Flooded on purpose? Need help understanding.

Ok, I'm so stunned at this one that I need other interpretations of this. Here are two articles, one printed at NOLA/The Times Picayune, right before the hurricane hit, Sunday, August 28, 2005 , and one from The Guardian, which seems as trustworthy as any paper that I know of, on 9-4-05 .
Ok, here goes. Just copying tidbits, but here are links too. The bold is just me, freaking out.
From NOLA
"Levee board officials around the area closed or prepared to close floodgates to protect low-lying areas. The Orleans Parish Levee District said it would close floodgates and sever Louisiana 11 and U.S. 90 at today at 6 p.m., cutting that route to or from the city. Most other floodgates already were closed. "
NOLA article
actually, that whole article is really interesting in retrospect. So, they shut off evac routes, before the storm even hit.

And here's what I don't understand.
This is from The Guardian, and it's written about like it is common knowledge.
"Williams only left his apartment after the authorities took the decision to flood his district in an apparent attempt to sluice out some of the water that had submerged a neighbouring district. Like hundreds of others he had heard the news of the decision to flood his district on the radio. The authorities had given people in the district until 5pm on Tuesday to get out - after that they would open the floodgates.

'We thought we could live without electricity for a few weeks because we had food. But then they told us they were opening the floodgates,' said Arineatta Walker, who fled the area with her daughter and two grandchildren.

'So about two o'clock we went on to the streets and we asked the army, "Where can we go?". And they said, "Just take off because there's no one going to come back for you." They kicked my family out of there. If I knew how to hotwire a car I would have,' Walker said." observer.guardian.co.uk...

Has anyone known that the flooding of the desperately poor 9th ward area was purposeful? Can this be true? Or am I reading this wrong? Was the army there already on Tuesday? So confused.

Also, I re-read the fantastic series in the Times Picayune, Washing Away, published in 2002, and saw this-
"The American Red Cross, which runs federally designated emergency shelters, changed its policy in the mid-1990s after a shelter in South Carolina flooded and people inside nearly drowned. Now the agency bars shelters in areas that can be inundated by a storm surge from a Category 4 hurricane -- which is all of south Louisiana. Local parishes plan to shelter only those with "special needs," people who cannot be moved. In New Orleans, the Superdome will be used for this purpose.

In an evacuation, buses would be dispatched along their regular routes throughout the city to pick up people and go to the Superdome, which would be used as a staging area. From there, people would be taken out of the city to shelters to the north."

Yeah, right.
Washing Away

Am too tired to evaluate this right now, but it looks important.

There is a Katrina research thread where you can post this, alert John Bull and Valhall. Also, try to keep it up towards the top of the list for a while.

...This looks BAD - but it makes sense. Cities routinely open flood gates to prevent greater damage. Maybe they didn't know what they were doing in NO and exacerbated the problem, or....? Who knows?

But this MUST be researched further.

Thank you VERY much. Good work.

Originally posted by Rise and Fall
Also, I re-read the fantastic series in the Times Picayune, Washing Away, published in 2002,
Washing Away

GREAT link - make sure you post it in the Katrina research thread.

Originally posted by Rise and Fall

And here's what I don't understand.
This is from The Guardian, and it's written about like it is common knowledge.
"Williams only left his apartment after the authorities took the decision to flood his district in an apparent attempt to sluice out some of the water that had submerged a neighbouring district. Like hundreds of others he had heard the news of the decision to flood his district on the radio. The authorities had given people in the district until 5pm on Tuesday to get out - after that they would open the floodgates.

Its the first i`ve read anything like this,but i have to say i can understand their decision to try and spread the amount of water though that may have been a huge mistake?i need to read more on that.
Nice post anyway Rise and Fall

It is common to open floodgates or blow dikes in order to protect more expensive infrastructure or more heavly populated areas during floods. I don't know about that specific situation, but I do know in the past where I've lived they have blown dikes up river that resulted in flooding small towns in order to protect larger cities further downstream.

Rise and Fall

I just read the Guardian post and I'm stunned (again). It is reported in such a matter of fact way as if it is no surprise to anyone.

In particular I'm struck by these two paragraphs as this is what I previoulsy discussed as a possible worst case scenario, never knowing it was actually happening.

'The police were in boats watching us. They were just laughing at us. Five of them to a boat, not trying to help nobody. Helicopters were riding by just looking at us. They weren't helping. We were pulling people on bits of wood, and the National Guard would come driving by in their empty military trucks.'

As the repeated promises of buses failed to materialise, people in the shelters started stealing cars. 'How do you expect people to act right when they're starving to death?' asked Williams. 'There were bodies all over. We were just throwing them out the front. They (the authorities) are blaming it on the people, making it look like it was the people's fault, but it's really their fault because they're not giving us what we need to survive. So now people are going and getting guns in order to fight back, in order to survive cos they don't want to help us.'

This is an excellent find Rise & Fall and there a few around here that are starting to uncover some very nasty things.

It confused me initially to see water flowing out of the city through one levee break (the one on the low side), but now it seems to me that break was deliberately designed to ensure that only the poorest, lowest lying, most vulnerable area of the city was inundated and destroyed. I'm still looking for an overall pattern of flooding from the levee breaks, but can't seem to find any documentation yet. Is this information being suppressed?

What if, after all is said and done, we end up with a New Orleans without those low-lying, impoverished areas being rebuilt, and without all of those displaced citizens being allowed to return to their city?

As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Thanks for shining the light into the darkness, Rise and Fall.

My guess is that the lower-lying, economically less-well-off areas will indeed not be rebuilt, while the rest of the city, particularly, the popualr tourist areas, will receive all of the federal assitance they could wish for, and then some. Look for a city 100 percent focused on tourism to come out of this, with more casinos and a revamped French quarter that is hgeavily spruced up and modernized but missing most of its charm and flavor. In short, another Las Vegas, only with some semblance of lost authenticity, whereas Vegas never had anything authentic in the first place.
---Ryan

So now the government is being blamed for the laws of physics? :shk:

If this was designed as was proposed, how would they be able to flood high ground while leaving low lying ground dry if they wanted to?

The lower lying ground was generally poorer neighborhoods always.

[edit on 9/8/2005 by djohnsto77]

They,re not being blamed for the laws of physics, they are being blamed for possibly using the laws of physics to implement their economic agenda of wiping out poor neighborhoods and saving wealthier ones. But then, if one subscribes to the neocon (emphasis on the con) worldview, then I suppose the government has done nothing wrong since Bush was installed into the presidency.
---Ryan

Originally posted by Icarus Rising

What if, after all is said and done, we end up with a New Orleans without those low-lying, impoverished areas being rebuilt, and without all of those displaced citizens being allowed to return to their city?

By Jove ! I think Icarus Rising sees the Big Picture !

you think the supposed confusion,
inaction by ?Whose?-in-Charge-Here,
and Pass-the-buck finger pointing agencies,
and the scapegoating of FEMAs Michael Brown, are ALL Accidents???

i ask you to consider, and Suspend your Dis-Belief,
that for 20-25 years that the 'problem' of New Orleans
was addressed behind the Closed-Doors of the Cabinet-Level-meetings,
and the standing order was the larger idea that
"Let Us Rebuild New Orleans... When & If the Opportunity Arises"

then look back at the longterm disintegration of things necessary to
keep N.O. as safe as European Cities & lands below sealevel...
there is no comparison

this Bush regime was (as the Dominionists see it 'ordained') at the right place & the right time...to be able to 'Deliver' N.O. and create a Techno-politian Port Orleans in place of the old & decadent 'Big Easy', a dying city anyways (as they see it was)

originally posted by St. Udio
By Jove ! I think Icarus Rising sees the Big Picture !

I hope you aren't making fun of me, but if you are, its ok. I can be slow on the uptake sometimes because I want to believe the best about people (often to my own detriment), but I usually end up in the right place (where my heart is).

What's really important to me is getting down to the truth and using it to root out evil in all its forms and bring peace and healing to mitigate all the suffering in this world. If that's a crime then I'm guilty, guilty, guilty.

Most of those who couldn't afford to leave have been sent far away to other places. They probably can't afford to get back. They will most likely be absorbed into the communities where they have been placed. No need to hurry up the reconstruction on the poor areas of town.

I have also been hearing about reports that the few FEMA members present on Monday night/Tuesday morning blew up the levees. There were a couple of people that were interviewed that rode out the storm said they heard explosions coming from the direction of the levee and moments later water rushed in and they were trapped on their roofs.

If this is the case we need new leaders NOW

I choose not to belive that they did any of that to intentionally kill people or even let them die (so to say) but there clearly have been some wrong decisions made, the important thing is what we do now and frankly I am impressed with how people from all around from all races and backgrounds religious or not have come together to help the survivors. If we all learn something from this loss then it it not a total loss. bring something good out of something bad! negative spreads negative....THERE IS HOPE...

Originally posted by Alicia1K
I choose not to belive that they did any of that to intentionally kill people or even let them die

It's called "collateral damage" and it's an accepted part of virtually every military, business, and government decision.

bring something good out of something bad! negative spreads negative....THERE IS HOPE...

This work is more positive than anything else that's happening. We all are working to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again. That's the hope. And you call it negative? ...Better to stick our heads where the sun don't shine and pretend it's all okay, when it is NOT? I don't think so.

The events in the south are to extraordinary to let it go as just the results of a natural disaster.

Yes it was a "Natural disaster" but how much of it was used to the pursue of other "Agendas"

I think we are going to learn a lot more when people starts to settler down and start telling their stories.

And another thing, the state is bigger enough to be able to accommodate their own in other cities and communities, but these people are been scattered all over.

Yes many states are going to open their arms to the need of their fellow Americans is part of the generosity of this country.

But why the rush to separate everybody all around?

I've been hearing stories about residents reporting explosions from the levees too, that they thought they were hearing bombs. I've also been reading about the possibility that a loose barge busted through the floodwall- could be. The the main thing that struck me though, was the fellow saying that he'd heard on the radio that the floodgates were being opened- is anyone here from that area, or knows what radio station might have been broadcasting at that time in the area? I would love to try to track that down- if there was a public announcement that the area was to be flooded to relieve flooding elsewhere, we should be able to find that. Disturbing as it is, it is possible that that was a decision made by city/state/fed officials, in order to keep the city's tax base (French Quarter, CBD, Garden District) safe. Once again, the main, horrifying question is why was there not (at least then!) a concerted effort at assisting with the 'mandatory' evacuation? These people had no cars! They knew that thousands had no way out! They even had closed the evacuation routes. There are not words to describe this travesty, this failure.

Insurance would have paid for damage due to the hurricane. However most of those people probably could not have afforded flood insurance. Insurance companies will argue that the flooding was due to the failure of the levees and not the hurricane. If they didn't have flood insurance they have nothing now and no compensation.

Is this a conspiracy? Who knows, but it looks suspicious.