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

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Tom Burnett's 9/11 protests against the crescent memorial

I missed this last week. Mr. Burnett had an op-ed column in the Somerset Daily American on 9/11. He also did a second radio interview with Pittsburgh talker Fred Honsberger. These heartfelt appeals are well worth the time. If you want to feel the loving and heroic spirit of Tom Burnett Jr., just listen to his father.

It is heartening also to hear the caller with the Indian accent expressing his fury that America is allowing this desecration to go forward, but he makes a mis-statement about the 44 glass blocks that will be emplaced along the flight path. In addition to the 40 inscribed with the names of the murdered passengers and crew, there ARE to be four more, matching the number of terrorists, but they are NOT going to be inscribed with the names of the terrorists, as the caller seemed to think.

What is actually to be inscribed on the four extra blocks is much worse. The plan is not just to include the terrorists. It is to champion the terrorists.

Three of the blocks are to be inscribed with the 9/11 date. These are to be built into a separate section of Memorial Wall that is centered on the bisector of the giant crescent, in exactly the position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag. Thus the date goes to the star on the Islamic flag. The date goes to the terrorists. (All you have to do to verify this placement is connect the tips of the crescent, form the perpendicular bisector, and see that it passes through the center of the separate upper section of memorial wall.)

The 44th block sits at the end of the Entry Portal Walkway, marking the spot where the flight path breaks the circle in architect Paul Murdoch's explanation, turning the circle into a giant crescent. It is a large glass panel inscribed with LAFD Captain Stephen J. Ruda's dedication: "A field of honor forever." (Scroll down to "terrorist memorializing feature #2.")

Do we really want to use "a field of honor forever" to commemorate the spot where the terrorists turned our liberty loving circle into a giant Mecca-oriented crescent?

Paul Murdoch is TELLING us that the theme of the memorial is the terrorists turning our circle into a crescent. How naked does he have to be about his intentions? The original Crescent as Embrace publicity shot was as naked as he could have made it, showing a bare naked crescent and star flag planted on the crash site, easily recognizable as a crescent and star flag from an airliner like Flight 93 flying overhead:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Every particle of this original crescent and star structure remains completely intact in the Bowl of Embrace redesign, where it is only slightly disguised by the addition of some surrounding trees.

Hearts of Steel

The good news from Honsberger is that there is wide awareness in Pittsburgh now about Mr. Burnett's and my warnings of Islamic and terrorist memorializing features in the crescent design. After Tom's interview, Honsberger did a five minute interview with Pennsylvania State Senator Jane Orie, who recently joined with the Pittsburgh Foundation to raise funds for an appropriate memorial to be built.

Orie says that everywhere she goes now, everyone asks her about the crescent shape and the 44 blocks, so the word is definitely getting out locally. She also assured Honsberger that the Hearts of Steel money will not be released until there is consensus on their board that an appropriate design has been selected, and she notes that Mrs. Burnett is on their board. Thus if anyone wants to donate for a memorial to be built (and a memorial most certainly does need to be built), please donate to Hearts of Steel.

Being a native Pittsburger, I know that due to their/our level headedness, the PIttsburgers will not allow this memorial to be built with islamic symbolism if they have anything to say about it.
By now many bloggers are aware of the controversy over the "winning" Flight 93 memorial design, by one Paul Murdoch, a Los Angeles architect. Entitled "Crescent of Embrace", bluntly put the design emulates an Islamic crescent. See: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003513.htm As with many architects, Murdoch fancies himself a deep thinker, and this usually means being able to spout the latest in post-modern, deconstructionist nonsense. I believe the Architect Murdoch knows exactly what he is doing: his task was to design a memorial about an event involving suicide bombers. He may have found his inspiration in Columbia Professor Gayatri Spivak's "post-colonial" deconstruction of terrorism. Professor Spivak has offered her views on both the concept of "deconstructive embrace" and in a notorious speech at Leeds University in 2002, "deconstructed" the concept of suicide bombing.

An excerpt from her speech at Leeds:
"Suicide bombing -- and the planes of 9/11 were living bombs -- is a purposive self-annihilation, a confrontation between oneself and oneself, the extreme end of autoeroticism; killing oneself as other, in the process of killing others... the destruction of others is indistinguishable from the destruction of the self...Suicidal resistance is a message inscribed in the body when no other means will get through. It is both execution and mourning, for both self and other. For you die with me for the same cause, no matter which side are you on. Because no matter who you are, there are no designated killees [sic] in suicide bombing....there is no dishonor in such shared and innocent death." [Quoted in The New Republic, July 29, 2002, p.9]

She continues: "The ideal relation to the Other, then, is an 'embrace, an act of love'.... Such an embrace may be unrequited, as the differences and distances are too great, but if we are ever to get beyond the vicious cycle of abuse, it is essential to remain open-hearted; not to attempt to recreate the Other narcissistically, in one's own image, but generously, with care and attention."

Go to Amazon and see that one of the SIPs for one of her books is: "deconstructive embrace"

Mr. Murdoch, this is your thinking too and you've been outed!
Now, now, downtownrod, you are off your rocker for a number of reasons.

Let's talk about Islam for a second. Just because we don't embrace the terrorist form of Islam doesn't mean we're being ...what is the term the wacknuts use...oh yeah -Islamophobic.

Let me point something out to you since you seem very willing to jump on the leftist bandwagon that involves very little reasoning, facts and is heavy on emotion:

At the end of Crescent of Betrayal (called "Our World Divide," Mr. Rawls talks about how it's necessary to distinguish the good from the bad in Islam.

You see, leftists seem to think-and some of the jurors of this memorial thought-it would be bigoted to object to a crescent on the Flight 93 crash site.

A rational person who has critical thinking skills shouldn't simply assume that all choices have good outcomes, which Evan Sayet so clearly pointed out in his Heritage House Speech "How the Modern Liberal Thinks"--it's the left's multi-culturalist ethos, but it's senseless, particular where it comes to murder.

As Alec has said in the past-"By avoiding the truth, those who thought they were extending a healing embrace to the good people of the Islamic world are instead embracing a monument to the worst of the Islamic world: the 9/11 terrorists.

Truth suppression is also at the bottom of the terrorist's present ideological domination of the Islamic world. The Koran says dozens of times that those who forget the law of Moses (highlighting in particular the Ten Commandments) will burn in Hell forever. There could be no clearer violation of the commandment not to commit murder (in the original Mosaic formulation) than the traditional Islamic death penalties for apostasy and blasphemy. Murder is any killing not in defense of self or others against violent attack, or conspiracy to violent attack.

Those who simply believe and speak differently (apostates and blasphemers) cannot be subject to violence under Mosaic law, but to say so is blasphemy under sharia law. This violent suppression of the truth is the Berlin Wall of Islam that must be torn down, and can be torn down. The truth can stop Murdoch's mosque, and it can free the Muslim world, if we just use our freedom to speak the truth."
That's Heritage Foundation; excuse me, not Heritage House.
let them build it then show up wia a few bulldozers and do some remodelling.

Brian Smaller
New Zealand
In all the reports I've read on this issue over the years, I've never seen anything discussing WHY this plan was chosen above others, and what the architect had in mind with this design. I agree that there are too many coincidences for this to be accidental. Can you shed any light on why they want to force this design on the people of America?
I think that for most of the Flight 93 family members who are backing the design, they simply see it as the most beautiful design, which it certainly is. The bare naked crescent and star flag view is overtly jarring to anyone who is familiar with Islamic symbolism, but these family members clearly lack that familiarity, except for Tom Burnett, who protested vehemently.

As for the design professionals on the jury that chose the design, I think they saw the crescent shape as an opportunity to make a statement of politically correct moral superiority, as they see it. They jumped at the chance to demonstrate that they would not reject the most beatiful design just because it happens to be in a geometric shape that Muslims embrace. To be against the crescent just because there happens to be an Islamic crescent would be bigotry, in their minds, and they were eager both to show that they are not bigots, and to attack the inevitable critics of the crescent as bigots (which is exactly what they have done).

Everything is political to these idiots. They wanted to make a political statement and imagined that they would be able to use it as a club against their politcal opposition. Now that the truth threatens to turn that imagined advantage into disadvantage, they are trying to suppress the truth. This, I believe, is the underlying mindset that has so many people now actively blocking for the hijacker.
I believe that the Islamists will see this very differently, just as they did with Ahmadinejad's visit at Columbia University.

Even though he is a totalitarian dictator, in the Islamic world, even if you're visiting with your enemy, your pride yourself on hospitality.

Ahmadinejad looked reserved and the victim; Bollinger appeared crass, rude and acted inappropriately as host.

I think studying that culture is very revealing and important. From what little I know of it, Murdoch may not have an Islamic name, but he is acting very much Islamic in what he's done; namely, the deceit behind the intent of the design, his cover story for the shocking elements in it, and the manner in which he took on the redesign, which still leaves all the mosque and terrorist memorializing features intact.
I believe the Architect Murdoch knows exactly what he is doing: his task was to design a memorial about an event involving suicide bombers.
wow great i have read many articles about this topic and everytime i learn something new i dont think it will ever stop always new info , Thanks for all of your hard work!
Hello .. I have never seen a smart articles that you created. It really helped me to get back my ideas for writing. I will save this post, for I learn.Mayes
Post a Comment

<< Home

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