MSNBC: Were the levees bombed in New Orleans?

[Marleyb]

"It's become a strongly held belief by some in the storm zone — the idea that the destruction of New Orleans’ heavily poor, heavily black Ninth Ward was neither an accident nor an act of nature.

The latest theory is partly rooted in historical fact. In 1927, the levees were bombed to save parts of the city, and black neighborhoods were inundated.

Harvard's Pouissant also says that latching on to conspiracy theories is a way for the powerless to cope with terrible losses — incendiary claims born of an enormous tragedy."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10370145

Is this just a conspiracy theory? Why don't they fund a real independent investigation, that the people of New Orleans can believe in, just to put everyone's fears to rest?

It may sound outrageous, however, many people at DU watched the US gov 'response' to this tragedy. The way FEMA blocked all efforts to help the people...it seems like something more sinister was going on. Here's a collection in case anyone has forgotten...
Pattern Emerges in Katrina Lack of Response Stories

[Taxloss]

1. Good for Pouissant .

If it has been done before to minimise damage, why lie about it?

[neuvocat]

6. Maybe someone messed up

and it all went wrong so they want to hide it.

[Taxloss]

10. Maybe.

I don't see it though. Seems like a weird thing to do for no reason.

[philb]

41. FEMA blocked evacuation aid and other aid to New Orleans;

http://www.flcv.com/femabloc.html

[jus_the_facts]

2. The results are the same regardless of HOW they broke.....

.....and no attempts will be made to investigate it either...I'll believe it when I SEE it if the southern part o'my state will EVER even be cleaned up...much less rebuilt. :nopity:

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. They may have well been bombed

and I am sure that's what it sounds like when 1000's of tons of water suddenly had nowhere else to go.

However, it is the Army Corp of Engineers who are responsible for the levee system and it was the crappy, substandard work that was done, when any work was done at all, that caused the levee walls to fail. Either way the Bush and the Federal Government are guilty of criminal negligence.

[xultar]

13. I heard there was an audible boom around the time the levees broke

&

My dad also heard that from a NOLA resident.

[jobycom]

19. Have you ever been in a hurricane?

A few hundred tons of water crashing over a levee would make a huge boom, too. As do falling trees, cars being smashed into buildings, stuff like that. There are so many noises. Most of what you hear is wind and water. You hear a lot of booms, as transformers explode, waves crash into buildings or into levees, buildings collapes, tornados pass overhead. Most of what you hear, though, is a steady freight train sound, and very few noises are distinct over that steady roar. If you've ever been on a beach with waves crashing against it, you know how loud that is. Imagine 20 foot waves crashing over a levee, and imagine that sound as steady, not coming in waves.

[Silverhair]

33. You are exactly correct.

I have been in 4 hurricanes and a typoon. DAMN NOISY !!!

[jobycom]

47. I remember a hurricane as a child, David, I think, where we were told

to listen for tornados. The radio kept saying to listen for a freight train sound, and if you heard it, to go huddle down in an inner room.

We spent the whole hurricane huddled in an inner room, because everything sounded like a freight train! There were a couple of points when there seemed to be a more focused sound, and probably tornados were passing by (one struck about a block away), but a freight train could have driven by our window and not changed the sound significantly. And David wasn't a particularly significant hurricane. Although it toppled a tree onto my grandfather's car about ten feet from the house. We didn't hear that, either.

[jus_the_facts]

16. Same shit....different day...month....year...

....don't see much responsibility or accountablity for all the other atrocities these people are guilty of ...why should this be any different... :grr:

[jobycom]

20. It's way more complicated than that.

There were three main levee failures. The one that killed the most people happened in the Ninth Ward, on the Industrial Canal. There the levee was topped by the storm surge. Levees don't hold up to water rushing over the top, so that one would have failed anyway. There was another factor, too. A smaller canal ran from the Gulf to the Canal, and it channeled water like a hose into the canal, creating an even higher wave of water, and a high pressure hose effect in the Canal. There is video from a power plant near the first break that shows the water crashing over the levee. If you really want to understand the power of a hurricane, found that video.

The other two main levee breaks were closer to the Lake. Neither of them was topped, and those are the ones that probably had shoddy planning and/or workmanship. Both of these, from what others have told me, are in middle class lake neighborhoods. These are the breaks that flooded Canal Street and the downtown area (the Industrial Canal break was on the other side from the city), so if they were bombed, it makes no sense. They would not have flooded anything if they weren't broke, and they did flood the city and decent neighborhoods.

So these are two different incidents. The IC is the one that would have been bombed if any were bombed, but it was topped by a wall of water that would have broken many levees. The other levees were not topped, and wouldn't have been bombed, since nothing would have flooded if they had held. These are the two with the shoddy workmanship.

[stickdog]

24. Why wouldn't they have been bombed?

Suppose the plan was to get EVERYONE out of New Orleans? To cause a disaster so vast that even the most liberal and libertarian among us would be BEGGING to send federal troops in to "save the day"?

[Silverhair]

34. Like I said. A conspiracy theory is like a religion.

It must be held to in the face of ALL evidence. Talking to a CTer is like trying to convince a Fundie of the truth of evolution.

[stickdog]

35. What makes you 100% certain that God doesn't exist?

Just giving you a taste of your "argumentative techniques."

[Silverhair]

36. I never said I was an athiest. Only that evolution happened.

Big difference. In fact, I do believe in the Christian God. But I also know that the scientific proof of evolution is overwhelming. But some people can't accept that evolution happened, and will not accept the science. Just as you cling to your belief in conspiracies to explain things. Notice that one poster has said there is a video showing the waves overtopping the levees, yet you still refuse to acknowledge it.

[stickdog]

37. Saying that evidence exists is not the same as producing it.

The difference between you and me is that I'm agnostic about what happened in New Orleans while you believe that your God wouldn't permit a conspiracy there.

[Silverhair]

43. You are twisting things around.

You are a CTer. You have been told by another poster about a video that shows the water overtopping the levee, and about the canal system. You have been told where to go to find information about levees. With some googling you could find good information about the construction of the NOLA levee and you would realize how silly the talk of a 30ft crater from a bomb is.

If you want some solid info: http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0603feat.html
That is the magazine for the American Society of Civil Engineers. The date of the articled is June 2003. Two year BEFORE Katrina.

"The design of the original levees, which dates to the 1960s, was based on rudimentary storm modeling that, it is now realized, might underestimate the threat of a potential hurricane. Even if the modeling was adequate, however, the levees were designed to withstand only forces associated with a fast-moving hurricane that, according to the National Weather Service’s Saffir-Simpson scale, would be placed in category 3. If a lingering category 3 storm—or a stronger storm, say, category 4 or 5—were to hit the city, much of New Orleans could find itself under more than 20 ft (6 m) of water."

And that is exactly what happened. Predicted in June 2003. No bombs needed. Of course, a CTer will just say, "Ah ha, The Bushies knew about the predection and planted the bombs knowing that they could point to the prediction to cover them."

BTW - Did you know that activists BLOCKED levee upgrades? Yep. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17969
"A massive levee system, approved by President Lyndon Johnson and supported by the Army Corps of Engineers during the Carter administration, would have held back the flood waters from Hurricane Katrina and saved the city of New Orleans, scientists and engineers have concluded. The proposed levee system was abandoned after environmental activist groups sued to stop construction of the project."

Here is something from a N.O. LA newspaper, June 2002. Three years before Katrina.
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/tpnoseries02.html
There currently is no defense against a surge from a major storm, a Category 4 or Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale used by meteorologists. Such storms can generate surges of 20 to 30 feet above sea level -- enough to top any levee in south Louisiana. Sustained winds from major storms -- 131 mph to 155 mph for a Category 4, even more for a Category 5 -- can shred homes and do damage to almost any structure
The problem for south Louisiana is that the natural protections are rapidly deteriorating, and that in turn is weakening man-made defenses, mainly because the entire delta region is sinking into the Gulf of Mexico.

It is a very long piece, but it predicts every aspect of what happened when Katrina hit. It also predicts that the Corps of Engineers statements about the levee were over optimistic.

No conspiracy theory needed. Hurricane Katrina was simply too much for the levee system.

[stickdog]

45. Ummm, what mph winds were in New Orleans when the levees

broke? Where was center of the storm when the water started pouring in?

Please help refresh my CT memory.

[jobycom]

50. dupe

[jobycom]

51. Here's a timeline

Monday, August 29

* 6:10 am CDT (1110 UTC) - Hurricane Katrina makes a second landfall near Buras, Louisiana, United States with 145 mph winds.
* 8 am CDT (1300 UTC) - New Orleans: Rising water on both sides of the Industrial Canal <30>.
* 9 am CDT (1400 UTC) - New Orleans: 6-8 feet of water in the Lower Ninth Ward <31>.
* 10 am CDT (1500 UTC) - Hurricane Katrina makes a third landfall near Pearlington, Mississippi, United States with 125 mph winds after crossing Breton Sound.
* 11 am CDT (1600 UTC) - New Orleans: 10 feet of water in St. Bernard <32>.
* 10 am MST (1700 UTC) President Bush appears at the Pueblo El Mirage RV Resort and Country Club in El Mirage, Arizona for a Medicare event as the hurricane makes second landfall. <33> He adds, "I want to thank the governors of the affected regions for mobilizing assets prior to the arrival of the storm to help citizens avoid this devastating storm." <34>
* 2 pm CDT (1900 UTC) - New Orleans officials publicly confirm 17th Street Canal breach <35>.
* 3 pm CDT (2000 UTC) - New Orleans Homeland Security Director Terry Ebbertt said “Everybody who had a way or wanted to get out of the way of this storm was able to."<36>


snip

------------

Given the size of Katrina, New Orleans was receiving hurricane force winds by landfall. The eye crossed over the mouth of the river into the Gulf, so there wasn't much weakening. You can see it landed at Pearlington around ten, with 125 MPH winds (and a 35 foot storm surge at that place, basically due east of New Orleans). Given the size of Katrina, by then New Orleans, especially the east side, had been receiving hurricane force winds for four hours or more. And given the rotation of the hurricane, the wind had been blowing directly into the Lake and up the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Canal for hours. That would create quite a surge. Remember, this hurricane was flooding Mobile, AL, and even Pensacola, FL, at the time. It was huge.

[jobycom]

48. Yeah, I can see that as a possibility, but it's such an outside possibilit

that I'd need to see some evidence to support it. As it stands, I've seen the video of the waves topping the levees. I grew up around New Orleans, and was quite a natural disaster buff growing up, so I've seen many photos and past stories of waves cresting levees and what happens. Everything fits into the pattern of what normally happens. And I've been back to Mississippi several times since Katrina. I've walked through some of the damage. I've seen it all firsthand. I've seen pictures and stories from my closest friends, so I know what kind of destruction Katrina brought. The levee collapse is easy to explain in terms of the hurricane. It's exactly what you would expect to happen.

So yeah, I can see what you're saying. But I'd need to see some evidence that would override the obvious answer. Just because Bush could have benefitted from the disaster doesn't mean he caused it. I work for a tire company. We benefit from people running over debris in the road all the time, but we don't go out and put debris on the road.

[philb]

40. Katrina didn't hit New Orleans direct; N.O. on weak backside; everyone

thought New Orleans was spared until the levee was somehow breached.
Investigations apparently have shown that the water never went over the top
of the levee, so they had no explanation of what might have caused the breach(that I've seen).

[jobycom]

49. That's wrong

The levee on the Industrial Canal was topped, and there is video of it happening. You're confusing that breach with the later levee breeches on the 17th Street Canal and another one near the Lake. Those levees weren't topped, and there is a lot of discussion of why they failed. The common concensus is some flaw in their design or construction. They flooded middle class neighborhoods and flooded the downtown area, so those who suspect the levee was blown to flood the poor areas to protect the city aren't talking about those levees, since obviously the reverse happened, and since if they had not been breached, nothing would have flooded. Those breeches were slow to develop, and were not fully realized until after Katrina had passed, later in that evening, when they realized the city would flood.

The Industrial Canal levee breach, the one that flooded the Ninth Ward and killed hundreds to thousands of people, broke before the hurricane came completely ashore. There were reports at 9:30 AM local time that the levee had been broken, and that people were trapped in homes. Nagin even made a comment at that time that he could do nothing to rescue these people until after the hurricane. He made a rather cold comment, in fact, that many people had made a mistake by ignoring his evacuation orders, and that many people would sadly pay for that mistake with their lives, because he couldn't send rescuers out while the hurricane raged. There was not talk of New Orleans being spared from that.

And the Industrial Canal breach wasn't caused by the "weak backside" of Katrina. First, there is no weak backside to a Category Four. Hurricane force winds extended something like sixty miles west of the eye. Second, the eye of the hurricane passed over Lake Pontchartrain, which means that the area east of New Orleans, like the Industrial Canal, caught the eye wall of the hurricane. The storm surge, caused by the wind pushing the water before it, that broke the levee came partially from Lake Pontchartrain, and partially from another canal that connected the Gulf to the Industrial Canal. So the eye wall, the strongest part of the hurricane, pushed the storm surge right into the levee.

(On edit: Nagin didn't make those comments, it was Terry Ebbert, with Homeland Security.)

[IndyOp]

3. Harvard's Pouissant Lives In A Bubble

Bad things happen to the people all of the time - intentionally or unintentionally caused by the powerful 'taking care of their own'.

I've decided a heaping helping of this 'conspiracy theory' mantra comes not just from people who don't want the topic discussed but from people who are stupid enough to believe that the world is fair and that when anyone points out that it is not - they must be lazy or insane.

You know the image...?

The little fish is saying "The world is unfair"
- and behind it is a medium-sized fish about to eat it

The medium-sized fish is saying "The world is sometimes unfair"
- and behind it is a large fish about to eat it

The large fish is saying "The world is fair"
- and nothing is behind it

[mzmolly]

15. I agree, and outrageous claims distract from Bush's incompetence.

We need to keep the focus on Bush.

[stickdog]

26. Did Enron happen? Did the Gulf of Tonkin resolution happen?

Did the Bay of Pigs happen? Did Saddam tear babies from their incubators to get us to fight the first Gulf War? Did the Supreme Court step in and give Bush the 2000 election, even though Gore won? Did Duke Cunningham really take 2 million in bribes to award defense contracts to specific con artists?

Why is it that whenever people question specific events to closely, others step up to assure us that conspiracies never happen -- and that it's just a weakness in our thinking ability that makes us think that war is war instead of peace.

[tsuki]

4. One rumor that we keep hearing on the Gulf Coast is that the

Army Corp of Engineers did not see to it that the pilings were deep enough.

[IndyOp]

Yes, and the Army Corp had been trying to get funds to fix that but been

denied by the * administration (I think I recall).

And, the levee could have been blown by a local, or state government, or by a 'private actor.'

There can be more than one reason why it happened.

[MissMarple]

11. Read in the paper today, the pilings were deep enough.

Now they are wondering why the sonar used to detect the depth was inaccurate.

Who knows? :shrug:

[stickdog]

27. When everybody thinks they blew it up, they tell us it was

incompetence.

Then later when no one is looking, they revise the story to a shoulder shrug.

[tularetom]

5. Actually in 1927

the levees south of NO were dynamited to save the city. Black areas in NO were not flooded but St Bernard and Plaquemine Parishes, populated largely by Spanish speaking Canary Island immigrants (Islenos) were devastated. Civic leaders in NO promised to reimburse all losses suffered by the rural residents but later reneged on the promises, creating ill feeling that persists to this day.

[Teaser]

7. What conspiracy theories shouldn't be believed?

And what is the standard for not believing them?

[jobycom]

22. Most of them are false.

Only believe the true ones. :-)

[SkiGuy]

9. Read somewhere

that a large boat(s) crashed into them :shrug:

[SoCalDem]

14. A big barge drifted into a flood wall..not sure which one

There were more than a couple of breeches/overtopping..

[jobycom]

12. Well funded investigations never end conspiracy theories

Conspiracists just point to them as proof that the government was involved. Look at 9-11. Hundred ton missiles travelling at 600 MPH strike skyscrapers and explode into fireballs engulfing ten floors of the building. Naturally there has to be another explanation for the collapse.

I can explain the government's failures over Katrina. It's a failure of ideology. BushCo and his Evil Bloodbath Gang believe that government should be smaller, that government should only spend money on wars and on rich people. They believe all social spending is wrong. They believe that poor people are poor because they've never learned to take care of themselves, and that state governments have become too dependent on the national government, which empowers the national government.

The failure of the national government before, during and after Katrina was deliberate. Brown, Chertoff, Bush, and his whole regime are trying to destroy the federal government. If they refuse to save people, or to rescue people, or find adequate housing and food and clothing for people, or to assist with rebuilding the economy, people will have to fend for themselves. Eventually everyone will get tired of waiting on the feds and do it themselves. That's BushCo's plan. He, they, see it as "tough love."

Sadly, it will justify itself in their minds. After all the elderly have died off, and people have moved to other cities to find work or government assistance or housing, after the states bankrupt themselves doing what they can, after these regions are largely depopulated, an equilibrium will be reached, and everyone will have housing and jobs. BushCo doesn't much care, and lacks the intelligence to make the connection, that this new economy will be weaker than it has to be, and that many people died for no reason, and many others suffered in ways BushCo has never had to suffer. By using the federal money that we have all given them to help overcome this catastrophe, BushCo could make the economy stronger, alleviate much suffering, and prove to the world that we are still America. But he chooses to make an ideological stand which will bring us all lower. Well, not all of us. BushCo and his Corporate Beggars will stay rich. But the other 99% of us will be worse off. And financially less able to challenge his party. It's a win-win for Bush.

So, that's why there was so much incompetence. It was deliberate. It wasn't an attempt at genocide. Just an attempt to unilaterally alter the role of government, while stealing the tax dollars we paid to create the style of government he wants to kill.

There is no Hell hot enough for these animals.

[RandomKoolzip]

18. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[stickdog]

28. The idea that investigations don't validate "conspiracy theories"

is nothing more than a linguistic trick.

See, once the Enron, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Plame, Tuskegee experiment, MK Ultra, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran/Contra, School of Americas, tobacco cover up, asbestos cover up, etc., etc., etc., conspiracy theories all turn out to be 100% true -- they are no longer conspiracy theories, just historical fact!

[jobycom]

32. Good point

To be fair, most of the cases you mention weren't what I would call conspiracy theories from the beginning, they were cases of cover-ups that were uncovered or in some cases simply individuals trying to get away with something. But I get your point, both points--the linguistic one, and the "we should investigate everything" point--and agree with them.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Good post over all. I do have one sort of unrelated question

though.

Since World Trade Center Building #7 wasn't hit by "Hundred ton missiles travelling at 600 MPH..." "Naturally there has to be another explanation for the collapse."

So what is the explaination for the WTC#7 building collapse into it's own foot print?

Or is that irrelevant? Or is asking that question making me into a "conspiratist?

[jobycom]

31. Eh, it's a fair question

And not an easy one to answer. My belief so far is that the weight of the crashing buildings caused quite enough force to weaken Seven, and it eventually collapsed under its own weight, not unlike the buildings that collapse hours or days after an earthquake. I've never done it, but calculate the amount of force created by the thousands of tons of steel falling the distance they fell from the main two towers, and add in the force of the wave percussion forced outward from the windows at the bottom of the buildings as the material collaped inward (kind of like blowing down a straw). That's a lot of force (remember, there were reportedly cars exploding on the ground from the percussion of the collapsing buildings).

That's what I think happened. I'm open to evidence, though.

[John Q. Citizen]

42. I grew up in earth quake country (Santa Cruz, CA) and I saw

buildings collapse from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, but while a whole lot of building were damaged or destroyed, not one fell into it's own footprint. They fell over, they partially collapsed, they leaned, but none fell into it's foot print.

Building #7 was a block away from the towers.

And even if there was a big wind force, it should have pushed #7 away from it, not dropped it in it's own foot print.

There is no evidence besides the photo/video evidence, the recorded sound, and the anecdotal evidence because all the material at the site was quickly carted off without anyone having the opportunity to inspect it.

Personally, it looks to me to be consistent with a controlled demolition. Whether that's actually the case or not, I'm not in a position know.

I guess it comes down to believing the powers that be or believing my own lying eyes :) given the track record for honesty of the powers that be, I know better than to put a whole lot of trust in what they say about anything.

[jobycom]

46. That's not what it comes down to for me

I don't believe the powers that be, but I put even less faith in unsupported speculation. I want to see evidence. As it stands, I saw two massive missiles strike two buildings, I saw those buildings collapse from the top down, as they were designed to do, and a few hours later I saw another building collapse in on itself, as it was designed to do. The building's collapse is on tape, there were no controlled explosion sounds, and the most likely cause of the collapse was the traumatic event that preceeded it, not some controlled demolition of which there is no evidence.

The common term used to describe a building's collapse AFTER an earthquake is "pancaking." Visualize a stack of pancakes. That's why they call it pancaking, because the floors are designed to collapse downward, one on top of the other. During an earthquake, they may collapse in various fashions, since the quake is likely to cause damage to one part of the structure that topples the rest of it. Thus, the south foundation of a building goes first, for instance, so the building topples slightly. Or maybe only that part of the building collapses. If you watch the collaps of the two main towers, you notice that in fact the structure began to topple more on one side than the other, starting with the point where the plane hit, then, as the massive weight of the top fifth of the building fell onto the rest of the building, it fell as it was designed to fall--straight down.

So it's not hard for me to see a building weakened by an earthquake suddenly "pancaking" hours later. It happens. That's why the term is such a common one. It even happened during Katrina. I've seen several pictures of houses whose roofs simply collapsed downward hours after the hurricane, so that all you see is a roof lying on the ground, with some debris sticking out. The houses that were destroyed during the hurricane bear all sorts of damage, from partial collapse to a complete scattering of debris, to even just disappearing, as the apparently floated or blew or where washed away, either before or after they collapsed. Barring any other evidence, that explanation is enough for me. It's not about believing or trusting, it's about seeing what evidence is out there, and not blaming large groups of unknown people without evidence to back it up. However, as I said, the collapse still looks suspicious to me, so I have doubts. They aren't strong enough to make me create an alternate theory, but they are strong enough that any further evidence wouldn't surprise me.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. Sorry I sound like I'm lecturing. I'm not trying to sound that way, I just come across that way. I see your points, and you make a good argument. You've got me wondering about it again. :-)

[KamaAina]

17. Two separate levee systems

pull up a map of New Orleans on your favorite map server. A couple of miles below (to the right of) the French Quarter, you will see a canal cutting straight through the city. This is the Industrial Canal, a part of the Intracoastal Waterway.

Just below (again, to the right) of the Industrial Canal is the continuation of the city known as the Lower Ninth Ward. Its levees run along the Industrial Canal, then back of Florida Ave. (where the boat struck them) and then back behind devastated St. Bernard Parish (Arabi, Chalmette and environs on your map). They do NOT connect with the main levee system around that part of the city above the Industrial Canal, where the 17th St. and London Ave. breaches occurred.

Now, if you'd like a conspiracy theory that has legs (or fins :spank: ), go back to the map and look for yet another waterway slicing southeast from the Intracoastal, between New Orleans East and Chalmette. This is "Mr. Go", the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. It was built to allow large oceangoing ships access into the Industrial Canal area, which was constrained by an old, inadequate lock. Naturally, it runs straight down to the Gulf.

It is now believed that "Mr. Go" served as a superhighway to channel storm surge from Katrina straight up into St. Bernard Parish - and, as we've seen, the Lower Ninth Ward, overwhelming the shared levee system meant to protect both. So the proper place to direct all this anger is at greedy, shortsighted maritime interests that wouldn't pony up for a modern lock into the Industrial Canal when it was cheaper to just slice up the coastal wetlands yet again. :grr: Belatedly, officals, particularly in St. Bernard, are calling for "Mr. Go" to be filled in before the next one strikes.

[jobycom]

21. Thanks, very well explained.

I tried to explain that in a post above, but it was nowhere near as clear as your post. Thanks.

Floodgates and locks in several places would have made things better. They need floodgates or locks on every canal on both the Lake and the River end.

Question: Is there a lock on the IC at the River?

[KamaAina]

25. There is; it's the old, inadequate lock that made Mr. Go necessary

Is there a lock on the IC at the River?

Yes, but it's decades old, and today's large container ships can't fit through it, hence the perceived need for the ill-fated "Mr. Go".

Surprise! Plans have been in the works to modernize and widen the IC lock since the '80s, but bureaucratic foot-dragging at both the state (than which there is none better) and federal levels, ironically combined with NIMBYism from many of the now displaced property owners! kept it from going anywhere.

[stickdog]

23. Hooray, we're down in the dungeon again!

Nobody should ever consider this sort of thing!

I mean, we have FAR more important issues like flag burning and violent video games to discuss!

[John Q. Citizen]

30. Yeah, I'm with you, stick dog. i wonder if we'd be "disappeared" if

we posted on the Spainish American War in GD.

Or the Gulf of Toklin Incident.

DU needs a "Whacko Paranoid Conspiracy" forum they can teleport us to.

What does a MSNBC story about NOLA residence's suspicians have to do with 9/11?

[BrklynLiberal]

38. What has this got to do with September 11???????????????

This is a valid question related to the levees in New Orleans.
Why was it moved to this forum..where it cannot get any more recommendations? and not be seen by many people?

[Wilms]

39. I'm wonderin'. n/t

[Silverhair]

44. A place to hide kooky conspiracy theories?

Just a guess.

[janedoe]

53. It's a place to hide embarrassing and criminal actions of ____. (n/t)

[bionaut111]

52. Divers have found a 30-foot crater at the bottom of the 17th St. Levee

Is it just conspiracy theory?

How many times have governments attacked their own people?
Below is just a short list of US government acts against its own population.

Secret testing of LSD (ie MK-Ultra) on people?
Secret Tuskegee Syphilis Study, watching people die?
Iran/contra and CIA selling crack to facilitate covert operations?
The lie of the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

The list goes on and on.

"There are numerous witnesses to the explosion sound and divers have found a 30-foot crater at the bottom of the 17th St. Levee that flooded the 9th Ward, said the panel. In addition, they said historically, towns have blown levees upstream to prevent their own town from flooding, so blowing up levees was nothing new for Louisiana."
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=3923

Also of interest are stories of snipers shooting at helicopters or what happened on the Danziger bridge. Both official stories don't seem to have any corroboration.
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=3669

Anyway there are a lot of interesting stories about the hurricane in New Orleans http://www.lookingglassnews.org/index.php?topic=19

These discrepancies in offical stories versus witness accounts, and the rich history of governments lying to their own people are enough to make me very very skeptical about what really happened and why in New Orleans.

Wake up people...do not blindly have faith.