Your 1906 Minkowski quote:

http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html
And from the same article:

"Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities."

Which is hard to do if you aren't hell bent on treating spacetime as though it were a solid mass, or infinitely rigid, or possessed of an absolute origin based upon absolute space and absolute time, just like nineteenth century physics imagined the aether of Newton's physics.

If Minkowski and his math were really of the same status as Einstein, Wheeler's Pole and Barn Paradox would have to be rewritten something like this:

A garage that is exactly large enough to accommodate a Model T Ford when at rest is in the path of the Antique car traveling toward it at relativistic speed. The garage has front and rear doors exactly large enough to admit the automobile and for it to exit. Describe the necessary shape the garage would need to be (parallelogram) and the hyperbolic angle at which it would need to be rotated about its center in order for the relativistic Model T to exactly fit inside of the 50% Lorentz contracted / rotated AND distorted garage. Be certain to account for any simultaneity effects which might mean the edges of the distorted front and rear doors line up with the front and rear bumpers of the Model T at different times, and a different description of events from the point of view of someone in the frame of the garage vs. someone in the car.

Is this really an improvement? Are these 'real' effects or are they not? Is the rotated Model T traveling in a straight line? Then how the heck does a rotated parallelogram fit inside of a rectangular garage that is square with the direction of motion of this distorted vehicle? So much for the geometry lesson. The paradox remains one, if you believe Minkowski. The garage doors, which ARE NOT length contracted, get smashed.

This is exactly why most of Minkowski's ideas, like light cones, are useless, just like square pegs that don't fit into round holes, in terms of actual geometry, at rest, in a theoretical Euclidean space, unless the diagonal of the square peg is less than the diameter of the round hole. And that isn't the definition of an actual "fit" or even "congruent", is it? That's how I think of Minkowski's whole life, because everything he did was a distortion of Einstein's ideas.

Less google, more noodle please. You wanted peer review? You're getting some. How's that working out for you?