Op/Ed: Beyond Salvage: Was New Orleans Destroyed on Purpose?

Originally posted by jsobecky
I've been following this thread, and felt compelled to comment on this:

CONTRADICTORY INFORMATION RE: Public Health

From the outset, FEMA and other security officials were warning the public that the flood waters carried high risks from infectious disease.

At the same time, official information released by the CDC contradicted the warnings about disease risk coming from security agencies: "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it did not expect serious outbreaks. ...Decaying bodies create very little risk for major disease outbreaks, and the CDC noted that outbreaks of infectious diseases following hurricanes are rare in developed countries such as the United States. It said foodborne illness such as salmonella poisoning was more likely."

The OFFICIAL FLIP FLOP came on Wednesday, September 7:

"Police and soldiers went house to house in New Orleans Wednesday to try to coax the last 10,000 holdouts to leave the shattered city because of the risk of disease from the sewage-laden floodwaters. ...In fact, the first government tests confirmed Wednesday that the amount of sewage-related bacteria in the floodwaters is at least 10 times higher than acceptable safety levels. Dr. Julie Gerberding, chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warned stragglers not to even touch the water and pleaded: "If you haven't left the city yet, you must do so." "

Emphasis added.
Where is the flip-flop???

You musta missed it. See above for bolded underlined text.

Obviously, it's all about getting people out of their homes, off their land, and out of the city. The question is, "How valid are the constantly changing explanations?"

A note - I do NOT think anybody should take anyone else's word about what is "beyond salvage." This looks, smells,. and acts like a land grab.

I'm thinkin' independent auditors.

I don't see how you can call this a flip flop. One doctor says that decaying bodies do not pose a major threat of major disease outbreaks. Is this the flip-flop?

Another doctor says that sewage-related bacteria is extremely high, and warns the public not to touch the water. Is this the flip-flop?

I really think that you're going out of your way to try to make a case against the CDC. Why must you do that?

Are you upset about the people that are left in NO and the fact that they are being asked to evacuate? You see this as a setup for a land grab?

What if the officials decided to allow them to stay, and the conditions were so unsanitary that those who refused to leave all came down with a horrible, deadly infectious, fleash eating disease? Would you then claim that the gov't was in the business of race elimination? Or genocide?

I firmly believe that you wouldn't be satisfied no matter which road the gov't took.

I do not agree with SOFICROW 100%, but what if 25% of what he said was true???

Magnitude Of Order

Originally posted by pfcret
I do not agree with SOFICROW 100%, but what if 25% of what he said was true???

Then she would be about 25 times as credible as the "mainstream media".

sofi and I like to butt heads on all sorts of things, but my only standing criticism of her is what I consider to be a tendency to jump to conclusions -- and that's my opinion and I can be wrong, as I have been so many times before.

But when it comes to sniffing out evidence, she's a freakin' bloodhound, and there are few people I know of on ATS who have as keen an eye for the "story behind the story" as sofi.

So while I may give sofi a hard time for this or that, I think it would be inadvisable to dismiss her theories out of hand.

Where sofi sees smoke, there is quite often fire, and those who ignore that are likely to get burned.

Apologies to sofi for the personal digression, but the question reminded me that I place more faith in sofi than in any of the talking heads on TV or corporate spin doctors in the commercial media.

MAJIC U R DEAD ON!

Most, if not all, that Sofi has posted is clear, concise, and [for the most] credible.

Had this have been most anyother member posting this thread I would say -- what?!

I think there is a chance the U.S. had ways and means of altering the path of Katrina. And may have altered it's path in a non-deliberate way that ended-up hurting than helping the great state of louisiana. Only a thought short of substanciating facts to support it.

Dallas

Wow - thanks all for the support.

FYI - I do not think that the hurricane's path needed to be altered, or even that it was necessarily tweaked and its physical effects made worse. It may have been - but that is not the thrust of my hypothesis.

...The conspiracy I see is called a "policy of benign neglect" - pioneered by the Brits in South Africa, and refined in Canada as a way to handle the "Indian Problem."

A "Policy of Benign Neglect" stipulates non-action, when action would have a positive effect - it's a "do-nothing" policy, often with far-reaching impacts, as are evolving in New Orleans. 'Doing nothing' often is the most effective way to get rid of thorny problems - they simply are left alone and allowed to escalate, explode, or implode, and thus, disappear. Policies of benign neglect generally are applied to populations with little economic or political power.

The 'benign neglect' strategy in New Orleans simply called for non-action in a major hurricane - which was bound to appear at some point. Government action would have saved lives, possibly saved the city, and certainly, would have prevented the creation of America's new refugee population.

As it happened, benign neglect, or non-intervention, essentially paved the way for a cheap land grab that will be played out to rebuild the city as a Yuppie heaven - minus the poor and unwanted - and to raise it above sea level on government contracts, most likely awarded to carpetbaggers.

The poor of New Orleans are "collateral damage," and in the larger scheme of things, unimportant.

...Quite possibly, the conspirators did not DO anything wrong, they simply failed to act and thus, failed to prevent the larger disaster.

Legally, non-action and 'bad action' are two different kettles of fish - it is VERY hard to indict on charges of non-action, and even when such cases are successfully tried, and a guilty verdict returned, the punishments tend not to fit the crime.


.

I am refering to H.A.A.R.P. which earlier this month I would not have. Until I learned from a so-so source?, that the salt in the water yields to electrolite and EM and then I read more on HAARP and began to thing there may have been an effort to change it's direction that failed.

Crazy - hah ! But who really knows..

Dallas

Originally posted by Dallas

I am refering to H.A.A.R.P. which earlier this month I would not have.

Me too. Seems to me the capability is there - and certainly, the will and sociopathic bent to use it. ...Did you see the link for the Senate Bill called the Weather Modification (something?) Bill? ...The Bill regulates the use of HAARP and Gawd knows what else - but it's not in effect until October, 2005. ...So if weather modifications were used, they slid in just under the wire, and were NOT illegal....

.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by soficrow]

Ooops. Bad writing - when I said me2, dallas, I meant that a month ago I would not have seriously referred to HAARP either.

...Three posts above I suggested that the driving principle behind the non-action in New Orleans may have been a policy of "benign neglect," a purposeful policy of non-intervention. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?


.

It is all about Money. It think it always was.
How many reach people care about poor people as long as they don't bring them more Money?

...and 5 cents more:

Hundreds of mercenaries have descended on New Orleans to guard the property of the city's millionaires from looters.

from Guardian

No comments...

I found this eyewitness account mesmerizing. It's posted by subtle on the wecomeinpeace thread "Disbelief - Former FEMA Officials Speak Out."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

EXCERPT

- By Monday afternoon, Katrina passed and all was good. The French Quarter, where my counsin was at, suffered just minor damage.

- Tuesday, people that stayed in New Orleans but did not go to the SuperDome, came out, surveyed the damage, some were partying, others had cookouts, everyone breathed a sigh of relief.

- Wednesday, the levees broke and the flood started. Everyone was in shock and couldn't believe it.

- By Thursday, many parts of New Orleans was flooded but not "the entire city" as the media reported. The French Quarter had very little to no flooding. The Garden District, where Tulane and Loyola are, had about 1 to 2 inches of flooding and severe tree damage.

END QUOTE


Seems to me that the eyewitness reports and personal accounts are going to be our BEST source of honest information about this catastrophe. And I don't want to hear any more "your sources suck" arguments.

...And definitely, read wecomeinpeace's thread, and subtle's post - there's gold there.

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by robertfenix
Perfect time for wealthy real estate financiers to come in and buy land at a discount.

the land down there will be dirt cheap for a while. if you study the real estate values of areas hit by major devastations such as this you will see that a small investment will wreap major rewards.

The problem is, New Orleans has a number of unique issues that have to be addressed.

First is insurance. While the federal government does provide flood insurance, I’m am not to sure that many of the areas in The city proper will qualify under the current rules.

Second, is financing, even if you can get insurance, I suspect that banks and lenders will be extremely skittish about lending money to re-develop some areas of NO.

Finally there is the environmental factor. It has become increasingly clear over the past few decades that many of the problems in NO are entirely of our own making.

I can think of a number of questions need to be addressed before any comprehensive rebuilding can occur.

• What is the rate at which the land under the city is sinking?
  
  
• How is this settlement influenced by the weight of the city on it? In other words, if we add a bunch of soil to bring up the land level, will it just sink back down again?
  
  
• To what degree to the levees and shipping channels influence the loss or gain of wetlands?
  
  
• What impact did the loss of coastal wetlands have on the severity of the storm?
  
  
• There is also one other issue with New Orleans that is entirely unconnected with Katrina, yet it represents a hanging sword that is just as potentially devastating, should it fail, the Old River control structures. I am amazed that this issue has not received the attention that it deserves.
  

Originally posted by pfcret
I do not agree with SOFICROW 100%, but what if 25% of what he said was true???

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

HowardRoark,

I will again turn your attention to Dune Road in Westhampton Beach, NY. A whole stretch of land was gone. I actually fished (took my boat there) in the breakthru area for more than a year while the engineers figured out what to do and then went to work filling it in. The homes have all been built, on on top of another, where there was only water. The homes are pricey. Million dollar ballpark. Will the beach continue to erode? probably. will a nice sized storm be the needed catalyst for the ocean to take a few homes out and possibly wash right back over the road into the bay? very likely.

had you bought the land right after the disaster and held until they finished the fill in, you would have turned your $75,000 into about $750,000. Nice return in under 10 years.


So, while your questions are all good ones, the reality is, if you get in while the land is viewed as worthless, odds are fairly good that you will make out well. Remember, location of the city is very important to the country. It will not be abandoned.

I’m not familiar with the details of that particular situation, but a quick google search turned upt this:

Some experts also say that taxpayer dollars aren't always used wisely, or fairly, when funneled into towns where political machinations can thwart the public good. That became obvious in Westhampton Dunes, N.Y., after a 1991 storm destroyed dozens of stately beach homes. In part because of a nexus of local influences, the Army Corps efforts ended up protecting high-value homes and, critics charge, rendering some public beaches inaccessible. A decade later, the new homes are bigger than ever - many of them sitting on man-made dunes built since 1991.

www.virginiashoreandbeach.com...
Obviously this is a good example of what shouldn’t happen.

Do you think that the same situation can occur in New Orleans? I don’t. There will be too much public scrutiny. Given the racial/socio-economic situation there, I just don’t see it.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

...taxpayer dollars aren't always used wisely, or fairly, when funneled into towns where political machinations can thwart the public good. That became obvious in Westhampton Dunes, N.Y., after a 1991 storm destroyed dozens of stately beach homes. ...A decade later, the new homes are bigger than ever - many of them sitting on man-made dunes built since 1991.

www.virginiashoreandbeach.com...
Obviously this is a good example of what shouldn’t happen.

Do you think that the same situation can occur in New Orleans? I don’t. There will be too much public scrutiny. Given the racial/socio-economic situation there, I just don’t see it.

New Orleans is geographically the USA's best port - BUT - Houston wants the business.

Some developers are pushing to rebuild NO, and looking for landfill to sea level - it won't happen without large scale land appropriations, and not just bumping the poor, but also low income landowners.

In the meantime, the powers in Houston are fighting against NO's rebuilding, with all they've got - despite the fact that freight costs inland from Houston are much higher than they are from NO.

It's hard to see how it will play out - the issues are thorny, and complicated - and the big boys are locked in combat. Each side is supplying contradictory disinformation, and it's almost impossible sort the facts from the BS.

forget the socio-economic issues. the people that have been displaced will not come back. For what? the $7500 a year income? they will, most likely stay where they evacuated to. remember, the rebuilding phase will take a long time. apparently, every structure needs to be inspected before a return is allowed.

now, take your New Orleans land owner who has been renting his property to a family that has been displaced. he will see this as an opportunity to rebuild bigger, and more expensive and get rid of the tenant for a new tenant. Remember, this is New Orleans.

Originally posted by Crakeur
forget the socio-economic issues. the people that have been displaced will not come back. For what? the $7500 a year income? they will, most likely stay where they evacuated to. remember, the rebuilding phase will take a long time. apparently, every structure needs to be inspected before a return is allowed.

The low income people who own their own homes want to stay - they won't be able to buy new homes with what they'll be paid fro their NO property.

Renters want familiarity - they want to be in New Orleans - most or many don't want to stay where they're re-located.

Who is going to pay the undereducated poor more than $7500 per year? Where? and how much more?


If every structure needs to be inspected before a return is allowed - meaning poor people can't keep their homes or stay -

then what's happening with the toxic waste clean-up?

Potential Disaster Looming: Stop the pumps in New Orleans NOW!


....or is this just a song-and-dance to get poor people out - and bring in the Yuppie crowd, make some good money, and poison them too?