Plan your trip to the Flight 93 crash site for the weekend of August 2nd!

Are you thinking of visiting the Flight 93 crash site? If you plan your visit for the weekend of August 2nd, you can help stop the gigantic terrorist memorial mosque that will soon start rising from the ground there.

August 2nd is the next scheduled public meeting of the Memorial Project, where anyone can sign up to speak during the public comment period. Tom Burnett Sr. (whose son Tom Jr. broke into the cockpit of the hijacked airplane) announced last Friday that he and Alec Rawls will be traveling to Somerset for the August meeting. They will be rallying outdoors, speaking at the public meeting, and visiting the crash site.

Mr. Burnett is asking other concerned parties who can make it to please come. The crash site is a beautiful and meaningful place to visit in any case, and here is a chance to make your visit even more meaningful. It is an opportunity to in some small way follow the lead of the heroes of Flight 93 by helping to stop the re-hijacking of Flight 93.

Mr. Burnett’s announcement came on the Mancow Muller radio show, where Congressman Tancredo was also a guest. When controversy over the Crescent of Embrace design first arose back in 2005, Tom Tancredo was instrumental in forcing the Park Service to alter the design. Last fall he noted that the giant crescent remains unchanged in the so-called redesign and asked the Park Service to scrap the design entirely. On Friday he said that he would help Mancow Muller and Tom Burnett to stop the crescent design (audio, 19 seconds):

Certainly I will do everything I can to help you. I will bring it to the attention of my colleagues. I’ll use the time I have on the floor of the House to rail against it.

THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN TANCREDO!

Mr. Burnett said that he would join Mancow in going to jail for taking sledgehammers to the crescent memorial if this tribute to the terrorists actually gets built. (Audio, 25 seconds.)

Cao has the whole segment of Mancow and the two Toms up as a YouTube video, with her own background graphics.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

Stumble it!

Barack Hussein Obama, speaking in Las Cruces, NM on Memorial Day, is either lying, or coming out of the closet with his family history. Memorial is a special day. Extra special for those of us who love our country, and who hold in awe the men and women who have given their lives for it. They offered the ultimate sacrifice, so that I can sit here, and write this. Providing me, and you, and the rest of America, the freedom of speech we hold so dear, and cherish so much.

Obama told the story yesterday (on Memorial Day mind you), about how his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz concentration camp at the end of World War II.

“I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps…."

The question that comes to mind is, why would Obama tell such a story? Since Obama never served in the military, maybe he feels he is at a bit of a disadvantage. Maybe he felt inferior to McCain, a former POW from Viet Nam. Or, it’s possible that he wants to – on some deep level – come clean about his family ties.

The problem with Obama’s story is that the American’s did not liberate Auschwitz. The Soviet Union did. So, unless his uncle was a pinko-commie, it’s all just another big lie. Much like how his parents met at the Selma march (which occurred after Obama’s birth – do the math genius).

Should a man who knows so little about American history…and indeed African-American history…be elected? Frankly, it scares me. What in the hell did this guy learn in school? How did he get to the position he is?

The leftards are really good at painting Bush as an idiot. But I’ll bet you dollars to donuts, he knows that his parents could not have met for the first time after his birth. In addition, I’d wager that he knows who liberated Auschwitz.

The thing is, with so many gross lies about his history, and his family history. How do we know what is truth and what is fiction? How do we trust anything this guy tells us? I don’t think I can. Is he Muslim? Don’t know, and frankly, don’t really care. Was his uncle a commie? Don’t know and don’t really care. But whether I care or not really isn’t the issue. The issue is, is he lying (again)? That, I do care about.

Oh, and one more thing…his mother is an only child. Makes one wonder what uncle was fighting with the Reds..doesn’t it?

source

Stumble it!

Mancow: "I’m gonna take a sledge-hammer to it" "You’ll go to jail for it?" "Absolutely"

Radio talk show host Mancow Muller is asking his listeners to help SHUT DOWN the crescent memorial to Flight 93. (Audio 27 seconds.)

Mancow describes how the giant crescent points to Mecca, and how the four terrorists are consistently placed in the symbolic Islamic heavens (the crescent and star parts of the design), while the 40 heroes are consistently depicted as symbolically damned (placed outside of the symbolic Islamic heavens). Good stuff (1 min, 21 sec).

"You have to see it to understand…" says the pro-war libertarian host, directing his listeners to CrescentOfBetrayal.com where they can find pictures like this (a familiar sight for our blogburst readers):

The Tower of Voices. 40 symbolic souls, literally dangling down below an Islamic shaped crescent, soaring in the sky overhead.

Using Islamic symbol shapes invites an Islamic interpretation, and in Islam, if you don’t go to heaven, you go to hell (the fate of ALL unbelievers). Forty symbolic souls, never to rest in peace, gonging for eternity in their symbolic Islamic damnation.

Mancow on civil disobedience

Congressman Tancredo was scheduled to come on Tuesday’s show, but got stuck in a hearing. Near the end of the show, Mancow says Tancredo will be rescheduled, then he lays it on the line. He thinks his show and his listeners have the power stop this atrocity from being built, but if the crescent memorial does get built, he is going to take a sledgehammer to it. They can send him to jail. At that point it won’t matter. There are limits to what Americans should stand by for (1 min, 21 sec).

Last week’s show was good too, with segments from Tom Burnett Sr. (45 sec) and Alec Rawls (2 min, 49 sec). (Alec also did an hour long interview with Tracy at No Compromise blog radio last week. To listen, scroll down to May 15th.)

Robert Spencer

An unexpected extra came in the middle of Tuesday’s show when Robert Spencer was on to talk about Islam. Mancow asked what Spencer thought about this memorial controversy and Robert stepped up with another piece of the expose, pointing out that the 9/11 date is to be placed on the center line of the giant crescent, in exactly the position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag. (43 seconds.)

Exactly right. The date goes to the star on the Islamic flag. The date goes to the terrorists. Graphical proof here ("Terrorist memorializing feature #1".)

With the difficulty of getting just the Mecca orientation across, the discussion almost never reaches these other explosive details. How does Mr. Spencer find the time to be so knowledgeable about so many things? You da MAN Robert!

Pilgrimage to Somerset

When Mancow is able to reschedule the two Tom’s, Tom Burnett says he is going to urge listeners who want to visit the memorial to plan for the weekend of August 2nd, when the Memorial Project is scheduled to have its next public meeting. Then they can help protest the crescent design, and anyone can sign up to speak during the public comment period.

Maybe we can even get Mancow to make the pilgrimage, and if Congressman Tancredo will call for a Congressional investigation, we just might be able to ram the food cart through the cockpit door. Just do it baby. Let’s roll.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

Stumble it!

Crescent shapes with and without Islamic intent: the Obama logo example

The two most widely recognized symbols of Islam are the crescent and the sword. Kind of amusing that Barack Hussein Obama’s campaign logo can be seen to feature both a crescent and a curved Islamic scimitar:

The crescent shape in Obama’s logo has the round part on top, just like a traditional crescent shaped mihrab (the Mecca direction indicator around which every mosque is built). The animation shows the two most famous mihrabs in the world: the mihrab from the Great Mosque in Cordoba, and the Prophet’s mihrab in Medina.

The lighter vertical column in the center-bottom of the logo, presumably meant to indicate reflected light, even conveys the full vertical shape of a traditional mihrab. The scimitar in the animation is from the flag of the Bosnian regiment of the Nazi SS.

If Obama himself had come up with this crescent logo, one might suspect Islamic intent, given his Islamic heritage. But the logo was not designed by Obama. It was designed by a Chicago based branding firm named Sender, which claims credit for coming up with: “a white sunrise against a blue sky, over a landscape implied by red and white stripes.”

Obama definitely deserves to be made fun of for having a fairly obvious crescent shape in his logo, given his efforts to convince the public that he is not Muslim. This is already an uphill climb, when both his grandmother and his cousin are telling documented lies about their religion, claiming to be Christian in one venue while professing themselves Muslim in another. Lying about being Christian: it’s an Obama family tradition!

Still, there is no indication that the crescent and scimitar shapes in Obama’s logo are intended to convey any Islamic meaning. A genuine coincidence apparently. At the opposite pole is the Crescent of Embrace design for the Flight 93 memorial:

Contrast 1: Architect Paul Murdoch CALLS his crescent shaped memorial a crescent

The Crescent of Embrace name proves that the Flight 93 crescent was and is intended to be seen as a crescent. Only very reluctantly did the Memorial Project change the name, and the changes they made to the design are purely cosmetic. Every particle of the original Crescent of Embrace design remains completely intact in the Bowl of Embrace redesign.

Contrast 2: The Islamic symbolism is overt

It is not plausible that an architect, designing a memorial to people murdered by Islamic terrorists, could be oblivious to the fact that his memorial design is laid out in the shape of a bare naked Islamic crescent and star flag, readily identifiable as a crescent and star flag to airliners like Flight 93 passing overhead.

The Memorial Project simply assumes that the Islamic symbol shapes CAN’T be intentional, which is about like seeing an airliner fly into the World Trade Center and assuming it CAN’T be intentional. Do these people even remember the day they are supposed to be memorializing?

Contrast 3: The Flight 93 crescent contains still further Islamic symbolism

It turns out that the giant crescent points to Mecca. A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is a well known structure in the Islamic world. It is a mihrab (as seen in the above animation), which gives the direction that Muslims are to face for prayer.

Everyone at the Memorial Project is fully aware that a person facing into the giant crescent will be facing almost exactly at Mecca. This according to Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird. Again, they all just assume that this MUST be an innocent mistake (the equivalent of seeing as SECOND airliner fly into the Trade Center, and STILL assuming it can’t POSSIBLY be intentional).

Contrast 4: Proof of intent

Paul Murdoch PROVES that the Mecca orientation is intentional by repeating it in the crescents of trees that surround the minaret like Tower of Voices. Below is an animated run-through of the repeated Mecca-orientations (2 minutes).

You can restart the animation by refreshing the page:

Animated GIF: copy and paste. You can email it! (Animation restarts each time email is opened.) Click image for larger animation, if your connection is fast enough (1MB).

Crescent of Embrace site-plan, showing both the central crescent and the Tower of Voices, here.

Contrast 5: the designer’s own thematic description is clearly terrorist memorializing

The designers of Obama’s logo offer a clearly innocent thematic description of their creation. You can tell just by looking at it what it is MEANT to signify: a white sun coming up into a blue sky over red and white rows of fruited plain. Even the uncanny intimation of the vertical sides of a traditional mihrab are fully explained by the “sun” reflecting off the red and white “landscape.”

In contrast, Paul Murdoch’s thematic account of his design is as nakedly pro-terrorist as his crescent and star layout. Murdoch says that the crescent comes from the terrorists breaking the circle. That is, they broke our liberty-loving circle, and turn it into a giant Islamic-shaped Mecca-oriented crescent.

As Tom Burnett Sr. put it in his letter to American people, asking for help with our petition to keep the crescent design off of his murdered son’s gravesite:

I don’t want to celebrate the terrorist’s circle-breaking crescent-creating feat.

And lest anyone thinks that the giant crescent is no longer present, the Park Service website makes clear that, while the redesign looks more like a circle, the circle is still broken:

The circle is broken in two places that mark the southeastern path of the plane to the crash site. The circle is broken at the entry to the memorial and at the crash site.

The breaks are in the exact same places as before and the unbroken part of the circle (the crescent) remains completely unchanged. It it still points to Mecca. It is still the world’s largest mihrab by a factor of a hundred. The only difference is that now a chunk of the broken off part of the circle is included in the design, which is perfectly consistent with its original terrorist memorializing theme. The terrorists still break our liberty-loving circle and still turn it into a giant Mecca-oriented crescent.

So there you have it. Dueling crescents! Obama’s crescent logo exemplifies innocent coincidence (however guilty Obama may be of lying about his religion). In contrast, the Flight 93 crescent exemplifies proven intent. (More of architect Paul Murdoch’s endless proofs of intent here and here.)

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

Stumble it!

No more do-overs for terrorist memorializing architects

Defenders of the crescent design keep accusing Tom Burnett Sr. of trying to get an improper “do over” after failing back in 2005 to sway the design-competition jury. But who is really seeking the do-over? The American people rose up in protest in 2005 when they saw that the Memorial Project wanted to plant a bare naked Islamic crescent and star flag on the flight 93 crash site:

That uproar forced the Memorial Project to agree to redesign the memorial so that it would no longer include Islamic symbol shapes (whether they are intentional or not). But nothing significant was changed. Every particle of the original crescent design remains completely intact in the so-called redesign, which only disguised the original crescent with a few irrelevant trees, placed to the rear of a person facing into the giant crescent.

The American people caught a hijacker trying to re-hijack Flight 93, and the Memorial Project told him to go back outside and try again, which is exactly what he did. Now they accuse Tom Burnett of wanting an improper do-over?

There were dozens of articles and television segments about the crescent controversy this week, mostly in Pennsylvania, with some national news coverage by Fox News television and AP. This post is an attempt to capture the general thrust of the new wave of position statements.

The Memorial Project is inverting every moral imperative at this point, and it all comes from their fervent desire to reverse the results of September 2005. Their embrace of the crescent was rejected by America and they are determined to undo that defeat, to the point of being willfully blind to massive evidence of al Qaeda sympathizing intent.

The new face of the Memorial Project: Edward Felt’s wife and brother take the lead

Sandra Felt, one of the Flight 93 family members who helped select the Crescent of Embrace design, admits that she never paid any attention to warnings about Islamic and terrorist memorializing symbolism in the crescent design:

Sandra Felt has known for nearly three years about complaints that the design of the proposed Flight 93 National Memorial allegedly contains Islamic symbols, but she never gave them any credence.

"I don’t even think about it," said Felt, whose husband, Edward, died on … United Airlines Flight 93.

And nobody blames her. It shouldn’t be on the Flight 93 families to investigate evidence that any one of us can easily fact check. But Sandra and her brother in law Gordon Felt, now President of Families of Flight 93, are going further, pretending for some reason that the charges people have made against architect Paul Murdoch are actually being leveled against them.

How could that be, when three of the features that our petition lists as unacceptable–the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent, the 44 glass blocks on the flight path, and the giant Islamic sundial–were not even discovered until after the crescent design was selected? Nobody blames the family members for approving design features they had no inkling were there, yet Gordon Felt says that warnings about the design are "quite hurtful, to think we would want to create a memorial to those who murdered our loved ones."

Nobody ever suggested any such thing, but Felt is getting as much mileage as he can out of this excuse NOT to look at the facts, telling Fox News television:

I was outraged, for anyone to infer that family members who have been such an integral part of this process have in any way been involved in memorializing the murderers of our loved ones. I find it extremely offensive.

This after expressing his anger at Tom Burnett last week for Tom’s failure to submit to the Memorial Project’s "democratic process." Tom lost the jury vote, so in Felt’s view, he is apparently supposed to shut up now. Strange view of democracy.

Along with Patrick White (brother of Louis Nacke II), Gordon Felt sees Mr. Burnett as trying to get an improper "do over" by raising all these new concerns. Presented with evidence of an enemy plot, Felt acts as if this new information is cheating. Like Sandra, he is positively hostile even to the idea of taking this information seriously.

Not surprisingly, this slope is slippery, and Gordon Felt now seems to be deliberately misleading the public about the 44 inscribed translucent blocks that are to be placed along the flight path.

Memorial Project misinformation, covered up by the media’s refusal to check the facts

One of the claims in our petition is that there are 44 inscribed translucent blocks, or "glass blocks," to be placed along the flight path. Asked about the 44 blocks by AP reporter Ramesh Santanam, Mr. Felt denied it:

Opponents also claim there is a plan to have 44 glass blocks, for the 40 victims and four hijackers, in the design.

"That’s an absolute, unequivocal fabrication that is being portrayed as fact," said Edward Felt’s brother, Gordon Felt, president of Families of Flight 93. "It’s misleading and helps drive the conspiracy theory."

He said he is insulted people would believe he would participate in anything that honored his brother’s killers.

Santanam presents these directly opposing factual claims, and that’s it. No fact checking, when all he has to do is open up the design PDF’s and count the translucent blocks. It takes literally two minutes.

Open up the Sacred Ground PDF and on the right side you see this:

At eye level, are 43 “glass” (or translucent marble) blocks, built into the two part Memorial Wall that follows the flight path just above the impact point. Forty are inscribed with the names of the 40 heroes. Three are inscribed with the 9/11 date. (The blocks can be counted in an elevation view at the bottom of the PDF.)

For the 44th glass block, go to the Entry Portal PDF, which shows a giant glass block, marking the spot where the flight path breaks the circle in architect Paul Murdoch’s description:

44th block sits at the end of the Entry Portal Walkway, which follows the flight path at the upper crescent tip. Murdoch even has the brass to tell us that it marks the terrorists’ circle-breaking crescent creating feat. To be inscribed: "A field of honor forever."

They have been covering it up for two years now

The Memorial Project has known about this terrorist memorializing block-count since April 2006, when Project Manager Jeff Reinbold argued that the giant glass block at the end of the Entry Portal Walkway cannot be counted with the others because it is so much bigger (Crescent of Betrayal, download 3, p. 146). As Tom Burnett wrote in his February 1st advertisement in the Somerset Daily American:

What? Because the capstone to the terrorist memorializing block count is magnificent, that is supposed to make it okay?

But regardless of the merits of the Memorial Project’s rationale for not being concerned about the 44 translucent memorial blocks on the flight path, there can be no excuse for telling the public that this claim is false. No one ever said that all the blocks would be the same size. We have been explicit: the 44th block is the giant glass block that dedicates the entire site.

Maybe Gordie Felt has a different dodge in mind. Maybe he is caviling over the fact that the 44th block is made of slightly different material than the other 43, being designated "glass" while the others are labeled "translucent marble." That’s like caviling about the size difference.

We can’t go repeating "44 inscribed translucent blocks on the flight path" all the time, so we shorten it to "the 44 glass blocks" or "the 44 blocks." Is that Gordon Felt’s excuse for evading the fact that there are 44 inscribed translucent blocks on the flight path? We use a necessary shorthand and his instinct for evasion says "aha!"?

Sorry Mr. Felt. That is NOT how you live up to your fiduciary responsibility to the American people. You have accepted a position of trust and you trying to hide the truth, not expose it.

The fourth petition complaint: that the giant crescent is STILL THERE

One of the intolerable features of the soon-to-be-built memorial was known to everyone involved in the jury process. That is the crescent and star configuration of the original Crescent of Embrace design. When outrage erupted in September 2005 over this the planting of a naked Islamic flag on the graves of our murdered heroes, the Memorial Project was adamant they did not want to change it. They had talked about the likeness to an Islamic crescent during jury deliberations and decided that they wanted to choose it anyway. When controversy erupted, they felt the critics were trying to override what they thought was THEIR decision to make.

That position collapsed when Congressman Tancredo insisted that, intentional or not, it was unacceptable to build the Flight 93 memorial in the shape of a symbol that the Flight 93 terrorists claimed as their own. Pretty obvious one would think, but the backers of the crescent design were bitterly angry about having their preference overruled, just as they are now. They didn’t want to change the design, and they DIDN’T change the design.

In the original, the terrorists break our liberty-loving circle, turning it into a giant Mecca-oriented crescent. The Park Service describes the so-called redesign in the exact same terms:

The circle is broken in two places that mark the southeastern path of the plane to the crash site. The circle is broken at the entry to the memorial and at the crash site.

It is still a broken circle, and it is still broken in the exact same places. The only change is that, instead of the broken off part being completely removed, a chunk of the broken off part of the circle now floats out across part of the mouth of the crescent:

Except for the re-coloring of the redesign image (right), the only change is the "broken off" arc of trees to the left of the crescent.

Both thematically and geometrically, nothing is changed. The unbroken part of the circle (the crescent) remains completely intact. In particular, it still points to Mecca, making it the world’s largest mihrab (the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built).

Sandy Felt seems pretty clear that the issue is still the giant crescent:

Sandy Felt, Edward Felt’s widow, was on the second jury.

She said … that the issue of the crescent shape came up during discussions because of a public comment card submitted.

Jurors were not willing to dismiss the design because of the name, "Crescent of Embrace," or the shape.

"There’s no particular ownership of this shape," she said. "… We felt confident with the notion that the void in the embrace was representative of loss."

She and the other crescent defenders claim that it is Mr. Burnett who wants a "redo" on this point, but it is actually THEY who are looking for a "redo." On this very point–on just the crescent shape itself, without taking into account the numerous other Islamic and terrorist memorializing features–it is the DEFENDERS of the crescent who lost the popular vote in September 2005, not Tom Burnett.

Democracy

Do the nine people who voted for the crescent design (the vote was 9 to 6) really think that they have a greater claim to represent America’s democratic voice than a United States Congressman, speaking for a national uproar? Do they really think that it is THEIR prerogative to plant a terrorist memorial mosque on the graves of our murdered heroes, no matter what the rest of the country thinks?

America stood up in September 2005 and said OVER OUR DEAD BODIES. The Memorial Project pretended to accede to this rejection, promising to remove the Islamic symbol shapes, but they DIDN’T remove the crescent. They only hid it.

Democracy is the will of the American people, not the will of nine family members, misguided by grief, who have fallen in love with a giant Islamic shaped crescent. It is bad enough that an inflated sense of prerogative makes these family members think it is okay to try to sneak their giant crescent onto the crash site even after it has been publicly rejected. Worse is their using their bitterness at being rebuffed as an excuse not to witness the numerous further Islamic and terrorist memorializing design features that have been discovered.

Every American feels tremendous sympathy for the grief of these families, but that does not absolve those who have stepped up to positions of public responsibility from the need to BE RESPONSIBLE. As much as the families may want peace and healing, our nation is in the middle of what promises to be a very long war with those who attacked us on 9/11. To be willfully blind to evidence of an al Qaeda sympathizing plot is DANGEROUS.

Since these family members are embracing every excuse to evade evidence of radical Islamic intent, they simply have to be overruled, and this time for good. No more do-overs for terrorist memorial mosques.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

Stumble it!

Crescent controversy on Fox News television and Fox News front page!

Check out the Fox News front page today, where "Crescent Outrage" alternates top billing with "Six-Legged Soldiers!" Finally, more than a handful of Americans will at least know that there is a controversy over the Flight 93 memorial.

They won’t get much more than that from Fox’s text report, which is pretty bare. There is no mention of the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent, no mention of the 44 inscribed translucent blocks on the flight path, no mention of the Islamic sundial, and no fact checking (the modern media disease). Still, this is big.

The text report DOES show the side-by-side comparison of the Crescent of Embrace and the Islamic crescent and star insignia. It also reports Tom Burnett’s condemnation of the crescent design as an insult to his murdered son, and it mentions our petition.

UPDATE: Red Lasso has the Fox News video clip (thanks to Avid Editor).

This is powerful stuff. Not only do they show the clear likeness between the original design and an Islamic crescent and star flag, but the image they show of the redesign shows pretty clearly how the giant crescent remains intact in the redesign:

From the crescent and star likeness, they cut to Tom Burnett, asking what people would think if a memorial were laid out in the shape of a swastika. If viewers hadn’t just seen the crescent and star likeness, that statement could be made to sound crazy, but Fox does right by Tom, giving viewers the information they need to see the reasonableness of the comparison. Many thanks to Fox for getting this right.

Fox has a lot more information at their disposal. They had a television crew at the Somerset County Courthouse yesterday where Colonel Harry Beam laid out a precise and devastating exposé of Islamic and terrorist memorializing design features, and they were sent extensive fact checking materials. None of this gets into their present reporting. If they put that material into an investigative feature, they can knock the crescent memorial out for good.

Stumble it!