Home > Timeline > Rescued from Memory Hole: “Flight 93 Memorial Project Unchanged…”

Rescued from Memory Hole: “Flight 93 Memorial Project Unchanged…”









((((((STANDING BY))))))









((((((WHAT WAS THAT DOING DOWN HERE?)))))(((((OVER?)))))))))))


  1. MrPaulRevere
    September 20, 2010 at 1:19 am | #1

    We can’t see the comments for that post in the link provided, I tried and it gives me the swamp main page. The only reason I mention it is that I suspect a treasure trove of material is there.

  2. September 20, 2010 at 1:19 am | #2

    I have posted some updates regarding the Flight 93 memorial here.

  3. F
    September 20, 2010 at 1:32 am | #3

    SChmuckie’s far left veer makes me wonder what he thinks of Oriana Fallaci now.

    • wolfie
      September 20, 2010 at 2:01 am | #4

      He discarded her long ago as a fascist-sympathizer and Nazi-lover.

      Yeah, it’s idiotic.
      A spoiled, California fatboy looking down his PC nose at Fallaci, a woman who risked her life fighting REAL Nazis in her youth and who spent her life opposing every form of tyranny.
      It would be downright funny if it weren’t so obscene.

  4. MrPaulRevere
    September 20, 2010 at 1:33 am | #5

    Thanks for all of your work Minotaur, I’ll look forward to the next post.

    • The Minotaur
      September 20, 2010 at 2:46 am | #6

      Yes it appears that he scrubbed all of his threads relating to the Flight 93 memorial, ’cause I’ve found 3 more in the Memory Hole.

      • wolfie
        September 20, 2010 at 10:49 am | #7

        “…he scrubbed all of his threads relating to the Flight 93 memorial….”

        (Well done, Minotaur.)

  5. September 20, 2010 at 2:40 am | #8

    I traded some emails with Alec Rawls last month before I knew who he was. He’s way out there with conspiracy theories.
    After reviewing the post about the claim that the proposed memorial to the victims of Flight 93 is rife with Islamic symbolism, I became suspicious, and the more I looked into it, I believe it is illogical hysteria promoted by a conspiracy theorist.
    While reviewing the links on 1380AD’s thread, I decided to verify for myself if the crescent shape is truly aligned with Mecca, as it seems very strange to me that any designer would even consider that to be a good idea. What I found is that the Memorial does NOT point toward mecca, and misses the muslim holy site by many miles.
    I contacted Pam Geller to find a link to a survey of the site so that I could check the true bearings, and I received a response by one Alec Rawls. Assuming that he was someone who works with Atlas Shrugs, I expressed my opinion that any alignment with Mecca was coincidental at best. We exchanged several emails, where he dodged my questions, misquoted me, and eventually told me to STFD and STFU.
    During that email exchange, I found that Alec Rawls is selling a book based upon his own conspiracy theories about the memorial design, “Islamic and Jihadist Design Features of the Crescent/Bowl of Embrace.”. I also found that his theories were denied by architect/designer Paul Murdoch in an interview in the NYT, and nothing on Murdoch’s website even mentions Islam.
    Subsequently I found a 2007 brief by Dr. Daniel A. Griffith of the U. of Texas. He reviewed Rawl’s book and analyzed the claims and calculations. He concludes that Rawl is absurdly wrong.
    Rawls himself sent me this link which concisely debunks his delusions:


    Meanwhile, watch this in its entirety.


    • m
      September 20, 2010 at 9:24 am | #9

      Wretchard @ Belmont Club checked the orientation too. He came up with a different answer.


    • m
      September 20, 2010 at 9:26 am | #10

      He also notes because of the layout the chances of some kind of semi-circle was high.

      I guess this guy never heard of a bulldozer.

      ANYTHING but a frikken crescent (and that isn’t in question… it’s a crescent).

      • wolfie
        September 20, 2010 at 10:47 am | #11

        “ANYTHING but a frikken crescent ”

        Yup. This is a no-brainer.
        I don’t see a conspiracy.
        I see reckless stupidity.

      • m
        September 20, 2010 at 10:56 am | #12



    • My Little Ponytail
      September 20, 2010 at 12:07 pm | #13

      For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the objections are all unfounded. It doesn’t matter. The public is paying for this, and public perception is critical. I can forgive the initial stupidity on the part of both the architect and the selection committee (if that’s what it was), but I can’t forgive their digging their heels in. That is beyond stupid; it’s at best arrogant, and at worst a verification of the concerns raised.

  6. September 20, 2010 at 2:42 am | #14

    Pre-formatting didn’t work, but the info with links is intact. :(

  7. mattm
    September 20, 2010 at 3:13 am | #15

    I guess Chuck got tired of banning posters, so he moved on the entire thread of his ho no longer liked.

    • buzzsawmonkey
      September 20, 2010 at 11:59 am | #16

      He’s banning himself, slowly but surely, in increments.

  8. doppelganger
    September 20, 2010 at 4:40 am | #17

    chunky’s chickens……..coming home ……….to rooooost

  9. Roger
    September 20, 2010 at 12:45 pm | #18

    I assure you muslims will worship ass up there and point themselves toward Mecca

  10. September 20, 2010 at 12:56 pm | #19

    BTW, the reason this “memory hole” business is so ironic is because I don’t believe any one site whined about web material disappearing more than LGF. There are literally dozens and dozens of LGF threads -many of them with screenshots, as above- calling attention to these instances. In fact, lizard Thanos felt compelled at one point to explain the “memory hole” reference to the hatchlings: http://chenzhen.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/thanos-memory-hole1.jpg

    The double irony, I suppose, would be if any of those “memory hole” threads wound up in the memory hole.

    • My Little Ponytail
      September 20, 2010 at 1:21 pm | #20

      Except when Chuck “deletes” database records, they don’t disappear, the just disappear from view. I doubt that he even knows how to disappear information completely; very few people actually do. This is why we’re seeing things like climategate at an increasing frequency; people who thought that their bits were gone, rudely discover that they’ve been resurrected.

      And US law regarding data retention aren’t making it any easier to hide declines. I doubt that those apply to LFG, but I also am certain that he doesn’t have either the knowledge nor the time to actually disappear the data.

      • The Minotaur
        September 20, 2010 at 1:44 pm | #21

        I dunno. Out of the four deleted LGF threads dealing with this flight 93 memorial, I couldn’t grab the comments sections for any of them. It looks like CJ had set up some bots to fend off the webcrawlers from those pages (both google and archive.org). That’s easily over 1000 comments. Just gone. If you (or anyone) can recover them, by all means, let me know and I’ll add it.

        In the meantime, I’ll consolidate the remaining three flight 93 threads into one upcoming post, since they’re all related and appear to have met their fate at the same time. T’was a massacre.

      • My Little Ponytail
        September 20, 2010 at 2:01 pm | #22

        OMG!!! Botz v.s. Webcrawlerz!!! It doesn’t get kooler than zat!!!

  11. refugee000
    September 20, 2010 at 2:15 pm | #23

    yeah, a lot of items about “islamofascism” that were available on the lgf search only a few weeks ago, are now not there.
    He’s been a very busy little dhimmi.

  12. garycooper
    September 20, 2010 at 3:39 pm | #24

    Well, we predicted the archives would have to be destroyed, and we were right. He’s in full, headlong-flight from his recent past. Pretty soon he’ll be claiming none of it ever happened, or that he was suffering from some kind of temporary mental disorder and thank Allah he’s been cured now, by his strict macrobiotic diet of fruit, water and data-bytes (Post Alpha-Bytes…Breakfast Of Losers!).

  13. September 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm | #25

    Interesting stuff Minotaur. I did a blogburst post in February of 08 where I linked directly to the LGF comments where members of the lizard pack had unearthed the Mecca-orientation of the Crescent of Embrace. Checking these links, I see that three of them are still operative, while the first mention is missing, as is Etaoin Shrdlu’s final nailing of the orientation.

    I saved copies of the comments that still come up and posted them on my Crescent of Betrayal website. If anyone wants to take a look, scroll down to “Archive of seminal LGF comments” on this page:


    The original comment thread was in two parts. The visible comments are on the first part of the thread, and the links to preceeding and succeeding comments work, so the entire thread is viewable. I haven’t found access to the second half of the thread (linked in the last comment of the first part).

    • September 20, 2010 at 11:28 pm | #26

      Interesting. Didn’t think of the individual comment links. I suppose if you found the url for the first one in each thread, you could view it like a slide show?

      Also, I think you found a fifth flight 93 memorial thread that got scrubbed.

      • September 21, 2010 at 12:10 am | #27

        Found em! 778 comments in that original Flight 93 thread. Zombie and Rayra in their prime. Not one from CJ.

  14. CharlesJohnsonLooneyTunes
    September 20, 2010 at 6:14 pm | #28


  15. Grimcargo
    September 20, 2010 at 6:34 pm | #29

    Here’s the thing…why would anyone design something that would even remotely make people wonder if it’s a Muslim piece of shit? WHY? Give me a break.

  16. The Osprey
    September 20, 2010 at 7:42 pm | #30

    F :
    SChmuckie’s far left veer makes me wonder what he thinks of Oriana Fallaci now.

    Fallaci’s picture disappeared from his blog sometime in 2008 I believe, shortly after the fall 2007 dustup over Vlaams Belaang, Gates of Vienna and “EuroFascism”.
    It was one of those things that had been on his site so long, and he unpersoned her without any fanfare. One day it was just gone.

  17. The Minotaur
    September 20, 2010 at 11:14 pm | #31

    And just for the record, I’m posting this because I think it’s ironic and funny that CJ is deleting his alleged inconvenient truths, not because I personally feel that this theory needs more attention. My feelings are that if the familes of the flight 93 heroes are happy with it, then that’s all that’s really required. And last I remember, those families told Mr. Rawls to leave it alone a long time ago.

  18. September 21, 2010 at 5:11 am | #32

    Holy cow Minotaur, what an ignorant comment. The Families of Flight 93 organization, which is a Memorial Project Partner with the Park Service, is controlled by a small number of families who back the design and have been using their control over the family email list to systematically censor what information the other families receive. Mr. Burnett tried to send his objections out to the family list and was flat refused. Most Flight 93 families have no idea what is in the design.

    But why should responsibility for intercepting this al Qaeda sympathizing plot be on the families at all? The damned thing is a terrorist memorial mosque, which architect Paul Murdoch proves over and over by including endless proofs of intent in the design. Why should our 9/11 families have to be the ones who have to fact check the evidence, when people like Minotaur are perfectly capable of doing it for them?

    Putting it on the families. That’s dirt!

    I challenge Minotaur to read the advertisement that Mr. Burnett and I ran in the Somerset Daily American last weekend, when the two first ladies were in town for the 9/11 anniversary (currently the top item at CrescentOfBetrayal.com). I challenge him to tell his readers how any of the facts we cite are either inaccurate or acceptable.

    How is it okay that the giant crescent points within three degrees of Mecca (which is highly accurate by Islamic standards)? They call it a broken circle now, but that is what Murdoch always called it, and the unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is just the original Crescent of Embrace: a giant Islamic shaped crescent, pointing to Mecca.

    Is it okay that the unbroken part of the Crescent of Embrace (when the symbolically broken off parts of the circle are removed) points EXACTLY at Mecca, as closely as can be determined by the pixel resolution of the graphics? (Hiding exact Islamic symbol shapes inside his almost exact Islamic symbol shapes is one of the ways Murdoch proves intent. Repetition is another. The entire elaborate multi-Mecca oriented geometry of the central crescent is precisely repeated in the vast array of crescents of trees that surrounds the Tower of Voices part of the memorial. A very conservative estimate of the chance that this repeated multi-Mecca oriented geometry could occur by random chance? “1 in 131 billion” Google it.)

    How is it okay that this giant Mecca-direction indicator (the central feature around which every mosque is built), is accompanied by a giant minaret-like Tower of Voices, formed in the shape of an extruded crescent and cut at an angle at the top so that its crescent arms reach up into the sky, like mosque minarets seen every day in most Islamic countries?

    How is it okay that the Tower of Voices turns out to be a year-round accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial, modeled on the small Islamic sundials that Islamic prayer callers traditionally used to determine when it was time to ascend their minarets and call out the time for prayers? (In addition to fulfilling the Tower-minaret’s prayer-calling role, the sundial feature is another of Murdoch’s elaborate proofs of intent. An Islamic sundial is a very specific and unique structure that could simply NEVER occur by accident.)

    And if these things are NOT okay, then how is it okay to put the responsibility for stopping this re-hijacking of Flight 93 on those families that lost loved ones in the first hijacking of Flight 93?

    NONE of these things are okay, as I trust Minotaur will realize if he only bothers to look. Sorry to be harsh dude, but come on. You put out an appeal for help in digging up what CJ is trying to bury. I looked into whether I could help, and was able to retrieve half of what may be the most important fact-checking collaboration ever to appear in an LGF comment thread. Your response is to ignore my assistance and comment as if I’m some kind of charlatan who is needlessly making some 9/11 family members feel bad. Honestly, can’t you check a single fact before you go casting such a nasty aspersion?

    Sorry to be a bad visitor, but you’re a very bad host.

  19. September 21, 2010 at 6:10 am | #33

    Holy cow again. What kind of site is this? Looking at the rest of the thread, I find this “m” character flat LYING about Richard Fernandez’ fact-check of the Mecca orientation.
    Holy cow again. What kind of site is this? Looking at the rest of the thread, I find this “m” character flat LYING about Richard Fernandez’ fact-check of the Mecca orientation.


    m claims that Fernandez “came up with a different answer.” No he didn’t. He VERIFIED the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent:

    “You can go to the Marine Great Circle Calculator or WhereAreWe?. Both these sites accept the coordinates of points A and B and calculate the true bearing to get from A to B. Both give a result of 55 degrees true, or its reciprocal 235. I can tell you that my jaw fell open. The bearing given by both Great Circle Calculators corresponded near enough to the measured opening of the Crescent from the PDF map. (The reader should do this for himself).”

    Fernandez then goes on to consider the possibility that the Mecca-orientation of the crescent is a coincidence.

    If this site is against the truth-burying frenzy of Charles Johnson, what the hell is this frenzied truth burying doing here? And it isn’t just m. I look the next comment up and find more disinformation from this Bunk Strutts character, who relates the following tale:

    “While reviewing the links on 1380AD’s thread, I decided to verify for myself if the crescent shape is truly aligned with Mecca, as it seems very strange to me that any designer would even consider that to be a good idea. What I found is that the Memorial does NOT point toward mecca, and misses the muslim holy site by many miles.”

    Hmm. So the orientation is “many miles” off, after traveling a quarter of the way around the world. Anyone suspicious whether this really debunks my claim that the Crescent/broken-circle of Embrace points 1.8 degrees north of Mecca, plus or minus a tenth of a degree? Actually, Mr. Strutts arrives at his “many miles” calculation as a DEDUCTION from my Mecca-orientation claim. This from the email he sent me:

    “As for the alignment, you said that it points to within 2 degrees of Mecca. Over a distance of 6,654 miles, that two degrees is very significant as it misses Mecca by over 230 miles. Another analyst (in 2005) calculated a smaller deviance, but he used a protractor! Another used Microsoft Paint! Neither graphic method is accurate. Other sources indicate that the direction from the site of the crash to Mecca is N51E, an unusually even number. If the site were intended to align with Mecca, it could have been aligned precisely, down to minutes and seconds of degrees. ‘Almost exactly’ doesn’t count.”

    To which I responded: what makes you think that almost exactly doesn’t count? Is Mr. Strutts an expert on Islam? No. His statement proves that he doesn’t know a damned thing about Islam. I went on to inform him as follows:

    “In fact, it is a matter of religious principle in Islam that the Mecca-orientation for prayers does NOT have to be exact, for the simple reason that throughout most of Islam’s 1400 year history far-flung Muslims had no accurate way to determine the direction to Mecca.”

    “Now as it turns out, Murdoch also included an exact Mecca-orientation in his design, but it was not for religious purposes. It was only to prove intent, because for religious purposes, exact orientation is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Even the mosques in Mecca, directly within sight of the Kaaba, fail to accurately face the Kaaba. Why? Because all the clerics know that exact orientation is religiously irrelevant. The lay people were less certain, and recently got worried about the inexact Kaaba-orientations, prompting the Saudi religious authorities to issue a clarification, assuring the people of Mecca that failure to face directly towards the Kaaba ‘does not affect the prayers’.”

    I also provided Mr. Strutts with a link for verifying the statement from the Saudi religious authorities:


    So Mr. Strutts receives this information from me, and what does he do with it? Does he pass it on? Does he say to Minotaur et al: “Hey guys, I learned recently that Mecca-orientation does NOT have to be exact in Islam, so being off by “many miles” half a world away is actually not a religiously significant deviation, and maybe we really ought to be worried about the almost-exact Mecca orientation of this giant crescent”? No, he buries what he has learned. He keeps it from his cohorts and actually tries to make you all think that my Mecca-orientation claims are inaccurate, when in fact he is proceeding on the assumption that they are fully accurate (which they are).

    So what kind of community is this? At least several of you are ACTING like a bunch of Charles Johnson clones!

    • m
      September 21, 2010 at 8:28 am | #34

      Excuse me ASS – But I was disagreeing with Bunk. Check your reading comprehension.

    • m
      September 21, 2010 at 8:30 am | #35

      Bunk said he checked it himself, but Belmont Club came up with a different answer than Bunk. Ya dip.

      • Grimcargo
        September 21, 2010 at 8:44 am | #36


    • My Little Ponytail
      September 21, 2010 at 11:12 am | #37

      Some friendly words of advice – once you cross the “what kind of site it this?” bridge, it’s hard to get back. If you must know, the focus of this site is debunking and ridiculing Charles Johnson and/or Little Green Footballs. Everything has to fit in that framework. Within that framework, there’s a lot of room for diversity of opinion (though it is clearly lopsided). But don’t go beyond criticism and into the land of badmouthing until you’re pretty sure who is saying what. That’s got nothing to do with this site in particular; that’s just general etiquette and netiquette.

      I’ll leave it to you to decide whether or not to apologize to ‘m’, but it would seem to me appropriate.

  20. September 21, 2010 at 12:29 pm | #38

    My apologies to m for misreading. As you can see, I read the comments from the bottom up, which is why I reacted so hard to Minotaur. I did my bit of work for him, left my comment, and came back later to see whether there was any comment. What I saw was a comment from Minotaur ripping me. I didn’t realize he was responding to EARLIER comments, but I did later scroll up, and when I came to m’s comment, well, I read it in the obvious way, which turned out to be wrong.

    Come on buddy, if you need to let fellow readers know that Fernandez actually VERIFIED the Mecca orientation of the Crescent of Embrace, shouldn’t you say that, instead of saying: “Wretchard @ Belmont Club checked the orientation too. He came up with a different answer.” Different than who? Different than Strutts? Or different than me? How is a reader supposed to know that m’s comment is not SUPPORTING Strutts?

    Glad to learn it wasn’t, but if anyone has something important to report, don’t state it ambiguously!

    I was wrong, and m, as it turns out, was dead on right. Sorry for miscasting you m, and THANKS for helping to expose this Strutts fraud.

    I need to give Minotaur an apology too. My point about it being wrong to leave it to the families to stop this re-hijacking of Flight 93 stands, but I don’t need to state it as if only a lazy twit could make this mistake. In fact, this misguided sympathy for a few family members who are keeping the rest in the dark is most people’s first instinct, and is a big part of what has made it so hard to get the facts of the design out to the public. Thank God for Mr. Burnett, who has been fighting tooth and nail for years to counter that assumption that sympathy for the families should be on the side of the backers of the crescent/broken-circle design.

    But this Mr. Strutts, he’s a different story. This is a seriously bad actor, trying to do the same thing CJ is, and on the very same subject. He is trying to bury the Mecca-orientation information about the Flight 93 memorial that was uncovered in the comment thread that CJ is trying to bury, except Strutts comes out in person to turn people away from the truth with carefully targeted misdirection. Thanks for exposing him m. And sorry again for misreading your comment.

    • m
      September 21, 2010 at 1:03 pm | #39

      Most readers would know without me telling them… since Bunk was the person I was replying to and all.

  1. No trackbacks yet.