"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!

* * * * * * * * * *

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)

* * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * 

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."

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 -

 

* * * * * * * * * * 

On 9/10/2007, the top FDNY dalmation in Manhattan - He was not 'sidelined' by perfidious Nick -  emails the New York State Department of Labor.  The subject of the email is the same as the 9/7/2007 email from the New York State Department of Labor to him: "Respirator Usage at 130 Liberty Street".  At the end of the email, Weinlein writes "We are also looking to develop a procedure to inspect these types of buildings. How would we need to decontaminate after the inspection." (See blue undelining above)

They knew! The bastards knew! They knew that FDNY did not have a procedure in place to inspect toxic buildings! They knew that Captain Bosco, his battalion and division chiefs are innocent. Captain Bosco his battalion and division chiefs could not have failed to follow FDNY procedure when such a procedure simply did not exist! FDNY was looking to develop a procedure it did not have.

Yet, the bastards "sidelined" them! It's unconscionable! 

Do you know what the "sidelines" are?

The "sidelines" are a euphemism for the gallows.  At a news conference, attended by perfidious Nick, with cameras flashing and politicians smiling,  The City of New York marched three innocent men onto the gallows, blindfolded them, bound their hands behind their back and put ropes around their necks.  And they have stood there to this day with nooses around their necks.  Since August 27, 2007 - the day they were sent to the "sidelines" - three innocent men have stood with a rope around their neck not knowing whether or when the floor will open under their feet and they would swing in a most unhealthy and inhospitable manner.

How do you think it feels?  From the perspective of perfidious Nick it must not be looked upon as such a big deal being taken out of "the game" and put on "the sidelines".  His use of a sports metaphor confirms this.  However, take a look at it from the perspective of the three men standing on the gallows with ropes around their necks day after day. Think of the anxiety these three innocent men have lived under since August 27, 2007:  their comrades having made the supreme sacrifice and they, on the gallows, being cruelly blamed for it by perfidious Nick who as early as 9/10/2007 knew that FDNY did not have a procedure in place to inspect toxic buildings!  Perfidious Nick who as "the father" of "his children" - the rank and file of FDNY - has not lifted a finger to remove the rope from their necks and has not even uttered a single consoling word to ease their anxiety. Instead, perfidious Nick abandons them on the gallows despite knowing that they are innocent.

Moreover, whose job in FDNY was it to come up with a procedure to inspect toxic buildings? Was it the job of the captain of the local firehouse who only arrived at ground zero in late December 2006 early January 2007?  Captain Bosco was at the Ten House only about eight (8) months.  What was FDNY doing over the 5 and a quarter years from 9/11/2001 when the ground zero buildings became toxic to when Captain Peter Bosco arrvied at the Ten House? From reading the email above, it seems that FDNY only started trying to figure out an inspection procedure for toxic buildings in September of 2007 and the job of coming up with a procedure to inspect toxic buildings was being done by the top FDNY dalmation in Manhattan not the captain of the local firehouse.  Riddle me this Batberg: why didn't Scoppetta start work on developing a procedure for toxic building inspections when the ground zero buildings became toxic on 9/11/2001? What was his reason for waiting only September of 2007? Have you asked him?

The FDNY failure - and FREEPETEY has always maintained that the decontamination & deconstruction of 130 Liberty Street was not an FDNY project - was not that the Captain of the local fire house, his battalion chief and division chief did not implement an inspection procedure with regard to toxic buildings; the FDNY failure was that there was no inspection procedure to implement! Let's put the horse before the cart where it belongs.  Had there been an inspection procedure to implement, the three innocent, diligent, dedicated fire officers would have implemented it. No question.   It wasn't implemented because there was nothing to implement! It did not exist.  It wasn't there. That there was nothing to implement is the responsibility of the very top of FDNY not the bottom.  Don't look down at the scapegoats. If you want to figure out the FDNY failure, look up at those who made them into scapegoats. Up, up and up - that is where the responsibility lies.

SHAME ON YOU PERFIDIOUS NICK!.

It's unconscionable!

"These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren" (Proverbs 6:16-19).

* * * * * * * * * * 

Go forward to CHAPTER THREE - TOXIC BUILDING INSPECTIONS MUST BE DONE IN A WAY ACCEPTABLE TO THE NYS DOL

Go back to CHAPTER ONE - FDNY Seeks Help from PESH 

Here is a 9/7/2007 email from the NYS Department of Labor to FDNY Manhattan Borough Commander, Michael Weinlein. The Manhattan Borough Commander is the top FDNY dalmatian for the Borough of Manhattan.  He was not 'sidelined' by perfidious Nick.   From it we learn that FDNY is planning how to handle the next fire 130 Liberty Street.  This  email  is about  respiration.  It  talks about safety devices - APR respirators and SCBA - to protect fire fighters' lungs.

Why is FDNY consulting  NYS DOL?  NYS DOL is in charge of the health and safety of public sector employees in New York State. The health and safety of private sector employees  in New York State is in the hands of the US DOL OSHA.  After the tragic August 18, 2007 fire, FDNY turns to NYS DOL for advice about how to protect the health and safety of its firefighters working in the uber-toxic Deutsche Bank Buidling.  The NYS DOL talks about creating a protocol. 

Do you get this? Do you understand what is being said here?  The protocol did not exist.  FDNY was trying to create it after the tragic August 18, 2007 fire!  130 Liberty Street became toxic on 9/11/2001. Yet, perfidious Nick did not cause a protocol to be created to handle a toxic building until after the tragic August 18, 2007 fire!

It's unconscionable!

Perfidious Nick "sidelines" three innocent, diligent and dedicated fire officers for violating a non-existent protocol!

It's unconscionable!

It's unconscionable that perfidious Nick has so far failed to give the speech that exonerates the FDNY and his fire officers. Shame on you perfidious Nick!

* * * * * * * * * * 

Go forward to CHAPTER TWO - The Bastards Knew They Were Innocent

Go back to INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION 

Let's "sideline" them for violating an FDNY protocol that did not exist before the tragic August 18, 2007 fire! 

It's unconscionable!

Three innocent, diligent and dedicated fire officers were "sidelined" for not inspecting the uber-toxic Deutche Bank Building.  We know that FDNY did not supply the local firehouse with the means to conduct inspections of toxic buildings.  Yet, before the tragic August 18, 2007 fire, not only did FDNY fail to supply the local firehouse with the means to inspect a toxic building, FDNY did not supply them with a protocol telling the local firehouse how to do toxic building inspections. Why did FDNY not supply the local firehouse with a toxic building inspection protocol?  It did not exist. Let me repeat that: it did not exist.  FDNY had not yet created it. How absurd is that? Toxic buildings existed but an FDNY protocol to inspect them did not! It's unconscionable! It was above the rank of captain of the local firehouse to create such a protocol. It was above the rank of Battalion Chief and Division Chief. Such a protocol had to comply with OSHA regulations as made applicable by NYS PESH.  Creating such a protocol was the responsibility of the very top of FDNY. So, if anyone did not do their job - and keep in mind that  FreePetey maintains that inspections of the Deutsche Bank Building was not the responsibility of FDNY - it's the very top of FDNY who did not do their job not not the bottom.   The top of FDNY f*!@ed up so the top of FDNY - to divert attention away from themselves - scapegoats three innocent, diligent and dedicated fire officers.

It's unconscionable!

FreePetey has been supplied with tangible evidence - a trail of email messages - that conclusively shows that FDNY did not know how to inspect toxic buildings before the tragic August 18, 2007 fire. Only after the tragic August 18, 2007 fire, did FDNY begin to try to figure out how to inspect toxic buildings.

It's unconscionable!

Watch this blog as these email messages appear for the record.

* * * * * * * * * *
Go forward to Chapter One - FDNY Seeks Help from PESH

Captain Peter Bosco, his battalion chief and his division chief are still on the "sidelines" --  8 months and counting even though

1) FDNY was not invited by LMDC to participate in the deconstruction - decontamination of 130 Liberty Street in any role other than as an emergency responder 

2) According to LMDC's plan, Bovis and Galt were assigned to perform the functions that the three fire officers are wrongly accused of not performing and LMDC had the complete, utter and unfettered discretion under State law to assign these functions to Bovis and Galt and to exclude FDNY.

3) OSHA who has involved in the project as a regulator from the get-go - who understands this project as no-one else understands this project because of their intimate involvement with it - has accused Bovis and Galt of not performing the functions that the three fire officers are wrongly accused of not performing,

4) If anyone would ask OSHA, OSHA would tell them without hesitation, that FDNY had nothing to do with any of the failures on this project and would explain to them why this is so,

5) FDNY failed to equip Captain Peter Bosco and his Ten House with the means to inspect the toxic 130 Liberty Street 

6) etc. etc. 

 It's unconscionable that the FDNY Commissioner has so far failed to give the speech.  FDNY had nothing to do with this project. Why won't the FDNY Commissioner speak up and defend his FDNY?