It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Government blew up the levee.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 05:43 PM
i believe the government has had alot of conspiracies. Come on though, FEMA behind a conspiracy?! dont give them so much credit, thats how they got the positions they did in the first place.

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 05:54 PM
If you click on this link you can find some stuff about good old FEMA. I think ATC had a thread on this also, maybe used the same article I'm posting below. FEMA's job is not to bring help and rescue. FEMA's job is CONTROL, to institute marshal law. Therefore, as Mr. Griffin says below, FEMA did not fail in their mission during Hurricane Katrina. (Click on the link for the whole article)

[edit on 23-10-2005 by resistance]

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 02:41 AM
check out a book called "Rising Tide, The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and how it changed America" written by an eminent scholar, John M. Barry which provides historical context in which to place minister farrakhan's raising the idea of the levees being intentionally blown.
This book details the politics, economics, greed, and all the intimate details of the decision to blow the levees protecting black areas in 1927 in order to save the "white" or business areas of new orleans.

Please find an article from "blackelectorate" website posted for your convenience. Regardless of what you may think of minister farrakhan, his remarks on the levee are dead on.

Politics Mondays: The Intentional Destruction Of Levees in New Orleans – A Conspiracy Theory? Not In The Light Of History.

"There is no perspective," a friend of mine living outside of the United States wrote to me in an e-mail, a few weeks back. He was referring to the American media coverage regarding Hurricane Katrina, as well as the reaction and thinking of many in response to the disaster. In that, and subsequent e-mail exchanges he has placed emphasis on relevant examples, analogies, parallels and precedents from recorded history – all over the world, that he believes help to place what happened in the Gulf Coast and across America over the last 40 days in perspective.

Three meanings of the word "perspective" according to are: 1) The relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole 2) Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view and 3) The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance.

I often find that most people with deep emotional attachments to political ideologies, among other worldviews, lack "perspective", as the word is defined in its first and third meanings above. One such influential group within the much larger body of those who ardently subscribe to political ideologies, that many of us are familiar with, are political talk show hosts – on both cable and radio. The recent ‘explosion’ of conservative talk radio, in particular, and its influence on public opinion and the decision-making of American elected officials is an interesting study, related to this concept and word – perspective.

Recently, as it relates to the controversy that has erupted over Minister Louis Farrakhan’s suggestion and hypothesis that a levee breach, or crevasse, in New Orleans was intentionally affected by an explosion; I have noted that much of the public discussion and ‘uproar’ over the Minister’s publicly expressed thinking has been heavily influenced by opinion leading talk show hosts. Those, within that group that I have paid closest attention to over the last two weeks are Mr. Sean Hannity and Mr. Larry Elder. I have listened periodically to both of their radio shows for several years, and in terms of their profession, I see both of these men as talented, interesting, and successful. I do not consider them to be journalists and I do realize that their public expressions take place as much in the context of entertainment and a broadcasting industry business model, as they do in the spheres of ‘politics’ and ‘news.’ As a result of this, and their rigid attitudes and thinking, I expect them to be selective in their research process and limited in how broad and deep of a context they provide in discussing current events. Although they frequently speak truths accurately, as many of us do, I do not expect them or any of their peers to be purely motivated by a desire to a) search for facts b) make proper interpretations; and c) draw accurate conclusions, that can be tested and verified by any reasonable and rational person.

However, for many, talk radio is often the first and only, if not most trusted source of news, information and analysis on current events and politics. I have several associates and acquaintances who have impressed me with how deferential they are to what they hear on such programs. It is as if they do no independent thinking outside of what they hear Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Larry Elder, Glen Beck, Michael Savage and Laura Ingram say. For liberal or progressive ideologues, perhaps the same is becoming true of their relationship with National Public Radio (NPR), and Air America talk show hosts.

I have been struck by this reality as it relates to the quality of the discussion, in not only talk radio, but all forms of media regarding Minister Louis Farrakhan’s statements. To me, the most noticeable factor missing from this conversation and debate - other than a serious effort to get the premise, motive and context of his actual remarks - is that of historical perspective.

Although Minister Farrakhan has mentioned historical information in all of the public statements he has given regarding his suggestion and hypothesis regarding the levee breach; I have not heard a single talk show host; Sunday morning news program; or newspaper article that has addressed the Minister’s view or that of other Blacks who share it - in part or full - deal with some of the historical information presented or alluded to by the Minister in any of his talks in question. Nor have they, of their own, presented a relevant historical context in which to weigh his remarks.

Minister Farrakhan’s teacher, The Honorable Elijah Muhammad, wrote, in part, beginning in the 1930s, "Of all our studies history is the most attractive and best qualified to reward our research, as it develops the springs and motives of human actions and displays the consequences of circumstances which operates most powerfully on the destinies of human beings." His statement has been repeated over the years by many of his students, perhaps most famously by Minister Malcolm X.

History takes us into the motivation of human beings and consequences of their thinking and action. It also provides perspective for events that take place in the present, allowing us to weigh events, things, institutions, persons, ideas, and scenarios in relation to one another, across space and time. It elevates our view of what we are currently looking at, above and beyond its "face" or most superficial aspects. With the light of history we can deepen and sharpen our perception of an actual reality, and its relationship to the law of cause and effect.

Although it is hard to estimate and verify such things, I am convinced that the most referenced book utilized by the media since Hurricane Katrina is the historical work, Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 And How It Changed America by John M. Barry. As a consequence, I also hold the opinion that, thus far, Mr. Barry is the media’s most respected opinion leader on the wide impact, implications and ramifications of floods that have hit the Gulf Coast region of the United States, over the last 100 years. He has been quoted extensively by journalists in mainstream and alternative media and has been interviewed by a wide range of talk show hosts – from Tim Russert, on the respected mainstream political talk show, "Meet The Press" to Matsimela Mapfumo and Dick Gregory on the popular Black talk radio show, "Make It Plain." Mr. Barry and his book, provide historical perspective for those who would wish to better understand Hurricane Katrina, and think through its real and potential impact.

Yet and still, as widely referred to as Mr. Barry and his book are by members of the media, I have not read in print or heard on radio, a single reference to a major, if not central theme of his book – the decision to intentionally destroy the levees in the Flood of 1927, in order to save one part of New Orleans at the expense of another. I find it hard to imagine it possible for anyone who has read this book to miss this prominent subject. And even for those who only skim, glance or glean, the book’s index even includes a section under the heading: "levees: the intentional destruction of." It then lists the following page numbers as dealing with that particular subject: 168, 222, 227, 229, 231-232, 234, 238- 258, 339, 408. Under the index heading of "Herbert Hoover" one finds a sub heading of "levee dynamiting and." The page numbers listed for this are 246, 252-253, 255, 340. (Even Minister Farrakhan makes an appearance in Rising Tide's index under, "Farrakhan, Louis, 128").

So why, in light of this subject’s prominence, in such a widely respected and referred to book, has it received so little attention in all forms of media? More specifically, why have those who have spoken so apparently freely on the subject of Minister Farrakhan’s comments, not mentioned the material in Rising Tide which describes not only the intentional destruction of levees, but also how the decision was made and who made it, in chronological order? Is it a mere oversight or accident that not one person in the media to the best of my knowledge has explored a relationship to what Minister Farrakhan is suggesting happened in 2005 with what is documented to have happened in 1927? .......... end of sample from from article

If you are interested in reading the rest of the article go to ""

The truth is often ridiculed, scorned and hidden behind the appellation
"conspiracy theory". ........PStar19

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 03:51 AM

What you say, or quote, may all be true. The problem is one of appearances. Louis Farrakhan has proven to be such a rabid dog that anything that comes out of his mouth is now suspect.

Here is an outsider's point of view:

His vision of Islam was rejected by Malcolm X.

His strident denunciations of segregation (monetary, social, political), whether accurate or not, have so offended the majority of the white majority that anyone from that majority working to improve equality will automatically turn to someone else for a partner.

His continued demand that the black community recognise its latent superiority has equally offended anyone working for a thing called "equality".

His continued demand that the brothers can do it all on their own, ala Christopher St John in Shaft, has proven he's delusional. If they could, Louis, they would have done it already. Equality is going to be acheived in partnership, not by "taking what's yours".

All of which just proves that Malcolm X was the leader the Nation needed, someone with a vision, not an attack dog.

The problem here is that a delusional incompetent too far removed and shielded from reality is sitting in the Oval Office and no-one is telling him how it really is. How else could he say that "Brownie, you're doin' a hecuva job!"?

The New Orleans rescue and recovery operation was inadequate and the leadership was incompetent.

Any organisation that gets an assessment that thousands, if not tens of thousands, will inevitably die and plans around these figures has proven its lack of worth. Once those figures arrived, why wasn't the question "How do we prevent that loss of life?" asked and the planning done accordingly.

Michael Brown's performance in the week after Katrina was worthy of Muhammad Saeed al-Shahaf.

Given the dearth of planning or logistical detail oversight, such as where the water ice and food was, I would not be surprised to learn that FEMA went into the vault and dusted off the only New Orleans playbook it could find, no matter how old it was.

However, I suspect that in New Orleans, as in many examples to be found from the Tsunami, the poorest people died simply because they were poor, not because they were targeted. This was a category 5 storm. If my FEMA unit director sent me out into it to lay or detonate breaching charges I would have told him where he could stick them.

Many people died in SE and SAsia simply because they were poor and lived in poorly constructed "homes" in unprotected areas.

I would suggest that in New Orleans "black" people were pushing "development" into less and less protected areas and that when "the big one" came, that gamble failed to pay off, spectacularly.

When I say pushing development, that can also be taken to mean being left behind. As affluence moved away from the city I would assume it took protection with it, or constructed new, and therefore more secure, protection for itself, leaving the poor to cower behind levees decades old and behind schedule for repair.

The Superdome was obviously built with the idea of thousands of citizens sheltering in it, why wasn't municipal emergency planning in sync with it?

Why was it left to FEMA to do all the work and take all the blame?

Where were the local leaders? Did they remain behind to oversee the rescue and recovery? Or did they get the first plane out and watch it from a distance?

Where was the inter-agency co-operation?

I note you left one prominent "talk show" voice out of your list. The one who is the least informed, but has the biggest clout with audiences. Does anybody else remember her hysteria over Bovine Spongiform Encephylitis? I was even unfortunate enough to see her trip to New Orleans, complete with styled hair and perfect make-up, so much so she was reluctant to don a particle mask lest it should interfere with the viewers concentration on her and her ability to convey "empathy". At least they were telling Brown to leave the tie off and roll up his sleeves! I couldn't have grandstanded any more than she did if I was Lord Laurence Olivier performing Henry V.

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 10:44 AM

What you say, or quote, may all be true".

If what I have brought to the table of discussion is true, and it is, or even as you say, may be true, then the implications of it is staggering. At worst, what it points at is much,much larger than your, apparantly well oiled vituperations against minister farrakhan.

How can you be so dismissive with regard to what this well respected scholar brings to the discussion of whether the levees were intentionally blown. Truth is truth and we are foolish to ignore it because of our hatred of him through whom it comes.

Minister farrakhan did not write the book, "Rising Tide". John Barry did.
Can you disqualify and repudiate his historical accuracy and scholarship?
If not, then, if you are really interested in the truth and credible discussion you will reduce the size of your personal feelings and give the truth the center stage and the respect it deserves for well informed conclusions and well informed decision making.

Even if you cannot leave your personal feelings out of it can you admit that, in light of this information, Minister Farrakhan's words about the levees deserve much more than the scornful characterizations and trained repudiations applied to him by you and the overwhelmingly lap dog media coverage?

Can we now say that where so many accused the Minister of spouting "conspiracy theories" they would also have to accuse the author of the book "Rising Tide, The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How it Changed America,(John Barry) of the same?

Truth is often ridiculed, scorned, and hidden behind the appellation of "conspiracy theory"


posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 05:29 PM

Originally posted by pstar19


What you say, or quote, may all be true".

If what I have brought to the table of discussion is true, and it is, or even as you say, may be true, then the implications of it is staggering. At worst, what it points at is much,much larger than your, apparantly well oiled vituperations against minister farrakhan.

How can you be so dismissive with regard to what this well respected scholar brings to the discussion of whether the levees were intentionally blown.

Read what I said again.

"The problem is one of appearances."

I'm not repudiating the truth. I'm saying "Get another messenger". One who is trusted.

Remember the story of the Boy Who Cried "Wolf". even when telling the truth he wasn't trusted. Neither is Farrakhan.

I'll debate the truth of the book after I've had a chance to read it. Until then, I have to keep an open mind on it as I haven't seen the material.

But it automatically loses credibility on the strength of who reccomended it.

Just as I have reservations about buying graphic novels reccomended to me by Marvel Zombies. In getting your message across the messenger is as important as the message.

If Kim Jong-Il told you that the Japanese were secretly arming themselves with nuclear weapons, would you believe him?

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:30 AM
I live (or used to live) in St. Benard, Louisiana. Backin the day my father used to tell me stories about Betsy (spelled wrong). One thaing he told me was that the NO local goverment has a standing order to protect the French Quarter at all costs. I was then told that the levees were demolished with TNT in the direction of my Parish and the 9th ward.

After Katrina and being in the dome with my dog and getting my son to pretend like he was ill just to get to Baton Rought i rented a car and went back. After a few flats i arrived at my home. I was horrified at what had happend to it and then took a tour of my area. I then went to one of the nearby levee breaches where i noticed a barge in the levee.

Once i got my barings i noticed that the levee i was standing on (where it was not broken) was the 6th street connal levee. I then put two and two together and came to the conclusion that my fathers story came to pass again.

When i returned home after a few days i was waching CNN. They were showing the breach that i had just visited earlyer. this was old fotage taked from a helo and a reported who also took photos of my residence, school, and local stores from a helo. As I looked at the TV I noticed that the Barge that was in the Levee wa gone and was no where to be seen.

When i went back to St Benard (Chalmette) there was a wach at the road into town. There was not mych trafic at the time so i asked a guard about the Barge. He told me that there was no Barge in the levee and that the storm did all of the damage.

I still do not know what to think since all it adds up to is my home still being damaged. I have no thoughts of returning to live in my home because all of the people in the 9th ward will soon be moveing in to my res district. It seems that the local goverments will not let the 9th ward people back into there homes because they are not wanted.

I have also noticed that many of the "higher ups" in my Parish are taking more and more control.

On a return visit to my home i was given a log form issued by the parish presient. It appered to be a form stating that you will rebuild and help the parish. As i read it i soon noticed that if i were to sign this form i would be giving my right away to the FEMA money that i was given. I would also be giving my home to the parish for Bull dozing. I would discuse more about this but that not for this thred + i work closly with the parish and i know the inner working (mostly mob working) so i do not want to end up in a dich somewhere.

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:02 PM
I can buy most theories about what happened in New Orleans to an extent, but it is rediculous for anyone to insinuate that it happened to rid the world of black people. That is a pathetic load of crap. FEMA may have blown the levees to create a problem, but not to rid the planet of a few black people.

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in