Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Joementum!
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.)
Comments:
<< Home
That was the best radio interview yet. I didn't fully realize until now about the damnation of the 40 infidels (our heroes) by symbolically hanging them, using ropes, which are attached to a metal bar, which is part of the crescent at the top of the Tower of Voices, which points upward toward the sky, to the Islamic heavens above. This is at about 36 minutes into the recording. Max Kuenkel
Excellent interview. If/when you are on the radio, I hope you talk about the deceptive 'review' process which involved a classmate of Murdoch who majored in mosque design. You seemed to get close to talking about it - but time ran out.
Posted a link over at LGF for ya.
Posted a link over at LGF for ya.
# posted by 
: 1:57 PM
: 1:57 PM
Thanks mom of 4. I also did an interview with Cao last week. It is relevant to next week's blogburst so I am going to link it there. It goes in depth into the phony Park Service investigation, including Murdoch's classmate.
Thanks for the link to the Cao interview. I'm listening to it now and was stunned by yet another 'coincidence' in the Flt.93 Memorial design based on something you said in this interview. As you were describing the tower of voices, you mentioned it's height was 93 feet tall. '93' has the significance of being the year of the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Perhaps you mentioned that in previous posts and I just missed it. Un-f'n believable!
# posted by : 4:39 PM
: 4:39 PM
Mom of 4 is right that there is a possible double entendre in the 93 foot height of the Tower of Voices, but the overt reference is to Flight 93.
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.
Post a Comment
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.
<< Home
