.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Tom Burnett Sr. and Alec Rawls protest the Flight 93 Memorial on TV and radio

Tom Burnett Sr. and I were on the nationally syndicated Mike and Juliet television show this morning, pointing out Islamic symbolism in the planned Flight 93 Memorial. For now at least, Mike and Juliet have the video up and running on their website. (In case this link is not permanent, Curt from Flopping Aces posted the segment on Google video.)

On with us was another family member, Kenneth Nacke (brother of murdered passenger Louis Nacke II), and John Reynolds, chairman of the Memorial Project. The 10 minute segment accomplishes a lot.

With the help of some very revealing on-screen graphics, Tom and I get a chance to explain the overt Islamic symbolism of the original Crescent of Embrace design. Defenders of the crescent can only resort to denying that they can see what is obvious to everyone else, including the hosts.

I was able to say a little bit about why the very slight redesign, adding a few irrelevant trees, does not affect the Islamic and terrorist memorializing features at all, but was not able to explain fully. [The original Crescent of Embrace design, every particle of which remains completely intact in the Bowl of Embrace redesign, is a terrorist memorial mosque, built around the half-mile wide Mecca-oriented crescent. You can plant as many trees as you want around a mosque and it is still a mosque.]

Tom makes very heartfelt appeals for people to take our concerns seriously and to INVESTIGATE it. Altogether, this is great exposure, with many compelling moments. Good job Tom.

Radio interviews

Tom and I have also undertaken a number of radio interviews recently. Two days ago we appeared together for 45 minutes on the Don Kroah show out of Arlington Virginia. (Audio requires Real Player. Scroll down to "Monday August 20, 2007 -- Hour 1".)
The show starts with me going over some central Islamic and terrorist memorializing design features, then Tom comes on and makes his protest against the overt Islamic symbolism, and we both talk for a while with Don, who proved to be a very knowledgeable host (pulling out a quote from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette the moment I alluded to it).

Tom and I also appeared separately on the Fred Honzberger show out of Pittsburgh.
Tom was on for a short interview on Monday. Very powerful. I was on for 45 minutes today: "Critic of Flight 93 Memorial design,") part 1 (streaming/podcast) and part 2 (streaming/podcast).

I have done a couple dozen solo interviews over the last month, most of them a half hour to an hour long. Several are linked at CrescentOfBetrayal.com.

Keep up your good work on this.
You have my many thanks.
Overall, good work, and congrats on the TV coverage.

There are potentially shills in the crowd. If you hadn't noticed, the crowd claps at what would ordinarily be silence during the intro of John Reynolds (and he is the only person whose eyes pick out individuals in the crowd). The only other clapping period comes after the host asks a question about the new "circle" not having an orientation, which biases the debate and effectively blocks an answer, which then is picked up on by the park admin. The clapping is similar in intensity, indicating a tiny audience or a roughly equivalent portion of the audience.

Tactically, Alec, you were too strident about Murdoch's being the enemy. Let the audience figure it out -- you run the danger of the crackpot backfire here.

Most of the TV audience has only heard a bit of the argument and lame graphics. I'd focus in a short forum like this instead that although Murdoch might have made a mistake or meant this as a nice gesture to people of Islam, he surely, as a master designer (pump him up), must have recognized at some point the symbolism of a *red* crescent.

Finesse in that despite that they seem not willing to acknowledge that this was ever a crescent. They want the renaming and the reshaping to appear sufficient while not admitting any mistake was made in the first place. That is a core weakness. A small bandaid does not remedy a fatal flaw. [Though I like the "tainted" meme that Burnett hammered on.]

No one said the design had to embrace a half mile of the site along a ridge. The place is pretty barren now, isn't it? And if the place is truly a bowl, then why wasn't the original design a bowl?
Anonymous is commenting on the point where I explain how this could happen: that we hosted an open design competition in time of war, so of course we should not be surprised if the enemy enters and tries to win a memorial to the terrorists.

This is an important point to make because to a lot of people the idea of an intentionally Islamic or terrorist memorial just seems impossible. How could that happen? But anonymous may well be right that it would have been better in this short interview to keep it simpler.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?