FREEPETEY.COM

Coming Soon (when the moment is right)... Stay tuned for blockbusting news about FDNY Fire Commissioner Scoppetta himself [Note: a hold has been put on this story]

Chapter 6 - How do we protect them?

"I want to make sure that I do not overlook anything when I send firefighters into these buildings for inspections." (See Last Yellow Underline). 

FDNY faced a crossroads with regard to the toxic ground zero buildings. A decision needed to be made.  In order to protect fire fighters from the toxicity of ground zero buildings, there were two alternatives available:

1. Keep fire fighters out of the toxic ground zero buildings or
   
2. Provide fire fighters with the means to safely enter, inspect and exit the toxic ground zero buildings.

There was not a third alternative.  These two were it.  There was no other way to protect fire fighters. Keep them out or give them the means to safely enter, inspect and exit.

Recall what Battalion Chief John McDonald was quoted as saying in a NY Post Article, 

"There was black mold . . . asbestos, mercury, concrete dust and heavy metal dust in that building," McDonald said.

Yet, there are people who have never been in a blaze accusing McDonald and two other brave fire officials of not following normal procedures.

Said Chief McDonald: "This was not a normal building, a normal site. And it is [the Environmental Protection Agency] that is literally in charge of abatement in that building. I don't know what the heck is going to happen, but always foremost in my mind is to look after my men."

Before the tragic August 18, 2007, FDNY made a decision. FDNY selected the first alternative not the second.  FDNY decided to keep fire fighters out of the toxic ground zero buildings. FDNY rejected the second alternative.  FDNY decided not to give fire fighters the means to safely enter, inspect and exit the toxic ground zero buildings.

After the tragic August 18, 2007, FDNY changed its mind. FDNY second guessed itself. FDNY called into question its pre-fire decision. FDNY decided that the second alternative was preferred over the first.  FDNY decided to provide fire fighters with the means to safely enter, inspect and exit the toxic ground zero buildings.

In the 9/25/2007 email from FDNY's Manhattan Borough commander to the New York State Department of Labor, FDNY put into written words its change of heart. 

"I want to make sure that I do not overlook anything when I send firefighters into these buildings for inspections." (See Last Yellow Underline). 

In this email, FDNY's Manhattan Borough Commander puts into written words what had heretofore been the unwritten (as far as FreePetey knows) official FDNY policy in effect at the time Captain Peter Bosco arrived at the Ten House: "STAY OUT OF THE TOXIC GROUND ZERO BUILDINGS unless and until FDNY provides you with the means with which to do it safely."

How do we know that this was the official FDNY policy? There are only two alternatives available:

1. Keep fire fighters out of the toxic ground zero buildings or
   
2. Provide fire fighters with the means to safely enter, inspect and exit the toxic ground zero buildings.

There was not a third alternative.  These two were it.  There was no other way to protect fire fighters. Keep them out or give them the means to safely enter, inspect and exit. The evidence is irrefutable that FDNY did not provide the TEN HOUSE with the means with which to enter, inspect and exit ground zero buildings safely and the TEN HOUSE stayed out of the toxic ground zero buildings.  Hence, the evidence leads us to the conclusion that FDNY selected the first alternative. Without the means to safely enter, inspect and exit the toxic ground zero buildings, the Ten House had no other choice but to stay out.

"I want to make sure that I do not overlook anything when I send firefighters into these buildings for inspections." (See Last Yellow Underline).

FDNY's Manhattan Borough commander will not send firefighters into the three toxic ground zero buildings unless and until all the "i"s are dotted and all the "t"s are crossed.  Nothing, nothing is to be overlooked.  You would have to be either evil or incompetent to send fire fighters into these toxic hell holes without providing them with proper safeguards. Moreover, doing so is prohibited by NYS Labor Laws.  It would be like the New York Rangers saying to an employee without a helmet, glove, stick or pads, hey, go play goalie! Doing so is certain to result in injury. Until the Department of Labor tells the FDNY's Manhattan Borough Commander how to do inspections, the Manhattan Borough Commander will not send firefighters into the three toxic ground zero buildings.

One need not be the FDNY's Manhattan Borough Commander to think like this. This is common sense. Safety first. Protect the fire fighters. Give them the means to do the job you want them to do and they will do it. Withhold the means, and the job won't get done. Yet, if this is common sense and given that FDNY never provided the Ten House with the means to inspect the toxic ground zero buildings, why in the world is Captain Peter Bosco, his Battalion chief, John McDonald and his Division Chief, Richard Fuerch, on the sidelines? Is it because they who put them on the sidelines have no common sense? Or is it because they who put them on the sidelines were the ones who, before the tragic August 18, 2007, selected the first alternative, regretted their selection, and needed scapegoats to divert attention away from themselves?

In a hasty rush to judgment before any of the evidence was in, Bloomberg and Scoppetta attempted to tar and feather Captain Peter Bosco, his battalion and division chiefs at a public press conference for not inspecting a toxic ground zero building.  We objected (Click Here) to both the tar and the feathers. 

The Captain of the local firehouse was not the FDNY official who selected the first alternative.  This selection was already made before Captain Peter Bosco arrived at the Ten House. Captain Peter Bosco merely inherited it. The decision to not provide the Ten House with the means to safely enter, inspect and exit the toxic ground zero buildings was made above the rank of Captain of the local firehouse, above the rank of Captain Bosco's battalion chief and above the rank of Captain Bosco's division chief. This decision reached the top of the FDNY chain of command.  FDNY - at its highest level - decided not to allocate the resources needed to safely inspect the toxic ground zero buildings.  Hence, to protect the fire fighters, fire fighters needed to stay out of the toxic ground zero buildings.  Without the means to safely enter, inspect and exit them, the fire fighters of the TEN HOUSE had no other choice.

Captain Peter Bosco - a captain of a single firehouse - was not at the level in the hierarchy of FDNY where he would be privy to FDNY's decision making process with regard to picking either the first or the second alternative. In other words, the big FDNY dalmations did not consult with or seek out Captain Bosco's opinion.

But there is someone who knows what happened at that rarified level of the FDNY's chain of  command.

Recall what Chief Fuerch told Steve Dunleavy of the New York Post on Sept 3, 2007:

"We'll cooperate, and then a lot more will come out in the wash,"

Chief Fuerch knows why FDNY did not equip the TEN HOUSE with the means to accomplish the goal of inspecting the toxic ground zero  (Click Here).  Chief Fuerch knows who failed to allocate the resources needed to safely inspect the toxic ground zero buildings.  It wasn't Chief Fuerch. Decisions were made above the level of Chief Fuerch.  Again, recall what Chief Fuerch told Steve Dunleavy of the New York Post on Sept 3, 2007:

"We'll cooperate, and then a lot more will come out in the wash,"

The Ten House was not in position to supply itself with a toxic building inspection plan and the  resources needed to implement it. Just look at the above and the other emails.  Planning and the allocation of resources to implement a plan is done by the very top of the FDNY hierarchy.  It is not done by the Captain of the local firehouse. The Captain of the local firehouse implements a plan and uses the resources given to him.  Don't blame the captain of the local firehouse when the top of FDNY failed to provide him with a plan and resources.  Doing so is

unconscionable!

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

Chapter 5 - What's your plan, Pete, er, I mean, Michael?

 

 

Michael? Michael? What has Michael got to do with it? Isn't Pete the one who is one the sidelines for not inspecting the toxic Deutsche Bank Building while Michael is still in the game?  Maureen, what about Pete?  Why are you talking with the Manhattan Borough Commander when, according to Scoppetta, you should be talking to the Captain of the local firehouse? Maureen, doesn't Pete's opinion count? Come on, Maureen, why are you ignoring Pete and speaking to Michael? Why aren't you asking Pete about what he is planning? Sure, Michael is a big FDNY dalamtion and Pete is a little FDNY puppy, but still, don't you want to know what someone from the sidelines thinks? Maureen, just because Michael can deploy and coordinate FDNY resources throughout the Borough of Manhattan and Pete's world is limited to the resources of the Ten House, is that a reason not to seek his counsel and wisdom? Shouldn't Pete's opinion matter, Maureen? Maureen, why ask the Manhattan Borough Commander to decide when you can ask the Captain of the local firehouse?

Or, perhaps,  you are talking to the right person, Maureen! Perhaps it does take the top FDNY dalmation in Manhattan to figure out how to inspect toxic buildings. Perhaps it is above the rank of Captain of the local firehouse! Come to think of it, Maureen, you hit the nail on the head! The top of FDNY needs to create the plan to inspect toxic buildings. This is beyond the rank of Captain of the local firehouse.  Congratulations, Maureen, you know how to do your job.

 

I believe in looking reality straight in the eye and denying it.

Garrison Keillor

(Could have been uttered by perfidious Nick)

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

CHAPTER 4 - TELL US HOW TO DO IT, PESH 

* * * * * * * * * * 

Through the Looking-Glass

 

"I don't know what you mean by 'eggs,' "Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But `eggs' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

"What about those three fire fighters whom you sidelined? They broke no law," said Alice. 

"When I finalize the FDNY procedure, they will have broken it," Humpty Dumpty said.

"But it did not exist. How can you sideline them for breaking a law that did not exist?" asked Alice.

"I did not say they broke a law that existed - everybody knows they did not,"  Humpty Dumpty superciliously replied. " I said they will have broken it after I have finished finalizing it.'

"Where I come from," Alice said, "ex post facto laws are banned. You can't break a law that doesn't exist. That doesn't make any sense."

"It makes as much sense as the definition of an egg I just gave you," chortled Humpty Dumpty as yolk ran down his chin.

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything.

Humpty Dumpty continued smiling condescendingly, "Besides, people would have called me an egghead if I didn't sideline them."

Pointing out the obvious, Alice said:"But you are an egghead."

"Listen young lady," Humpty Dumpty screamed. "Don't be impertinent. Know your place. I am up here; you are down there. How dare you question me?  I am master of the sidelines and, as master, the truth be damned. I'll piss and shit on whomever I damn well please. I sidelined them because I can not because I'm right.  It was them or me.  I refuse to take responsibility for something I failed to do.  Do you really think that I have a good explanation for not figuring out how to inspect toxic buildings in the year 2001 or in 2002 or in 2003 or in 2004 or in 2005 or in 2006 or in 2007?  Hell no so better that they take the fall rather than me.  It has been prophesied that if I take the fall, all the kings horses and all the kings men will not be able to put me together again! That worries me. Like King Herod and the babies of Bethlehem, I don't want the prophesy to come true.  I'll do what I must - whatever it takes - no matter the cost to others - to forestall it.  I may be a bad egg but I'm not addled!"

Young Alice's heart broke and she started to cry as she thought of the the three innocent, dedicated and diligent fire officers on the sidelines unjustly condemned by a rotten, runny egg ...

* * * * * * * * * * 

To understand what has happened to the three innocent, diligent and dedicated fire officers, it is important to have an understanding of the distinction between  goals and the means to accomplish the goals.  An employer can set a goal for his employees to accomplish. The same employer can either give his employees the means to accomplish the goal or withhold from his employees the means to accomplish the goal. 

An employer whose employees have failed to accomplish a goal cannot blame his employees if the employer failed to also give them the means to accomplish the goal. Such a goal is illusory.  Employers who set goals must also supply the means to accomplish the goals.

For instances:

• If NASA gave its astronauts the goal of flying to the moon but failed to give the astronauts a rocket ship in which to travel there, can NASA sideline the astronauts because they did not flap their arms fast enough?
• If the fire department gave its fire fighters the goal of putting out a fire but failed to give the fire fighters pumpers, hoses and water, can the fire department sideline its firefighters because they did not spit and piss on the fire enough?
• If the fire department gave its fire fighters the goal of painting its fire engines red but failed to give the fire fighters red paint and paint brushes can the fire department sideline its firefighters because they failed to accomplish the paint job?
• If the fire department gave its fire fighters the goal of rescuing a civilian from the fifth floor of a burning building but only gave the fire fighters a ladder that reached the second floor, can the fire department sideline its firefighters because they failed to save the civilian?
  
• If a construction company gave its workers the goal of building a house, but failed to give the workers a blueprint to follow, the wood, nails and hammers, can the construction company sideline its workers because they did not somehow magically build a house out of nothing?
•  If the fire department gave its fire fighters the goal of inspecting a toxic building but failed to give the fire fighters a procedure to follow, training, tyvek suits, other respiratory and dermal protection, decontamination, etc, can the fire department sideline its firefighters because they did not inspect and die (See the point made in the Charge of the Fire Brigade)
  

Recall what a testy Mayor Bloomberg was reported to have said in a report by Marcia Kramer concerning the "sidelining" of the three FDNY scapegoats (Click Here).  [When you read it, read it to yourself in a nasal, high-pitched, and bumptious tone](Also, click here):

"Can't conceive of how anybody thinks we should leave anybody in a position where there's a question as to whether or not they were taking the steps to keep the city safe," Bloomberg said. "That's what their job is."

 You tell -em Bloomberg. You tell perfidious Nick this! Oops, we forgot. This rule does not apply to one of your tea and crumpet cronies. It only applies to the little guys who you feel free to piss and shit on.

 

SHAME ON YOU!

It's unconscionable!

What is unconscionable is that neither Bloomberg nor Scopetta have the decency to stand up and admit that they made a mistake with these three innocent, diligent, and dedicated fire officers.  What kind of men are they? It takes a great leader to admit a mistake was made. How about it Bloomberg? How about it Scoppetta? Is there an ounce of nobility in you? If so, show it.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old. . Churchill

* * * * * * * * * * 

Go forward to CHAPTER FIVE -

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *