There has been a lot of speculation about why the United States Government was slow to respond to the devestation caused by hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
Many, such as NBC nightly news's Brian Williams, have expressed the belief that the relief effort was slow to start because New Orleans is a "poor" city and that if it was a city like New York or Portland, the government response would have been greater and much sooner. A few have even claimed that the poor response was because New Orleans was a predominantly black city.
I do not believe these rumors. I think that the government's delayed response was due more to poor disaster preparation and a lack of readyness in government organizations like FEMA. According to Michael Brown, the director of FEMA, the government didn't even know about all the people seeking shelter in the superdome until days after the hurricane.
There is also the lack of leadership at the top, President Bush didn't even end his vacation at first, and when he finally did he didn't make it to New Orleans for something like 3 or 4 days.
I was just wondering what everybody thought about all this.
"I'm an old-fashioned woman. Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women today, we wouldn't have to vote." - Kay O'Connor (Kansas Senate Republican)
The President is just like his father, lacking in killer political instincts. Clinton would have been all over an opportunity like this. There is enough blaming and sanctimonious political posturing to go around to greatly reduce any chance of improving the real situation.
For those who wish to maintain an illusion, ignorance is the best source of knowledge.
Everyone always fights the previous battle. Originally FEMA was expected to focus on natural and accidental disasters, not deliberate attacks. After 9/11 it was realigned to help guard against terrorist attacks. Now it seems FEMA needs to revisit preparedness for natural events. Further, this is the first major event handled by FEMA under its new management: Homeland Security. I don't think it has been an effective relocation and merger.
Post by hubcapdave69 on Sept 9, 2005 18:07:07 GMT -4
To be fair to our president, he was asked not to come any sooner than he did by the people on the ground.
As for the conspiracy angle, Jack White is trying over at the Education Forum to put forward the idea that the levees were deliberately blown open to cause the flooding, and that the government used "weather modification" to direct and enhance the hurricane so that oil companies would reap windfall profits.
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 9, 2005 23:07:55 GMT -4
Did you really expect to go so long without government weather-control conspiracy theories? Jack White is a one-man conspiracy theory industry. How he enjoys any credibility anywhere boggles my mind.
I'll say it again. This IS the Conspiracy category, so we're going to post about conspiracies. If our government, and others, were incapable of weather warfare, why did the UN outlaw it back in the 70's? So it's a valid speculation. I don't know if the government manufactured that hurricane, but I think it could have.
As for FEMA taking its sweet time to respond? It was deliberate. Anybody who believes that our government didn't know about the people in the Superdome or how bad the destruction was is an idiot. Every last one of us saw it on TV. Are we supposed to believe they don't have TVs on capitol hill, or phones, or radios? Everyone forgot to check with all the FEMA people on the outskirts of ground zero? We also have the reports from the Red Cross and the Salvation Army that they were being turned away from the disaster area--for days on end! Last I heard, they STILL can't get in there. But now that NO is under martial law and they're forcing everyone out, I guess there's little need for them there.
Having established beyond any reasonable doubt that the gov. knew exactly what was going on, all we need to do is consider reasons why they would want to hold back relief measures. In my opinion, they wanted the city to become lawless with a high body count as an excuse to declare martial law. Why did they want to establish martial law? They've been wanting to take over as absolute dictators for a long time, and they're practicing for what's coming. Now we've got armed foreign troops on American soil policing our citizens under the guise of helping. That's the nature of government. It always wants more and more power. Power is all it has. Government doesn't have rights. We the people don't have power. We have rights. They've been trampling on those rights for quite some time now. We're headed for a dictatorship. We're being prepared to take our place in the one world government a.k.a. the antichrist kingdom.
FEMA and Homeland Security and all the alphabet agencies should be dissolved. We don't need them. The National Guard under the control of the governor, the various state agencies, the relief agencies and the American public could have handled the crisis before it became such a god-awful catastrophe in terms of loss of human life. The Fed's role would be merely to provide the money to local agencies with no strings attached.
The latest government mind-control tactic is to shame and denigrate people who play the "blame game." Don't buy into it. They hope that by the time order is restored months down the line that we'll forget what they did. We Americans are really stupid like that. They've committed mass murder. Why should there be any delay in prosecuting them? After dissolving those thug agencies, we should have a good old fashioned necktie party on Capitol Hill...after giving those filthy quislings a fair and impartial trial by a jury of their peers, of course.
Just remember, when someone accuses you of being an counterproductive finger-pointer, they're actually performing damage control for killers. So don't be intimidated. Don't go along with their "group think " propaganda. Just point the appropriate finger at them.
Gimme that dawg little boy. No! No! Don't take my dog, too! You gimme that dawg son, or I'm gonna leave you and your mama and your daddy to starve to death in a pool of s**t.
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 10, 2005 2:23:22 GMT -4
Scalar energy is what I've heard most often.
I think they hired a bunch of Jedi to wave their lightsabers really fast, it's just as realistic.
As to the rest of it. The dumb thing is that FEMA and the US Govt. did exactly what they have done for Florida everytime hurricanes hit there. Nothing, and that's the problem. They treated this disaster as they would have any other, but the results never were going to be the same and by the time they realised that and got their fingers out of their collective backsides, the damge had already been done.
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
"On two occasions, I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
I'll say it again. This IS the Conspiracy category, so we're going to post about conspiracies.
I agree; that wasn't my point. I'll clarify.
I heard the first 9/11 conspiracy theory on the afternoon of that day. By the 12th, the web was full of them. My point is that we couldn't expect to go very long without hearing "The government caused Katrina" conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories seem to pop up overnight, versus scientific theories that take weeks or sometimes months of research to formulate.
Of course I don't object to conspiracy theories being posted here.
If our government, and others, were incapable of weather warfare, why did the UN outlaw it back in the 70's? So it's a valid speculation.
Unfortunately the "they wouldn't outlaw it if it weren't possible" argument is the only argument NWO fanatics can bring to bear.
It is plausible that something naturally impossible doesn't have to be outlawed. And so it is not entirely illogical to propose that something which has been outlawed is possible.
Or is it?
There is much discussion about outlawing the cloning of human beings or human tissue. It is not currently possible to clone a human being, but it may soon be. Thus it is not always the case that prohibition comes after possibility.
If the conspiracy theorists had bothered actually to read the resolution and the debates surrounding it, they would discover that it almost wholly destroys their highly implicit claims.
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.
Originally the resolution also included a prohibition against research for those techniques. The U.S. and the Soviets promptly objected. They said that there were peaceful uses for that type of technology (to which the other nations finally agreed), and that verification of compliance would be impossible without that research (plausible but unlikely).
But here's the interesting point. The US and the Soviets wanted only a prohibition against the use of those methods. They objected to a prohibition against developing them. Would that make sense if they already knew how to control the weather?
As used in Article I, the term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing -- through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes -- the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.
This is the important paragraph because it defines what everyone's talking about. Or more to the point: it fails to define what everyone is talking about. The proponents deliberately did not enumerate the kinds of methods they were talking about because they didn't want to limit the treaty to them, nor have to update it constantly.
But there was general debate on what kinds of activities constituted unlawful "environmental modification". The U.S. published a list of what it understood to be examples of such techniques; it included weather-related effects such as "earthquakes, tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere." (U.S. State Department, Bureau of Arms Control, Addenda to the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. Emphasis added.)
But some of the items on that list (e.g., changing the ionosphere and ozone layer, ecological "upsets") were clearly possible by conventional, well-known means at the time: nuclear detonations underwater or at high altitude, etc. Ecological upsets such as sterilizing the ground against crops have been known and practiced since biblical times. And we have always had a limited ability to induce precipitation through cloud-seeding.
Since the relevant understanding of the international community is that (a) "environmental modifications" covers a very broad spectrum of techniques aside from weather conrol, and (b) the resolution was intended to prohibit both existing well-known techniques and future, possibly covertly developed, techniques, the conclusion that the U.S. "must" have weather-control capability by virtue of its having been outlawed in 1977 doesn't really hold
I don't know if the government manufactured that hurricane, but I think it could have.
I highly doubt it. National public and private weather services buy my products, and I know what they use them for. They have to spend millions of dollars a year just to try to keep up with observing and attempting to understand weather patterns. They are a long, long way from being able to exercise any sort of meaningful control over it.
The National Guard under the control of the governor, the various state agencies, the relief agencies and the American public could have handled the crisis...
No. It has been well understood for a long time that severe emergencies overwhelm individual state resources. The "alphabet soup" you wish to do away with was created to fill that need in the wake of bygone disasters that have fallen out of most people's memories.
The federal government as a "no strings attached" supplier of federal money at the unmitigated request of a State creates all sorts of governmental issues. Taxation without representation. If I am to be (federally) taxed as a resident of Utah, and my money sent to, say, Nevada simply because the Nevada governor demanded it, that means any state can declare an "emergency" and have access to the pooled resources of all the States, without the consent of those States. That violates the sovereignty of the State.
I'm not opposed to my tax money going to help the Katrina victims, of course. And I have made additional voluntary contributions. But laws aren't mean to control situations in which people behave honorably, but those in which they behave dishonorably. The fact that people affected by Katrina need help does not elminate the possibility of misusing federal relief funds.
If the funds come from the federal level, they must be regulated and administered at the federal level.
Just remember, when someone accuses you of being an counterproductive finger-pointer, they're actually performing damage control for killers.
I find that incredibly insulting. You simply assume that there can be no legitimate criticism to your ideas.
Post by rocketdad on Sept 10, 2005 12:40:39 GMT -4
The UN outlawed "weather warfare" in the 70's? Where did you hear THIS one?
I have done quite a bit of research on Tesla and understand his ideas pretty well. I can tell you why he stated that he could crack the Earth in half, but can't tell you how many gigawatts would be required. I also know that not every idea by every genius is valid.
I google "scalar energy" and come up with several re-wordings of the same original essay, and a lot of people combining it with new-age "medicine" theories.
I find no scientific explanations yet, just a lot of wordy wiffle-waffle and pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo. I'll keep lookiing, but if anybody has any good links, let me know.
Mostly, to me, it sounds like "animal magnetism" and Chi as described by pyramid-power believers.
Post by twinstead on Sept 10, 2005 16:25:19 GMT -4
The idea that the US military, or humans in general for that matter, has the technology to create, maneuver or strengthen hurricanes falls so perfectly in the category of extraordinary claims that saying it requires extraordinary proof is probably the understatement of the century.