Avery's human shield

[Shrinker]

Here's a thing. Avery's posted his 'complete interview' with John Feal, a 9/11 clean-up worker who was badly injured while working at Ground Zero.

The guy's righteously angry about treatment of the GZ workers, and has a clear and deep dislike of the government. But, despite giving the Truth Movement a brief nod, he shows no signs of truthiness.

So what's Avery up to? Building a human shield around his CT whinings just to made debunkers look cruel and heartless? Surely not. That would be incredibly bad taste. In the interview Mr Feal (at about 27 minutes in) attacks those people he says offered help, but really only wanted something in return. Surely Avery wouldn't dare exploit the guy after posting something like that on Google Video.

Or is LC:FC just going to be a video about genuine grievances after 9/11? After all, after listening to one man's testimony of his truly traumatic experience, all this talk of squibs, and 'pull it' really does sound desperately childish. Maybe Avery's grown up. That was supposedly the complete interview, with a guy who did clean-up at Ground Zero, yet Avery didn't think to ask... So, did you see anything suspicious? Have you been told to keep quiet about the detcord and blast caps? Did you see the gold?

If the towers were demolised, he must have seen something, right? Seems Avery no longer cares.

So are the fans going to be enormously disappointed, with an LC:FC thats actually a worthy examination of the ugliness of real-life post-9/11, or is it going to be the usual immature tasteless fantasy bookended by some of the most blatant exploitation in cinema pay-per-view history? I really can't think of an alternative that wins for the truthers.


8765083165019734566



Here's the link in case the embedding doesn't work.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8765083165019734566&hl=en

[8den]

So are the fans going to be enormously disappointed, with an LC:FC thats actually a worthy examination of the ugliness of real-life post-9/11, or is it going to be the usual immature tasteless fantasy bookended by some of the most blatant exploitation in cinema pay-per-view history? I really can't think of an alternative that wins for the truthers.


I'd like the former, but I suspect, taking from what Dylan says, and that smug grin on his face, that we'll get the latter.

[T.A.M.]

Dylan is creating a film full of heartbreaking issues, surrounding a pile of dung. In this way, he knows if we attack the film as a whole, he can roll out the "how dare you attack the heroic workers at GZ who are dieing because of the dust", and hence deflect the attention from the crap that his video will be full of.

TAM:)

[gumboot]

That was supposedly the complete interview, with a guy who did clean-up at Ground Zero, yet Avery didn't think to ask... So, did you see anything suspicious? Have you been told to keep quiet about the detcord and blast caps? Did you see the gold?



I noticed a similar thing with the Marcel Bernard interview in Loose Change. In fact I even commented on it in Distortions of Fact:

In this interview Bernard is not asked if he thought Hanjour could not have hit the Pentagon – somewhat surprising given this is precisely what the filmmakers who interviewed him were proposing in their film Loose Change.

Perhaps they did ask him, and didn’t like the answer.

-Gumboot

[JamesB]

I noticed a similar thing with the Marcel Bernard interview in Loose Change. In fact I even commented on it in Distortions of Fact:



-Gumboot

The same thing with the April Gallop interview, they never bothered to ask "So where are these air defenses at the Pentagon?". I raised that question with Avery and he just responded, "Well why don't you interview her then?"

[gumboot]

Part way through the interview. Thus far it primarily seems that this guy is getting political because he feels the USA should be more of a Social Welfare state. I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

Why do I have this horrible feeling that LC:FC will argue "The government didn't help GZ first responders, which proves they were behind the attacks"?

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

I noticed a similar thing with the Marcel Bernard interview in Loose Change. In fact I even commented on it in Distortions of Fact:

-GumbootThey were probably aware of Bernard's comment to the press:

But Hanjour's problems were nothing unusual, Bernard said. “There’s no doubt in my mind that once (Flight 77) got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.” Gazette (Greenbelt), 9/21/2001 (http://web.archive.org/web/20030908034933/http://www.gazette.net/200138/greenbelt/news/72196-1.html)

[gumboot]

They were probably aware of Bernard's comment to the press:



I quoted that in my document too... :p It's kind of funny when their star witness directly refutes the claims they are using him to support.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Alright finally finished watching it. Although not directly related to Conspiracy Theories, I'm hoping some Americans could answer some of my questions:

1) Were clean up crews at Ground Zero employees or contractors?
2) Who is responsible for the on site health and safety of employees and/or contractors at a work site?
3) Were specific guidelines issued regarding use of respiratory protective equipment at Ground Zero? If so, who by? What were they?

Thanks.

For comparison, imaging a similar scenario in New Zealand, the clean up crews would be contractors, and a designated site safety officer would oversee site safety, however contractors are all responsible for site safety.

A site such as Ground Zero would be required to have continual monitoring for various health and safety threats, and would probably be continually monitored by OSH (Govt agency responsible for Workplace Safety enforcement).

Injuries relating to the site qualify the workers for financial support from a government agency called the Accident Compensation Commission which pays for health care, ongoing treatment, and subsidises for lost income. In addition the Department of Work and Income has an invalids benefit for those who cannot work.

Workers who failed to take proper precautions to prevent injury or sickness at the work site would be prosecuted, and may not qualify for ACC support (if they neglected to take precautions for their own safety and health).

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

Alright finally finished watching it. Although not directly related to Conspiracy Theories, I'm hoping some Americans could answer some of my questions:

1) Were clean up crews at Ground Zero employees or contractors?They were mostly contractors. GZ was divided into quadrants, each of which was the responsibility of one of four large private companies: Bovis, Turner, AMEC, and Tully. The first three are construction management agencies and mostly used subcontractors in their sectors. Tully is a construction firm and mostly used its own employees. Hundreds of ironworkers came primarily from two local unions.

Then there were city employees helping with rescue and recovery, primarily from the FDNY and NYPD. The federal government, particularly FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers, provided many additional search-and-rescue teams and engineers. Independent engineers and demolitions experts came from all over. New York State and New Jersey also employ many engineers and construction experts who were involved.

Most of the workers on the piles were union members. The unions negotiated the wages and hours with the city. The NYC Department of Design and Construction supervised the operation and did the strategic planning for the cleanup.

2) Who is responsible for the on site health and safety of employees and/or contractors at a work site?As in NZ, normally at a big job a representative from the federal agency OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) would have ultimate responsibility for enforcement of safety rules and punishment for violations. The contractors, of course, are expected to have their people properly trained and equipped. However, at Ground Zero it was eventually [edit: in November] decided that there was no way OSHA could enforce these rules amongst so many different agencies and organizations, so enforcement was left to the companies overseeing the quadrants, to the FDNY and NYPD for their members, with the DDC having the final say of who was disciplined or fired for safety violations while on the piles.

3) Were specific guidelines issued regarding use of respiratory protective equipment at Ground Zero? If so, who by? What were they?Yes, once proper respirators were available for all, their use was mandatory for anyone within a zone established by OSHA and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). At some point OSHA actually painted a green line around the site marking this zone. Representatives from those agencies were on hand at all times to instruct people in the proper fitting and use of respirators, but their instructions often went unheeded. As can be seen from photos on the scene, the use of respirators was spotty at best. Some people were fired for not wearing their protection, but that was a rarity. In contrast, at the Pentagon anyone not using proper safety protection within the prescribed zone was gone, period.

I have a great deal of information about these issues on this page (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerositesafety%2Cworkerhealthissues). In particular, scroll down to "Air masks at issue in claims of 9/11 illness" at the bottom of the page.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046797583769a0.jpg

[gumboot]

They were mostly contractors. GZ was divided into quadrants, each of which was the responsibility of one of four large private companies: Bovis, Turner, AMEC, and Tully. The first three are construction management agencies and mostly used subcontractors in their sectors. Tully is a construction firm and mostly used its own employees. Hundreds of ironworkers came primarily from two local unions.

Then there were city employees helping with rescue and recovery, primarily from the FDNY and NYPD. The federal government, particularly FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers, provided many additional search-and-rescue teams and engineers. Independent engineers and demolitions experts came from all over. New York State and New Jersey also employ many engineers and construction experts who were involved.

Most of the workers on the piles were union members. The unions negotiated the wages and hours with the city. The NYC Department of Design and Construction supervised the operation and did the strategic planning for the cleanup.

As in NZ, normally at a big job a representative from the federal agency OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) would have ultimate responsibility for enforcement of safety rules and punishment for violations. The contractors, of course, are expected to have their people properly trained and equipped. However, at Ground Zero it was decided that there was no way OSHA could enforce these rules amongst so many different agencies and organizations, so enforcement was left to the companies overseeing the quadrants, to the FDNY and NYPD for their members, with the DDC having the final say of who was disciplined or fired for safety violations while on the piles.

Yes, once proper respirators were available for all, their use was mandatory for anyone within a zone established by OSHA and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Representatives from those agencies were on hand at all times to instruct people in the proper fitting and use of respirators, but their instructions often went unheeded. As can be seen from photos on the scene, the use of respirators was spotty at best. Some people were fired for not wearing their protection, but that was a rarity. In contrast, at the Pentagon anyone not using proper safety protection within the prescribed zone was gone, period.

I have a great deal of information about these issues on this page (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerositesafety%2Cworkerhealthissues). In particular, scroll down to "Air masks at issue in claims of 9/11 illness" at the bottom of the page.



Thanks Gravy, very thorough response. I'll have to have a look through all of this. I'm not surprised by the information, really.

On film sets in New Zealand, the AD (Assistant Director) department are ultimately responsible for onset safety, even when there's a Safety Officer on set with us. I know from personal experience that contractors can be atrocious at following even the most basic safety requirements, such as wearing Hi Viz vests on the roadside, or wearing hard hat when walking under suspended weights. When you have to tell technicians with thirty years experience to put their vest on for the third time in an hour, you have to wonder.

Construction workers are notorious for poor adherence to safety measures, and I wouldn't expect it to be any different in the USA. It would be interesting to see data on comparisons between GZ worker illnesses and respirator use, but I doubt such data exists.

-Gumboot