[SpamCop-Social] Re: Katrina Conspiracy?

[HeyBub]

Pete Stephenson wrote:
> In article <dfqt62$37m$1 at news.spamcop.net>,
> "Heidi" <nobody at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> That's kind of the point - "course deviation" in a storm of that
>> size is irrelevent, if it wasn't N.O., some town, somewhere on the
>> gulf coast, was going to get blown off the map.  There was no excuse
>> for being so ill prepared. What if that had been a bomb?
>
> Perhaps, but the amount of damage a hurricane could do to a small town
> is orders of magnitude less than the amount of damage it could do to
> New Orleans. Also, certain regions of the hurricane possess more
> destructive power than others. It's possible that a small town was
> hit with a more-destructive region and suffered greater structural
> damage than buildings in New Orleans...not taking into account
> post-hurricane damage like flooding.

Excellent point. Remember, Katrina acutally made landfall in Mississippi, 
not Louisiana. New Orleans got some rain and wind but actually weathered the 
storm quite well. The flooding in New Orleans could have happened almost 
anytime. I've heard ONE report that it was an unsecured grain barge plowing 
into the 17th St levee that made the original breech. If true, that sort of 
accident could occur anytime.

>
> Even so, that wasn't the original poster's point. He was wondering if
> it were possible that the levees were purposely sabotaged (or not
> given enough funding for maintenance) to eliminate the poor or other
> "undesirables".
>
> Even if it had been a bomb, it would have caused far less destruction.
> If it had been an actual, full-fledged city-busting fusion bomb, the
> damage would be different, but I doubt it would have the same effect.
> Given the same warning, I think more people would be able to flee the
> area of affect of a nuclear bomb and get themselves to safety. The
> oil-processing facilities would likely be a total loss and the region
> would be inhabitable for quite some time. I suspect that many more
> people, even the very poor, would rather walk out of the effective
> range of a nuclear bomb than take their chances with a hurricane.
> With a hurricane, you have modest odds of surviving if you have a
> good plan, supplies, and good shelter. With a nuclear blast, the odds
> are very
> small that you'd survive, and the odds of surviving the radioactive
> wasteland that would then surround you and making it to safety would
> be very, very tiny.

It wouldn't take a very big bomb. I suggest 100 pounds of dynamite could 
accomplish the same thing.