Ok, so, now an "indirect hit" is grounds for a mandatory evacuation?
For someone with 52,000 posts that would seem to be following the news very closely, especially this hurricane katrina catastrophe, I thought you would have at least heard by now that
this WAS an indirect hit.
But you and your armchair quarterbacking mixed with a partisan agenda doesn't even know the basic facts of what you are ranting about.
http://ngs.woc.noaa.gov/katrina/KATRINA0000.HTM
Please allow me to educate you so at least you know what you are talking about while you are blaming Bush. Hurricane facts:
1) The East side of the eye is much worse than the west. Due to it spinng counterclockwise east winds would push water up the Mississippi River and into New Orleans along with water from the Gulf of Mexico and low lying marshlands. New Orleans was 30+ miles to the west of where the eye hit.
2) The Northeast side of the eye is the worst specifically. It generates the most wind, the most rain, and tornados.
3) The Western side is the weakest side. That is the side where the feeder bands weaken, where there is less rain, and much less of a chance of tornados. Plus the western side pushes water south. In the case of New Orleans it pushed water from Lake Ponchatrain south into New Orleans which compared with pushing water north from the river and Gulf of Mexico is much much less catastrophic.
4) For every mile away from the eye you are, you recieve far far less wind strength. There is a science in this which I'm trying to look up but the basic gist of it is this. The difference in destructive capability of 40 mph to 50 mph is far less than the destructive capability of wind strength going from 150-160 mph.
Thus, had this storm hit 40-50 miles west as they thought it would, we wouldn't have to argue about how poor relief planning was because there would be no one that survived it.
This is why anyone living east of where the eye hit in Louisiana has basically got to start all over. I have several friends that live in Chalmette that caught the eastern part of the eye and they still
to this day have 20+ feet of water where their homes are.
New Orleans remained largely dry even through the levees breaking. The Garden District didn't flood nor did the French Quarter to speak of. If New Orleans would have caught the eastern side New Orleans would have likely had 30 feet or more of water.
The levees would not have broken 2 days later, they would have been overrun during the storm by several feet of water which not only put more water into the city, it would have completely washed away the levee. Not a 300 yard long hole in the levee, the levee would be gone completely.
http://architecture.about.com/od/domes/f/superdome.htm
Overtime everything weakens first of all. Second of all, if it was built to withstand 200 mile per hour winds then how did 145 mile per hour winds rip off part of the roof? The fact is they guesstimate that it will stand 200, but seeing how well it withstood 145 I'm not convinced.
After all of your rantings about this hurricane and faulting Bush and whatnot, I find it particularly sad that you don't even know the basics of this particular storm, of hurricanes in general, or of where this hurricane actually went.
You're pretty sad Conjur. I've lost what little respect I ever had for you.
Ya know its one thing when you at least know the facts but your brain distorts them with an agenda. Alot of people have that problem.
But you are ignorant of the facts, oblivious to this problem of yours, and apparently don't even care as long as you can continue to rant like some internet Jimmy Swaggert trying to get your message out to the masses.
Truly pathetic.
Facebook
Twitter