Some of the questions are definitely the right ones, but the conspiracy theory end is highly dubious.
I am also dubious of the claim that the barge that may have crashed through the Industrial Canal killed hundreds of people. So, I'm trying to find out from non-crackpot news sources.
There's an early article wondering whether the barge indeed caused the breach from the New Orleans Times-Picayune:
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Corps trying to find reasons for collapse Barge may have caused breach in floodwall
Some of the questions are definitely the right ones, but the conspiracy theory end is highly dubious.
I firmly believe in the guideline "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity, but I thought many of the questions were nevertheless worth asking.
Thanks for the additional info below. I wish they discussed the conspiracy theory a little more -- not because it's valid (it's not), but because, from what I can tell, it arose among the displaced Ninth Ward residents themselves, and it says something that it's so easy to believe. Poplicks had an interesting link and discussion on this issue, and I will see if I can dig it up.
Here's the Poplicks item (http://poplicks.com/2005/09/pictures-fake-but-close-to-reality.html (http://poplicks.com/2005/09/pictures-fake-but-close-to-reality.html)):
"By the way, the conspiracy theorists are claiming that the Army Corps of Engineers blew up the 17th St. levee as a way to divert flooding away from the French Quarter (and tonier neighborhoods) while sinking the poorer parts of town under water. Normally, we'd just brush this off - and the rumors are far, far, far from being substantiated - but it's worth noting that there's a precedent for this.
In 1927, panicked by rising waters on the Mississippi, rich New Orleans bankers and others convinced the state governor to blew up a levee downstream, destroying two parishes in the process, in an effort to save N.O. from being flooding:
"a major portion of the 600 thousand people made homeless was black tenant farmers which made up the labor force of the agriculture-based Delta. Those refugees were not allowed to leave and were forced to work and live on the levees that year to provide damage control."
All sounds eerily prescient, doesn't it?"
The item links to the following paper: FLOODS ON THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI: AN HISTORICAL ECONOMIC OVERVIEW (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/topics/attach/html/ssd98-9.htm)
Interesting links, and I have been meaning to read up on the 1927 flood for quite awhile, since some of my family were probably caught up in it, although no stories passed down to me.
It does sound that there is reasonable documentation for deliberate breaches of the levies in 1927 to spare the rich people neighborhoods, but I doubt this was the case in Hurricane Katrina.
There were deliberate breaches of levies in the 1993 flood, but that was done with permission of the farmers whose fields were flooded to spare towns. I will have to dig up the reference.
So I can understand why the rumor would get started when there's been something of a history here. But I don't think it's a good idea to help the rumors along, like the Mother Jones folks are doing. The press needs to do a better job of separating truth from fiction than it's been doing during Katrina.
It seems to me that the conspiracy people are louder and have more influence than they did before 9-11. The stupid rumor that the Mossad destroyed the World Trade Center, or that Bush did it, or the generic "Jews" did it, were really getting on my nerves! What's happening to us, that we've become so gullible, and believe all kinds of crap that fits in with our prejudices?
I'm willing to out-and-out dismiss it. That wasn't my point. My point is that, at a certain level, for certain people, it isn't as crackpot a theory as it seems. There's precedent, there's identifiable neglect -- all you need is will and intent. It's easier to believe in will and intent, and more comforting too, and has the same value of explanatory power as any other alternative. This is why conspiracy theories breed in the first place. They make good narrative.
The press needs to do a better job of separating truth from fiction than it's been doing during Katrina.
Why should it be any better with Katrina than it has been for the past who knows how many years?
I don't read Mother Jones usually, and I don't put my stock in it, but nor do I find that column -- and it's a column, not a news story -- all that misguided. Then again, I didn't see a remarkable conspiracy bent to it, either. I guess I don't see intent, but I do see a lot of unexamined structural neglect, and I would like to take the opportunity to air it out for once, instead of pretending it's inevitable and sad, but ultimately unfixable.
A brief quote: "Army Col. Duane Gapinski, a West Point graduate based in Rock Island, Ill., is responsible for ridding the area of surface water and rebuilding levees to about 10 feet above sea level. He said engineers have three fundamental theories about what caused the levees to fail, and three others--one favorite of the media, a conspiracy theory and one that the engineers like to trot out for fun.
One of the fundamental theories is that the sheer power of the storm surges in the channels hammered the levees and shoved over the estimated 60 feet of concrete and steel floodwall partially embedded in each earth levee.
Another theory holds that storm surge water flowed over the floodwall, cascaded down the other side and scoured the base of the levee, causing the wall to fall. The third is that downward pressure forced a column of water through the floor of the canals and the water came up on the other side. The water then loosened base material from the levees and their embedded steel "sheet piles," causing the floodwalls to topple.
But Gapinski and other corps officials have been getting questions on other theories. The media favorite? A runaway barge gashed the Industrial Canal wall. Gapinski noted that no such gash was found. Significant scouring on the backside of the levee was.
The conspiracy theory? That New Orleans' leaders orchestrated breaches that brought water into the impoverished neighborhoods to spare flooding in the city's white, more exclusive neighborhoods. Brig. Gen. Robert Crear, overseeing the corps recovery effort in New Orleans, said he has seen no evidence of that."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pantryslut
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 01:05 am (UTC)I am also dubious of the claim that the barge that may have crashed through the Industrial Canal killed hundreds of people. So, I'm trying to find out from non-crackpot news sources.
There's an early article wondering whether the barge indeed caused the breach from the New Orleans Times-Picayune:
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Corps trying to find reasons for collapse
Barge may have caused breach in floodwall
By John McQuaid
Washington bureau
Also, I found a mention on Reuters from 9/15
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/pictures/BKS03D.htm
I suppose I could ask my cousin-in-law who works for the Corps.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 04:10 pm (UTC)I firmly believe in the guideline "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity, but I thought many of the questions were nevertheless worth asking.
Thanks for the additional info below. I wish they discussed the conspiracy theory a little more -- not because it's valid (it's not), but because, from what I can tell, it arose among the displaced Ninth Ward residents themselves, and it says something that it's so easy to believe. Poplicks had an interesting link and discussion on this issue, and I will see if I can dig it up.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 05:10 pm (UTC)"By the way, the conspiracy theorists are claiming that the Army Corps of Engineers blew up the 17th St. levee as a way to divert flooding away from the French Quarter (and tonier neighborhoods) while sinking the poorer parts of town under water. Normally, we'd just brush this off - and the rumors are far, far, far from being substantiated - but it's worth noting that there's a precedent for this.
In 1927, panicked by rising waters on the Mississippi, rich New Orleans bankers and others convinced the state governor to blew up a levee downstream, destroying two parishes in the process, in an effort to save N.O. from being flooding:
"a major portion of the 600 thousand people made homeless was black tenant farmers which made up the labor force of the agriculture-based Delta. Those refugees were not allowed to leave and were forced to work and live on the levees that year to provide damage control."
All sounds eerily prescient, doesn't it?"
The item links to the following paper: FLOODS ON THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI: AN HISTORICAL ECONOMIC OVERVIEW (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/topics/attach/html/ssd98-9.htm)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 07:24 pm (UTC)It does sound that there is reasonable documentation for deliberate breaches of the levies in 1927 to spare the rich people neighborhoods, but I doubt this was the case in Hurricane Katrina.
There were deliberate breaches of levies in the 1993 flood, but that was done with permission of the farmers whose fields were flooded to spare towns. I will have to dig up the reference.
So I can understand why the rumor would get started when there's been something of a history here. But I don't think it's a good idea to help the rumors along, like the Mother Jones folks are doing. The press needs to do a better job of separating truth from fiction than it's been doing during Katrina.
It seems to me that the conspiracy people are louder and have more influence than they did before 9-11. The stupid rumor that the Mossad destroyed the World Trade Center, or that Bush did it, or the generic "Jews" did it, were really getting on my nerves! What's happening to us, that we've become so gullible, and believe all kinds of crap that fits in with our prejudices?
Or 'twas always thus?
no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 07:39 pm (UTC)I'm willing to out-and-out dismiss it. That wasn't my point. My point is that, at a certain level, for certain people, it isn't as crackpot a theory as it seems. There's precedent, there's identifiable neglect -- all you need is will and intent. It's easier to believe in will and intent, and more comforting too, and has the same value of explanatory power as any other alternative. This is why conspiracy theories breed in the first place. They make good narrative.
The press needs to do a better job of separating truth from fiction than it's been doing during Katrina.
Why should it be any better with Katrina than it has been for the past who knows how many years?
I don't read Mother Jones usually, and I don't put my stock in it, but nor do I find that column -- and it's a column, not a news story -- all that misguided. Then again, I didn't see a remarkable conspiracy bent to it, either. I guess I don't see intent, but I do see a lot of unexamined structural neglect, and I would like to take the opportunity to air it out for once, instead of pretending it's inevitable and sad, but ultimately unfixable.
Or 'twas always thus?
I lean towards this one. See above.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-05 03:47 pm (UTC)http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0510020339oct02,1,2052257.story
A brief quote:
"Army Col. Duane Gapinski, a West Point graduate based in Rock Island, Ill., is responsible for ridding the area of surface water and rebuilding levees to about 10 feet above sea level. He said engineers have three fundamental theories about what caused the levees to fail, and three others--one favorite of the media, a conspiracy theory and one that the engineers like to trot out for fun.
One of the fundamental theories is that the sheer power of the storm surges in the channels hammered the levees and shoved over the estimated 60 feet of concrete and steel floodwall partially embedded in each earth levee.
Another theory holds that storm surge water flowed over the floodwall, cascaded down the other side and scoured the base of the levee, causing the wall to fall. The third is that downward pressure forced a column of water through the floor of the canals and the water came up on the other side. The water then loosened base material from the levees and their embedded steel "sheet piles," causing the floodwalls to topple.
But Gapinski and other corps officials have been getting questions on other theories. The media favorite? A runaway barge gashed the Industrial Canal wall. Gapinski noted that no such gash was found. Significant scouring on the backside of the levee was.
The conspiracy theory? That New Orleans' leaders orchestrated breaches that brought water into the impoverished neighborhoods to spare flooding in the city's white, more exclusive neighborhoods. Brig. Gen. Robert Crear, overseeing the corps recovery effort in New Orleans, said he has seen no evidence of that."