Wednesday, March 12, 2008
I did a 45 minute interview with Washington D.C talk-radio host Joe Ardinger Saturday night (3-8-08, Segment 3).
It rips. We exposed a lot of the terrorist memorializing parts of the Flight 93 Memorial, and went over the clear proofs of intent that architect Paul Murdoch included in the design.
Joe's interests: "Ghosts, UFO's, The Lizard People from The Hollow Earth, Politics, True Crime, Conspiracies, you get the idea..." If he wants outlandish, the truth about the Flight 93 Memorial is tops, which could just make Joe the man for the Job.
I know nothing about the Lizard People, or Joe's politics, but this issue ought to transcend all domestic divides, and for Joe it certainly does. Very fun interview. Joe is a great host, and he says he wants to keep after this.
That's excellent. Thank you Joemericans!
(If Joe's 3-8-08 Segment 3 link ever disappears, there is a backup copy here.)
Posted a link over at LGF for ya.
Does it make sense to see this as a double entendre? It is plausible to think that Murdoch has noted the possible double entendre and is amused by it, but I think it unlikely that he has embraced it by repetition, as he does with all of the other Islamic and terrorist memorializing symbolism in the design.
Murdoch's method of proving intent is exact repetition. The Mecca orientations of the central crescent are exactly repeated in the Tower of Voices. There are TWO sets of 19 nested crescents in the design, one in the Crescent of Embrace construct, one in the Tower array. Both in the central crescent and in the Tower array, the features that represent the 40 infidels are placed outside of the symbolic Islamic heavens, signifying symbolic damnation.
Once the proofs of al Qaeda memorializing intent in the design are discovered, then yes, at the very least we know that Murdoch would be pleased with this double entendre were he to think of it. Has he thought of it? That is likely. He is obviously a very alert fellow, and is all about hidden meanings. But even if he has thought of this, there would be no evidentiary significance to it unless it were repeated, just because it is a genuine coincidence (between 1993 and Flight 93). While this coincidence would be amusing to Murdoch, it is in no way actually important to his design. So would he BOTHER to repeat it?
We can look for it. (The repetition would presumably be somewhere in the central crescent, since Murdoch's pattern is to prove intent by repeating features in both the central crescent and the Tower array.) But would I think that repetition in this case is unlikely, simply because the reference to Flight 93 CAN be taken as a reference to the hijackers. There is no NEED to make it a reference to 1993.
Contrast this with the supposed "40 Memorial Groves," where the reason there are actually only 38 is because the 40 infidels CANNOT be placed in the symbolic Islamic heavens. (The Memorial Groves form the thick part of the giant crescent). In that case a hidden meaning is necessary in order for the Crescent of Embrace to constitute a legitimate mosque design (where infidels cannot be honored).
With the 93 foot tall tower, a double entendre is not necessary, and would be aesthetically displeasing in at least one way. To signify that the 93 was supposed to be a reference to 1993, Murdoch would have to do something other than exactly repeat the 93, as he does with his other proofs of intent. His second reference would have to have to be to 1993 rather than 93, which would go against the perfect symmetry of his other repetitions.
My guess is that Murdoch THOUGHT about 1993, then decided to leave it out.