of their Crisis and Consulting Management Group, hired former FBI special investigator John P. O'Neill, who specialized in the Al-Qaeda network held responsible for the 1993 bombing, to head the security at the WTC complex. O'Neill died in the attacks.


I never heard the Bush bit, even though he wasn't with the firm, "Securacom (later Stratesec)" as of 911 as you said. I always heard Kroll. Any comments on Kroll's part in the (lapses) of security?
edit on 23/7/2013 by Trexter Ziam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 



Just saw your edit, and i want to make a point.

Me saying that Marvin was not actually head of security as some truther's would like to claim is in no way going to put asside the whole of the 9/11 conspiracy theory. I don't expect it to rather all i was expecting to do was just point out a small hole in some of their claims.


My edit was adding the part about Alex Jones being wrong but anyway….

I’m glad you feel better for poking a small hole one 9/11 claim. I take it from your attempt to debunk the conspiracy and your use of the term “truther” that you believe the official story? I’m honestly curious…this isn’t a forum I post in so I’ve never heard your take (or anyone else’s) on the issue.

I know there many aspects that have been debunked but the pieces still don't fit the official story. The truth lies somewhere in the middle I'm sure. I'm kind of exploring the Bush/bin Laden connection lately. There is a lot I/we don't know and will likely never know about all of the behind-the-scenes crap that's gone on.




edit on 23-7-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Trexter Ziam
 


That is very interesting, after '93 the Port Authority did hire a number of firms to beef up security.

As for John O'Neil however if you read the book i have linked to in the OP (which is almost a biography of his life in the FBI) the story is that it was Larry himself who gave O'Neil the job as head of security at WTC although it is entirly possible this was through Kroll

still a interesting link however, I would not be surprised if the firm you mention did indeed have a large hand in WTC security.

I would say though that the lapses in security were not with the people on inside WTC but rather those in the intelligence communities and airline industry.
edit on 23-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I actually used to be a truther up until about 2005ish...

I actually changed my views when i became interested in Al-Qa'ida and Bin Laden and started to realise how much sense 9/11 actually made when you put it in the contest of a much bigger picture.

For me, now I am pretty much convinced that 9/11 happened as they say it did however i do think that there is a need to look closer at the connection between some prominent members of the Saudi establishment and their funding of Al-Qa'ida.



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by seabag
 


I actually used to be a truther up until about 2005ish...

I actually changed my views when i became interested in Al-Qa'ida and Bin Laden and started to realise how much sense 9/11 actually made when you put it in the contest of a much bigger picture.

Good for you ,you "find" the truth.
One question for you. Why are you still coming on 9/11 conspiracy forums and open new threads when you finally discover the truth?

Our chidlren and grandchildren will laugh at as how we accepted this silly official theory which have more holes than swiss cheese .
edit on 23-7-2013 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by seabag
 


I actually used to be a truther up until about 2005ish...

I actually changed my views when i became interested in Al-Qa'ida and Bin Laden and started to realise how much sense 9/11 actually made when you put it in the contest of a much bigger picture.

For me, now I am pretty much convinced that 9/11 happened as they say it did however i do think that there is a need to look closer at the connection between some prominent members of the Saudi establishment and their funding of Al-Qa'ida.



Are you like in your late middle ages?

Even in my early middle ages, I didn't even awaken to conspiracy theories until the summer of 2008. You must be a very well rounded and silver haired individual to say that you were deep into conspiracies far before 2005.

Sure, we all had heard about Roswell, JFK, the Moon Hoax, and maybe once or twice the idea of the New World Order. Come on, how well versed can you possibly have been in early 2000's?

I also believe in your theory. Tim Osman was so pissed off the US CIA took him off the payroll, he decided to attack.
(NOT)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Surely, you guys can come up with something more interesting than this.


Yesterday it was the Bush family planning operation Barbarossa with the Fuhrer, Jodl and the General staff today it's President Bush's little brother pushing the plunger that set off the TNT.

And no, the elder Bush was not in Dallas November 22nd 1963. He was in Maine recovering from minor surgery.

Larry Silverstein, president of Silverstein properties, which had just taken over the management of the World Trade Center offered John O'Neill the position of chief of security.

You guys can trash, accuse, spread innuendo-in the absence of any real facts-however you are NOT going to be allowed to put John O'Neill in any of your insipid garbage.

The man had his faults but he is still a true American Hero and he is going to be remember that way.

Get used to it.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 


What exactly is the point you're trying to make? I don't think anyone here has ever accused John O'neill of being "in on it" .

E.T.A. This



You guys can trash, accuse, spread innuendo-in the absence of any real facts


is pretty much what you just did with that comment.
edit on 24-7-2013 by Flatcoat because: ¿porque?



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by sticky
 





Are you like in your late middle ages?


What does my age have to do with anything?

9/11 truthers have this really annoying habit of moving on to making personal jibes at whoever seems to challenge their views when they cant actually “debunk the debunker", in this case it is questions about my age



Even in my early middle ages, I didn't even awaken to conspiracy theories until the summer of 2008.


So what a 16 year old kid couldnt have been into conspiracy theories in 2005, why is it such a shock that i was looking into conspiracies before you?




You must be a very well rounded and silver haired individual to say that you were deep into conspiracies far before 2005.


Well I am almost bald, and have been for years, and besides “9/11 truth” has been about since the day the towers fell, Alex Jones was raving about it as were others.

The first Version of lose change was released in 2005 and I quite clearly remember a school friend giving me a copy he had and sitting about watching it and re-watching it. 9/11 Truth was a big deal even in 2005.



Come on, how well versed can you possibly have been in early 2000's?


Very well versed, most stuff the 9/11 truth movement is actually pretty dated just reused, just because you knew nothing about it in 2005 doesn't mean the rest of us were the same.
edit on 24-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Another one of those threads defending Bush or more rather Bush family wasn't involved i would assume?
edit on 29-7-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Him being head of security of the WTC would only be relevant if WTC 1 and 2 were brought down with explosives. I do not think you have to look that far to see what is going on. I find it far more interesting to see that money which originated from the US was run through the ISI to alquaeda not just immediately prior to 911, but before and after and that the Bush administration was in heavy correspondence with the ISI of all foreign services around the world.

Squabbling about how the towers came down is just a huge distraction, especially considering that on here usually neither side of the argument has the appropriate education. If you feel it might have been a controlled demolition, it does not have to be conclusive, its sufficient if you think it was and it gets you to dig deeper, no need to try to convince others if it was and if you dig deeper, the technicalities on how it was executed wont be as important in the big picture.

Its more important to look at the players involved, who directed them, who supported and trained them and what intermediaries were used? Thats more conclusive and carries more weight than figuring out how the towers came down exactly, after all if you believe explosives were planted who is to say it werent the henchmen of Alquaeda who did it?
edit on 31-7-2013 by Merinda because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join