FEMA and the Galveston West End Cover up

page: 32
89
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 

If it really happened, shouldn't there be a single piece of print on the web that says there were restrictions on reporters? Because there doesn't seem to be a single mention of it, anywhere. If the TV news reporters were talking about it, surely someone should have documented that or some print reporter would have written a story about it.




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
nataylor,

I don't know what to tell you. At first I thought you were just being lazy (and a bit dishonest) and not wanting to read through the thread and click through the various links provided here. Now, I just think there's more of the latter and less of the former.

You can't say honestly that you read the whole thread, read the links provided, and then state you don't know where the restrictions to media concerning the west end came from. OR the restrictions to media for all of the Galveston island, for that matter.

So...I call you on your big phat bluff. Your latest argument is that you didn't hear your media source say anything about a media black-out ...*blink* *blink*...

seriously. You're just being silly now.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


I think we need to define what a "media blackout" is. I'm talking about the government putting restrictions on the media, telling them they can't travel to certain areas, or that they can't photograph or take video fo certain things That's what we're talking about, right? Because this whole thread seemingly started out with the claim that there were thousands of bodies on Galveston's West End the media was not allowed there to report on it.

Are you suggesting that the media actually knows something but is not reporting it? Because that would take the coordination of hundreds of individuals. You don't think jsut one reporter would want to break that so-called blackout and be the first to "break" a story of major loss of life? 'Cause that's just crazy.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by Valhall
 


I think we need to define what a "media blackout" is. I'm talking about the government putting restrictions on the media, telling them they can't travel to certain areas, or that they can't photograph or take video fo certain things That's what we're talking about, right? Because this whole thread seemingly started out with the claim that there were thousands of bodies on Galveston's West End the media was not allowed there to report on it.


No - this "whole thread" did not start out claiming "thousands of bodies" on Galveston's West End.

You are correct - "media blackout" is defined as you stated (restrictions on the media telling them they can't travel to certain areas - which is evidenced, PROVED in this thread. They were told they could not go to the West End)...AND "media blackout" means the authorities restricting media coverage of an area/event - again evidenced and PROVED on this thread.

[edit on 9-19-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


There's no proof! There is not a statement from a single reporter that they had restrictions on travel to the West End. There just isn't. Call me lazy if you want to. Post just ONE example of it and prove me wrong.

The only thing close is, as I stated, Wayne Dolcefino of channel 13 complaining to Governor Perry about restrictions on news helicopters flying over the island. Something that clearly wasn't true as of Monday, when, as I posted previously, at least two news stations flew over and took video of the island (including the West End).



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


In the interview, Wayne Dolcefino specifically stated the reporters were not being allow to travel to Bolivar or the west end. It was not simply about aircraft. Given that he was questioning the governor, seems significant.

Time will surely tell how important the media felt it was. Might this be a small test of just what limits the media and people will accept from the government entities.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


I personally heard reporters stating that FEMA had taken control of cell phones, that all cameras and cell phones were not allowed into the areas hit by IKE. I also wrote CNN, FOX and ABC regarding the lack of coverage and the media blackout. I asked them where was the outrage from them regarding "freedom of the press"...I asked them where were the 800 numbers scrolling across their screens for those looking for missing relatives......I wrote to the Salvation Army because their missing person link to the Southwest Territory kept redirecting to the Eastern Territory. No response from them either. So don't tell me there isn't a media blackout there. And if they report all the cattle "floaters" why didn't they get dragged out to sea also? I do not want to see those that perished, but at least some kind of coverage to let the world know we are hurting. Where are all the calls for benefit concerts by the celebs? Just to name a few questions....and voice my opinion that I am mad as hell that no one outside those in the Gulfcoast areas seems to care. I have family in Texas and this is just not right.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
You see all of the dead bodies are being spirited away to the giant freezer in the bottom of the Super Dome with all of those dead bodies from Katrina.Salon.com article

Lets calm down and wait for real people to come forward and request information about people that are missing.

One perfectly logical explanation could be that...

A family of 4 (two adults two kids).

Mother and kids go to evacuation center, and get sent to San Antonio on first day of mandatory evacuation.

Father stays until last minute to board up house (read pile of drift wood waiting to happen). when he gets to the evac center the busses are going to Austin or a hotel in San Antonio on the other side or town (San Antonio is a big place).

So, now the mother requests information in her husband that is "missing" The FEMA people at her hotel cannot find him in the system because... lets face it, its the government and they probably do not have a central repository data base of evacuees that all evac location update in real time so that all FEMA officials have a real time accurate look at all evacuees and there current locations and situations. Think real time stock software sort of thing.

So, now we have a TV crew waiting for this moment to assert that the husband is dead and those government bastard refuse to let this poor woman know information about her husband.

BAM instant scandal. instant media black out.

All from the fact that our bureaucracy is broken and we know it cannot be fixed.

So, is this plausible?



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by irongunner
You see all of the dead bodies are being spirited away to the giant freezer in the bottom of the Super Dome with all of those dead bodies from Katrina.Salon.com article

Lets calm down and wait for real people to come forward and request information about people that are missing.

One perfectly logical explanation could be that...

A family of 4 (two adults two kids).

Mother and kids go to evacuation center, and get sent to San Antonio on first day of mandatory evacuation.

Father stays until last minute to board up house (read pile of drift wood waiting to happen). when he gets to the evac center the busses are going to Austin or a hotel in San Antonio on the other side or town (San Antonio is a big place).

So, now the mother requests information in her husband that is "missing" The FEMA people at her hotel cannot find him in the system because... lets face it, its the government and they probably do not have a central repository data base of evacuees that all evac location update in real time so that all FEMA officials have a real time accurate look at all evacuees and there current locations and situations. Think real time stock software sort of thing.

So, now we have a TV crew waiting for this moment to assert that the husband is dead and those government bastard refuse to let this poor woman know information about her husband.

BAM instant scandal. instant media black out.

All from the fact that our bureaucracy is broken and we know it cannot be fixed.

So, is this plausible?



That's an awesome thought experiment. Unfortunately, it really doesn't have anything to do with this thread.

Thanks for sharing though.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
My husband is part of a First Responder Team that helps out areas hit by hurricanes (or disaster situations requiring electricty/power/generators, etc. He left home on August 29 to get in place before Hurricane Gustav hit, and then moved on to Southern Texas after Hurricane Ike made landfall. (He's been gone 23 days and the kids and I miss him very much.)

Anyway, we spoke tonight for a few minutes (we have Verizon cell phones) and he said that there is a media blackout down there. His base camp is very close to Galveston Island (GI), and there are signs posted that say NO MEDIA ALLOWED. He said that the military has completely taken over the whole area. All business, no one is talking!

Also, something strange is that around the clock they see convoys (12 or so at a time) of ambulances going in to GI, and then they come back out in a group with a military helocopter above them. He said that it looks like a Nuke went off down there... and is guessing that there must be a lot of dead bodies.

When we hung up, I thought I would check online and find out what was happening down there for myself... and sure enough there really is no real news to share. However, I did find this thread, so I thought I would post what I heard from my husband.

I am afraid that something horrific has happened and we don't even know about it yet.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


I've watched these videos again, as I did the other night and I supose the issue may be in the date they were taken. I talked to my cousin again to day and he is adamant that his team leader was told, in his presence, by both law enforcement and military SAR personel that the west end was restricted to ONLY SAR personel with military clearance due to the mortality issue and issues with coming into contact with the water that at that time was still covering the entire West end.

As I said I am from out of state and do not know the area, nor does my cousin, but he states that his and other teams were permitted as far west as a point aproximately 1/4 to 1/2 mile west of Jamaca Beach and no futher. He asked me when the video was shot and I told him on the 15th, to which he replied that perhaps most of the body recovery ops had been completed by that time...but he doesn't know as his people where not cleared to enter that zone. He does have questions concerning why special clearance was required, as this was the specific task his people were deployed to undertake, but doesn't expect to recieve answers.

As for news coverage....he was told by FOX news personel on the scene that they were not being permitted to go into the island's west end area because of the health risks associated with the water flooding those areas.

I'm assuming due to the chemicals that were present in the water, ( my cousin did mention that he was told that water samples taken from the area indicated the water flooding those zones was extremely toxic)...which would explain why the area was off limits until the water began to drain off the land. This may also explain why people are not being allowed to return right away.

I suppose my cousin may have been given false info...but then why were his and other SAR teams told they needed military clearance to do ops in those zones, when they did not require such clearance to do ops on other zones on the island...? To me it seems logical that the water was extremely contaminated by who knows what, and this would be reason enough to limit access to those areas for safety reasons.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
It appears that a lot of homes/property may forfeit to the state of Texas under the Open Beach law because the low/high tide line will have now encroached on those properties making them public lands.


Told you. I couldn't find the Open Beach law at the time of my post earlier but it was what I was alluding to when I said that many properties are illegal and going to end up state property. Thanks for finding it too.

The survivors and refugees can't get that type of news when they're still going through the survival/adrenaline phase, would be bad news. Not sure how the victims are going to find out but that's the thing to watch from here out. Mainly because it is looking like some people threw out bogus body counts and 'first person' stories for attentionz.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
I didn`t hear much in the mainstream media about Ike here in Australia,I just come across some pictures and thought of your thread here Valhall.I was shocked.

The short - but eventful - life of Ike



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Back on Sept 16 in this post I gave a link to NOTAM (Notice to Airmen)# 8/8191 issued by the FAA on Sept 15 (at 00:00 UTC), which specifies flight restrictions over the Galveston area. No-one commented upon this in the thread as far as I can see, but because of its importance in connection to the NOTAMs it superceded I’m elaborating on what I posted on Sept 16. Here is the link to this NOTAM. As you’ll see, the restriction is that

No pilots may operate an aircraft in the areas covered by this NOTAM (except as described).


Specifically, no pilots may operate in the region (defined by the map provided) below 2,000 feet. Unlike the previous related NOTAMs which it replaces, this one provides for no exceptions to this instruction in respect of piloted aircraft. (I give links to the previous ones below so you can see what I mean by this.)

Considering that this was a “Hazard”-type NOTAM issued “to provide a safe environment for disaster reponse and relief operations”, it gets very curious indeed when you see what pilots were allowed to do under the preceding NOTAMs.

Why? Because all NOTAMS are issued according to regulations that give them authority under the law, and this authority specifies the reasons why they are issued. NOTAM 8/8191 was issued on Sept 15 under the authority of Title 14 CFR section 91.137(a)(2). According to this FAA information _/url],

Title 14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(2) flight restrictions are issued for forest fires, spraying activities, and general rescue operations.


Well, that sounds all hunky dory. We have all seen and or read reports that rescue operations were occurring and that SAR teams were in the area.

However, NOTAM 8/8191 replaced [url=http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_8_8131.html]NOTAM 8/8131
, issued on Sept 14 (at 0208 UTC), and that one was issued under the authority of Title 14 CFR section 91.137(a)(1), not (2).

This is highly significant because as the FAA information document I referenced above states:

14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(1) flight restrictions are issued for toxic gas/fuel/nuclear spills/rescue operations if explosives on board or top secret flight and actual or possible volcanic eruptions/hijackings.


Please note that NOTAM 8/8131 itself replaced NOTAM 8/8079 issued on Sept 13 (at 12:48 UTC), which replaced NOTAM 8/8051 (issued Sept 12 at 2142 UTC), and [/that] one replaced the original NOTAM 8/8038 (issued Sept 12 at 1934 UTC). All of these NOTAMs were issued under the authority of Title 14 CFR section 91.137(a)(1), as is clearly stated at the very end of each NOTAM. Only the last one I’ve noted (NOTAM 8/8191) is authorized under Title 14 CFR section 91.137(a)(2).

In other words, according to the FAA, the official reasons for the air traffic restrictions for the first few days Ike/post Ike were related to “toxic gas/fuel/nuclear spills/rescue operations if explosives on board or top secret flight”, and were not for “general rescue operations”. (I think we can safely exclude “actual or possible volcanic eruptions/hijackings” in this case.)

It’s also worth considering that the first NOTAM in this series was issued on Friday Sept 12 at 1934 UTC. UTC is five hours ahead of the time in that part of the US. (See this real-time world clock for confirmation.) This means that NOTAM 8/8038 was issued at 2:34 pm local (Texas) time, which is well before the eye of Hurricane Ike crossed Galveston and its environs in the early-morning hours of Sept 13. So, the flight restrictions were not initially imposed due to large numbers of bodies floating in the water, and were not even put in place in anticipation of "general rescue operations".

I wonder about the fact that even prior to Ike even wreaking its full havoc upon that region, someone decided that a flight restriction "hazard" type NOTAM had to be issued under Title 14 CFR section 91.137(a)(1), which specifically covers "toxic gas/fuel/nuclear spills/rescue operations if explosives on board or top secret flight". Let's face it, issuing a NOTAM under that kind of authorization prior to the storm's eye arriving strongly suggests that someone anticipated there would either be a need for special rescue operations and/or top secret flights -- and that makes me very uneasy.

I’d be interested in your comments or thoughts on this…

Mike.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Just as a matter of interest, the designated point of contact in the original NOTAM (8/8038) is given as "ARGUS1". (All the NOTAMS have a point of contact cited at the end, along with the authorizing par.) Out of curiosity I did a google search for "argus1" and the first one listed is this link:

www.argus1.com...

Now considering some of the discussions on this thread and elsewhere about possible bio-contamination, this may just be an odd coincidence, but for those who maybe can't access that link, it looks like this:



So, a place called "Argus1" is involved in "Public Health Syndromic and Disease Surveillance".

Is this purely a coincidence?

Further, if you click on the link at the bottom of the page which says "Argus1 Systems Corportation" (Sic!!), then you get this:



If you click on "Homepage", "About Us", "FAQ" or "Contact", you go nowhere. It stays on this page with its classic "Lorem ipsum" text. In other words, the site is basically a dummy. That logon page might lead somewhere if you have a password, but as I don't then I can't surmise further.

Please note that the other Title 14 CFR section 91.137(a)(1) authorized NOTAMS have the FAA as their point of contact and include telephone numbers. The first NOTAM (8/8038) with ARGUS1 as the point of contact, has no telephone number. Instead, it has only: Frequency 134.45, 284.

Not sure what to make of all this but thought it best to pass it along to you all for your information.

Mike

EDIT: Might be worth mentioning that the Argus login page is not an http address, but https -- which is the internet protocol for secure servers (and hence secure sites), where the data is encrypted using Secure Socket Layer.




[edit on 20/9/08 by JustMike]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustMike

I wonder about the fact that even prior to Ike even wreaking its full havoc upon that region, someone decided that a flight restriction "hazard" type NOTAM had to be issued under Title 14 CFR section 91.137(a)(1), which specifically covers "toxic gas/fuel/nuclear spills/rescue operations if explosives on board or top secret flight".

If you look at the actual text of Title 14 CFR section 91.137(a)(1), you get this:

Protect persons and property on the surface or in the air from a
hazard associated with an incident on the surface;

It doesn't mention anything about toxic gas or such. The hazard in this case was Hurricane Ike.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 

True, the actual text you kindly linked to does not specify hazards or conditions. This is why I referenced the FAA document which does, and which that states

14 CFR Section 91.137(a)(1) flight restrictions are issued for toxic gas/fuel/nuclear spills/rescue operations if explosives on board or top secret flight and actual or possible volcanic eruptions/hijackings.
(Underlining is mine.)

It matters not that the document you cited does not mention toxic gases or whatever. In the actual text it states in the opening part of that par under section 19.137(a):

(a) The Administrator will issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) designating an area within which temporary flight restrictions apply and specifying the hazard or condition requiring their imposition, whenever he determines it is necessary in order to--

and then goes on to the numbered sub-categories (if we may call them that).
(Again, the underlining is mine.)

19.137(a)(1) was cited in the original NOTAM as the reason for the restriction. The reasons for its use are stated above and come from the FAA, not from me. Those reasons do not refer to general rescue operations but are quite specific. Of course a hurricane is a hazard, but an approaching hurricane doesn't require a NOTAM under 19.137(a)(1). One issued under 19.137(a)(2)-- which was issued a few days later -- is quite adequate.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
If you do a search, you'll find lots of NOTAMs issued under 91.137(a)(1):

tfr.faa.gov...

tfr.faa.gov...

tfr.faa.gov...

tfr.faa.gov...

tfr.faa.gov...

web.nbaa.org...

www.aopa.org...



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 

Thank you for the information. Though this thread is mainly concerned with Galveston and its environs I guess it's not all that surprising that there have been other NOTAMS under that category. Useful to know, considering what the FAA says about the reasons for its use as authorization.

Did you find any other NOTAMs that give "Argus1" as the contact, or alternatively do you know precisely what it refers to? I for one would be glad for some clarification on that.

Mike



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



Reporters staying at the city’s emergency operations center at the San Luis Hotel were asked to leave Monday. San Luis hotel owner Tilman Fertitta was housing reporters at the nearby Hilton Hotel, which he also owns.Reporters would be allowed on the island only if they had proper identification, Thomas said. She didn’t clarify what that meant. Reporters were also forbidden from visiting areas on the far West End, Thomas said. She did not explain why.


Galveston officials Restrict Media Access

Read the last two sentences above.





top topics
 
89
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join