We know that after day one many chose to ignore that radius and that many chose to ignore the official warnings given to residents and workers and listen to the media who are definitely not "official" sources. -- Link?
Here's mine. And yes, it's from a liberal source but I well remember seeing all of this in the news as it happened: The statement pointed a finger at then-EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman, issuing a list of the many times that "Whitman assured New Yorkers the air was safe." Instead of also detailing the many times Giuliani echoed Whitman—for example, "the air is safe and acceptable," he said on September 28—the campaign cited several Fire Department "briefings" about "incident action plans" for the use of respirators, suggesting that the city had tried to get responders to protect themselves from the toxins at Ground Zero. The press release did not make a case that any of these "plans" had ever resulted in any real "action"; nor did it dispute the fact that as late as the end of October, only 29 percent of the workers at the site were wearing respirators. Of course, the workers might have noticed that the photo- op mayor never put one on himself. Instead, the other 9/11 visual we all remember is Giuliani leading at Ground Zero by macho example: The most in the way of protective gear he was ever seen wearing was a dust mask on his mouth. When the cleanup effort was widely hailed as under-budget and ahead of schedule, there was no doubt about who was in charge. "By Day 4," the New York Times reported in a salute to the "Quick Job" at Ground Zero, "Mr. Giuliani, the Department of Design and Construction (D.D.C.), the Office of Emergency Management, contractors and union officials decided it was time to bring order to the chaos." Giuliani controlled access to the site as if it were his backyard. Yet, when the scope of the health disaster was clear on the fifth anniversary in 2006, he told ABC: "Everybody's responsible." Throwing federal, state, and city agencies into the mix, he diffused the blame. On the Todayshow the same morning, however, he was more accusatory: "EPA put out statements very, very prominent that you have on tape, that the air was safe, and kept repeating that and kept repeating that." The city had its own test results, of course, and when 17 of 87 outdoor tests showed hazardous levels of asbestos up to seven blocks away, they decided not to make the results public. An EPA chief, Bruce Sprague, sent an October 5 letter to the city complaining about "very inconsistent compliance" with respiratory protection. Sprague, who wrote the letter only after unsuccessful conversations with Giuliani aides, likened the indifference in a subsequent court deposition to sticking one's head "over a barbecue grill for hours" and expecting no consequences. An internal legal memo to a deputy mayor estimated early in the cleanup that there could be 35,000 potential plaintiffs against the city, partly because rescue workers were "provided with faulty or no equipment (i.e. respirators)." Bechtel, the major construction firm retained by the city as its health and safety consultant, urged it to cut the exit-entry points from 20 to two so they could enforce the use of respirators and other precautions, just as was done at the Pentagon, but the recommendation was ignored. http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-07-31/news/rudy-giuliani-s-five-big-lies-about-9-11/full On Mar 21, 3:10 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > No, we know from a first hand on site resident that all possible caution was > taken and given. That movement even for those residing there was severely > restricted, that the area was off-limits to all but trained personnel after > day one and that a control radius was established. We know that after day > one many chose to ignore that radius and that many chose to ignore the > official warnings given to residents and workers and listen to the media who > are definitely not "official" sources. > > That is what we KNOW.... > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:51 PM, reallyconservative < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > And? Nobody there saw everything that went on or knows what every > > person there was told or provided. > > > What we DO know is what I posted - that obviously not everyone wore > > protective gear and some died as a result of rare lung problems traced > > to their exposure. And we know that the government told everyone the > > air was safe to breathe and to move back into the area long before it > > was actually safe to breathe. > > > Do you think governments never screw up or that it's only the feds who > > screw up? > > > On Mar 21, 2:17 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
