Denver International Airport is full of deeply disturbing artwork

[mettle]

I'm surprised some organization hasn't become 'offended', or someone just starting a law suit to have all the 'religious' stuff removed. After all, aren't we a religiously neutered country like Britain now?

 

[SavageEagle]

I, for one, enjoy provacative and thoughtful art. Wherever it's displayed.

I enjoy provacative and thoughtful art too. What I don't enjoy is evil deranged "art" being displayed all over an airport. I don't want the last images in my head of civilization (should my plane have catastrophic failure) to be that of the most evil things I can imagine.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Keep in mind, I didn't write all this. But I find the whole write-up very interesting. There was clearly a Freemason involvement in the airport due to the masonic monument. All these Nazi/Aryan references, scenes of apocalypse and dead people, glowing red eyes in the horse statue.... I just find it very disturbing.

I've never walked through a building with such troubling depictions. Maybe my taste in art is different than some people's. I mean seriously... a giant Nazi soldier towering over a line of mourning mothers... Explain it to me.

I can't explain most of it, but the Masonic "monument" is probably symbolic of a cornerstone. Most of our government buildings in DC have cornerstones laid by Masons... IIRC, the one for the Capitol building was laid by George Washington himself, though I don't guarantee my memory of that fact is accurate.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[homeless]

Holy Hell, Step away from the Alex Jones Kool-Aid. This is one of the worst conceived conspiracy theories that I have heard.

 

[Joe Williams]

As for the runways.

You need multiple runways, running in multiple directions, without intersecting midway. They need to run multiple directions to account for wind on takeoffs and landings. They shouldn't intersect because weather permitting, you can use all the runways for takeoffs and landings, but if they intersect you have to stagger arrivals and departures. You've got parallel runways because that lets you handle more traffic. Meanwhile, they've all got to be clustered around a central terminal building because time on the ground is fuel and money lost.

Pretty much dicates the shape they'll make on the ground.

 

[SavageEagle]

Every bit of research I've done on the Denver International had absolutely NOTHING to do with Alex Jones or his off shoots. If you really think this is some "conspiracy theory", do your own digging. Prove us wrong.

 

[SavageEagle]

Pretty much dicates the shape they'll make on the ground.

As per our last conversation on this subject, I found 3 other ways they could have laid out the airport. The swastika was the fourth.

 

[Joe Williams]

As per our last conversation on this subject, I found 3 other ways they could have laid out the airport. The swastika was the fourth.

Let's see 'em... I'd be interested.

 

[SavageEagle]

Two runways parallel heading just off N/S, Two runways just off W/E. It's the positioning of the runways that would be key. They would have to be spaced right, but I think no more than 100yds should be sufficient. They couldn't land simultaneously but stagger them by 5 seconds and turbulence wouldn't be a factor. With light to no wind they could both come in side by side. The way they are set up now they can still only land two at a time.

Geographically speaking they could set the runways on any side of the terminal they please, but putting two runways on the East side of the terminal would cut down on the wind making them the choice runways for windy days.

There is another possibility as well. They could have squared the runways. Instead of swastika'ing the runways, they could have set them up in a square. There is more than enough land to accomplish this. They would have to tunnel under the runways for cars to access the terminal, but it's feasible.

Again, there's more than enough land to accomplish either one and, even if the boundary's of the airport had changed, it still would use the same sq. ft. as what they occupy now.

They did NOT have to set it up as a swastika.

BTW, a lot of these ideas, and one's I didn't mention, came from former pilots at An airline I won't mention. A couple of them even gave me the photos of the terminal as it was being built and were the one's that told me about a lot of things that have been mentioned in the OP.

 

[Joe Williams]

Two runways parallel heading just off N/S, Two runways just off W/E. It's the positioning of the runways that would be key. They would have to be spaced right, but I think no more than 100yds should be sufficient. They couldn't land simultaneously but stagger them by 5 seconds and turbulence wouldn't be a factor. With light to no wind they could both come in side by side. The way they are set up now they can still only land two at a time.
.

Ummm.... no.

100 yards isn't CLOSE to sufficient. 5 seconds isn't CLOSE to enough time. Try 3 minutes. Study up a bit more on wake turbulence. It's caused crashes before. No... they couldn't come in side by side only 100 yards apart. For example, two 747s would be as close as 75 feet apart trying to land on runways 100 yards distant. Not all that great an idea.

Four runways? For an airport designed to handle the capacity of DIA? Look closely. Those runways are different sizes, and widely spaced. They can handle different sizes and types of aircraft, simultaneously, spaced the way they are. They can depart one runway, and due to the unique nature of wake turbulence be landing on the one next to it at the same time. Two aircraft landing, two departing. Calm winds, they can do six operations simultaneously, and due to the design and spacing of the runways, they can operate smaller aircraft with larger aircraft without slowing down operations for wake turb. Currently they are averaging an operation every 1.2 minutes, more than 1600 a day. Your design? They could be limited to one operation every 3 minutes. There ARE airports out there that use your design. They are older ones, and not capable of ever handling close to the volume KDEN is. It is an airport designed not just for current needs, but also future ones. O'hare handles more, but they need 8 runways to do it, and is the source of delays nationwide because it can be a major charlie foxtrot. LAX is layed out much like your suggestion. They are only handling about 1350 a day, or .9 per minute and are utterly maxed out.

 

[turnandshoot4]

If you think that stuff is scary, you should check out the back of a dollar!

 

[SavageEagle]

Ummm.... no.

100 yards isn't CLOSE to sufficient. 5 seconds isn't CLOSE to enough time. Try 3 minutes. Study up a bit more on wake turbulence. It's caused crashes before. No... they couldn't come in side by side only 100 yards apart. For example, two 747s would be as close as 75 feet apart trying to land on runways 100 yards distant. Not all that great an idea.

I don't mean from runway to runway. I mean from wing tip to wing tip. It's possible. Also, you're right. It's not 5 seconds that was my mix up. I was thinking smaller planes and larger planes and got them mixed up.

Four runways? There are 4 main runways that handle the larger jets. The smaller runways are built in next to the larger runways. I figured we were only discussing larger jets as that was were my given perspective came from. 727/747 pilots. For an airport designed to handle the capacity of DIA? Look closely. Those runways are different sizes, and widely spaced. They can handle different sizes and types of aircraft, simultaneously, spaced the way they are. They can depart one runway, and due to the unique nature of wake turbulence be landing on the one next to it at the same time. Two aircraft landing, two departing. This could still be accomplished with either layout I described. Especially the square layout. They don't even have to be perfectly square. Push one runway out 1000yds or less to intersect one of the other runways to allow from traffic to and from the terminal. Again, it didn't have to be a swastika. Calm winds, they can do six operations simultaneously, and due to the design and spacing of the runways, they can operate smaller aircraft with larger aircraft without slowing down operations for wake turb. Currently they are averaging an operation every 1.2 minutes, more than 1600 a day. Your design? They could be limited to one operation every 3 minutes. My failure to communicate about the smaller runways was my fault. So this calculation is off. There ARE airports out there that use your design. They are older ones, and not capable of ever handling close to the volume KDEN is. It is an airport designed not just for current needs, but also future ones. O'hare handles more, but they need 8 runways to do it, and is the source of delays nationwide because it can be a major charlie foxtrot. LAX is layed out much like your suggestion. They are only handling about 1350 a day, or .9 per minute and are utterly maxed out.

LAX and O'hare are also limited on land they can develop since they are located inside a city. To expand they would have to buy up homes and businesses and that just isn't going to happen. Even if the economy was good.

So again, there are other designs out there that could still make the most of the airport and with the land area they have to work with they can still expand to handle more flights. However, now they will have to keep growing the swastika to do it unless they only grow the smaller runways, but the swastika will still remain no matter what.

They. did. not. have. to. design. it. like. a. swastika. Period.

 

[dross]

I enjoy provacative and thoughtful art too. What I don't enjoy is evil deranged "art" being displayed all over an airport. I don't want the last images in my head of civilization (should my plane have catastrophic failure) to be that of the most evil things I can imagine.

I guess one man's "evil and deranged" is another man's "provactive." Living here, and having flown from here many times, I can tell you there is also lots of more conventional art, that would not be provactive to anyone, much less, "evil and deranged."

 

[dross]

They. did. not. have. to. design. it. like. a. swastika. Period.

I don't want to argue this too much, just want to get your viewpoint on the record. Are you really saying that some architect and civil engineering team, probably comprised of dozens if not hundreds of people got together and purposefully arranged the layout of runways at DIA to represent a swastika to what? To secretly demonstrate there fascist ideals? I won't even argue with this, I'd just like you to acknowledge if that's what you truly think.

 

[Limpy88]

The mountain won't burn, but the cars, trucks, fuel, and chemicals going through the tunnel burn quite nicely.

There have been a couple spectacular fires in tunnels that illustrate the dangers.

yeah i know. the voice over said concrete doesnt burn. being sarcastic. should i have put the mountain buring to ash part in purple. new to color coding emotions. try not to let it happen again but cant ga-run-tee

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I guess one man's "evil and deranged" is another man's "provactive." Living here, and having flown from here many times, I can tell you there is also lots of more conventional art, that would not be provactive to anyone, much less, "evil and deranged."

Dross, what is the reasoning from the locals or from the artists for the art that may push the boundaries of good taste, such as the horse with red eyes and such? Or the Nazi-esque soldier?

 

[stilllearning09]

Art evokes emotion. It doesn't matter what kind of feeling, good or bad. It's like music, there are a lot of heavy metal fans and a lot of people think metal is. Just sayin'.
I've flown into Denver a few times. I don't remember even looking at that stuff.

 

[jedi]

SE you do realize that the DIA "swastika" is not following the Nazi form (ie it's not at an angle) but following the traditional religous form (Swastika - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

In additon the swastika is NOT a symbol of evil and the Nazi's don't own it outright. Yes most 20th century generations will immediatley think Nazi when they see any type of swastika form but the form (geometric shape) is very old much like the square, triangle, etc..

 

[Ramen]

SE you do realize that the DIA "swastika" is not following the Nazi form (ie it's not at an angle) but following the traditional religous form (Swastika - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

In additon the swastika is NOT a symbol of evil and the Nazi's don't own it outright. Yes most 20th century generations will immediatley think Nazi when they see any type of swastika form but the form (geometric shape) is very old much like the square, triangle, etc..

Great point. It is annoying to allow a fascist, evil political group to ruin the symbol that for centuries has meant peace, eternity, good luck, and other positive/neutral ideas.

 

[dross]

Dross, what is the reasoning from the locals or from the artists for the art that may push the boundaries of good taste, such as the horse with red eyes and such? Or the Nazi-esque soldier?

The art is chosen by some sort of committee process. Of course the people on such a committee are collectors and museum curators and such, who view art entirely different than the average person. Believe me, they've taken and continue to take heat over some of their choices.

As to the horse, as I explaine earlier, everyone hates it and it's a statewide joke.

As to the Nazi soldier, I don't know what the artist meant for sure, but as I explained above, it could easily be interpreted as conservative art. Read one of my replies above.