Posted on 08/06/2008 6:10:40 AM PDT by Sergeant Tim
No
Did I answer your question?
Wow, unbelievable. It seems more likely to be purposefull after reading through some of that material. In any case it should be changed. It is outrageous.
Why would the beemers support this then?
Thank you so much for the info silverleaf.
Grief makes some people just go off the rails. They want the whole world to just love everybody and everything. Victims’ families forgive the most heinous of criminals. It’s not new.
Look at the outrageous behavior of some of the 911 families who bought into the conspiracy theories and hate our President GWB more than Bin Laden. Look at Cindy Sheehan. Look at the father of Nick Berg who was beheaded in Iraq.
I really feel from Mr Beamer- he has the right to his grief and his views. But not to the point he supports doing something that is hurtful to the families of the other victims and that is frankly, outrageous in the signals it sends to terrorist supporters. They won’t get the “Christian forgiveness” part. Only the mosque symbology.
I live about 50 miles from Shanksville and have visited the Flight 93 Memorial many times. The last time I was there it was still a solemn place. The small gravel parking lot has cars parked with tags from all over the country. Everyone walking about is quiet and respectful. All the small wooden crosses,fireman’s jackets,photos,patches,flags,stickers,etc. are weather worn and faded. Something needs to be done as far as a permanent memorial for our fallen heroes. This stupid,brainwashing crescent symbol is not the answer. A monument with the passengers and crews names,benches for sitting and reflecting,and a monument telling the story of what happened that day,so we will never forget.
Yes, you did. The one website talks about 40 named blocks, three blank blocks with dates only, and then another unmarked block at the upper crescent tip. The one you displayed in the middle of the article only talks about the 40. So, I guess, maybe the designer changed his mind .. or had it changed for him.
I'm still a little bit disturbed that, even initially, they were planning on honoring the terrorists in any way. I'm also still a little leery about the crescent shape, although, as you say, that may be just a function of the terrain. However, that could be easily resolved just by building a corresponding berm to close the crescent, except for the block to designate the flight path into the area.
You do have to admit, though, that the architect at least started out in the frame of mind to honor all of the dead, including the terrorists, and it didn't make it any easier for some of us to take when the red, obviously crescent, shape was designated as the framework into which the memorial would be worked.
It now comes down to a function of trust .. either you trust the architect when he says that the design was "innocent" to fit to the terrain or whether you believe .. unfortunately .. as I do, that it was set up to equate and honor all of the lives lost, including the terrorists, while we all sit around the circumference of the crescent holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.