FREEPETEY.COM

What is the status of FDNY inspections of 130 Liberty Street?  As of 2/15/2008, FDNY has divided 130 Liberty Street into "clean" and "dirty" areas.  Please note that this division of FDNY responsibility was not made by the Captain of the Ten House.  It was made by someone much higher up the FDNY chain of command. 

The FDNY continues to ban the Ten House from the "dirty" areas of 130 Liberty Street.  FDNY has not instructed, trained or equipped the TEN HOUSE so that the TEN HOUSE can enter into and work safely within the "dirty" areas of 130 Liberty Street.  The Ten House is now tasked with the responsibility of inspecting the exterior of 130 Liberty Street and the "clean" areas of 130 Liberty Street- which areas have been identified for them by an officer superior to the Captain of the Ten House.

The FDNY has given the responsibility of inspecting the "dirty" areas to a chief. The FDNY has supplied the chief with Tyvek suits and he wears them while inspecting the "dirty" areas. He also decontaminates himself.

Let us remember that the CIDS card that existed before the August 18, 2007 fire reported that there was asbestos and hazardous materials on all floors of 130 Liberty Street (Click Here). Given that FDNY does not want the TEN HOUSE to now enter the "dirty" areas of 130 Liberty Street, how can FDNY blame the TEN HOUSE for not entering the "dirty" areas of 130 Liberty Street before the August 18, 2007 fire? As far as the TEN HOUSE was concerned - and as far as many others in FDNY were concerned- before the August 18, 2007 fatal fire, the entire building was a toxic wasteland. That is what the CIDS card said. Moreover, if you saw people coming out of 130 Liberty street dressed like .... (Click Here)

Does anyone really think that the Captain of the Ten House was in the position to establish the inspection plan that FDNY is now implementing? Does anyone really think that the Captain of the Ten House said to the Chief, "You inspect the "dirty" areas of 130 Liberty Street, the Ten House will inspect the exterior and the "clean" areas." Or do you think someone further up in the FDNY hierarchy gave the Captain of the Ten House his marching orders? 

Does any post August 18, 2007 FDNY activity have any significance or bearing on any pre August 18, 2007 issues?  Most definitely. Keep in mind that FDNY's internal rules and regulations are pretty much the same pre August 18, 2007 and post August 18, 2007 (But see, click here).  Given the notoriety of the tragedy of August 18, 2007, any post August 18, 2007 FDNY activity has been and is being done in accordance with established FDNY rules and regulations. Hence, for example, if the issue is whether it was practicable to have someone in FDNY other than the TEN HOUSE inspect the "dirty" areas of 130 Liberty Street, the post August 18, 2007 FDNY practice of having a chief do the inspections is relevant evidence.  If the issue is whether inspections could have been done without equipping the TEN HOUSE with Tyvek suits etc, that FDNY is now equipping the Chief with Tyvek Suits is highly relevant evidence. 

Just because evidence comes into being after an event does not ipso facto make it inadmissible.  Every statement made about an event comes into being after an event; yet, post event statements are admissible.  A video made after an event showing that an offense was committed on a different date, place and by someone other than the accused is admissible as well.  Therefore, anything that FDNY has done post August 18, 2007 may bear on an issue depending on what the issue is. 

Let me give you one last example.  Post August 18, 2007, who figured out how to inspect 130 Liberty Street? Was it the Captain of the Ten House? Was it a battalion chief? Was it a division chief? Oh no.  the figuring out was done at the very top of FDNY.  So when anyone makes the bogus allegation that the Captain of the Ten House ought to have figured out how to inspect 130 Liberty Street, we can say, oh, no, for that it takes a Commissioner and we can present the post August 18, 2007 evidence that proves it.