• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wikipedia cleanup?

Panoply_Prefect

Graduate Poster
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
1,075
Location
Sweden
Hi!

I've recently been diggin into the claim "Bush brother controlled WTC", and noticed that Wikipedia has a very questionable article on Securacom. Its even questioned by Wiki itself, and I just thought it shouldnt stay that way. I dont have the knowledge to do it properly myself, but well, still someone should.

For instance:

Wiki said:
In 1993, after the first attack on the World Trade Center, Burns and Roe Securacom obtained contracts among many other contractors for related security upgrades.

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.'

I thought that they got the contract in 1996, only to loose it in -98.

Linky

/S
 
Last edited:
I thought that they got the contract in 1996, only to loose it in -98.
It's based solely on this article:

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."...

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 &endash; as he points out -- obviously that "didn't have anything to do with planes flying into buildings."...
http://www.populist.com/03.02.burns.html

The mention that the contract was "not quite completed" suggests to me they were given a specific task to do, rather than just generally "run security". Another pointer to this is that their SEC filings show no revenue booked to the WTC after 1998, and no mention in fact that they were doing any work for them. So from that I'd guess that the contract was a comparatively recent one, and/or didn't produce much cash for the company.
 
The article has been cleaned up and material requiring reliable sources tagged. That material will be deleted soon, if such sources are not found.
 

Back
Top Bottom