FREEPETEY.COM

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!

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *