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

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Memorial Project officials insist that it was the passengers and crew, not the terrorists, who broke the peace on 9/11

Blogburst logo, petition

The official explanation for the Crescent of Embrace design is that the path of Flight 93 breaks the circle, turning it into the giant crescent. They call it the Circle of Embrace now, but the Memorial Project’s own website acknowledges that the circle is still broken:
In summary, the memorial is shaped in a circular fashion, and the circle is symbolically "broken" or missing trees in two places, depicting the flight path of the plane, and the crash site...
The fact that the Circle of Embrace is really a broken circle means two things. First, it means that the giant crescent is still there. Architect Paul Murdoch always described the Crescent of Embrace as a broken circle. Our circle of peace was broken on 9/11, with the unbroken part of the circle, what was symbolically left standing in the wake of 9/11, being the giant Islamic shaped crescent.

Adding an extra arc of trees that explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle leaves the unbroken part unchanged. What is symbolically left standing on the Flight 93 crash site is still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca.

This prompts the question of WHO is being depicted as breaking the circle of peace on 9/11. Of course it can only be the terrorists. Who else can be charged with breaking the peace? The murdered passengers and crew?

Once you realize that it can only be the terrorists who are being depicted as turning the circle into a crescent, it is obvious that this is actually a memorial to the terrorists (if that wasn't obvious enough already from the Crescent name and the crescent and star flag configuration).

The Memorial Project finally answers our question: insists that it was the passengers and crew who broke the circle

Last spring a couple hundred emailers (thanks!) demanded to know “Who broke the circle?” The Memorial Project issued a boiler-plate response that never got around to answering the question. At the Memorial Project meeting last summer, however, Alec Rawls was able to pigeon-hole Memorial Project Manager Jeff Reinbold and Deputy Superintendent Keith Newlin.
“You can’t just say it was ‘the flight path’ that broke the circle” Rawls admonished. “This is a story of human action. So who did it? In your depiction, who is breaking the circle?”

“The passengers and crew,” said Reinbold.

“But the circle is a symbol of peace,” Rawls continued. “Who broke the peace? It was the TERRORISTS who broke the peace on 9/11.”

Reinbold countered that that the circle is also a Druid symbol, and a Christian symbol.

“But it is still a symbol of peace,” said Rawls, especially as the Memorial Project is using it, with the circle being broken on 9/11, “so who breaks it?”

“It was the passengers and crew,” Newlin repeated, elaborating that: “They are the one’s who brought the plane down.”

“You don’t think it was the terrorists who broke the peace?” Rawls asked.

“They TRIED to break the peace,” said Newlin, “but they failed.”

“Really?” asked Rawls: “They failed to break the peace? What about the 40 murdered heroes?” But Reinbold and Newlin were done talking.
Trying to give credit to the passengers and crew for the outcome of Flight 93 is a perfectly creditable motive on the part of Reinbold and Newlin. They aren’t actually trying to blame the passengers and crew for 9/11. What is shameful is their absolute determination not to admit what they perfectly well understand: that it was the terrorists who broke the peace on 9/11.

If they admit this, then they have to acknowledge that Murdoch’s design can only be a memorial to the terrorists, who are depicted as breaking our peaceful circle and turning it into a giant Islamic-shaped crescent. The depth of Reinbold’s and Newlin’s determination not to admit that it was the terrorists who broke the peace is a measure of how clearly they understand the terrorist-memorializing implications.

They KNOW that this is a memorial to the terrorists, and are twisting themselves into knots to try to cover it up.

Not just a memorial to the terrorists, but victory for the terrorists

If the crescent/broken-circle design is built, it will turn Flight 93 into a victory for the 9/11 terrorists. They will actually have succeeded (with the help of architect Paul Murdoch) in planting a giant Mecca-direction indicator (the central feature of a mosque) on the Flight 93 crash site.

This is how Islam claims territory: by building mosques. Saudi Arabia spent over seventy-five billion dollars in the last forty years funding mosques and madrassas to spread its murder-cult brand of Islam around the globe. That's where our present conflict with the Islamic world comes from: Saudi Arabia spreading the violent orthodoxy of Wahabbi Islam around the world.

Now we are poised to build the world’s largest mosque for them, a terrorist memorial mosque, dedicated to the Saudi terrorists who mass-murdered our own countrymen on 9/11, and the Memorial Project KNOWS it. They have to be exposed and stopped.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.
If you want to fund an ad buy, contact Alec Rawls. Petition here.

ADDENDUM (on my post only, not sent out to blogburst participants)

In his discussion with me at the August 2008 meeting, Reinbold objected to how an earlier conversation between the two of us had been paraphrased in my book. Reinbold denied saying that the size difference between the large glass panel and the small translucent marble panels is the reason he is unwilling to count them together. Rather, his point was that if we were going to count the large glass panel [bringing the number of inscribed translucent panels on the Flight path to 44, equaling the number of passengers, crew, AND terrorists] then we needed to count the windows in the Visitor Center too (which are also glass panels).

Objection noted, but Reinbold's recollection does not seem materially different from how my book recounts our conversation (Download 3, p. 146, described by Rawls as “reasonably accurate paraphrase”):
“There is no forty-fourth block!” Hanley cried.
Of course we had to fight over that too.
“It’s not the same as the others,” Reinbold observed. “If we are going to count the giant glass block at the end of the Entry Portal Walkway along with the small glass blocks in the Memorial Wall, then we have to count the windows in the Visitor Center too.”
Maybe he is objecting to my having him describe the glass panels as "blocks," but this is the shorthand we were all using. The panels all LOOK like blocks. The small panels are set into the Memorial Wall along with the blocks that make up the rest of the wall, where they are backlit to look like glass blocks. The glass panel at the end of the walkway is set at a 45° angle, which is indistinguishable from a glass block cut on a 45. All are actually panels, but in referring to the graphics, it makes more sense to call them blocks, since that is what they look like.

Reinbold could well have said "panel" instead of "block" when referring to the huge glass panel at the end of the Entry Portal Walkway and I missed it. Very possible. But it is not an important point.

Many times I have been very precise in stating my claim: that there are to be 44 inscribed translucent memorial blocks or panels emplaced along the flight path. It doesn't matter if they are panels or blocks. What matters is that they are on the flight path, which according to the architect and the Park Service creates the thematic meaning of the design, breaking the circle and turning it into the giant crescent. The 40 blocks inscribed with the names of the passengers and crew establishes a theme of the glass blocks on the flight path representing individual lives. Obviously it matters if there are 44.

The Visitor Center is not on the flight path. Reinbold can count the windows in the Visitor Center if he wants, so long as he doesn't try to pretend that this in any way counters my claim that the flight path will have 44 glass blocks or panels built along it. Yet this is what the Memorial Project has done, over and over. Whenever they are asked by the press about the 44 blocks on the flight path, they deny it.

"That has been disproved so many times," said the Memorial Project's PR flack Bill Haworth in 2007.

In 2008, Gordon Felt, President of Families of Flight 93 and brother of murdered passenger Edward Felt, said:
That’s an absolute, unequivocal fabrication that is being portrayed as fact. It’s misleading and helps drive the conspiracy theory.
But Felt's next remark proves that he knows full well that there will be 44 inscribed translucent memorial blocks, or panels emplaced along the flight path:
Felt said the names of the passengers and crew will be placed on the memorial, but no final decision has been made on how they would be displayed or on what material.
In other words, he was nit-picking over our occasional description of the panels as "glass blocks," when they are actually designated as “translucent marble” and might yet be changed to something else. So where is the “fabrication” Felt accused me of? My claims are about the design, not about whatever alterations may be made, and the formal report that I submitted to the Memorial Project, which Gordon Felt has seen, is specific about the small blocks or panels being marked as “translucent marble.”

Felt is the one who is spouting “unequivocal fabrications,” all to cover up important evidence of hostile intent. As with Reinbold and Newlin, the extent to which Mr. Felt is willing to tie himself into such knots to avoid admitting what he fully understands is a measure of how well he understands the damning implications of what he is covering up.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

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