FREEPETEY.COM

We have spoken about the Regulators

• 11/12/2007:  Inordinate Regulatory Interference (Click Here)
• 11/11/2007:  Official Deconstruction -Decontamination Plans do not assign FDNY inspectional responsibility (Click Here)
  
• 11/11/2007:  Who were the "Regulatory Partners"? It wasn't FDNY.(Click Here)
• 11/11/2007:  LMDC is trying to dodge the Regulators. It does not have to dodge FDNY. (Click Here)
  
• 11/10/2007:  New York Post, Editorial, 9 November 2007.  (Click Here)
  
• 11/4/2007:  Who had the Authority to Stop Work at Deutsch Bank? It wasn't FDNY. (Click Here)
• 11/1/2007:  Its time for the uniformed leadership of FDNY to act like men and stop acting like frightened little boys. (Click Here)
  
• 10/31/2007:  FDNY was not invited to sit at the table.  (Click Here)
  
• 10/31/2007:  12/13/2004: LMDC's Power Point Presentation to the Community Board I WTC Redevelopment Committee.  (Click Here)
  
• 10/30/2007: WTC Contaminated Buildings: FDNY: ALL BARK; NO BITE and NO JURISDICTION.  (Click Here)
• 10/3/2007:  Avi Schick Speaks!  (Click Here)
  

Now we shall talk about the Planners. 

We shall start or dissertation about the Planners with the Generic Environmental Impact Statement.  Keep in mind that we have already spoken about the LMDC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement:

• August 5, 2003 : LMDC and FDNY interact (Click Here) 
• FDNY - LMDC - LMCCC Interactions(Click Here) 
  

Here is an explanation of it in LMDC's own words:

It is important to note that the GEIS is a 2004 document - many years before Captain Peter Bosco's arrival at the Ten House in late December 2006 early January 2007.  Moreover, there was only one GEIS.  There was not a separate GEIS for 130 Liberty Street and others for other locations.  There was one GEIS and it included 130 Liberty Street. There was also only one plan.

The one plan was called The General Project Plan.  It can be seen on the LMDC website by clicking here or can be downloaded by clicking here. 

130 Liberty Street was lumped together with the other World Trade Center Locations in the GEIS and the General Project Plan. 130 Liberty Street was denominated as part of the "Southern Site" [See page 4 of the LMDC General Project Plan - WTC Memorial and Cultural Program June 2, 2004 as amended February 14, 2007 (click here)]. The LMDC said in Section 1 of  page 1 of the General Project Plan (click here):

Furthermore, with regard to the southern site, LMDC, in Section 2 of page 1 of the General Project Plan (click here), identifies itself and the PA of NY & NJ as Planners:

 Later on in LMDC's General Project Plan (click here), in Section 11 on Page 12, LMDC adds NYC as one of the planners saying

From the very beginning, the Planners planned that ownership of 130 Liberty Street would be put into the hands of the PA of NY & NJ

However, the PA of NY & NJ did not want to own 130 Liberty Street immediately.  The PA of NY & NJ wanted nothing to do with the toxic structure.  The PA of NY & NJ wanted nothing to do with its deconstruction and decontamination.  The PA of NY & NJ had the foresight to stay well away from it until it was razed to the ground and detoxified.  Someone from the PA of NY & NJ deserves a promotion and a raise from keeping the PA of NY & NJ away from this toxic headache (Hock mir nisht en chinik). So the Planners put ownership of 130 Liberty Street into the hands of LMDC (Click Here). It would be LMDC's "kopvaitik".

The General Project Plan gets more interesting.

Remember that the General Project Plan is initially dated June 2, 2004.  In it, LMDC has identified iteslf, the PA of NY & NJ and the City of New York as Planners. Remember that 130 Liberty Street remained in private hands until August 31, 2004 (Click Here). [However, keep in mind that on February 27, 2004, the politicians including the New York City politicians celebrated the liberation of 130 Liberty Street from private hands (Click Here)].  Before August 31, 2004, did the three planners - LMDC, PA of NY & NJ and the City of New York - know the effect that putting ownership of 130 Liberty Street into LMDC or PA of NY & NJ would have upon 130 Liberty Street? As early as June of 2004, it can be said with absolute certainty that the three planners - LMDC, PA of NY & NJ and the City of New York - had actual knowledge that by transferring ownership into the "right" governmental entity "diplomatic immunity" would be conferred upon 130 Liberty Street exempting it from the jurisdiction of the city and state of New York. Here is what was said in Section 12 on page 12 of the General Project Plan (click here):

  

In June of 2004, New York City, one of the Planners, knew that it did not have jurisdiction over 130 Liberty Street.  In June of 2004, New York City, one of the Planners, announced its intention to strip itself of jurisdiction over 130 Liberty Street.  Yet, the self same New York City had the temerity on August 27, 2007 to "sideline" three honorable and dedicated fire officers for failing to inspect a toxic building which they were not equipped to inspect (Click Here) and for which New York City had already abdicated jurisdiction. 'Let's blame some innocent and vulnerable firefighters for not exercising jurisdiction over a building over which we, the movers and shakers of NYC, willingly and knowingly abdicated jurisdiction more than three years before'. Something doesn't make sense here! Something smells rotten in Bloomberg! What would New Yorkers call officials of Milwaukee, Wisconsin who berate themselves for not inspecting a building in Los Angeles, California? The answer is Schmucks.  Milwaukee has no jurisdiction over Los Angeles buildings.  Yet our New York Schmucks have culled a few scapegoats from the plebeian herd in an attempt to blame them for not inspecting a building over which New York City had no jurisdiction. Do you see why we have accused them of playing the political game of scapegoating (Click Here)

Keep in mind that we have already talked much about the lack of jurisdiction  

1. Jurisdiction Revisited (Click Here)
   
2. Jurisdiction (Click Here)
   
3. WTC Contaminated Buildings: FDNY: ALL BARK; NO BITE and NO JURISDICTION (Click Here)
4. Jurisdiction over the demolition of the Deutsche Bank Building was allocated to NYCDOB not FDNY (Click Here)
5. Time is running out, Mayor Mike (Click Here)
6. 130 Liberty St.: A complex trap for honest firefighters and an honest fire department (Click Here)
7. November 5, 2003: The Reopening of FDNY's the Ten House ( Click Here )
8. March 2006: FDNY fades from the picture ( Click Here )
9. Inordinate Regulatory Interference ( Click Here )
10. "In the Know" said to find out who is truly responsible, go back to 2003 ( Click Here )
11. New York Post, Editorial, 9 November 2007 ( Click Here )

But there is more. 

Let us recall that on account of the PA of NY & NJ's "diplomatic immunity", FDNY and the PA of NY & NJ entered into a memorandum of understanding with regard to inspections of its WTC properties (Click Here).  The memorandum of understanding put responsibility for inspections within the FDNY's Bureau of Fire Prevention and not the local firehouse (Click Here). But what was the Planners understanding of who was to inspect "the site"?

In order to assemble the GEIS, FDNY was contacted (See Chapter 8: Community Facilities page 8-7).

 

FDNY's Chief of Operations, Salvatore Cassano, was asked questions about FDNY operations at "the site".  FDNY's Chief of Operations, Salvatore Cassano, tried to answer all of the questions.

 In assembling the GEIS, the Planners were interested in two aspects of work done by FDNY at the site: 1) Emergency Response and 2) Daily Protection. "Daily Protection" is the fire prevention activities at "the site". Here is what the Planners wrote about "Daily Protection" at "the site" (See page 8-14)

 Look closely at what was said.  "FDNY was only responsible for providing emergency service at the WTC."  Don't you think if FDNY was doing inspections at "the site", Cassano would have told the Planners?  Don't you think that Cassano was truthful when he told the Planners that FDNY was only responsible for providing emergency services.  If Cassano had told them that FDNY was responsible for inspecting 130 Liberty Street, which was part of "the site", don't you think the Planners would have reported that in the GEIS? Look closely at what else is said: fire prevention - which is what inspections are - is the responsibility not of FDNY's local firehouse but of PA of NY & NJ.  Surely the Planners would have said that fire prevention was the responsibility of the local firehouse if someone had told them that it was.

The PA of NY & NJ, the FDNY's hazardous materials unit (click here), the FDNY's Bureau of Fire Prevention (Click Here), the FDNY's local firehouse: It appears that no-one had the foggiest idea who was to inspect 130 Liberty Street. If the Planners in consultation with the Chief of Operations of FDNY didn't assign the job of inspection to the local firehouse, how can blame be assigned to the captain of the local firehouse, his battalion chief and his division chief?

Bloomberg panicked and blamed three innocent and decorated fire officers (Click Here). Do you want a guy who panics to be your President? Do you want a guy who refuses to admit a mistake to be your President?  Do you want a guy who hangs three innocent firefighters out to dry for the sake of his image to be your president (Click Here).  No way; no how. If you can't trust Bloomberg to do the right thing on a small, local matter, how can you  trust him to do the right thing on more serious national matters? Bloomberg is just another small minded politician (Click Here). He is not presidential caliber.  The Bloom is off the Rose, Mr. Mayor.