[quote]doogie wrote:
Can you ONCE focus on a topic without trying to spin race into it? Why didn’t Carter apologize? For that matter, how many of the presidents who were in office during the experiment were Democrats?[/quote]
Seperately about this, I know little about Carter. I am not old enough to remember a presidency under Carter so it means about as much to me as asking me about Washington.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:That’s total crap. First, the majority of people in Mississippi that were wiped out by Katrina supported Bush. If Bush would have gone on the air sooner, it would just have been spun into, “Why is the president on TV trying to make himself look better instead of working behind closed doors to improve the situation?”
I do believe that would be all well and good if anyone believed that he was working behind closed doors on the issue. Basically, the first reports were that they didn’t even know it was that bad. They came across as completely incompetent on the issue. No one would have faulted him had he made NO speech but was clearly acting quickly. He WASN’T.[/quote]
Are you too dense to understand that the reason they believed it wasn’t that bad was because Blanco was telling them that?
[quote]
doogie wrote:
Can you ONCE focus on a topic without trying to spin race into it? Why didn’t Carter apologize? For that matter, how many of the presidents who were in office during the experiment were Democrats?
Professor X wrote:
Seperately about this, I know little about Carter. I am not old enough to remember a presidency under Carter so it means about as much to me as asking me about Washington.[/quote]
I’m sorry for taking your lack of education into account. You’re a part of the MTV generation. You think if Tabitha Sorenson didn’t tell you about it, it must not mean that much, huh?
I’ll give you a little history lesson.
The Tuskeegee experiment ran for forty years between 1932 and 1972. During that time:
Hoover–Republican 1929-33 (Tuskeegee experiments begin)
FDR–Democrat 1933-45
Truman–Democrat 1945-1953
Eisenhower–Republican 1953-1961
Kennedy–Democrat 1961-1963
LBJ–Democrat 1963-1969
Nixon–Republican 1969-74 (Tuskeegee experiments end)
Democrats had more to do with the Tuskeegee experiments than Republicans. If you want to get pissy at someone, look at the DNC.
Okay, news flash, but if a levee is “topped”… thing about this, what is going to happen?
The damned things are dirt. A “topped” levee erodes and becomes “breached”. There are no two ways about it.
I so hate these word games.
It doesn’t matter exactly how the levees failed, it matters that they failed and that it was known that they might.
It doesn’t matter that they withstood the initial onslaught before failure, not enough time passed for the readied assets to be utilized or dispersed.
Any more word games?
Doogie,
I’m not sure, honestly, that the number of presidents in place, of one stripe or another, is a truly meaningful measure of responsibility.
More information is needed to make such a determination.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Okay, news flash, but if a levee is “topped”… thing about this, what is going to happen?
The damned things are dirt. A “topped” levee erodes and becomes “breached”. There are no two ways about it.
I so hate these word games. [/quote]
Let’s see here is what director of the National Hurricane Center Max Mayfield said regarding Vroom’s ‘word games’:
“Today, Mayfield told NBC News that he warned only that the levees might be topped, not breached, and that on the many conference calls he monitored, "Nobody talked about the possibility of a levee breach or failure until after it happened.”
(emphasis added)
So we have an amateur pedant’s - that’s Vroom - insistence on meaningless trivial word games versus the director of the National Hurricane Center - that’s Max Mayfield - insisting there is an important distinction between the two words.
This one’s not even close.
Thunder,
As a kid, did you never make a small dam in front of rainwater?
Anyone who’s ever played in the mud knows that dirt, when exposed to a strong current, erodes very quickly.
I don’t give a shit what the dude says, if he’s saying topping a dirt levee won’t lead to failure, he’s either lying for political reasons or totally incompetent.
It’s not about who I am.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Okay, news flash, but if a levee is “topped”… thing about this, what is going to happen?
The damned things are dirt. A “topped” levee erodes and becomes “breached”. There are no two ways about it.
I so hate these word games.
It doesn’t matter exactly how the levees failed, it matters that they failed and that it was known that they might.
It doesn’t matter that they withstood the initial onslaught before failure, not enough time passed for the readied assets to be utilized or dispersed.
Any more word games?[/quote]
A “topped” levee is bad and will result in a flood. It may result in a breach or it may not depending on how high/fast the water is and how long it is “topped”.
A “breached” levee is catastrophic and will result in a huge flood.
I don’t think it is word games, just being precise. Unfortunately they are trying to be precise in a situation when no one knows what the hell is happening or is going to happen.
Zap,
I really do think this is political word games.
We are now arguing about whether or not a “topped” levee warning means that the administration should have expected a possible disaster.
The answer is yes. A topped levee has every capacity to become a breached levee, especially when the damned thing is made of dirt.
Anyone with any sense knows this… but it is being used as an excuse. Anyone who is buying it is being sold a political bill of goods. Notably, cheerleaders are sucking it up like it actually means something.
Topping is generally a precursor to breaching, in a dirt environment… hello, McFly?
[quote]doogie wrote:
Are you too dense to understand that the reason they believed it wasn’t that bad was because Blanco was telling them that?
[/quote]
This was not an excuse! I could turn on 5 different cable stations during that disaster and all were showing how bad it was. The Bush administration doesn’t own tv’s? Why are you making excuses?
[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t think it is word games, just being precise. Unfortunately they are trying to be precise in a situation when no one knows what the hell is happening or is going to happen.
Zap,
I really do think this is political word games.
We are now arguing about whether or not a “topped” levee warning means that the administration should have expected a possible disaster.
The answer is yes. A topped levee has every capacity to become a breached levee, especially when the damned thing is made of dirt.
Anyone with any sense knows this… but it is being used as an excuse. Anyone who is buying it is being sold a political bill of goods. Notably, cheerleaders are sucking it up like it actually means something.
Topping is generally a precursor to breaching, in a dirt environment… hello, McFly?[/quote]
Haven’t the last few years been a game of “word” toss or Scrabble? Either way, you make a good point here.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I really do think this is political word games.
We are now arguing about whether or not a “topped” levee warning means that the administration should have expected a possible disaster.
The answer is yes. A topped levee has every capacity to become a breached levee, especially when the damned thing is made of dirt.[/quote]
Actually, it doesn’t. Levees are built to withstand water pressure, and pressure is a matter of degree. There were feasibility studies being conducted before Katrina to see if the current levee system in place could withstand a Cat 5 hurricane - ie, levees could hold their ground against 4 and lower.
The levees were built to withstand hurricane water pressure below a Cat 5 category, which - wait for it - the levees have done consistently for the delta over time.
So why does a trained expert in an apolitical position - Max Mayfield - completely refute what you are saying? He, a professional, thought, based on the information he had, that Katrina would apply water force on the level of water force to top the levees. He did not think that the water power would be enough not cause a breach, which is a measurable observation based on a degree of force.
Yet you contend that by mere fact that the levees were made of earth - and have been successful at the job they were designed to do and constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers - that ‘topping’ meant that ‘breaching’ was inevitable? That is nonsense, refuted by not only the history and performance of the levee system, but by the professionals weighing in on the issue.
Once again, drunk on pompous abstraction, you are far afield of your capabilities to speak on the issue. The difference between ‘topping’ and ‘breaching’ is an important distinction observed by those paid well to know such things, but you somehow think you have outsmarted them. Don’t be a fool.
Sure it is. Can’t have a breach if the water power doesn’t first achieve topping. But, as stated above, ‘topping’ does not mean that a breach is inevitable, and the point of the analysis conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Hurricane Center is to figure out that large area in between, based on their information.
If what you said was true, every time a levee was in danger of being ‘topped’ by the water level, there would have been a mass mobilization to prepare for a breach. Didn’t happen. Doesn’t happen. How come, Vroom? Because the pros know better than you - one does not begat the other. This thing you refer to - common sense, I think it was - seems to escape you.
Is it political? The whole point of this thread was to show that Bush had information that there was an expected breach. The information points to the opposite - that the experts were not thinking ‘breach’ - but you want to give us all a headache by trying to obfuscate your way out of the plain explanation. Give us all a break.
There are plenty of things that Bush and the federal government are worthy of criticism for - I don’t think this let’s anyone off the hook. But this thread and its claims have been completely refuted by the available information. Stop pretending otherwise.
Here is the AP clarifying their story:
"AP FRIDAY NIGHT CLARIFICATION ON BUSH/KATRINA VIDEO Fri Mar 03 2006 19:48:29 ET
Clarification: Katrina-Video story
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking."
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Actually, it doesn’t. Levees are built to withstand water pressure, and pressure is a matter of degree. There were feasibility studies being conducted before Katrina to see if the current levee system in place could withstand a Cat 5 hurricane - ie, levees could hold their ground against 4 and lower.
The levees were built to withstand hurricane water pressure below a Cat 5 category, which - wait for it - the levees have done consistently for the delta over time.[/quote]
Thunder, your description above has nothing to do with the concept of “topping”. It has to do with the water held on “the other side” of the levee being resisted – such that the level doesn’t collapse.
Maybe the rest of your point will address this…
[quote]So why does a trained expert in an apolitical position - Max Mayfield - completely refute what you are saying? He, a professional, thought, based on the information he had, that Katrina would apply water force on the level of water force to top the levees. He did not think that the water power would be enough not cause a breach, which is a measurable observation based on a degree of force.
Yet you contend that by mere fact that the levees were made of earth - and have been successful at the job they were designed to do and constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers - that ‘topping’ meant that ‘breaching’ was inevitable? That is nonsense, refuted by not only the history and performance of the levee system, but by the professionals weighing in on the issue.
Once again, drunk on pompous abstraction, you are far afield of your capabilities to speak on the issue. The difference between ‘topping’ and ‘breaching’ is an important distinction observed by those paid well to know such things, but you somehow think you have outsmarted them. Don’t be a fool.[/quote]
I still don’t see how you are convincing yourself of this crap. It has nothing to do with credentials. It has to do with water flowing over soil. It has nothing to do with water rising up the side of the levee and exerting pressure on it.
It’s really nice of you to attack me personally in order to try to prove your point, but this has nothing to do with me – or the credentials of some politically motivated schmuck.
When water flows over soil there is this little thing called erosion. Really, go stand in a fast moving river, or perhaps go stand in front of huge waves pounding in from the ocean, you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Once again, there is a difference between a levee being able to withstand pressure, when water rises on one side of it, to it being able to avoid erosion when it is constructed of dirt and has significant amounts of water flowing over the top of it.
[quote]Sure it is. Can’t have a breach if the water power doesn’t first achieve topping. But, as stated above, ‘topping’ does not mean that a breach is inevitable, and the point of the analysis conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Hurricane Center is to figure out that large area in between, based on their information.
If what you said was true, every time a levee was in danger of being ‘topped’ by the water level, there would have been a mass mobilization to prepare for a breach. Didn’t happen. Doesn’t happen. How come, Vroom? Because the pros know better than you - one does not begat the other. This thing you refer to - common sense, I think it was - seems to escape you.[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? If you have a dirt levee, and it is topped, there will be erosion. You may be lucky and have very minimal overage, but in a cat-5 hurricane situation it’s hard to accurately predict exact water levels.
Perhaps, the previous hurricanes you refer to have been of a lower category or the levees involved were not simple dirt and grass levees? Honestly, there is no way to avoid erosion when water is running over soil. I don’t care who tells you otherwise… running water carries a lot of force.
[quote]Is it political? The whole point of this thread was to show that Bush had information that there was an expected breach. The information points to the opposite - that the experts were not thinking ‘breach’ - but you want to give us all a headache by trying to obfuscate your way out of the plain explanation. Give us all a break.
There are plenty of things that Bush and the federal government are worthy of criticism for - I don’t think this let’s anyone off the hook. But this thread and its claims have been completely refuted by the available information. Stop pretending otherwise.[/quote]
Refuted my ass.
A levee is much more likely to breach in a catastrophic way once soil erosion has weakend it’s rearward base. Alternately, if it is topped long enough, it will become short enough that it may as well have been breached.
Have you ever seen a large or fast moving body of water in action?
[quote]Here is the AP clarifying their story:
"AP FRIDAY NIGHT CLARIFICATION ON BUSH/KATRINA VIDEO Fri Mar 03 2006 19:48:29 ET
Clarification: Katrina-Video story
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking."[/quote]
Okay, so, when floodwaters run over soil levees, what do you expect will happen to the soil?
This is not something that lets the administration off the hook at all.
I don’t know why you want to let them off the hook so badly, but perhaps ignoring the fact that anybody with a brain could figure out the dangers involved when a cat-5 hurricane drives water over the top of a soil levee is a stretch.
No?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Thunder,
As a kid, did you never make a small dam in front of rainwater?
Anyone who’s ever played in the mud knows that dirt, when exposed to a strong current, erodes very quickly.
I don’t give a shit what the dude says, if he’s saying topping a dirt levee won’t lead to failure, he’s either lying for political reasons or totally incompetent.
It’s not about who I am.[/quote]
The levee’s that breached failed because of the weakening of the foundations over time. It’s a little more then a pile of dirt. They were not built to the proper specifications in the 60’s.
The levees were constructed with sheeting and shooring. That is sheets of metal driven into the ground and further reinforced with shoring. They are then surrounded by dirt and stone. To prevent erosion they have erosion control devices in front of them called rip-rap. Rip-Rap prevents erosion from occuring due to the action of the water flowing pat it. The rip rap has to be maintained over the years which it was.
The levees were not constructed properly. That’s why the failed. The specs were done correctly. It’s my opinion that corruption on the part of the contractor in collusion with the construction inspector was the cause. My guess is the local political machine was also in on the scam. They were built in the 60’s so who knows.
A topping of the levee could have been controlled by the flood control pumps in the city. They were massive and in working order. That’s what they were there for. They could not control a catastrophic breach. Too much all at one time.
Here is the part that really should piss everyone off. The levees were not contructed higher and flood control farther out into the Gulf was not built due to the oposition of environmental groups. They wanted natural wetlands reclaimed or recreated and thought a stronger levees and flood control system would derail that argument. Some of these wetlands are the very nieghborhoods that were flooded.
The Federal Response was and is massive to this event. However a massive response does not happen overnight or even a few days. Never has and it never will. Also hard choices always have to be made. Sometimes they are unpopular and not always right.
For a levee to withstand overflow, it has to be designed to withstand overflow. Overflow is a dangerous situation at the best of times… notice in the following the steps taken to handle overflow:
http://www.nilim.go.jp/english/report/annual/024.pdf
[i]
Levee Resistant to Overflowing (High Graded Levee)
… the crest (top surface) of this kind of levee is paved and waterproof sheets installed inside it to prevent floodwater or rainwater from seeping through it. Drainage works are constructed to remove any water that does seep into the levee body. And scouring prevention work called slope toe work (enclosing gravel in steel mesh) is executed at the ends of the levee where the maximum force (shearing force) is generated by overflowing water. And if the surface of the side of the levee facing away from the river is protected with waterproof sheets, it can resist overflowing water.
In sum, a high graded levee is not only completely protected from breaching by overflowing water, it is a safe levee that allows the overflowing water to flow downstream smoothly, prevents erosion of the ends of the levee and will not fail for three hours.[/i]
Nice, with all that work done to ensure that overflow is handled, it is engineered to last three hours, to give residents time to evacuate. Gee, I wonder how that might compare to a soil topped levee which doesn’t have those protections.
Or, from this one, a list of causes of levee failure:
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/Inside_pages.pdf
Overtopping
Downed trees of levee slope
Gopher holes
Seepage through pervious levee material
Seepage following tree root paths
Yeah, okay, the first item mentioned, overtopping. No, I guess nobody can imagine that overtopping has the ability to cause catastrophic breaching.
Here is a government document talking about the dangers of flash floods…
http://www.ksready.gov/floods.htm
[i]
Floodwaters can be extremely dangerous. The force of six inches of swiftly moving water can knock people off their feet. The best protection during a flood is to leave the area and go to shelter on higher ground.
Flash flood waters move at very fast speeds and can roll boulders, tear out trees, destroy buildings, and obliterate bridges. Walls of water can reach heights of 10 to 20 feet and generally are accompanied by a deadly cargo of debris. The best response to any signs of flash flooding is to move immediately and quickly to higher ground.
Cars can be easily swept away in just 2 feet of moving water. If floodwaters rise around a car, it should be abandoned. Passengers should climb to higher ground.
[/i]
Don’t try to tell me that water flowing over the top of a soil levee can’t be expected to degrade the levee and cause a breach. Whether or not this is exactly what happened is besides the point, the point is whether the danger was forseen.
Alternately, saving the best for last, here is a US government analysis of the levee failures. Notice that overtopping caused some of the failures due to scouring as I’ve described:
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2006/01/
USGS Scientists Investigate New Orleans Levees Broken by Hurricane Katrina
The storm surges produced by Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005, breached the levees protecting New Orleans in numerous places, flooding approximately 75 percent of the metropolitan area. Most of the levee failures were caused by overtopping, as the storm surge rose over the top of a levee and scoured out the base of the landward embankment or floodwall. Three major and costly breaches appear to have been caused by failure of the soils underlying the levees or failure of the earthen levee embankments themselves; in several places, levee foundations failed when water levels were below the tops of the levees. Transitions between levees of differing heights or materials proved to be weak points in the flood-protection system; a significant number of levee washouts occurred, for example, where the weaker of two adjacent materials was at a lower elevation.
I’ll say it again, anyone who suggests that overflow or overtopping of a soil levee isn’t a direct indicator of possible failure is politically motivated. Any of you clowns buying it are total retards.
Oh, I’d be remiss if I left this paragraph out of my last source…
Overtopping was most severe on the east side of the flood-protection system, as the waters of Lake Borgne were driven west toward New Orleans, and also farther to the south, along the lower reaches of the Mississippi River. Significant overtopping and erosion caused numerous breaches in these areas. The magnitude of overtopping was less severe along the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC, also called the “Industrial Canal”) and along the western part of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) channel, but overtopping in these areas nevertheless caused erosion and levee failures. Although field observations suggest that little or no overtopping occurred along most of the levees fronting Lake Pontchartrain, evidence of minor overtopping or wave splashover was observed in several places. A breach in the levee system occurred at the northwest corner of the New Orleans East protected area, near Lakefront Airport, at a complex transition between levee segments of varying heights and materials. It appears that many of the levees breached by overtopping might have performed better if conceptually simple details, such as scour protection on the land side, had been added during or after original design and construction.
Fricken clowns.
[quote]vroom wrote:
This is not something that lets the administration off the hook at all.
I don’t know why you want to let them off the hook so badly…[/quote]
Of course, my post above explicitly states that:
The specific claim in this thread - that Bush knew that the levees would be breached, evidenced by the video, and yet did not act in response to the anticipated breach - is false and has been refuted. Period.
We have the national director of the Hurricane Center Max Mayfield clarifying the difference, and the AP itself - responsible for the report - has expressly stated that what the original piece stated was not accurate. Read that again, Vroom - the AP has explicitly qualified that the original claim was inaccurate.
[quote]…but perhaps ignoring the fact that anybody with a brain could figure out the dangers involved when a cat-5 hurricane drives water over the top of a soil levee is a stretch.
No?[/quote]
But you miss the point. The point is Bush was not advised that breach was likely from those charged with the duty to give him such competent, expert advice. The whole point of the thread was the Bush was told about a breach and did not prepare for a breach. That is simply not true.
If Mayfield and the rest of the crew whiffed and gave bad advice - that is a seperate issue entirely. This thread is about what Bush was told and what he wasn’t - and the original claim has been refuted.
Thunder,
It looks like you are changing your argument.
Excuse me, but were you calling someone a pedant earlier?
So, Bush was told that there was going to be overtopping, but nobody really knew that was a dangerous situation likely to lead to breaching.
Yeah, I’ll be buying that one in quantity, where do I sign up? Is it offered at cheerleader school?
Vroom,
Oh, and one question.
Max Mayfield thought there would be overtopping without a breach.
Governor Blanco did too.
Why is this?
[quote]Oh, and one question.
Max Mayfield thought there would be overtopping without a breach.
Governor Blanco did too.
Why is this? [/quote]
Who said this? You have evidence that people truly expected overtopping without a breach?
I’m guessing nobody bothered to check with any experts then. Did you bother to read the materials I posted above?
I’d suspect people would hope that they’d only suffer some minor overtopping, without a breach, because it would mean there wouldn’t be much of a catastrophe. It’s even possible they were trying not to cause panic as they couldn’t be sure what would happen.
However, in a disaster planning world, which is what this is all about, somebody really dropped the ball if they couldn’t figure out (like I could) that overtopping is a deadly disaster waiting to happen with soil levees.