Saturday, October 31, 2009
From Error Theory:
The original Crescent of Embrace memorial to Flight 93 faced less than 2° from Mecca. That made it a mihrab, the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. (Some mihrabs are pointed-arch shaped, but the classic mihrab is crescent shaped.)
The Park Service dismissed concern about the Mecca-oriented crescent on grounds that the construction drawings had not yet been finalized. “Those trees could move fifty feet, or three hundred feet,” said Project Manager Jeff Reinbold in the Spring of 2006, as if this kind of "tweaking" would make any difference (Crescent of Betrayal Ch.8 p.145-6).
The construction drawings have now been released, and yes, they moved the lower tip of the half-mile wide crescent about 300 feet, enough to change the orientation of the crescent by about 4.5°. Instead of pointing less than 2° north of Mecca, the giant Islamic-shaped crescent now points less than 3° south of Mecca.
Here is the original Crescent of Embrace:
"Qibla" is the direction to Mecca, which you can verify using any online Mecca-direction calculator (just type in Somerset PA). A person standing between the tips of the giant crescent and facing into the center of the crescent (red arrow) would be facing 1.8° north of Mecca, ± 0.1°.
Here is one of the new construction drawings:
Instead of facing a titch north of Mecca, the giant crescent now faces a titch south of Mecca (2.7° south ± 0.1°).
As with the original Crescent design, the upper crescent tip is the end of the 50’ tall Entry Portal Wall and the lower crescent tip is the last of the 50’ tall Maple trees on the bottom. The landscape overlays make the details hard to see in the thumbnail image above, but at full resolution they are fully legible. (Copy of source PDF, without the superimposed orientations lines here. Large file warning. Graphic is on p. 30 of 233.)
The Park Service was SUPPOSED to remove the Islamic symbol shapes
When architect Paul Murdoch’s winning Crescent of Embrace design was announced in September 2005, it appeared to show a bare naked Islamic crescent and star-flag planted atop the crash site:
Burned by the resulting firestorm of protest, the Park Service to agreed to get rid of the Islamic symbol shapes, but they never did. They added an extra arc of trees, and they call it a broken circle now, but the unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is still a giant Islamic shaped crescent.
This is explained on the Park Service's own website, where the extra arc of trees is explicitly described as a broken off part of the circle:
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.Those two breaks are the two ends of the extra arc of trees:
The extra arc of trees extends from blue circle to blue circle, marking the two “breaks” in the circle referred to in the Park Service’s official explanation of the broken-circle design. One is where the flight path breaks the circle (left), the other is near the crash site (center).
What is symbolically left standing (the unbroken part of the circle) is just this:
Remove the symbolically broken off parts, and you get the original Crescent of Embrace design.
The only change is that the crescent has now been rotated clockwise a few degrees. In the construction plans it faces slightly south of Mecca instead of slightly north of Mecca. For a parallel, imagine airline security discovering a terror bomber, then playing with the fit his suicide vest before escorting him to his plane.
They said they were going to remove the giant crescent. They claim they HAVE removed it, but they haven't. Symbolically, the design remains completely unchanged. The terrorists are still depicted as smashing our peaceful circle and turning it into a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca.
The giant crescent is actually a mihrab
Here is the mihrab at the Great Mosque in Cordoba Spain. Face into the crescent to face Mecca, just like the crescent memorial to Flight 93:
Confronted with evidence that the Crescent of Embrace is actually designed to be the world's largest mosque, the Park Service sought advice from a pair of Muslim scholars. Both acknowledged the almost exact Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent and both offered overtly dishonest excuses for it. One said not to worry about the likeness to an Islamic mihrab because no one has ever seen a mihrab this BIG before:
...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.Right. That's why everybody scratches their head at Mt. Rushmore. No one has ever seen Abraham Lincoln so BIG before. They just can't figure it out.
To be fooled by this excuse, you have to really really want to be fooled. The other Muslim scholar said not to worry, the crescent cannot be seen as mihrab unless it points exactly at the Kaaba:
Mihrab orientation is either correct or not. It cannot be off by some degrees.In fact, a mihrab does NOT have to point exactly at Mecca, for the simple reason that, throughout most of Islamic history, Muslims in far-flung parts of the world had no accurate way to determine the direction to Mecca. As a result, it was established as a matter of religious principle that what matters is intent to face Mecca. This was recently affirmed by Saudi religious authorities, after Meccans realized that even most of their local mosques do not face directly towards the Kaaba. “It does not affect the prayers” assured the Islamic Affairs Ministry.
Faced with evidence of an Islamic plot, why would the Park Service send this evidence exclusively to Muslims for appraisal? Have they forgotten who attacked us on 9/11?
The Service has long since been apprised of the patent dishonesties retailed by its two Muslim advisors but they don't care. They wanted to be lied to, they knew where to go to be lied to, and they got what they wanted.
Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey
So where are the patriotic stalwarts like Michelle Malkin whose objections were instrumental in getting the Park Service to agree to remove the Islamic symbol shapes in the first place? If they knew in 2005 that the symbolic outcome of 9/11 should not be a giant Islamic shaped crescent why are they silent about this exact same symbolism today, after THEY were promised that this perversion would be removed?
Ed Morrissey urged his readers "to tell the National Parks Service and the Secretary of the Interior to rethink their plans," promising for his own part that "as long as that crescent remains in the design, I’m not donating a red cent to the memorial." Well Ed, the crescent does remain in the design, so please rejoin the fight.
The desertion of Malkin et. al. makes a difficult gap to fill, but we had better fill it, or the Flight 93 crash-site will soon be home to the world’s largest mosque.
Posted: 30 Oct 2009 01:16 PM PDT
The Obama Administration is finally ready to begin the Big
Push. No, not the one to stop the Taliban... but to pass a gargantuan
health care nationalization plan that the majority of the American people
are opposed to and that no one besides China can actually pay
While Hillary Clinton is off doing "valuable work" by holding
meetings with assorted Pakistanis, Joe Biden is trying not to pass out
during interviews, Pelosi and Reid are trying to shove ObamaCare down the
American throat like a bad case of strep. On the bright side, if ObamaCare
covers as many people as Obama's Stimulus plan did, I imagine it will
cover about two dozen people somewhere in Vermont.
Americaland though, more health care bills just means another civil war
among the Democrats. Naturally the first target was Senator Joe Lieberman
who was supposed to have been made an example of for actually trying to be
a moderate and resisting the party radicals. Lieberman instead survived
and even thrived.
Naturally the fun is just getting started. Ads
are already being run targeting Lieberman... by both sides, with the
conservative 60 Plus coalition warning of cuts in medicare and the
nutroots damning Lieberman as what else but a shill for the insurance
Of course using that same logic, Obama was a shill for
Wall Street... but the double standards just keep on coming. But it's a
lot of work nowadays, because Democrats have to begin selling Americans on
the idea that the economy has recovered and the recession is over...
despite all those lost jobs and the fact that nothing at all has recovered
outside of Wall Street, where taxpayer money was fueled into the same dark
maw that caused the problems in the first place.
health care reform, which Democrats have figured will be hard to sell,
unless you can convince the American people that the economy is now good
and the US government is rolling in extra dough. And if they can't do that
by the 2010 elections, the veto proof majority is likely to be gone, and
the Dems will be left with the kind of congress the GOP had post 2006,
just enough power to take the blame, not enough to accomplish
With Obama's numbers dropping, there's a stench of desperation coming off
the Dems. A bad foul stench.
And MSNBC, the default network of the
far left is running into trouble too, particularly with its newest, most
hyped and most radical member. Rachel Maddow.
Most cable news ratings are going to show declines from
their election year heyday last fall, but for MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show
(which debuted in September, 2008) those year over year declines have made
October, 2009 its lowest rated month ever in both average viewers and the
cable news targeted adults 25-54 demo, down 54% and 65% respectively from
Which suggests that MSNBC may be going the way of
Air America, at least in the case of Maddow, an Air America alum, who has
served as a forum for the most radical of the nutroots. While MSNBC is crowing
that it beat CNN, this is more of a reflection of how badly off CNN
is, than any kind of win for MSNBC.
It's not hard to see why Obama
is running scared. Cable News is going the way of Talk Radio. And its
biggest success, Glen Beck, comes out of the radio market. But it's also
not hard to see the rapid end of the CNN model, of network news in
general, because what sells best is open propaganda, not between the lines
bias. MSNBC's ratings are miserable, but they're still less miserable than
CNN, whose only real hope for ratings is the burgeoning Anderson
Cooper gay scandal.
And when the bias is open, it becomes harder to claim that
talk of liberal media is just a "right wing fantasy". Unintentionally FOX
has helped make the liberal media come out of the closet.
On the one hand this kind of ugliness is now
the default mode. On the other hand, there are no more rocks to hide
behind. It was possible to argue that Dan Rather was just doing his job
and not taking sides, but no one can even begin to make that same argument
about Cafferty or Olbermann. And an open bare knuckle fight may be
preferable to a thousand poisoned knives in the dark.
what really bothers the Obama White House.
worldchanging news, Hillary Clinton went to Pakistan where she had the
solution to all of Pakistan's problems. Embrace Obama's Tax-Fu. (Via
First of all you have to have a functioning country to be
able to tax everything that moves. Second of all in a country where
terrorists can make money off the black market, do you really want to push
aggressive taxation that will expand the black market?
there was Hillary Clinton's hard core grasp of the major
Is anyone even briefing her anymore?
One wonders if she meant Huma Abedin whose parents were
At IsraPundit, Bill Levinson looks at how Green Jobs
are Made in China
Next I would like to take a little time out to address an
article from Vdare, a site I do not link to, by Steve Sailer. You can find
the text of the article here. I'm not in the habit of replying to
everything that comes out of that burst sewage pipe, but since Michelle
Malkin thought the article was buzzworthy, I've decided to address
It's easy enough to destroy it point by point, but since the
article is a barely coherent hodgepodge of claims about Ashkenazi genes,
Jewish media power, ancestor worship, Goldman Sachs, Israel... let's skip
to the actual conclusion.
Steve Sailer concludes his "article" with
the following claim:
Really? One could almost imagine that the United States
Chamber of Commerce (the organization so many bloggers are now rushing to
defend) had not
been pushing for more immigration and the legalization of illegal
If you're confused by what any of that means, it means the
Chamber of Commerce wants to legalize illegal aliens already in the US,
increase temporary worker visas and increase the number of permanent
Why does the Chamber of Commerce want that? Because
it's about the money and about bringing in the cheap labor.
now, why do you think that prominent Republicans like Bush Sr, Bush Jr and
McCain were such big fans of open borders and bringing in more immigrants.
It didn't have a whole lot to do with Steve Sailer's Jewish conspiracy,
and a whole lot to do with the fact that the needs of big business are not
those that necessarily benefit America itself.
But unpleasant facts
like that are not nearly as sexy as blaming the whole thing on the
Of course Steve Sailer might reply that the Jews run the
Chamber of Commerce. But do Jews run the Catholic Church?
Sailer appears to blame Jewish romanticism of immigration, such
romanticism is hardly limited to Jewish immigrants, versus say Catholic,
Irish, Italian and Latino immigrants in the late 19th and 20th
In fact the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
has been a major force behind the push for legalizing illegal immigrants,
who happen to be heavily Catholic.
A poll by the Migration and
Refugee Services of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops found
that 69 percent of Catholics supported legalizing illegal
That kind of percentages are far more likely to promote
unrestricted immigration, rather than the all-powerful Jews of Sailer's
I don't blame the Catholic Church for promoting the
immigration of more Catholics to America. I just wish they would limit
that support to legal immigration only. Nevertheless the Church has the
right to promote what it likes, as does every other group in America. It's
possible to take issue with what they promote, but it is perfectly
possible to criticize an organization's policies, without trafficking in
conspiracy theories about entire ethnic groups or trying to level all the
blame for an international problem on one particular group.
fact of the matter is that immigrant groups who came to America within the
last 125 years are going to be far more likely to see immigration
positively, than those who have not. Additionally big business has always
needed immigration as a source of cheap labor. Steve Sailer's article,
"Norman Podhoretz’s Why Are Jews Liberal? Not Good Enough", detours from
those basic facts to promote his agenda, which is to begin by claiming
that the Jews have taken over the GOP and to conclude by essentially
arguing that the Jews have taken over America, since as Lawerence Auster
... which as has been demonstrated is blatantly
The article's early mention of Joe Sobran props up Sailer's
only real thesis that runs through the piece, that Jews have leveraged
their power to make themselves above criticism. One wonders which universe
Sailer is living in, because in my universe the average newspaper takes
the side of terrorists over Israel, emphasizes the Jewishness of criminals
and is willing to print outright smears about Judaism.
A lot of
the American Far Right seems slow to learn the lessons that the European
Far Right is learning... that maybe they have bigger problems to deal with
than the Jews. But it's always easier to take the lazy Protocols of the
Elders of Zion way out.
Continuing the roundup, Obama's Muslim
advisor doesn't regret anything she
said on a Hizb U Tahir program, only that she went on it. Which is the
sort of thing that we would buy if we believed that she was either
ignorant of Hizb U Tahir, something that itself would make her unqualified
to advise Obama on Muslim issues. So either Dalia Mogahed is a liar and in
bed with Islamists, or incompetent. Either way she should go.
But of course we know that Obama's people have a history of quietly making
contact with Islamists and terrorists. Even before he crawled into the
Vlad Tepes meanwhile cites the new face of Cambridge
grads, forget stiff upper lip and tweed, think Burqas.
At Boker Tov Boulder, First Amendment "NOT WITHSTANDING"
At Fiery Spirited Zionist, Obama is
working to redistribute some American wealth to those 57 Islamic
Now what are the odds that the money will directly or
indirectly benefit terrorists? Considering the Zakah money that most
Muslim businesses provide, a sizable portion of which goes to Islamists or
terrorists... we might as well just give it to the Taliban
Oh wait... we already are.
Meanwhile the way is being paved with a spate of articles
claiming that there really is no group called the Taliban, that it's a
broad coalition, most of whom just want food and water. The same claim was
also made about Al Queda.
For those with longer memories, the same
claim was made about the Viet Cong, who we were assured were mostly not
Communists and perfectly jolly fellows who would happily lay down their
arms if we just gave them reason to trust us.
No less a personage
than Martin Luther King himself
delivered this kind of nonsense back in the 70's.
Well luckily Martin Luther King was absolutely right. We
struck a peace settlement with the Viet Cong who were not all Communist
and today Vietnam is a thriving utopia where its people have free
elections and all are welcome to... oh wait. We struck a deal, the deal
was worthless... and the nice folks that Benedict Arnold Jr told us are
not at all Communists... went and created themselves a Communist
dictatorship with no free elections.
Who knew? And who wants to bet
that by the time Obama's people are done, they'll find some nice Taliban
to negotiate with, force Karzai to cut a deal, and then take the
helicopters from the embassy while beneath us the Taliban return to
implement the glorious gender justice of Sharia law?
But gender justice in Islam is not completely a lost cause. Never fear.
At FaithFreedom, we have the story of a Muslim wife who tried
to honor kill her husband.
Well clearly he had to die.
But the good news is
that Rabia Sarwar represents a way forward for Muslim women to gain equal
rights to kill men who aren't Muslim enough.
For centuries Muslim
men have been able to kill Muslim women who they felt weren't Muslim
enough. Now in a stirring tribute to Sharia's gender justice, perhaps
Muslim women will enjoy the same rights to slit throats, throw acid and
Between female suicide bombers and female honor killers,
you can't deny the fact that Islam is doing its best to give Muslim women
an equal role in carrying out the true teachings of Islam.
But you know aside from the homicidal stuff, the rest of the picture doesn't look
good. See the following article at Reality Check
But there's good news. You don't have to go to Chad or Mali
or Pakistan to enjoy Sharia law.
You can get it right here on Broadway.
Enjoy your Sharia law. Now on Broadway.
delivery powered by Google