I am one of the moderators here. Dick while anonymous to you is not so to me. We have a sustained off-board relationship. While I do not always agree with his ideologies I do trust implicitly that which he claims to have seen, experienced or accomplished first-hand. He is definitely not given to "embellishment" either for his own or others benefit.
While I am sure that NO person saw or contacted "every" person entering or leaving the site I know he had and has a 24 hour birds eye view of what went on and was indeed one of the "controlled" group INSIDE the effected area.; On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:00 PM, reallyconservative < [email protected]> wrote: > You prefer claims from an anonymous message board poster to court > documents and links from newspapers. You think Dick managed to see > and account for the experience of every single person at Ground Zero. > Got it. > > On Mar 21, 1:56 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > " And I provided proof of > > those claims. You asked why the city was sued - THAT is why." > > > > I know EXACTLY where Dick Thompson lives and he is indeed right in the > > middle of the affected area ... I prefer and believe first hand info over > > that posted by some third party or some one with "money to lose" by being > > honest. > > > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:48 AM, reallyconservative < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > In the first place you have to acquire the > > > respirators before you can get them to the area. > > > -- > > > > > According to the link above that you apparently chose not to read, > > > that was supposed to have been done long before 9/11/01. > > > > > And I've made no claims whatsoever, other than there were apparently a > > > lot of people working and living there who didn't wear masks and that > > > they were assured the air quality was fine. And I provided proof of > > > those claims. You asked why the city was sued - THAT is why. > > > > > On Mar 21, 1:46 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > And you base that on what? Define proper warnings. Tell me how > you > > > > get all the required respirators to all those at Ground Zero on Day > One > > > > after what had just happened and the number of people who either live > or > > > > work in that area. In the first place you have to acquire the > > > > respirators before you can get them to the area. Then you have to > > > > transport them to the area. Once you do, unless you are bulldogging > > > > everyone, some are not going to heed the warnings. And I am > supposed > > > > to believe that one? I only know that what I saw and what I > experienced > > > > and what the man who lived next door experienced at Ground Zero. He > > > > was a heavy equipment operator and volunteered for 3 weeks operating > the > > > > heavy equipment to help clear out Ground Zero. Neither of us saw > what > > > > you claim happened and both of us saw the EMT and the fire dept and > the > > > > police dept and the way they handled things. That most definitely > does > > > > not agree with your claims at all and we were there. > > > > > > reallyconservative wrote: > > > > > Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a liar and full of shit. > > > > > > > > http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/02/28/2010-02-28_a_911_smoki. > > > .. > > > > > > > No - the city and feds never told people the air was safe to > breathe: > > > > > > >http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/02/07/usat-wtc-acov.htm > > > > > > > Nah, there was no problem with enforcing regulations that required > > > > > people to wear respirators: > > > > > > > Remarkably, not one fatal accident occurred on the pile. But the > > > > > city�s inspectors found that by late October, only 29 percent of > > > > > ground zero workers were wearing the sophisticated respirators that > > > > > were required by OSHA. Even Mr. Giuliani sometimes showed up > without > > > > > one. > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/nyregion/14giuliani.html?_r=1&pagew. > > > .. > > > > > > > Nah, no ground zero workers or residents have died from rare lung > > > > > diseases: > > > > > > > > http://autoimmunedisease.suite101.com/article.cfm/post_911_sarcoidosis > > > > > > > And while I agree that if the masks and proper warnings were indeed > > > > > provided to everyone in danger, those who chose to not wear them > have > > > > > nobody to blame but themselves, it doesn't appear that the proper > > > > > warnings were provided NOR the respirators to all of those at > Ground > > > > > Zero from day one. > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 11:11 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > >> As one who worked in that area, you are full of s*it. The city > had > > > > >> special setups all over the place with EMT, face masks, bottled > > > liquids > > > > >> 24/7 for weeks after the event. We were not even permitted to go > to > > > > >> work for 3 weeks and even then they still had all the EMT, face > masks, > > > > >> bottled liquids after that. The technicians were all over the > place > > > to > > > > >> see that people were safe. What more could they do. I know what > they > > > > >> did. I was there. I worked in that area. I have emphysema and > they > > > > >> sure saw that I was safe. You really do not know what you are > talking > > > > >> about. > > > > > > >> reallyconservative wrote: > > > > > > >>> Not true. Apparently there were a ton of toxins (including > asbestos > > > > >>> and benzene) in that rubble. And the workers were told not to > > > concern > > > > >>> themselves with it and to go about their business. That's > > > > >>> negligence. The city (or the leaders of the first responders) > should > > > > >>> have made sure all of them wore protective masks before digging > in > > > > >>> that rubble. > > > > > > >>> On Mar 20, 10:34 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > >>>> Why in the hell would ANYONE get a settlement unless they were > suing > > > > >>>> al-Qaeda ??? The only "fault" or action lies with them..... > > > > > > >>>> Talk about drinkin' kool-aid !!!!!!! > > > > > > >>>> On Mar 20, 1:12 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> Originally published 12:05 a.m., March 20, 2010, > updated > > > 12:30 > > > > >>>>> a.m., March 20, 2010 > > > > > > >>>>> Judge rejects settlement for 9/11 rescuers > > > > > > >>>>> ASSOCIATED PRESS > > > > > > >>>>> NEW YORK | A federal judge on Friday rejected a legal > settlement > > > that > > > > >>>>> would have given at least $575 million to people sickened by > ash > > > and > > > > >>>>> dust from the World Trade Center, saying the deal shortchanged > > > 10,000 > > > > >>>>> ground zero workers whom he called heroes. > > > > > > >>>>> "In my judgment, this settlement is not enough," said U.S. > District > > > > >>>>> Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who delivered his pronouncement to a > > > stunned > > > > >>>>> gallery at a federal courthouse in Manhattan. > > > > > > >>>>> Rising from his chair, the 76-year-old jurist said he feared > police > > > > >>>>> officers, firefighters and other laborers who cleared rubble > after > > > the > > > > >>>>> Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks were being pushed into signing a > deal > > > few > > > > >>>>> of them understood. > > > > > > >>>>> Under the terms of the settlement, workers had been given just > 90 > > > days > > > > >>>>> to say yes or no to a deal that would have assigned them > payments > > > based > > > > >>>>> on a point system that Hellerstein said was complicated enough > to > > > make a > > > > >>>>> Talmudic scholar's head spin. > > > > > > >>>>> "I will not preside over a settlement that is based on fear or > > > > >>>>> ignorance," he said. > > > > > > >>>>> Of the proposed settlement of $575 million to $657 million, > workers > > > > >>>>> stood to get amounts ranging from a few thousand dollars to > more > > > than $1 > > > > >>>>> million. > > > > > > >>>>> Hellerstein said the deal should be richer. Too much of it > would be > > > > >>>>> eaten up by legal fees, he said. > > > > > > >>>>> A third or more of the money set aside for the workers was > expected > > > to > > > > >>>>> go to their lawyers. Some plaintiffs had agreed at the start of > the > > > case > > > > >>>>> to give as much as 40 percent of any judgment to cover fees and > > > > >>>>> expenses. That might have meant $200 million or more going to > > > attorneys. > > > > > > >>>>> Hellerstein, who presides over all federal court litigation > related > > > to > > > > >>>>> the terror attacks, ripped into the agreement after hearing > several > > > > >>>>> ground zero responders speak tearfully of their illnesses and > after > > > > >>>>> receiving letters and phone calls from others expressing > confusion > > > about > > > > >>>>> the deal. > > > > > > >>>>> He said he was speaking "from the heart" out of great > compassion > > > for the > > > > >>>>> thousands of men and women who spent time at ground zero. > > > > > > >>>>> It wasn't immediately clear whether the judge's actions would > kill > > > the > > > > >>>>> settlement entirely. > > > > > > >>>>> The deal had taken years to negotiate and was announced March > 11, > > > with > > > > >>>>> about two months to go until the first trials. > > > > > > >>>>> A spokeswoman for the law partnership that negotiated the > > > settlement on > > > > >>>>> behalf of the workers said she had no comment on the judge's > > > remarks. > > > > > > >>>>> Christine LaSala, president of the WTC Captive Insurance Co., a > > > special > > > > >>>>> insurance entity created by Congress to represent the city in > the > > > > >>>>> lawsuit, said the judge "has now made it more difficult, if not > > > > >>>>> impossible, for the people bringing these claims to obtain > > > compensation > > > > >>>>> and a settlement." > > > > > > >>>>> She said the lawyers would confer with city officials and "try > to > > > find a > > > > >>>>> way forward." > > > > > > >>>>> New York City's chief lawyer, Michael Cardozo, said, "We have > great > > > > >>>>> respect for Judge Hellerstein and will consider his comments, > but > > > his > > > > >>>>> reaction to the settlement will make it extremely difficult to > > > resolve > > > > >>>>> these cases." > > > > > > >>>>> Hellerstein laid out a number of proposed fixes for what he saw > as > > > > >>>>> deficiencies in the settlement and told the two sides to resume > > > > >>>>> negotiations. > > > > > > >>>>> He rejected the idea that a third or more of the money should > go to > > > the > > > > >>>>> plaintiffs' lawyers and said the legal fees should be paid by > the > > > WTC > > > > >>>>> Captive, not the workers. > > > > > > >>>>> Hellerstein said workers should have ample opportunities to ask > > > > >>>>> questions and get answers about the settlement, and he offered > to > > > go on > > > > >>>>> a mini-speaking tour to get information to the plaintiffs. > > > > > > >>>>> "I will make myself available in union halls, fire department > > > houses, > > > > >>>>> police precincts and schools," Hellerstein said. > > > > > > >>>>> He said more money should be set aside for people who later > develop > > > > >>>>> cancer that may be linked to ground zero toxins. He said he > wanted > > > to > > > > >>>>> retain ultimate control over which workers were entitled to > have > > > claims > > > > >>>>> paid. > > > > > > >>>>> Hellerstein acknowledged that he felt a personal connection to > the > > > case, > > > > >>>>> calling it "the greatest burden in my life," but insisted that > his > > > > >>>>> unusual intervention was legally and morally necessary, given > the > > > > >>>>> importance of the Sept. 11 attacks to the country. > > > > > > >>>>> "This is no ego trip for > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to politicalforum+ > unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE > ME" as the subject. > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to politicalforum+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
