I see Neo-classical design that was made popular during enlightenment. Also eight columns, which has meaning for Chinese people, as it is seen as a lucky number.
Somewhere between. The brutalist was really ugly, all square, no ornaments. This one still has columns. It seems like something designed for efficiency, but columns were added so it would be somewhat ornamental. Maybe the architect was trying to make something that looked "western" but didn't have all the background to pull it off.
Duh. Because they are built to last, with lots of stone. Tell me - why are the pyramids still standing? Very suspicious, seeing as they are more than 6000 years old, if you ask me.
Masons were originally a guild of stonemasons that had very high standards with extremely long apprenticeships, so that they could build cathedrals and other important buildings. This developed into a ceremonial version - that we all love to hate - a secret society. In any case, important buildings such as central banks needed the perception of stability and trust, so Yeah, maybe consult that freemasonic architect who is conversant with stone. (Try and find such an architect today - you won't - they only build ridiculous concrete and steel structures, not stone ones, but that's another story)
Your theory may have something to it though, the fact that freemasons occupied powerful positions. And as we know, power corrupts absolutely.
The great stonemasons of the world have lost the ability to recreate what we see in the grand cathedrals and capitol buildings found world wide. It's another red flag to add to OP's post.
If you knew about ley lines, would you not take advantage of them if you recognised the possibility of taking that advantage? Or are we now going to argue the science (or lack of it) of ley lines? There are arguments made, that the pyramids are on ley lines. Are they then therefore evil?
Or are you suggesting that freemasons were copying? But of course they were, that was the whole point of long apprenticeships etc. And yes, I am sure they studied ley lines. They were all for mimicking such ancient knowledge.
I am not sure what you are driving at. The problem is that on the one hand, there are the physical buildings, which were drawn up as architectural drawings etc. On the other, is the meaning that is inferred upon those buildings.
As I stated in a realist manner, the building is neo-classical - and yes, that is mimicking a far older style. Neo-classicism was about reviving what was perceived as the* golden ages* of ancient Romans and Greeks. Many people travelled to observe those ancient structures, because they were still there, and this was seen as the correct way to build. Hence the columns to hold up the parapets.
I think you are driving at the meanings of the neo-classical style - again, one has to remember that neo-classicism gave birth to the US constitution, and yes freemasons had a hand, but are you gonna tell me now that George Washington was an evil man? Get outtahere.
There is a good book about that fair. The structures were largely plaster coated buildings made to last for the short duration of the fair. If left to age on their own, they would have failed within a couple years.
That’s the official narrative. Just like “vaccines are safe and effective” is also the official narrative.
The Palace of Fine Arts, San Fransisco World’s Fair still stands today for example.
Let’s say other World’s Fairs were built out of plaster and wood though: even then, the construction of such gargantuan structures exhibited at Chicago’s Columbian Exposition would have been impossible with horse and cart and the labour force available.
Let’s take it a step further: how perchance would the colossal canals lined with masonry have been dug for that fair alone? Horse and cart?
How about the gigantic statue standing in the middle of the canal?
Then there’s the waterworks and associated plumbing required for the massive elaborate fountains. Blokes with shovels, picks, chisels and horse and cart constructed all that for a 6 month fair only to destroy it?
The OFFICIAL NARRATIVE is being exposed here on this forum daily. This topic is but another one.
We have collectively been lied to about pretty much everything regarding history, science, medicine, politics...
"Enlightenment" started in the late 17th century. But it drew heavily from Roman architecture and they ruled the world from England to Persia until the 400s AD. Having built so well that we still have roads and aqueducts from then, it would be natural to mimic them.
Built HOW? This is the point. Hammers, chisels, horse and cart, no cranes. Giant blocks. Huge statues atop massive structures. And then there's the GARGANTUAN domes. Haga Sophia in Turkey is a great example of the ludicrousness of the official narrative that anyone over long periods of time can simply build such things.
Look on YouTube. There are explanations which actually have an engineering basis and have been tried in real life. Why do you think no one thought of cranes, ramps, rollers, making use of water or sand to slide stones, making concrete by gluing rock dust and pebbles? If you were a slave and knew the rest of your life would be spent carving and moving a couple of stone blocks, would you sit down and call for supernatural help, or would you think "A lever would totally make this easier."? Splitting stone now is done as in ancient times but with better equipment: make a groove or hole and expand it or saw it.
I see Neo-classical design that was made popular during enlightenment. Also eight columns, which has meaning for Chinese people, as it is seen as a lucky number.
Somewhere between. The brutalist was really ugly, all square, no ornaments. This one still has columns. It seems like something designed for efficiency, but columns were added so it would be somewhat ornamental. Maybe the architect was trying to make something that looked "western" but didn't have all the background to pull it off.
Duh. Because they are built to last, with lots of stone. Tell me - why are the pyramids still standing? Very suspicious, seeing as they are more than 6000 years old, if you ask me.
Masons were originally a guild of stonemasons that had very high standards with extremely long apprenticeships, so that they could build cathedrals and other important buildings. This developed into a ceremonial version - that we all love to hate - a secret society. In any case, important buildings such as central banks needed the perception of stability and trust, so Yeah, maybe consult that freemasonic architect who is conversant with stone. (Try and find such an architect today - you won't - they only build ridiculous concrete and steel structures, not stone ones, but that's another story)
Your theory may have something to it though, the fact that freemasons occupied powerful positions. And as we know, power corrupts absolutely.
The pyramids have been rebuilt/ repaired probably numerous times. I think the answer lies in the base and underground structures.
There are probably some actual stone masons out there that can do great work.
The great stonemasons of the world have lost the ability to recreate what we see in the grand cathedrals and capitol buildings found world wide. It's another red flag to add to OP's post.
poppycock
If you knew about ley lines, would you not take advantage of them if you recognised the possibility of taking that advantage? Or are we now going to argue the science (or lack of it) of ley lines? There are arguments made, that the pyramids are on ley lines. Are they then therefore evil?
Or are you suggesting that freemasons were copying? But of course they were, that was the whole point of long apprenticeships etc. And yes, I am sure they studied ley lines. They were all for mimicking such ancient knowledge.
I am not sure what you are driving at. The problem is that on the one hand, there are the physical buildings, which were drawn up as architectural drawings etc. On the other, is the meaning that is inferred upon those buildings.
As I stated in a realist manner, the building is neo-classical - and yes, that is mimicking a far older style. Neo-classicism was about reviving what was perceived as the* golden ages* of ancient Romans and Greeks. Many people travelled to observe those ancient structures, because they were still there, and this was seen as the correct way to build. Hence the columns to hold up the parapets.
I think you are driving at the meanings of the neo-classical style - again, one has to remember that neo-classicism gave birth to the US constitution, and yes freemasons had a hand, but are you gonna tell me now that George Washington was an evil man? Get outtahere.
These structures were inherited after a reset. People in horse and buggy on dirt roads didn't build these elaborate buildings as the narrative states
Look at the 1800 world fair videos. ELECTRIC, HUGE STRUCTURES. and then tore it all down a few months after "Building" clearly it was a cover up
There is a good book about that fair. The structures were largely plaster coated buildings made to last for the short duration of the fair. If left to age on their own, they would have failed within a couple years.
That’s the official narrative. Just like “vaccines are safe and effective” is also the official narrative.
The Palace of Fine Arts, San Fransisco World’s Fair still stands today for example.
Let’s say other World’s Fairs were built out of plaster and wood though: even then, the construction of such gargantuan structures exhibited at Chicago’s Columbian Exposition would have been impossible with horse and cart and the labour force available.
Let’s take it a step further: how perchance would the colossal canals lined with masonry have been dug for that fair alone? Horse and cart?
How about the gigantic statue standing in the middle of the canal?
Then there’s the waterworks and associated plumbing required for the massive elaborate fountains. Blokes with shovels, picks, chisels and horse and cart constructed all that for a 6 month fair only to destroy it?
The OFFICIAL NARRATIVE is being exposed here on this forum daily. This topic is but another one.
We have collectively been lied to about pretty much everything regarding history, science, medicine, politics...
"Enlightenment" started in the late 17th century. But it drew heavily from Roman architecture and they ruled the world from England to Persia until the 400s AD. Having built so well that we still have roads and aqueducts from then, it would be natural to mimic them.
Built HOW? This is the point. Hammers, chisels, horse and cart, no cranes. Giant blocks. Huge statues atop massive structures. And then there's the GARGANTUAN domes. Haga Sophia in Turkey is a great example of the ludicrousness of the official narrative that anyone over long periods of time can simply build such things.
Look on YouTube. There are explanations which actually have an engineering basis and have been tried in real life. Why do you think no one thought of cranes, ramps, rollers, making use of water or sand to slide stones, making concrete by gluing rock dust and pebbles? If you were a slave and knew the rest of your life would be spent carving and moving a couple of stone blocks, would you sit down and call for supernatural help, or would you think "A lever would totally make this easier."? Splitting stone now is done as in ancient times but with better equipment: make a groove or hole and expand it or saw it.