Split Thread Michael Brown and Katrina

[RandFan]

By the way, here's a video of water overtopping levees in New Orleans during Hurricane Gustav in 2008. I think you can see how things might be much worse if there was an actual breach.

I'm really at a loss why you are clinging to this bit of rationalization.

1. FEMA: Believed that a Katrina was capable of causing catastrophic damage and death.
2. Katrina caused catastrophic damage and death.

Your argument:

• Prior to landfall Katrina was Cat 5.
• FEMA predicted such a storm was a severe risk.
• Katrina was deadly just as FEMA warned but not for the reasons it originally thought.

 

[RandFan]

On Obama's desk there is a sign that reads "The buck stops at Youtube."

I've no idea what this is supposed to mean.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm really at a loss why you are clinging to this bit of rationalization.

1. FEMA: Believed that a Katrina was capable of causing catastrophic damage and death.
2. Katrina caused catastrophic damage and death.

Your argument:

• Prior to landfall Katrina was Cat 5.
• FEMA predicted such a storm was a severe risk.
• Katrina was deadly just as FEMA warned but not for the reasons it originally thought.

Perhaps you're right. Bush was incompetent because he couldn't stop the sea level from rising. We really needed somebody like Obama who has that power.

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps you're right. Bush was incompetent because he couldn't stop the sea level from rising. We really needed somebody like Obama who has that power.

Good point. Still, Obama isn't looking for ways to harm our citizens.

 

[fishbob]

Overtopping happens when the storm surge brings the water level above the top of the levee. Water pours over the levee and gets into the city, where it remains until it is either pumped out or is absorbed into the ground (or evaporates). This can cause a lot of damage, but it is not catastrophic. New Orleans has huge pumps which presumably are used to pump out rain water, so a little bit of overtopping could probably be accommodated rather easily (although any roads or houses near the levees would be waterlogged). A breach means that the levee literally falls apart in a spot, which then widens as water rushes in. This results in the water level inside the city equalizing with the sea level outside within a matter of hours. You're probably talking at least 1,000 times more water in a breach than an overtopping. On top of that, it's impossible to pump the water out until the breach is repaired.

How do you think a breach occurs? Water flowing over the top of an earthen structure is how. Overtopping almost guarantees a breach of earthen levees, and is therefore a precursor to catastrophic.

 

[RandFan]

How do you think a breach occurs? Water flowing over the top of an earthen structure is how. Overtopping almost guarantees a breach of earthen levees, and is therefore a precursor to catastrophic.

Thanks. I didn't understand the point of the distinction. Failure is failure. In any event, overtopping can indeed lead to a breach. If one is worried about overtopping then one ought to worry about a breach.

Levee breach

Overtopping can lead to significant landside erosion of the levee or even be the mechanism for complete breach.

 

[sunmaster14]

How do you think a breach occurs? Water flowing over the top of an earthen structure is how. Overtopping almost guarantees a breach of earthen levees, and is therefore a precursor to catastrophic.

That's complete nonsense in this context. Many of the levees that were breached in New Orleans were never even overtopped. And many were overtopped but weren't breached (see the Youtube video I linked early from Hurricane Gustav for an example). All the studies have shown that the levees were breached because of design flaws. They were supposed to be able to withstand overtopping. Hence, overtopping <> breach, and Bush was absolutely correct when he said that levee breaches were completely unexpected.

 

[sunmaster14]

Thanks. I didn't understand the point of the distinction. Failure is failure. In any event, overtopping can indeed lead to a breach. If one is worried about overtopping then one ought to worry about a breach.

Completely false. I've already demolished your claims about breaches with logic and evidence. Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense?

 

[kookbreaker]

I suppose the idea that he was criticized unfairly and actually didn't do a bad job hasn't crossed your mind?

It has, and it falls utterly flat in the face of the actual evidence. Brown was a political toady given what Bush thought would be a cushy, no-talent-needed job.

Katrina was not only far, far more damaging than Sandy, but it actually hit relatively wealthy states with relatively competent government. Chris Christie, for example, had people evacuated from the shore under pain of arrest.

Even barring an evacuation the rescue and recovery was horribly mismanaged. That falls at the feet of FEMA and the guy who put his toadies in place there.

Even so, there have been plenty of complaints about the job FEMA has done in the aftermath of Sandy.

There are always complaints. Even during its excellent administration under Witt there were doubtless complaints. Nothing from Sandy comes to the scale of the aftermath of Katrina.

You just don't see the media reporting them as prominently.

Maybe because they don't measure up to the utter disaster that was the aftermath of Katrina.

In part it's due to partisan bias;

And mostly because they did a much better job, seeing as they were properly lead.

and in part it's due to the media having nothing as gripping as 20,000 people stranded in the Superdome without working plumbing.

Also the complete inability of Brownie being able to do anything to aid that situation, his inability to get supplies where they were needed, his confiscation of supplies that would have made it.

Does it ever occur to you that Brown was completely incompetent?!

 

[RandFan]

.... Bush was absolutely correct when he said that levee breaches were completely unexpected.

That's a materially false statement because Katrina was predicted to be a Cat 5 hurricane.

P1.) Katrina was cat 5 and it was predicted that Katrina would hit land as a cat 5 hurricane.

P2.) The levee's were not constructed for a cat 5 hurricane.

C.) It was reasonable therefore to conclude that the levees would be breached.

What Bush said was materially false. It was a lie.

 

[RandFan]

Completely false. I've already demolished your claims about breaches with logic and evidence. Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense?

Because I demolished your claims with sources.

It's a fact that overtopping CAN weaken the integrity of a dam or levee resulting in a breach. True or false?

Levees are subject to failure when overtopped similar to dams.

 

[RandFan]

Why Should Bush Worry?

"Certain Death": Looking at the Dire Katrina Bulletin Nine Years Later

Nine years ago today, the National Weather Service in New Orleans issued a sternly-worded statement to people in the path of Hurricane Katrina known as "The Bulletin." Its sharp language left little doubt Katrina was going to be the storm to beat all storms, and that residents in its path were in mortal danger.

... but Bush couldn't have known.

BTW: The National Geographic article does NOT talk about levee's. The warning was not dependent on the levees. That's your red herring. You are wrong about it but it doesn't matter.

Bush acted like no one could know disaster was near. "Certain Death". How does that compare?

 

[sunmaster14]

That's a materially false statement because Katrina was predicted to be a Cat 5 hurricane.

Katrina was a cat 5 hurricane, but only when it was over the warm waters of the Gulf. It was not predicted to hit at cat 5. Only 3 hurricanes in recorded history have made US landfall at cat 5.

P1.) Katrina was cat 5 and it was predicted that Katrina would hit land as a cat 5 hurricane.

Hit land, or hit New Orleans? Do you have support for either claim?

P2.) The levee's were not constructed for a cat 5 hurricane.

True, but that doesn't mean that they would suffer catastrophic breaches in a cat 5 hurricane. It only meant that they would likely be overtopped by the storm surge of a cat 5 hurricane. That's bad enough, but nowhere near as bad as a massive breach.

C.) It was reasonable therefore to conclude that the levees would be breached.

No it wasn't. Regardless, what are you going to do? If the city floods like it did, you're pretty much helpless. The only thing you can do is make sure to evacuate everybody. But that's the job of local and state governments. The Federal government doesn't even have the jurisdiction to order a mandatory evacuation.

What Bush said was materially false. It was a lie.

No, what you're saying is materially false. And, I think, a lie.

 

[sunmaster14]

"Certain Death": Looking at the Dire Katrina Bulletin Nine Years Later

... but Bush couldn't have known.

BTW: The National Geographic article does NOT talk about levee's. The warning was not dependent on the levees. That's your red herring. You are wrong about it but it doesn't matter.

Bush acted like no one could know disaster was near. "Certain Death". How does that compare?

The very video that you linked to as evidence that Bush lied (which he hadn't) shows how engaged and concerned Bush and his advisers were two days before Katrina's landfall. Your own evidence undermines your claims. Take a look at the video again (or perhaps for the first time, since you don't seem to vet your own sources very well).

 

[RandFan]

Katrina was a cat 5 hurricane, but only when it was over the warm waters of the Gulf. It was not predicted to hit at cat 5. Only 3 hurricanes in recorded history have made US landfall at cat 5.

Hit land, or hit New Orleans? Do you have support for either claim?

True, but that doesn't mean that they would suffer catastrophic breaches in a cat 5 hurricane. It only meant that they would likely be overtopped by the storm surge of a cat 5 hurricane. That's bad enough, but nowhere near as bad as a massive breach.

No it wasn't. Regardless, what are you going to do? If the city floods like it did, you're pretty much helpless. The only thing you can do is make sure to evacuate everybody. But that's the job of local and state governments. The Federal government doesn't even have the jurisdiction to order a mandatory evacuation.

No, what you're saying is materially false. And, I think, a lie.

I'll withdraw the claim that it would at level 5.

Please to tell me when NOA said they're was nothing to be concerned about or, NO ONE COULD PREDICT DISASTER.

 

[RandFan]

The very video that you linked to as evidence that Bush lied (which he hadn't) shows how engaged and concerned Bush and his advisers were two days before Katrina's landfall. Your own evidence undermines your claims. Take a look at the video again (or perhaps for the first time, since you don't seem to vet your own sources very well).

HE DID NOTHING.

Jeez, by Brown's own testimony the meeting did not result in any changes.

 

[RandFan]

Mortal Danger.

Sunmaster14, are you honestly telling us that the National Weather Service and FEMA had no way to know that they were in danger?

Nine years ago today, the National Weather Service in New Orleans issued a sternly-worded statement to people in the path of Hurricane Katrina known as "The Bulletin." Its sharp language left little doubt Katrina was going to be the storm to beat all storms, and that residents in its path were in mortal danger.

Do you honestly think that the second biggest threat to America was not possible or unlikely given the facts when Katrina was at Cat 5?

FEMA predicted the disaster. The National Weather Service predicted disaster (see above).

Your claim that Bush had no way of knowing of the coming disaster is just pure and utter BS (and very dishonest given the mountains of proof I keep providing you).

My video proves that Michael Brown warmed Bush. Yet Bush still did nothing.

 

[davefoc]

How do you think a breach occurs? Water flowing over the top of an earthen structure is how. Overtopping almost guarantees a breach of earthen levees, and is therefore a precursor to catastrophic.

Despite some stuff below your post, I thought you were exactly correct. This distinction between overtopping and breaching was a little piece of nonsense ginned up to hide the fact that Bush was sleeping when people told him bad stuff was going to happen, not well enough informed to appreciate the meaning of what he was being told, not bright enough to understand what he was being told, or lying.

There was a thread about this a very long time ago. I might have even started the thread. I just couldn't believe that anybody would put out this stupid rationalization at the time. Obviously, it wasn't as stupid as I thought because it worked on a few true believer partisans.

I think it's also significant that a massive amount of water came in through the canals that were built as political pay offs for a very few companies. So US taxpayers paid to enrich a few wealthy individuals and then paid again when the canals that were built exacerbated the damage from Katrina.

I don't know what's going on with the class 5 conversation. The point of the class 5 information is that the hurricane was a class 5 before it subsided to a class 3 when it hit New Orleans. So as bad as the damage was it wasn't as bad as the damage might have been if the hurricane had not subsided when it hit New Orleans. But if it had been worse, then I suppose the theory from the overtopping/breaching quibblers is that everything would have been fine if the levees hadn't breached, there would have just been a lot more water flowing over the levees which of course wouldn't be affected by massive amounts of water flowing over the tops of them.

 

[sunmaster14]

Sunmaster14, are you honestly telling us that the National Weather Service and FEMA had no way to know that they were in danger?

Do you honestly think that the second biggest threat to America was not possible or unlikely given the facts when Katrina was at Cat 5?

FEMA predicted the disaster. The National Weather Service predicted disaster (see above).

Your claim that Bush had no way of knowing of the coming disaster is just pure and utter BS (and very dishonest given the mountains of proof I keep providing you).

My video proves that Michael Brown warmed Bush. Yet Bush still did nothing.

I don't know where you're getting this strawman from. Where did I say that nobody expected Katrina was a huge danger and a big threat? I'm just saying that when Bush said that a breach of the levee system was unexpected, that he was absolutely correct. Additionally, without such a breach, the catastrophe would have been much easier to deal with. The weather warning you refer to actually emphasizes wind damage. If that's all there was, then there would have been tremendous damage and probably dozens of lives lost, but FEMA would have looked competent and responsive. It wouldn't have been as difficult to get aid in or people out. But when 80% of the city was underwater (which nobody expected), with no way to get the water out of the city until the levees were plugged up again, rescue and recovery efforts were orders of magnitude more difficult.

 

[bruto]

Can't say, but it is apparent that if Brownie were put into the same exact situation again he'd still react badly.

That cited article is, if you read it, surprisingly strange. It appears Brown is criticizing Obama for reassuring people that he would do what he's supposed to, and in fact what Brown says he's supposed to. Apparently Brown believes the public should be kept uninformed until after the hurricane, and then find out whether or not the person in charge is an idiot.