Thursday, May 18, 2006

Columnist Praises Loose Change, Repeats Lies

Here's a review of Loose Change by a columnist in Salem, Oregon. Tim King repeats many of the debunked charges raised by Dylan Avery:

One interesting, little known fact is that the person behind the security of the World Tade Towers was Marvin Bush, brother of President George W. Bush. According to Wikepedia, he was a board member of the organization, Securacom/Stratesec, which was in charge of security at the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport, and United Airlines during a two year contract which was set to end on September 10th, 2001, only a day before the 9/11 attacks. Coincidence?

No, falsehood. First, even Loose Change admits that Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of that firm from 1993 to fiscal 2000, which means that he left the board in June 2000, as even some of the arguably responsible conspiracy websites note. Second, the allegation that the contract was set to expire on September 10, 2001 is based solely on the comment by the company's CEO that they were in charge of security right up until the towers fell. Which does not mean that their contract was due to expire, it simply means that the contract was cancelled. There is a claim at Wikipedia to the effect that Barbara Bush's book Reflections backs up the statement about the contract expiring the day before the attacks; as we have discussed this appears to be a piece of disinformation.

So in essence, the claim that Marvin Bush "was behind" security at the WTC on September 11th is somewhat similar to a claim that Bill Clinton was in charge of delivering mail to the Pentagon on that day. Bill had previously had some oversight authority on the people who delivered the mail, but he'd left that position well before the day of the attack.

Here's an article from 2002 from an obviously hyperventilating reporter that nevertheless confirms that Marvin Bush was out of the company after June of 2000:

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.

As for the magical contract ending on September 10, 2001:

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."

And get this:

The program’s creators base their theory on the actual temperature reached by consistently burning jet fuel, which is similar in nature to kerosene. According to the figures offered, it would take a consistent temperature of 3,000 degrees farenheit to melt steel, and kerosene only burns at 2,000 degrees, not to mention that much of the jet fuel aboard the planes disbursed upon impact. Steel engineers and jet fuel experts should be consulted to test the documentary’s claims, as the information should have few variables.

Yeah maybe somebody should consider consulting some steel engineers. Or physics professors, water testers and theology PHDs, if you can't get the steel engineers to go along with the conspiracy theory.

27 Comments:

At 18 May, 2006 19:17, Blogger nes718 said...

One interesting, little known fact is that the person behind the security of the World Tade Towers was Marvin Bush, brother of President George W. Bush. According to Wikepedia, he was a board member of the organization, Securacom/Stratesec, which was in charge of security at the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport, and United Airlines during a two year contract which was set to end on September 10th, 2001, only a day before the 9/11 attacks. Coincidence?

I proved this correct on the 911 Smasher site. Marvin did have direct connections with Stratesec who was on contract to conduct security operations on the WTC up until the day the buildings collapsed as per Barry McDaniel.

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."

Source

 
At 18 May, 2006 19:23, Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 18 May, 2006 19:25, Blogger Unknown said...

Pat,

You know what this all is coming down to, don't you. I know you are getting attention for being a hero by some for knocking down what you call CT, and I call "the truth". The truth is that the FEMA had no explanation for WTC 7. They still have no explanation. The 9/11 Commission has no explanation. NIST has no explanation. It's like the cat that swallowed the Canary.

No amount of charging the Marvin Bush wasn't on the board of Securacom past 2000 changes a smidgeon of the reality that the official explanation of what happened to the Towers on 9/11 have been clever lies.

I don't wish ill on you or anyone who wasn't part of this crime. There's an opportunity for you to be a better American, and not to fall for the easy role of fool that you are falling for. You owe more to yourself, and more to your fellow citizens than to purvey this "head in the sand, the Muslims did it and that means all this War is necessary" hooey.

 
At 18 May, 2006 19:57, Blogger Alex said...

The thing is, nobody except the whacky left fringe actually CARES about WTC7. Nobody died in that building. No airplanes crashed into it. It's irrelevant. I couldn't care less if the underwear gnomes teamed up with the umpa-lumpas to knock it over using candy-canes. It's not worth the time to research, let alone to argue about.

You're just jumping topics again. You've run out of ways to try and prove that the twin towers must have been demolished by Bush's grandfather in association with the newly re-incarnated Hitler; therefore it's now time to start talking about something totaly different in the hope that you can sidetrack the discussion again.

 
At 18 May, 2006 20:06, Blogger Chad said...

BG, stay on topic. This thread is about Marvin Bush, not WTC 7.

But since you brought it up, I've read a lot of quotes from firefighters who were working the scene that day (not credible eyewitnesses of course) who saw the state of WTC 7 and were not at all suprised it collapsed.

(Part of the reason they ordered the area evacuated I'm guessing.)

 
At 18 May, 2006 20:21, Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 18 May, 2006 22:13, Blogger shawn said...

Although WTC7 sustained significant damage and most thinking people weren't surprised by its collapse, it wouldn't have mattered had it been purposely demolished. The theorists seem to think that if it was demolished, then the rest of their government-backed conspiracy magically comes true. WTC7 is a non-issue.

LOGIC, people, LOGIC. Learn it, love it, live it.

 
At 18 May, 2006 23:58, Blogger nes718 said...

WTC 7 is NOT irrelevant! It proves controlled demolition. If it happened there, then the Towers were rigged the same way since they fell the same way.

 
At 19 May, 2006 00:07, Blogger James B. said...

they fell the same way.


Gravity is funny that way.

Gravity, it is not just a good idea, it is the law.

 
At 19 May, 2006 00:10, Blogger nes718 said...

Although WTC7 sustained significant damage and most thinking people weren't surprised by its collapse, it wouldn't have mattered had it been purposely demolished. The theorists seem to think that if it was demolished, then the rest of their government-backed conspiracy magically comes true. WTC7 is a non-issue.

LOGIC, people, LOGIC. Learn it, love it, live it.


Seems like you're preaching illogic there. WTC 6 had a tower fall on it! It did not collapse. WTC 7 was a block away and no significant debris from the tower fell on it yet it totally collapsed. That smacks of illogic unless of course controlled demolition is involved.

 
At 19 May, 2006 00:11, Blogger nes718 said...

Gravity is funny that way.

Gravity, it is not just a good idea, it is the law.


Especially if it's helped by controlled demolition. In fact CT depend on it :D

 
At 19 May, 2006 00:18, Blogger Pat said...

In fairness to the CTs, their point is that the building could not have been demoed in that short a period of time, which appears to be correct from everything I know. But you're right, there is abundant evidence that the building was unstable, and the firemen were "pulled" from the building.

 
At 19 May, 2006 00:35, Blogger nes718 said...

The building 7 was unstable but why? Building 6 had a crater where the tower fell right on it yet; it didn't collapse and had to be "pulled" later on.

Here's a pic:

http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/imgs/gz_aerial_wtc6.jpg

 
At 19 May, 2006 00:43, Blogger nes718 said...

LOL! Look how far building 7 was from the rest:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/site-plan.jpg

 
At 19 May, 2006 00:45, Blogger nes718 said...

Look at the damage on Banker's Trust (it did not collapse!):

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-6-1.jpg

 
At 19 May, 2006 01:39, Blogger nes718 said...

Copy the above links and paste in a separate browser window as they have .jpg url's redirected to a anti-leech page.

 
At 19 May, 2006 05:48, Blogger Unknown said...

Nesnyc,

Trying to talk sense about building 7 to these people is futile.

I respect that James B. and Pat will show some integrity, but the rest, as far as I can tell, aren't even willing to conduct a fair discussion.

I'v got a web page that shows the penthouse of wtc7 being hit with demo charges about 5 seconds before the rest of the building. These people don't care.

No "truth about 9/11" debunking site can begin to show any integrity in their content if they aren't willing to deal honestly with wtc7. It's a glaring flaw in the overall presentation here.

 
At 19 May, 2006 06:42, Blogger caguile said...

The fact that Marvin Bush was on the board of Securacom/Stratasec until June 2000 proves what exactly? What are you alleging? Tell me what he did. Tell me why he did it. Tell me how he came to be in on the plot.

I'm willing to consider an alternate theory, but you're going to have to flesh it out a little.

Throw me a frikkin' bone here.

Who did it?
How did they do it?
How long did it take to plan it?
Did this administration do it or did it just execute a plan developed over many administrations?
How many people are in on it?
Why hasn't anyone revealed what they know?
What motivation do the opponents of this administration have, to not expose it and put W's head in the noose?
What purpose did a "controlled demolition" serve that couldn't have been achieved by simpler, easier to carry out, means?
Why did firefighters at the scene, think that WTC7 was unstable, and why did they pull their crews out?
What is the minimum number of conspirators, that could have pulled this off, and how many more have been added to prevent the secrets from coming out?

 
At 19 May, 2006 06:50, Blogger Alex said...

Let me spell that out for you just in case you misunderstood it the first time:

I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T

Nobody gives a flying fuck about building 7. Yes, if you want to demolish a building properly, you take your time wiring it. On the other hand, if you're in a hurry you could do it inside of two hours at most. It's yet another case of CT'er making fallacious arguments, just like when they say that the plane which hit the pentagon must have been a military plane because civilian planes don't fly that way. What they fail to mention in that case is that civilian planes don't fly that way because they want to keep the passengers comfortable, not because they're not capable of flying that way. And in THIS case, what you asshats fail to mention is that a building takes a long time to demolish because of safety regulations and the necessary documentation (which tend to be ignored in emergencies), and NOT because it's not possible to do it faster. Give me a building, 50lbs of C4, and a couple hundred feet of det-cord, and I'll give you a smoldering pile of rubble an hour later.

So even assuming your CT is correct (which I don't for a minute actually believe, but let's play pretend), the building could have been wired up after the attacks. Therefore, even if you prove it was a controlled demolition, what have you actually shown? Dick all. Nobody died in WTC7. It was properly evacuated before it collapsed. Once again, there's a huge difference between demolishing a building, and demolishing two buildings which still contain something like 3,000 people. So do us all a favour and skip the WTC7 conspiracy. This is certainly the last time I plan on discussing that particular load of crap, and I have a feeling most of the commenters here feel the same way. Either discuss the relevant events of 9/11, or go fist yourself.

And, non-sync, I'm still waiting for those pictures of the demolition charges. Think you could post them soon?

 
At 19 May, 2006 07:22, Blogger undense said...

So playing along as well, and assuming the building was previously or subsequently wired with det cord, how did the building burn for about 6 hours without burning through or otherwise causing problems with the det cord in order to ensure a proper detonation?

Besides that, during regular controlled detonations, the structural framework of a building is weakened strategically in order to ensure a controlled and complete collapse. Where and when was that performed in the process?

 
At 19 May, 2006 08:30, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Idiots,

I walked past WTC7 in the early afternoon. Around 1 or 2pm. A couple of hours after the towers went down and several hours before it collapsed.

When I SAW it with my own eyes, It was leaning over and burning out of control with at least 5 stories of debris slammed into its lower floors.

EVERYONE who saw it knew it was going to collapse. EVERYONE. It was leaning over for fuck sake! We all were saying that building was going to come down. It didn't take a genius or a structural engineer to see that a building that has been hit with tons of falling and burinig shit, is on fire, and is leaning over ominously IS GOING TO FUCKING FALL!

You CT believers are seriously fucking morons.

 
At 19 May, 2006 10:54, Blogger Chad said...

BG, in the spirit of "indulging" one another, I'd like to see that website you speak of.

And nesnyc, you say the WTC 1 and 2 fell the same as 7....

I think you should maybe look at video from that day. The towers came down from the top.

 
At 19 May, 2006 11:54, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

Chad, I think that web site that BG is referring to, is just pictures of smoky air being compressed out of the WTC7 building after it had already started falling. But if BG would be so kind as to prove me wrong, I'm all ears.

 
At 19 May, 2006 17:25, Blogger shawn said...

"WTC 7 is NOT irrelevant! It proves controlled demolition. If it happened there, then the Towers were rigged the same way since they fell the same way."

Err no, that's an illogical statement. You're using a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc (usually just "post hoc"). You're saying that if WTC 7 was demolished (which it wasn't), then the two towers must also have been demolished.

Here's how your argument breaks down:

1. WTC 7 collapsed on 9/11, and was demolished

2. The trade towers collapsed on 9/11

3. Therefore, the trade towers were demolished

So even if you could prove WTC7 was demolished (which you can't, but you can keep thinking so), that does not mean the trade towers were demolished, and saying it does is illogical.

 
At 19 May, 2006 20:41, Blogger Chad said...

CTers?? Hello? BG? That website? With the smoke? Curt and I are anxiously awaiting.

 
At 22 March, 2007 17:05, Blogger thatguyyouknow said...

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the contracts, said ON TAPE on PBS (you can look it up) that they decided to "pull" WTC7. This does not, as was put before, prove that the towers were also demolished on purpose. What the admission of a planned and purposeful demolition does say, however, is that we are being lied to. Why would he say "they decided to pull it," on PBS when that's not the story we're getting from the government? If the building was "going to come down anyway," as you said, and it "doesn't matter," why the lies? Why the obvious coverup? And who's the idiot for asking questions about something that has an incredible amount of inconsistencies, to put it mildly? Why do SO MANY questions remain unanswered? Why no release of the security tapes at the Pentagon? Why so many leads to chase? So many contradictions, so many changed stories, so many questions that our government refuses to answer about an absolute tragedy. Keep searching - I would much rather you find PROOF that this WAS a terrorist attack, plain and simple, find respectable engineers (preferably from outside of the United States) that will say "yes, the steel will melt at that temperature, it is realistic to think that these buildings came down as a result of the fire." Show me a picture of the plane that hit the Pentagon. Explain the seismographic data. Get Bush on the stand to testify to a grand jury. But until then, keep asking the same questions that have not been answered.

 
At 23 July, 2007 15:55, Blogger Unknown said...

I was living in NYC at the time and was very near 'Ground Zero’ in the early afternoon as a volunteer. All the rescue workers were told to leave the area because Bldg 7 was a risk. I heard numerous firefighters say that it was going to be demolished or "brought down." Funny thing, I am not a CT (as this blog refers to those that question) and have always accepted the official story and have basically ignored the conversation. But, reading the news today, I found myself reviewing some of the conspirocy claims and it jogged my memory of that day in NYC. I actually have thought all along that building 7 was intentionally demolished, because that is what I heard so many times that day. Then, I see that building 7 housed, not only the NY emergency center, but had other federal government tenants including a Department of Defense office. Now, all this is making me rethink my complicity to the official story, at least as it refers to Bldg 7… and, contrary to some posts here, it does matter if we were lied to about how this Bldg 7 came down. Let’s assume that it was a demolition for the sake of securing sensitive information and equipment, it would make sense in this circumstance to order it brought down. And, as one contrarian post suggests, they could have wired it after the collapse of the twin towers (not an expert, but seems logical) and, of course, this does not mean that the others were intentionally ‘brought down.’
But, why would the government lie? And if this is a lie, then where do the lies end…maybe at Bldg 7, maybe not. I would like to see someone focus just on this one issue… this is the entry point to confirming our governments actions on 9/11. There is so much evidence that they were considering the demolition of Bldg 7… so, were they? If so, why? Who wanted to bring it down? Why did they decide not to? Or, are you not telling the American people the truth? We have the right to the truth and I am sure we are not getting the whole truth… I mean, come on… do we ever really get the whole truth on anything, from anyone? Why would anyone expect this to be any different? Those of you that take the official report ‘hook, line and sinker’ should ask a few more questions… and those that consider the whole event an inside job, should focus on the obvious potentially provable contradictions. Thanks.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home