Machiavelli in New Orleans?
Let me preface my post with a disclaimer that I am not big into conspiracy theories.
I was listening recently to one of the ABC news Podcasts in which they were interviewing displaced persons from New Orleans. In passing, one of the people being interviewed suggested that the levees were intentionally blown to flood the poor neighborhoods. I did some searching on the internet and was astounded to see that there are plenty of people who believe this to be the case (sorry, no links because the copy and paste functionality of my WinPC disappeared a couple of days ago). I didn't want to believe that this could possibly be the case, but then I thought about it from the most coldly calculating point of view.
In all probability, the levees were going to fail somewhere. That is no stretch of the imagination. The only question was where would they fail and what areas would be affected. From a Machiavellian point of view, it would make sense to protect the areas of the city that would most likely contribute to the economic recovery of the city. In other words, the tourist areas such as the French Quarter would have to be protected at the expense of other areas. CNN and other news organizations have reported that some of the first areas to reopen for business are indeed in the French Quarter.
Like I said at the top, I generally don't buy into conspiracy theories, but this one makes a lot of sense. Who could have had the authority to order the levees blown and who could have done it? Police, National Guard, regular military? If a city were faced with the likelyhood of inundation, would it make sense to try and protect areas that would probably contribute to the revitalization? If you were mayor/governor/president, would you sacrifice residential areas to protect some part of the commercial viability of the city for the immediate aftermath?
I can't buy into the idea that anyone would be cruel enough to do this just to spite the poor or Blacks. But I can somehow twist my mind around to see the logic in protecting limited parts of the city if, AND ONLY IF, there was no way to save all of it.
I was listening recently to one of the ABC news Podcasts in which they were interviewing displaced persons from New Orleans. In passing, one of the people being interviewed suggested that the levees were intentionally blown to flood the poor neighborhoods. I did some searching on the internet and was astounded to see that there are plenty of people who believe this to be the case (sorry, no links because the copy and paste functionality of my WinPC disappeared a couple of days ago). I didn't want to believe that this could possibly be the case, but then I thought about it from the most coldly calculating point of view.
In all probability, the levees were going to fail somewhere. That is no stretch of the imagination. The only question was where would they fail and what areas would be affected. From a Machiavellian point of view, it would make sense to protect the areas of the city that would most likely contribute to the economic recovery of the city. In other words, the tourist areas such as the French Quarter would have to be protected at the expense of other areas. CNN and other news organizations have reported that some of the first areas to reopen for business are indeed in the French Quarter.
Like I said at the top, I generally don't buy into conspiracy theories, but this one makes a lot of sense. Who could have had the authority to order the levees blown and who could have done it? Police, National Guard, regular military? If a city were faced with the likelyhood of inundation, would it make sense to try and protect areas that would probably contribute to the revitalization? If you were mayor/governor/president, would you sacrifice residential areas to protect some part of the commercial viability of the city for the immediate aftermath?
I can't buy into the idea that anyone would be cruel enough to do this just to spite the poor or Blacks. But I can somehow twist my mind around to see the logic in protecting limited parts of the city if, AND ONLY IF, there was no way to save all of it.
Comments
But would it actually limit the damage? Is the french quarter so sealed from other parts of the city that it wold not the flooded by the same water eventually? And as I understand the situation it was not a limited amount of water that "just" needed to find a way. It was a flood right? So to let the water come in at one place would not really take of the stress.
It makes sense that this would be the case, as the city expanded into levee protected areas after the high parts were built up initially.
Originally posted by Anders
To blow the levees would make sense to limit the damage. It has been done before.
But would it actually limit the damage? Is the french quarter so sealed from other parts of the city that it wold not the flooded by the same water eventually? And as I understand the situation it was not a limited amount of water that "just" needed to find a way. It was a flood right? So to let the water come in at one place would not really take of the stress.
I am not familiar enough with the topography of New Orleans to give any definite answer, but from what I understand, not all of the city is at 20 feet below sea level. The French Quarter and the Garden District could very well be on some of the high ground.
If the cauldron of New Orleans bounded by the Lake to the North, the River to the South and the Canal to the East were flooded, then it does make sense that all of it would eventually be affected. The question is whether the levees on the East were blown to flood the 9th ward in order to protect, as much as possible, that cauldron by providing an outflow to lower areas that would prevent the accumulation of enough water to affect the higher areas.
Design Shortcomings Seen in New Orleans Flood Walls
But federal meteorologists say that New Orleans did not get the full brunt of the storm, because its strongest winds passed dozens of miles east of the city. While a formal analysis of the storm's strength and surges will take months, the National Hurricane Center said the sustained winds over Lake Pontchartrain reached only 95 miles per hour, while Category 3 storms are defined by sustained winds of 111 to 130 m.p.h.
The levees were made for a cat 3. Anything less and the levee should have held ... unless someone blew it. I smell the gun smoking, I just can't see it.
The levees failed the World Trade Centers too.
(their levees were the FAA, Air force, CIA, FBI, NSA, Navy, Army, Marines etc)
The difference is they had years to prepare, not 3-5 days. If *those* levy failures still fail to hold water (no pun intended) what makes you think theory has a prayer?
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
Let me put it this way.
The levees failed the World Trade Centers too.
(their levees were the FAA, Air force, CIA, FBI, NSA, Navy, Army, Marines etc)
The difference is they had years to prepare, not 3-5 days. If *those* levy failures still fail to hold water (no pun intended) what makes you think theory has a prayer?
Whats next? Anyone wants to write a poem?
Originally posted by Anders
Whats next? Anyone wants to write a poem?
Nicely said.
Originally posted by Kishan
I can't buy into the idea that anyone would be cruel enough to do this just to spite the poor or Blacks. But I can somehow twist my mind around to see the logic in protecting limited parts of the city if, AND ONLY IF, there was no way to save all of it.
IANAH(ydrologist), but I don't think that makes sense in the NO situation. The reason to blow levees is to dissipate flood waters to protect downstream areas, right? But there isn't anything downstream of NO, and the water level of the lake - which did the flooding - wasn't affected at all by the floods. It's a huge lake, and flooding NO didn't provide an outlet, just a (small) reservoir. So I don't think it would make any sense to flood part of the city to try to save another part. As was mentioned above, the French quarter is on high ground, which is why it wasn't flooded. What people might be confused about is that after the flood, when water levels in the lake had receeded below the level in "the bowl", engineers blew holes in levees on the east side of NO to let water drain out.
Highest Official* Wind Gusts:
90 mph @L49 SOUTH LAFOUR, LA
90 mph BIX BILOXI, MS
Runner Up: 86 mph @NEW NEW ORLEANS, LA
"Hurricane-Force Gusts" (which is not really a valid term since hurricane force is measured in sustained winds) also occurred at Mobile, AL and Meridian, MS.
The maximum sustained wind was 69 mph, only tropical storm force, at New Orleans, LA.
Highest Unofficial* Wind Gusts:
Pascagoula, MS (Civil Defense) - 118 mph
Laurel, MS (Jones County Emergency Management)
Belle Chase, LA - 105 mph
Grand Isle Buoy (Off LA Coast) - 102 mph
Dauphin Island Buoy (Off LA Coast) - 102 mph
Gulfport, MS (Emergency Operations Center) - 100 mph
*Official gusts are recorded by government (airport) stations. Unofficial readings were taken by amateur stations or government buoys.
(If anyone in A.I/A.O. has any further information, or has access to a (half hourly/hourly meteogram for New Orleans, August 29 and 30... lets see it! (temp, dewpoint, windspeed, direction, etc)
........
*By rights, by the time the levees broke, (some 16 hours AFTER the passage of the storm's circulation center, the winds in the New Orleans area were what could be described a 'stiff breeze' from a generally westerly direction. By the time Katrina made landfall some 55 miles away from N.O, it was accelerating northwards, and the circulation center was by then some 200 miles+ to the north and east (of N.O) Why would the levees break at the time when the winds would have been pushing water *out* of Lake Pontchartrain? This makes no sense. During the approach and height of the storm, the (far stronger) winds would have been out of an easterly quadrant, and shifted round to the North, then northwest as the eye traversed to the east, therefore first pushing water from the Gulf of Mexico into Lake Pontachartrain, and then the north to northwest winds duuring the storms closest approach would have battered the northfacing shore. During this dangerous period, the levees held just fine.
*There have been many media reports of a "secondary storm surge" that caused the levees to fail. There was no such thing as a secondary storm surge in the New Orleans area according to tidal sensors. These gages record continuous tidal stage, velocity, water temperature, specific conductance, and salinity, and transmit these data via the GOES satellite for output to a USGS real-time Internet portal. Hurricanes do not produce "secondary storm surges", especially 16 hours after a rapidly weakening system has made landfall. Once more , we are being fed BS.
*Many residents in the area where the levees broke reported hearing a series of loud booms just before the water started flooding in.
Were explosives used to break the levees?
New Orleans, LA -- Divers inspecting the ruptured levee walls surrounding New Orleans found something that piqued their interest: Burn marks on underwater debris chunks from the broken levee wall!
One diver, a member of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, saw the burn marks and knew immediately what caused them. He secreted a small chunk of the cement inside his diving suit and later arranged for it to be sent to trusted military friends at a The U.S. Army Forensic Laboratory at Fort Gillem, Georgia for testing.
According to well placed sources, a military forensic specialist determined the burn marks on the cement chunks did, in fact, come from high explosives. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity said "We found traces of boron- enhanced fluoronitramino explosives as well as PBXN-111. This would indicate at least two separate types of explosive devices."
The levee ruptures in New Orleans did not take place during Hurricane Katrina, but rather a day after the hurricane struck. Several residents of New Orleans and many Emergency Workers reported hearing what sounded like large, muffled explosions from the area of the levee, but those were initially discounted as gas explosions from homes with leaking gas lines.
If these allegations prove true, the ruptured levee which flooded New Orleans was a deliberate act of mass destruction perpetrated by someone with access to military- grade UNDERWATER high explosives.
http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum87/61432.html
*retrofitting of the 17St Canal was being performed! The existing levee to be enlarged to 22.4 feet above sea level with 1,300 linear feet of earthen levee and 300 linear feet of combination earthen embankment and I-type floodwall. Pedestrian walkway and benches provided. On west bank of Industrial Canal from St. Claude Avenue to Mississippi River.
Estimated Start: June 2003. Construction Period: 10 months. DESIGN BEING COMPLETED PILE DRIVING TRUCK USE" Is it not very "convenient" that the levees broke in the exact same sections that were undergoing construction?
*In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent eminent domain decision on private property, the City of New Orleans can easily condemn all of those destroyed properties and seize the land under eminent domain when the city is rebuilt. Of course with a proportion of the residents of the 9th ward ending up deceased, there's no one left to reclaim the properties or to fight back against city hall. This is very convenient for anyone wishing to seize that property.
*Property Speculators to be buying up cheap land when many of those condemned houses get torn down. Expect a boom in the construction of generic luxury condos, hotels and shopping malls to replace the communities which the "hurricane" destroyed:
http://abc26.trb.com/la-fi-nohouses1...o-home-utility
and:
Some areas of the city deliberately flooded
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...562415,00.html
Just my 2cents, from the board's resident conspiracy theorist. Any rookie detective looks for A MOTIVE when bad stuff happens. By the way, it has been rumored perhaps, that (some) humans may have been known (on occasions) to (possibly) commit (dare I say) criminal acts for their financial benefit. Or is this being a little harsh?
As Towel said, there is no logical reason to have damaged levees : the lake pontchartrain is so big that there is no way that a small flood can prevent a bigger one. It would be possible in the case of a smaller lake, but not in the case of a giant one.