Wednesday, September 12, 2007

911 Conspiracy claims: Bogus with a capital B.


I strongly doubt most of the 911 conspiro-nuts have bothered reading even the intro. to the NIST (which is hundreds of pages long now) assembled by top university physicists and engineers. The scientists are nearly in complete agreement that there were NO before-the-fact plantings of explosives or some prep job on the part of the US Govt. like some tin-foil hat wearing DNC-o-crats and crypto-stalinists still seem to believe ( some whackier conservatives also uphold 911 conspiracy claims--911 now sort of the contemporary "grassy knoll" of Conspiracy.com).

The ConspiroCrats also tend to lie about some supposed consensus of scientists who uphold conspiracy claims, when it is precisely the opposite. Indeed there are some arguing that the sort of libellous BS spewed by ConspiroCrats should be viewed as what it is: sedition.

Dr. Manuel Garcia, Princeton PhD , and Lawrence-Livermore physicist, has written two technical refutations of any and all conspiracy claims (and he generally agrees with NIST)---including the lies and BS regarding the WTC 7. They are on Counterpunch---even some brighter leftists have had it with the sort of hysterical idiocy typical of DUsters (we here at Contingencies do not agree with all the opinions expressed on Counterpunch, old Alex Cockburn's marxist-green site, but he does provide useful info. on occasion). But the usual DU'ster could unlikely make it through even the easier derivatives in Dr. Garcia's report (here we even googled it for you, McN-gahs).

Physicsof911


Dr. Garcia:

"The WTC towers collapsed at speeds approaching that of free fall because:

1. The dynamic force created out of the gravitational potential energy within the space of just one level spacing was far in excess of the static force the framing was designed to support, and

2. Elastic waves launched from the collapse front quickly filled the building --both lower structure and upper block --with large dynamic stresses, which weakened and ruptured joints well in advance of that material entering the collapse front.

The towers shattered, and the pieces fell to the ground."""

Muy bien.

14 comments:

J said...

Alright McMuir: I respect your alpine-ism to some degree.

There is the main Whitney trail, which is a fairly long haul, 11 miles one way or so, from like 8500 to about 14500. Just a walk up, but some steep switchbacks above the base camp at 12,000 or so (where most people stay the night, and then do the ascent in the morning). Heavily used and you need permits way in advance for camping (and many marmots, a few bears, Giardia a problem too). But it's doable in a day, if you are acclimated. If not you will probably get edema.

I did in one day, a few years back (in 91' or 92, I bagged Mt. Whitney, aka Fisherman's Peak back in the day (also has Paiute name) 6 times, and last time spent night on summit--late September, very cold, winds up to probably 60 mpg. Woke up covered with frost. Also other peaks--Mt. Muir a 14'er few hundred yards south of Whitney. Nearly struck by lightning that same summer, and indeed a climber was killed a few miles from where I was when a storm came in and he was biv'vying on the East face.

The East Face is the technical route. Very large promontory probably 1000 ft. of near vertical granite. I have been to the base, but have not done it. There are some sierra club guides. But even the easiest is like 5.4. 5.5, and you would need ropes, chocks, a good guide and belayer, and not recommended at all for just peak bagging.

It's quite spectacular on top, but windy storms come in very quickly, and lightning no fun. I chatted with a few people who have been struck or watched people struck---in fact in late 80s there were some people in the hut at top and thought they were safe when storm came in, and 3 were electrocuted--one guys arms blown off--I think 2 were killed. Belt buckles and other metal more or less working as conductors...........

I also hike/explore Cottonwood lakes a few miles south of Whitney which is very scenic, and nearly as high (Mt. Langley the southernmost 14'er), but not many people go there.

J said...

And amusing how another brain-fart from your bad actor crony BingRon appears, and no one mentions Clinton's heavy bombing of Kosovo which killed thousands, or his attack on various african targets, or iraq--none of that is mentioned.

The Clinton admin. set the stage for 911, and arguably for Iraq. But in New Narcissistic Worlds, that doesn't matter.

J said...

McKrippin: did you finish Dr. Garcia's analysis of 911 yet? Or are Garcia and Cockburn also conservatives? They are no conservatives--it is the conspiro-bots who are conservatives (and most of them muslims, or closet-case muslims)

Yr the rightist, and indeed a racist one.

Max said...

"Yr the rightist, and indeed a racist one."

I hope to never come close to deserving these designations. I am, occasionally a whiggah, though. I looked it up- cool term. Sometimes I'm a whispy (white wanna-be hispanic) but more often a sand whiggah. I'm generally attracted to other-ness, but more or less content to be a WASP as I was born, despite the heavy burden of shame.

Thanks for the Whitney recollections. Brings to mind the summer that Thor had it out for me. Four occasions of very nearby lightning strikes- most in front range, CO.

J said...

The point on Whitney was simply that there are other 14'ers --even near by, like Langley--that are far less travelled, and as impressive, if not more. I'm not into any real technical mountaineering--though did a rope and belay class in late 90s--a few 5.9--5.10 climbs (at stony point in SFV), and hung with some of the Desert Peaks group of the SoCal Sierra Club, until the PCness (and dues) of the SC pissed me off. Mt. Williamson is a peak I would like to do, but all sorts of red tape, and it's quite remote--requires like a 12 mile hike to even get to the base. I also have over the last few years bagged White Mtn. (in the top 5 of CA Peaks), Mt. Muir, Mt. Langley, Telescope Peak (11,000 or so west of Death Valley--sublime),Mt. Dana, the Mammoth crest a few times, nearly bagged Bear Creek Spire above Tom's Place(to saddle at like 13,000 and very loose and scary) Mt. Gould, (above Independence--great area for hiking and mountaineering), Baldy and Baden Powell (in the supposedly humble San Gabriels).

J said...

Mtn bike descents on Mammoth: that is gonzo.

Ascent on Shasta on my to-do list (next year perhaps ), the Palisades, maybe Ranier, as well as the Mex. Volcanoes outside the Ciudad. They are like 18-19,000 ft. But just walk ups, more or less. Maybe in next 3-4 years, if I had cash and a party, attempt that 20,000 + peak outside La Paz, or other Andes .


The Front Range: so sublime, but kind of cozy in a way. I seem to recall the Arapahoe climb which was nice. I was a bit lazier then--wanted to do Longs, but didn't---some of the best memories are of the Maroon Bells (above Aspen) and then a trip to Grand Tetons: c'est America.

The southern sierras--especially east-side-- are quite different. Not nearly as wooded and "alpine": more desert-like, arid, stark, dramatic, lots of vertical exposure, unlike those long rockie valleys and ridges: it reminds me of pics of like Hindu Kush. Yosemite has those long glaciated valleys and domes, but east-side sierra has very drastic changes in altitude--from Lone Pine at about 3000 or so to top of Whitney at 14,450 or so--in about 12 miles as crow flies. Same with Telescope at 11,000 and a few miles east below sea level (I think that's more due to fault blocking than glaciation, though there is some).

The southern sierra weather is not as cold and stormy as rockies, but unpredictable. Wind tends to blow a lot in afternoons: one might start up the switchbacks to Whitney at noon with not a cloud in sky; 3 hours later you're in some hellish hail and lightning storm--then it clears up by sunset. But generally quite a few less thunderstorms.

Max said...

The others do sound appealing- as does almost any high Sierra destination. I've heard the horror stories of the crowds at MW.

What draws me to the south Sierra is KSR's anecdotes I sometimes get via email. Here's a recent snip:

"...went on a real ramble with my most mountainous friend, my guru of sorts, to see Tehipite Dome, very remote and amazing, the tallest dome; then up the Middle Fork all the way to Muir Pass, west around Mt. Goddard to the Blackcap Basin and back out to car----90 miles in six days, yikes! But a real feeling of having done something wild."

I suspect his "guru" may be Gary Snyder (of Dharma Bums fame) as I know they're friends. If so he's got to be getting up in years and amazing if he can do 90 in 6.

(probably shouldn't publish this)

J said...

Yeah that's the middle fork of the King's, I believe, above Frezneck. I have tramped around there a bit. Usually I go up to Lodgepole in Sequoia, and then east, and you get to base of Kaweahs: King's river a bit north of there. Some backcountry skiing possibilities as well.


Interesting message from KSR. Yeah Japhy's getting pretty old but he knows the Sierras, supposedly. AS Cactus Ed Abbey said, "I enjoy some of Snyder's writing, except for the Buddhist crap."

He's a bit arrogant methinks, but an alright guy, one would like to think: the UC professoriat are not the most enlightened of academics.

Japhy/Gary Snyder's climb in Dharma Bums with Kerouac was outside Bridgeport: Mt. Virginia I believe. Ti Jean sort of wussed on final stretch and sat under a pine, probably sipping some chianti.......Japhy also did some time with USFS I believe. That was, until Clinton/Gore (supposed "liberals") more or less gutted the Fed. infrastructure............

There's some nice hiking just south of Yosemite as well, and you avoid the YNP touristas. I was wilderness ranger in Sierra NF (Ansel Adams wilderness--above North Fork (of San Joaquin), on west side of the Minarets for a season (total 5 seasons with USFS).

J said...

Goddard is the Evolution region. Easier to access from Bishop really. Sounds like a nice slog though.

I'm more into going in from east-side, whether Kearsage, Whitney, or Cottonwood. or Bishop and Rock creek areas, Minarets. That eliminates the endless trek that one has to do on westside: you drive to the 10,000+ trailheads instead of having to hike for miles. Lots of touristas on both sides, but eastside allows quick access to high sierra.

J said...

To be honest, I don't care for the Snyder...or Muir or even Thoreau school of nature mysticism. I respect it to some degree, but feel there is a lot of BS there: inspiration and visions, but at the expense of a certain realism--whether scientific or economic.

Japhy has probably had a great life, but there is a certain romanticism to that entire zen-beat jive that is a bit escapist......the political aspects of Snyder's writing are interesting, but I don't think one necessarily makes the PC choice by siding with natives, rather than cowboys really--.......

Literature depends on BS. As does politics. I've read enough real biology-- and physical sciences-- to realize what sort of games language and lit. people indulge in (or pundits, in a different way). Poesy can barely describe a tree, much less a mountain range. Language deceives nearly all of us.

At least the writing of a Darwin--or say SJ Gould, or non-literary nature writers---one is spared all the add-ons and visions. Nature generally looks "red in tooth and claw", though many mystics don't see it that way.............

Max said...

Before describing my limited Sierra experience I must preface it with the excuse that reaching any trailhead is a 4 hour minimum drive from my coastside abode and my recreation budget (both time and money) allows me only a couple of ventures per year.

My attention as been on two main locales; the Desolation Wilderness and Carson Pass, with an occasional trip up to Lassen and/or Shasta, and one memorable trip to the Trinity alps that dates way back to the last time the Pirates were in the playoffs ('92?). At least half of these trips were winter trips with my good friend John B., whom I join with annually for a backcountry ski trip. These started with cabin jaunts in Desolation, now we go for tent camping for the freedom it affords- usually around Carson. Probably our best trip was the one where Andy joined us and we did three nights in a cabin in the Crystal Range- brutal treks but awesome snow.

Peaks to my credit are few: Shasta once in two tries, Lassen a couple of times, Tallac, Ralson & Pyramid in Desolation, Roundtop in Carson. Nothing else really worth mentioning. Peaks haven't really been my focus due to more emphasis on winter recreation.

I envy your access to the southern Sierra. Make the most of it.

J said...

....

I skiied up towards those bowls above Carson pass--to the south-- once or twice--above Kirkwood on 88, right. Been some years. Windblown, and snow was sketchy until you got to the bowls.


Skinny skiing is not so feasible in CA, even with the best of snow years. It's not cold enough and snow is slushy, unless you are like at 10,000 ft+--then it can be nice (like around Mammoth), but you have to get there: you should try it like Mammoth lakes in like Jan or Feb for high altitude tour. Tioga pass also nice, but you have to ski up the road (or 'beel in), and avalanches are a problem. Rock creek above Bishop also nice and high. Tahoe maybe has some nice places (though I seem to recall slush) but so far for me. Personally I sort of burnt out on telemarking---I parallel much better. I still am interested--and (did a few trips a few years ago with skins on my Fischers) randonee gear is more to my taste, but pricey as well.

Max said...

There can be some really nice snow at Carson, though it's only a few rare days in recent winters. We timed it perfectly last winter- one of the worst- and had great snow under a full moon (which I blogged about you might recall). By and large, however, you're right. Sierra snow is nothing like what we used to get routinely in the rockies. How I miss that!

My equipment is much better now, though. I finally wore out my beloved Asnes wooden skis and now have good backcountry Fisher Outtabounds with Garmond thermal fit tele-boots. Doesn't do much good having great equipment if you can rarely use it.

J said...

Backcountry skis are great in the right terrain (like Front Range). Most of the sierra backcountry peeps I have met, however, use downhill skis (even shorter-- 190's or so) with tele or randonee bindings and some decent boots (like yours); then just use wax, and skins for the climbs (and eastside stuff is so steep you usually have to resort to skins . That deadhead gal Flo (bless her memory) introduced me to skins with downhill skis (though it was still tele bindings), and it's quite nice once you get the wax dialed in: in steep terrain or deep snow the skins go right up--where those old fish scalers just do not work (at least for me).

My experiences skinny skiing in CA and sierra were pretty dismal until getting up above 9000 or so (at Mammoth) after good storm. Very nice conditions. Even paying the day ticket for the trails is worth it (though it's probably pricier now--and lots of those blader-nordic freaks you have to watch out for). Nice to bring significant udder if got the shekels for a cabin, chow,
pass, etc.

Custom Search

Blog Archive