21 June 2006

2Millionth Web Log/Suspect Device: Told to Stay Quiet Despite What Was Witnessed

Read this from 2Millionth Web Log. I dig the "Southern Strategy" assertion and I agree 100%.

And then this from Suspect Device (the second part of the post specifically, as the first part doesn't pertain to New Orleans, but is worthwhile reading because it illustrates yet another example of the habitual lying).

The most notable part of the original WWL content that both above posts link to:

The video they shot of the levee breach was used in the recently completed Congressional investigation. And while they testified, they were told to stay quiet about what they saw until it was over.

TOLD TO STAY QUIET?????? WHY? Because the reality didn't match the contrived story circulated as the truth. So for those first several crucial months from August to say, November or so, the reported ironclad truth was that the overtopping of the 17th Street Canal floodwall and London Avenue Canal floodwall led to most of the catastrophic flooding of the City of New Orleans. Not a design or not a structural failure--not a MANMADE failure, but that the Lake Pontchartrain-fed lateral canal water simply rose above the height of the floodwall and overtook it. Under this false assumption, the resulting wasteland the majority of our city became is specifically no one's fault because the flooding was simply an unstoppable natural disaster. This company line is reported for months and months and in the mind of that asshole cab driver in Detroit there is no individual culpability for the destruction of New Orleans. Its no one's fault. And Mr. Cab Driver (cue the Lenny Kravitz) dismisses Orleanians as being stupid for living here (not caring or understanding the geopolitical relevance or importance of New Orleans and its location) and moves on to the new news cycle and/or the latest Distraction du Jour.

But yet, here we have videotape taken by several NOFD firefighters on the morning of 29 August 2005 high above West End in a multi-story building that directly contradicts that story--the myth. They were told to stay quiet until the Congressional inquiry intending to determine what happened was complete. What? Huh? Can you think of other incidents in our country's history where people (er, witnesses) perhaps with contradicting information to the official story were told to "keep quiet?" I certainly can.

The City of New Orleans drowned because of inadequate flood protection--mostly dealing with poorly concieved, designed, and constructed floodwalls, not because the natural forces were beyond the limits of protection. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District is the federal agency with the duty of providing the flood protection of New Orleans--since 1892. They are (now admittedly) responsible for the flooding of the City of New Orleans, however, it is not that their staff are complete incompetents or their rationale is completely flawed. There are many factors that affect Corps-constructed projects from concept, to design, and to implementation and TBNO Contributor I.D. Reilly discussed this in a post in April. He is correct and without getting into specifics, trust me--Mr. Reilly knows what he is talking about. For instance, the repeated slashing of funding for the Corps in recent pre-KTMB years earmarked for flood control projects certainly didn't help New Orleans.

Now granted, the truth of what really happened (design failures) has come out in the past several months thanks to independent, scientific-based (reality-based) research teams. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to their credit, has publicly admitted their culpability, but the announcement by Lt. General Carl Strock didn't quite get the fanfare it should have received. I heard the crickets chirping upon its announcement . . . But because overtopping and a uncontrollable natural disaster was the story-line in the months proceeding 29 August 2005, the vast majority of our fellow countrymen reached their conclusion a long time ago. Reality has nothing to do with it.

TAGS: Katrina, New Orleans, NOLA, Flooding, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Levees


At June 21, 2006 2:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is little evidence I have seen that there were construction problems with the levees. In spite of early reports that the sheet piles were driven too short, actual removal seems to have confirmed that they were driven as specified.

The contractors seem to have built what they were told to build.

The problem seems to be with the what they were told to build.

At June 21, 2006 5:23 PM, Blogger Roux said...

The vast majority of Americans elsewhere reached there opinions because the devastation is almost impossible to understand unless you see it in person.

As part of my job I talk to people from all over the country and tell them you won't believe it unless you see it with your own eyes.

At June 21, 2006 10:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, they were built on Jello. The USACE designed them; the USACE is at fault.

At June 21, 2006 11:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I certainly agree with ashley. The problem was the Corps. They told the Contractors what to build and they built it.

My point was that you can't blame the Contractors for doing what they were told.

You also don't call that a construction problem, you call it a design problem.

At June 22, 2006 12:27 PM, Blogger Mr. Melpomene said...

I went back and reviewed the flood gauge reading from the lake during the storm. If the difference is only an hour or so, it is probably not going to make a huge difference. The official version of breech at 9:45 is probably based upon the time that there was a sharp spike in the surge at the south shore. It may not have broken at that moment, but it was certainly doomed by then. I'll have to re-read the reports, but I believe both the LSU report and even the IPET report both indicate that the breech began before the maximum loads were put on the system that day.
If the Feds were still denying involvement, and were still adament about not providing any compensation, then the fact that the collapse occurred at 6, 7, 8 or 9 am would be a useful political point.

That's not the case now [which is probably why there was an interest in keeping this rhetorical ammunition away from those likely to make the argument].

At January 21, 2009 1:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...







Post a Comment

<< Home