Talk:Stratesec

Stratesec
I second Cab88's point that this article is lacking much information. What I especially find disturbing is that there is only one external link pointing to a site debunking 911 conspiracy theories. Even if that is a good thing, there should also be an external link representing the other side of the debate. Plus: I just googled and was not able to locate a website for securacom or secura.com or stratesec. Strange.

This article needs to be cleaned up. It fails to even explain in the intro what Securacom is/was. --Cab88 06:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Of particular importance is whether the quote that Securacom was in control of security at the wtc on 9/11 is accurate. There is no source for the quote, and other articles about Stratesec (formerly Securacom) describe the companies contract to provide security at the wtc as ending in 1998. "Securacom got the $8.3 million World Trade Center security contract in October 1996 and received about $9.2 million from the WTC job from 1996 (a quarter of its revenues that year) to 1998. But in 1998, the company was "excused from the project" because it could not fulfill the work, according to former manager Al Weinstein, and the electronic security work at the WTC was taken over by EJ Electric, a larger contractor. " - http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20050215bushes_3.cfm -- Walterego 16:47, 9/16/06 CTZ


 * After 9/11 Stratesec CEO Barry McDaniel is asked whether FBI or other agents have questioned him or others at Stratesec about their security work related to 9/11. He answers, “No.” Now if that isn't exeedingly curious.. one should think the police or the FBI would bother to ask them a single question at least. "did you at all notice anything unusual in the days or months prior to september eleventh?" No? Oh, well.. I suppose you're right, why bother doing our job like.Nunamiut (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Margie Burns
Some of Margie Burns citations come from her blog - and therefore should not be considered reliable as blogs are not held to the the standards of reliable journalism. It's fair to assume that her self-published work need not meet the same standards as her work published in media - work which would involve editors, fact checkers, and and put an organization's reputation at risk. Therefore, I recommend not citing her blog or using it as a source of information in this article. Thoughts? 04:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed one reference to the blog and fact tagged the statement. Auntie E. (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see the relevance to the fact that some relatives of GWB were involved with the company more than any other person involved with the company, except to satisfy the Truthers. So I'm removing the paragraph unless someone can give me a good reason it's relevant. Auntie E. (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability
Is there some reason that this company is notable in the first place? I'm not current on our notability standards for corporations. Rklawton (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)