NYTIMES:
HERE'S A RECENT VIDEO:
The National Park Service and an organization representing victims’ families have reached a deal to buy the most critical piece of land needed for the Flight 93 National Memorial in Shanksville, Pa.PHILLY ENQUIRER:
On Sept. 11, 2008, a man visited a temporary memorial in Shanksville, Pa., to United Flight 93.
Driven by a goal of getting a deal done before President Bush leaves office on Tuesday, the park service and the organization, Families of Flight 93, reached an accord late Friday with Svonavec Inc., the quarry company that owns the 274-acre parcel at the heart of the site where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed after terrorists took over the plane on Sept. 11, 2001. Forty passengers and crew members were killed.
Under the agreement, a condemnation suit will be filed in federal court to determine the value of the land, about 60 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, but the park service will take ownership as soon as the case is filed in a few weeks.
“For us, and I believe for the president and the first lady, it is a sense of closure and a degree of healing to get this done,” said Patrick White, a member of the Families of Flight 93 and a lawyer who helped work out the deal. Mr. White’s cousin Louis J. Nacke II died on Flight 93.
The park service said the deal would allow construction of the memorial to begin on schedule later this year. The goal is to have the first part of the $56 million initial phase of the memorial completed by 2011. The Svonavec family, the owners of the quarry, agreed with that goal.
Mike Svonavec said he was glad to have a deal.NOW MORE THAN EVER WE MUST STOP THE CURRENT DESIGN - WHICH IS A HIDDEN PAEAN TO 9/11 AS AN ACT ISLAMOTERROR.
"The agreement allows the parties to cooperatively move forward on a methodology by which the evaluation will be determined," he said in a statement.
Negotiations had been contentious. Families of Flight 93 last month asked the Bush administration to seize the land after negotiations to buy the parcel stalled.
Mike Svonavec had been accused of refusing to sell for a reasonable amount, but he has repeatedly denied looking for a windfall.
By agreeing to proceed to court, "what the landowner is saying is, 'You can have title and possession of my property, and we will agree or not when the court makes a decision.' If they don't agree, then they have a right of appeal," White said. "In a sense, what the landowner is saying is, 'We can get a better value in court than any other way.' They may. They may not."
Under the agreement, Svonavec will donate six acres that encompass the impact site. He has said he did not want any money for that parcel.
HERE'S A RECENT VIDEO:
13 comments:
Where's the damn spotted owl when we need it?
The land was mined . . .could it be contaminated? Where's the federal studies for environmental impact?
Come on folks . . .this land must not be raped by Murdock and Islam again!
Pastorius,
Why would Paul Murdock do this? Is he secretly a Jihadists or is he even a Muslim? If he is neither of those things, what possible motivation could he have, and how would he know so much about Islamic symbolism?
Damien, read this post at errortheory.blogspot.com provides all the seedy details of the Park Service shenanigans, including the following gem:
The other two academics admit the giant Mecca oriented crescent and make the most ridiculous excuses for it. Kevin Jaques, a professor of Islamic sharia law at Indiana University, notes the similarity between the Mecca oriented crescent and a traditional mihrab, but assures the Park Service that there is no need for concern, because no one has ever seen a mihrab this BIG before:
Thirdly, most mihrabs are small, rarely larger than the figure of a man, although some of the more ornamental ones can be larger, but nothing as large at the crescent found in the site design. It is unlikely that most Muslims would walk into the area of the circle/crescent and see a mihrab because it is well beyond their limit of experience. Again, just because it is similar does not make it the same.
The other academic fraud is a Syrian professor of Islamic architecture named Nasser Rabbat who tells the part service not to worry about the almost exact Mecca orientation of the giant crescent because it cannot serve as a proper mihrab unless it points exactly to Mecca:
Mihrab orientation is either correct or not. It cannot be off by some degrees.
That is a bald lie. Many traditional mihrabs are off in their Mecca-orientation by 10, 20 or 30 degrees. The most famous mihrab in the world, the mihrab at the Great Mosque in Cordoba Spain, is oriented more than 45° off Mecca.
None of these “experts” even pretend to be objective. They only list excuses not to be concerned, and do not even make a show of considering possible Islamic intent. So who are these guys? Rabbat is described as an independent scholar, but in fact is an old classmate of Paul Murdoch, both having received masters degrees in architecture from UCLA in 1984. This raises the possibility that Paul Murdoch himself was able to orchestrate the investigation into warnings about his own design.
Kevin Jaques is also a highly suspicious character, having written an article shortly after 9/11 where he insists that the American response to 9/11 should be formulated in accordance with Islamic sharia law. Not only that, but he whitewashes sharia law by pretending that it is spurned by Islamic terrorists. Nowhere does he acknowledge that the terrorists' goal is impose sharia law on the entire world.
Jaques does not admit his religious affiliation, but it seems obvious that he must be a convert to Islam. Who else would call for a sharia law response to 9/11? He would also seem to be on the side of the radical supremacists, describing “Islamic revivalism” (the general heading for Bin Ladnism, Khomeini-ism, and other aggressively supremacist strains of Islam) as “new and exciting.”
Thus it seems that the Park Service let two blatantly dishonest Muslims whitewash warnings of a radical Islamic plot. Not that the Park Service was duped. They were just as dishonest themselves, claiming that it isn’t possible to check the orientation of the crescent because: “none of the data or imagery used to develop the site plan has been geo-referenced.”
On the contrary, you can see to the left that the site plan is drawn on a topographical map. This topo map was provided by the Memorial Project itself to all of the design contestants. A topo map is the epitome of a geo-referenced map. North on a topo map is true north, which is all that is needed to calculate the orientation of the crescent.
They don’t even bother to notice that their so-called experts are contradicting each other. Griffith says you can face anywhere to face Mecca and Rabbat says that orientation on Mecca must be exact. The Park Service gladly embraces whatever mutually exclusive dishonesties are available. Any excuse to turn a blind eye to the undeniable Islamic and terrorist memorializing features of their chosen design.
The full significance of Murdoch’s plot takes a whole book to explain.
Very briefly, there are a dozen typical mosque features. All are realized in Paul Murdoch’s design, all on the same epic scale as his half-mile wide mihrab. The planned memorial is a terrorist memorial mosque, and this hijacking is still on track to succeed.
- Alec Rawls
Alec Rawls,
But why, why is he doing this? I'm not denying it, but what could his motivation possibly be? Why does he want to glorify the terrorists? What's he going to get out of it? He has to have a reason. What is it?
Damien - go to errortheory.blogspot.com to ask Alec Rawls directly. I copied/pasted the portion above from his site. I'm not Alec. Sorry for the confusion
HRW
I have problems w/blogger. If I sign in, I cannot post comments. If I use IE and comment anonymously, I can post. Unfortunately, I don't always remember to post HRW to each anonymous comment.
HRW
Damien said...
But why, why is he doing this?
Musilms, when they are on the ascendant, attempt to appropriate these sites of power from the older religions that they are trying to supplant. Thus, spiritual sites have changed hands many times in the past.
It is also true that expropriating the symbols and edifices of an older religion is a particularly effective way that islam has of emphasising its political and temporal power. The implication of course is that the islam is so powerful that it would, with impunity, desecrate the sacred objects of the older religion.
This is often also part of the propaganda for conversion -- to encourage the masses to abandon the older religion and accept islam, For, must it not be true that the superior temporal and political power of the flows from some Mohammed/allah?
That is, clearly the Mohammed or One True God of islam must be superior to those of the older religion.
This usurping of symbols and edifices is a common practice, particularly among the Semitic religions (Islam ). For instance,
Hagia Sophia, Taj Mahal, Temple Mount, Cordoba, Ayodhya and more recently Le Grand pub in Nottingham UK
http://avideditor.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/going-going-gone/
Shiva - yes, that is historically accurate.
Fouad El Bayly of Somerset, leader of the Islamic Center of Johnstown, has said Muslims immediately would recognize the symbolism in the design.
But, as Damien asks, Is Murdoch (the architect) Muslim? If not, what is his motivation?
There is no group more attuned to symbolism and the “meaning” of structures than architects. It is their business to take drawings and, ultimately, wood, glass, and stone, and create meaning out of it. That this design is in some way accidental or coincidental is preposterous.
After spending the night contemplating this question - for the umpteeenth time - this is what I pulled from Alec Rawls site:
"an al Qaeda sympathizing architect entered our open design competition with a plan to build a terrorist memorial mosque and won.
And I remembered another tidbit . . .found at Michelle Malkin's site:
FYI, the memorial is being funded with both public and private money, including
a $500,000 grant from the Heinz Endowments, chaired by Teresa Heinz
And fyi, Public Law No: 107-226 is the law that established the Flight 93 Memorial. Its main sponsor was Rep. John Murtha, R D-Pa.
Flight 93 memorial eligible for $7 million grant.
****
Here's a quote from the KnightFoundation:
"The Flight 93 National Memorial project is making design competition history as
this is the first time an entire national park site is being designed through a design competition.
The competition received more than 1,000 submissions. The winning design will be announced Sept. 7, 2005. "
FIRST TIME?
WHY for the 9/11 memorial?
HRW
About the Competition
The Flight 93 Memorial Design Competition — a partnership among the Families of Flight 93, the Flight 93 Advisory Commission, the Flight 93 Memorial Task Force, and the National Park Service — was made possible through grants of $500,000 each from the Pittsburgh-based Heinz Endowments and the Miami-based John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
A nine-member jury
comprising family members, partners, and design professionals will select five finalists in late January, each of whom will receive an honorarium to further develop their concept for the second stage of the competition. A second jury will thenmeet in July to select the winning entry for recommendation to a federal advisory commission, with the winning design to be announced in late September.
*****
A NINE MEMBER JURY . . .
The breakdown of the vote is not known. Tom Burnett has asked for it, but the Memorial Project won't give it to him. What we do know is that there were seven family members on the jury and eight others, mostly left-wing design professionals. It could well be that the majority of the family members voted against the crescent design. (The vote was 9 to 6 for the crescent.)
******
Was there a FOI act request?
*****
Also from Alec Rawls site:
"After Tim Baird told me that everyone was aware that a person facing into the giant crescent would be facing Mecca, I asked him what else they knew:
Do they know about the separate upper section of Memorial Wall, inscribed with the 9/11 date, centered exactly on the bisector of the giant crescent, putting the date exactly in the position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag? Do they know about the 44 memorial glass blocks emplaced along the flight path, equaling the number of passengers, crew, and terrorists?
"It's all in your report, right," said Mr. Baird. "Your report has been passed around at the meetings." He suggested that everyone has looked at it, and that everyone knows what is in it. It seems they are all just making excuses for it, including Mr. Baird.
"I won't be concerned unless you can prove intent," Baird said, "and it is impossible to prove intent."
He presented this as an impenetrable redoubt, as it to say, "let's see you get past that defense." I looked at him like he was crazy. Did he not understand what he had just said: that he would not be concerned no matter what was in the design?
****
Set up by . . .CAN'T PROVE INTENT. . . .to shut down dissent.
HRW
This memorial is an abomination. I won't be going there, although I've previously visited the impromptu memorial, which appeared shortly after 9/11.
I seem to recall a quote from the architect, or someone closely affiliated with him, to the effect that we need to include Islam in our grief process, otherwise it would become an us vs. them thing.
I seem to recall that this idea was phrased in the tone of New Age gobbledegook.
I stopped following this story long ago, not because I was not interested, but because it was obvious that the people behind it are dead set on pushing it through no matter what we have to say about it.
I recall that at one point they promised to review and change things, but they came back full force with their original plan. That's when I knew the fix was in, and our voice did not matter, so I gave up on it.
I have faith that all that is truly evil will be destroyed. We may live in confused times, but there is still good in the world, and that includes an awful lot of good people whose hearts are in the right place.
:)
Shiva,
you said,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But why, why is he doing this?
Musilms, when they are on the ascendant, attempt to appropriate these sites of power from the older religions that they are trying to supplant. Thus, spiritual sites have changed hands many times in the past.
It is also true that expropriating the symbols and edifices of an older religion is a particularly effective way that islam has of emphasising its political and temporal power. The implication of course is that the islam is so powerful that it would, with impunity, desecrate the sacred objects of the older religion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you think Paul Murdock is a Muslim?
Always On Watch,
I agree this memorial, if you can call it that, is an abomination. In fact, it would be an abomination even if all this Islamic symbolism was by accident. Just the fact that any of its there should have forced a radical redesign.
Pastorius,
you said,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I seem to recall a quote from the architect, or someone closely affiliated with him, to the effect that we need to include Islam in our grief process, otherwise it would become an us vs. them thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If that's true and he was working on the flight 93 memorial, he should have been fired. There are only two sides in the this conflict. The side that opposes our side, hijacked the four airplanes on 9/11. The Muslim Jihadists are the ones who flew the first three planes into the twin towers and the pentagon. They are also the ones who forced the desperate struggle aboard flight 93. There is no middle ground. The Jihadists won't accept any middle ground. They are willing to kill anyone who stands in their way, and some of them are eager to die for their insane cause.
What's more, putting any Islamic symbolism into this monument, will do about as much to make them like us, as adding hippie, flower children symbolism to memorial. At least that wouldn't be much of an offense to the heroes flight 93 and it would symbolism a surrender to our enemies.
Beyond this, what if they had tried to put Christian symbolism into the memorial. We can assume, just from the religious makeup of America, that many of the people on flight 93 were Christians. However, if there was a serious attempt to put Christian symbolism into the memorial, the left would have a cow, and their lawyers would sue, claiming the government was violating the separation of Church and state.
Post a Comment