Joanne Hanley, superintendent of the Flight 93 Memorial Project, cannot answer the damning facts about the crescent design (now called a broken circle), so she has decided to slander the people who are pointing them out. In a speech at the Memorial Project’s August 2nd meeting, she cited a list of “threats” she had received from critics, saying for instance that her “career would be destroyed.”
In defense of Superintendent Hanley, Flight 93 family member Calvin Wilson expressed his disgust at the violent threats and charged that critics were acting like the terrorists themselves. Three Pennsylvania newspapers covered Hanley’s claims to have been threatened, one editorialized against the uncivilized critics, and a Memorial Project press release highlighted Wilson’s outraged response to the supposed threats.
It is all a lie. Here is the Letter to the Editor that Alec Rawls just sent to the duped Pennsylvania newspapers, exposing Superintendent Hanley’s deception:
A warning is not a threat. A warning is to protect against a threat.
As the lead organizer of the movement to stop the crescent design, I can tell you who made the statements that Superintendent Hanley was complaining about. I recognized every one of the phrases she cited as coming from myself. It is ME who Joanne Hanley is accusing of making threats, an accusation that is not just false, but grotesquely dishonest.
What Joanne Hanley is casting as threats were WARNINGS, trying to alert her to the threat posed by architect Paul Murdoch and his scheme to plant a giant Mecca-oriented crescent on the Flight 93 crash site. This is one of Superintendent Hanley’s excuses for refusing to heed warnings about the crescent design. She pretends that warnings are threats and hence SHOULD NOT be listened to.
When I couldn’t get Hanley to look to the facts for the country’s sake, I tried to appeal to her instinct for self-preservation, warning her of the personal consequences of Murdoch’s attempt to stab a terrorist memorial mosque into the heartland of America. (That is the meaning of a crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca: it is the central feature of a mosque.)
As I put it in a March 2006 email to both Superintendent Hanley and Project Manager Jeff Reinbold:
I have been trying to save your lives and your careers for six months. It is not too late for you. You can still do your jobs and investigate the basic facts I have warned you about, like the Mecca-orientation of Murdoch’s original Crescent of embrace, and the continued presence of Murdoch’s original crescent in the redesign.
Shortly after this email, Joanne Hanley told me why she was not concerned about the almost-exact Mecca orientation of the giant crescent. In a conference call with Jeff Reinbold, she told me that: “It isn’t exact. That’s one we talked about. It has to be exact.” (The giant crescent points 1.8° north of Mecca, ± .1°.)
If she had admitted to the public what she was admitting in private—that the giant crescent does indeed point almost exactly to Mecca—it would have been okay. The people of Pennsylvania would be able to decide for themselves whether a giant Mecca-oriented crescent makes an acceptable memorial to the victims of Islamic terrorism, so long as it does not point EXACTLY at Mecca. Instead, the Memorial Project decided instead to deceive the public, sending an academic fraud from the University of Texas to assure the press that there is no such thing as the direction to Mecca:
Daniel Griffith, a geospatial information sciences professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, said anything can point toward Mecca, because the earth is round. [Post Gazette, “Flight 93 memorial draws a new round of criticism,” August 18, 2007.]
Just as I warned Superintendent Hanley that her career was in jeopardy, I also warned Dr. Griffith that his career would be destroyed if he did not correct this blatant disinformation. Like Hanley, Griffith too interpreted my warning as a threat, as if it would be ME who was responsible for the harm to his reputation, when he was covering up evidence of an enemy plot by lying about basic geometry, pretending that there is no direction between two points on planet earth.
In spite of the Memorial Project’s active cover-up of Murdoch’s plot, I continued to treat Superintendent Hanley as what she is: a fellow countryman aboard a hijacked airplane who is in need of rescue. As I put it in another email to Superintendent Hanley last November:
I don’t want you to be hurt here. There is only one bad guy in this story: Paul Murdoch. I want to help everyone else get off of this hijacked airplane. … I am not your enemy. I am your friend. I am the one who has been trying to save you, for two damned years, and I still am, despite your persistent public slanders against me.
Is it even POSSIBLE to be clearer? A warning is not a threat. A warning is to protect someone from a threat, as my communications spelled out over and over. For Joanne Hanley to pretend that these warnings about the threat she is facing were threats in themselves is deliberate dishonesty. For her to tell Calvin Wilson that these attempts to protect her from Murdoch’s plot were violent threats against her, prompting Wilson to use his status as a family member to attack critics on this dishonest basis, is even worse.
Joanne Hanley is not the only person I am warning. Every Pennsylvanian is aboard this hijacked airplane. How can the newspapers of Pennsylvania let stand a fraudulent claim that there is no such thing as the direction to Mecca? How can the educated people of Pennsylvania, the math teachers, the college students, the politicians, let such a fraud stand, when every one of you knows that Muslims face Mecca for prayer?
If Pennsylvanians continue to be willfully blind to easily verifiable evidence of an enemy plot in your own back yard, history will not be kind to you.
Alec Rawls
Palo Alto CA
August 12, 2008
Morality requires trust in truth
Imagine if one of the passengers on Flight 93 was told that if they did not retake the airplane, they would be killed when the terrorists flew the airplane into a building. If the passenger was Joanne Hanley, she would say: “Stop threatening me!”
Any excuse to avoid the truth, no matter how nonsensical or even suicidal. A photo-negative of the fighting spirit of Flight 93.
Asked by Pilate to account for himself, Jesus answered: “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.” (Jn. 18:37.) Jesus wasn’t a witness for the truth only sometimes, or only about matters of salvation. He proceeded from the factual truth of every situation that crossed his path, and called upon the rest of us to similarly trust in truth.
Secular moral reason demands the same thing. Anyone who thinks that it can somehow be right or in their interest to avoid or suppress the truth will through that avoidance of the truth become divorced from reality, with the inevitable effect that their ideas about what is right or in their interest can only be wrong. This is the irrationality of the Memorial Project. They proceed on the assumption that the crescent design is innocent, while self-consciously covering up evidence that it is not.
This malfeasance puts the rest of our society to the test. All of the people who we pay to check and report the facts: government, academia and the media, are all desperately trying to suppress the truth. That leaves it up to the rest of us to witness and communicate the truth about Murdoch’s plot. (Some basic facts, and how to verify them for yourself, posted here.)
To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.
Not a threat? The mind boggles, then, at what an actual threat from the psychotic Mr. Rawls would look like. A bullet through the spleen instead of the brain, perhaps? Cutting out the tongue instead of performing a full decapitation?
It never ceases to amaze me that of all the possible designs one could choose for a memorial, they picked one this controversial. It begs to ask, just why are they so bent on shoving this design down the throats of America when an alternative design could be so much more effective.. and sans all the outrage?
As far as the resident site pest… only the Seattle sheltered could construe Rawl’s letter as a “threat”. In fact, the text he left out… a common flaw while carefully parsing other’s emails… is:
A “threat” that states he’s been trying to warn what they are doing is potentially damaging to their political career as they will be deemed “stupid” and “irresponsible” (like that isn’t already a hallmark of most our elected officials).
But dodo-head here likens that to bullets in body parts. Spare me your extreme estrogen shifts, please. This from one who probably couldn’t identify a shell gauge of ammo if his life depended upon it.
Threats? Now let’s talk threats. How about Obama’s Chicago style politics, strong arming Leiberman on the Senate floor… being very careful to walk him out of C-SPAN cameras where he had a “chat” with the smaller in stature elder Senator, positioning him with his back against the wall. Let’s talk schoolyard bully, physical force and body language, shall we? That is if *anyone* wants to speak with DimWit
Golly.
The design is heinous enough (just kidding).
But when is someone going to deal with the bigger insult?
We need to revoke the third letter of the alphabet.
And I mean now.
Ah, of course. Whenever somebody wants to warn me of a bad career decision, they tell me that I’d better follow their advice if I want to “save my life.” Silly me: I equated an ultimatum that Hanley was supposed to follow in order to “save her life” as a threat. Whatever came over me?
Interesting how MataHarpy chose not to deal with that part of the email in her explication. Or maybe not so interesting, seeing as how it chops the legs out from under her withering critique.
OUCH! That stung. Oh, wait: no, it didn’t.
Oh… I see. AS believes it’s a design based on the letter of the alphabet. The designers say it’s an “broken circle”. Neither suggestion is cogent, nor worthy of the Flight 93 passengers.
Tell us, AS… why would the letter C serve as an adequate design model? What’s it supposed to stand for?
And does making it a letter – that means nothing – make it less controversial in your eyes? To associate it with another similar shape?
Gee… why not a crescent moon. How about part of a Walmart smiley face?
The important thing here is – in order to justify the physical design – just what was the architect’s reasoning for picking that shape in association with the acts of Flight 93? Just what does a “broken circle” have to do with their courage?
Ahh… the ever anal always assumes that “save your life” means physical as opposed to saving your “political” life…. which is what he explicitly referred to in the prior paragraph.
But of course, nothing of the physical intimidation of it’s “his messiahship” towards Lieberman…
Mataharley wondered:
Tell us, AS… why would the letter C serve as an adequate design model? What’s it supposed to stand for?
Likely it works with the topography Mata.
Landscape architecture is funny that way. Projects often consider the…landscape.
The title of the design, “Crescent of Embrace,” refers to a central element in the memorial – a curving landform that formally reinforces the naturally occurring bowl-shaped topography surrounding the crash site. An allée of red maple trees that is flanked by forty groves together form a landscaped zone that further protects the bowl while forming a walkway that leads to the sacred ground.
The designer added:
When asked about the controversy, Murdoch characterized it as an “unfortunate misinterpretation.” Murdoch explained that the term “crescent” should be interpreted on a “universal level” and that it also applies as a technical term meaning a “curving form, part of a circle or ellipse.” The jury report anticipated the possibility for misinterpretation, and had recommended that the design team “Consider the interpretation and impact of words within the context of this event. The ‘Crescent’ should be referred to as the ‘circle’ or ‘arc’ or other words that are not tied to specific religious iconography.”
The designer unfortunately assumed he’d be dealing with educated, rational people.
Of course when something called zombietime.com tracks an issue you can chuck that assumption.
You did, AS, give me some logical… sorta… response here. And for that, I am appreciative…. believe it or not. At least it has substance. So INRE the self-serving comments….
…. I have this to say. Memorials to the the actions of the honored should not be focused on “the landscape” or the “topography”. They should be, in some way possible, linkable with the courageous actions of those being honored. This is different than the WWII (the AZ in Hawaii being the exception as a tomb) in D of C memorial and Vietnam Memorials… neither of which reflects “landscape” or “topography”. But are also spread over a variety of both.
The “educated” and “rational” see no parallels with Pennsylvania’s topography for Flight 93 and their very specific bravery being honored. This could have happened over multiple terrains prior to the target. Perhaps it if happend over the NJ freeways, we should have made it a replica of a pollution emitting column, eh?
Quite frankly, the topography is just plain irrelevent to the crew and passengers of Flight 93. To bring their actions down to the terrain surrounding the plane’s landing is… quite frankly… so unimaginative and insensitive , it’s insulting. It should have been busted for the obvious on day one.
But evidently those choosing were just as unimaginative… or unaware of it’s dual perceptions.
Considering that all died in a particular area, the terrain and topography should not have been placed at the foreground of importance. Instead, their rebellious attitude towards terrorism and unfeeling brutality *should* have been foremost in the design. And if they couldn’t come up with anything more creative for the purpose, they most certainly should have placed concern on the major controversy surrounding dual perceptions.
Instead… as you describe… unimaginative architects following formula came up with something totally unrelated to their action. But most importantly, they choose a shape that conflicts with their courage, because of the association with the crescent with the religion the terrorists claimed was the reason for their action.
Now the question is… why? And why so important to shove this design down the throats of Americans? Again, you do not answer the question.
MataHarpy:
Whenever you start blathering about my “anal” mindset, I know that you’re about to clumsily walk something back. Nor do you disappoint in this case. If you stopped to examine how many times you guys have had to say some variation of, “That’s what we said, but what we really meant was…” you might be surprised. Maybe not, however, if it’s all deliberate.
Well, no. Wrong again, as usual. When he says this:
…he takes care of the “political life” part by mentioning their careers (as “the stupidest most irresponsible bureaucrats in American history”). The threat to Hanley’s life is covered by the “life” part of the sentence.
See? So easy even a wingnut could understand. You might want to invest in some of those reading comprehension classes you guys are always mentioning.
DW…you remain the Dim of Wit your nick name implies.
There is a lifestyle implied with a career.. which is the “lives. There is a career involved with the same. One can have “a life” without the career, but not the same “life” with perks.
Lose the career, lose the lifestyle and “the life”.
No murder implied. I’ll tell you what… file an amicus brief and take that into a court of law as a threat of murder. Let me know what you get.
Until then… you and your single brain cell and anal interpretations, still bore the begeezus outta me.
Come back when you have something of genuine value to contribute. None of us will miss you in the interim
I have no problem with the memorial being an Islamic crescent, as long as they figure out some way for it to point to hell.
zombie is an impressive citizen-photojounalist who also discovered the fauxtography planted by Hizboallah during the last clash between Israel and Hizboallah.
But the name sounds funny so you mock it. What are you…Eight years old?
Arthurstone, it’s quite acceptable to be a dolt, however screaming that you are one isn’t.
Quilly Mammoth ventured:
But the name sounds funny so you mock it. What are you…Eight years old?
I mock it Quilly because of the inanity of the Flight 93 Memorial non-issue.
And deservedly so.
And no I’m not eight years old.
I am old enough to remember when ‘citizens’ like this ‘tracked’ fluoridation, civil rights and US membership in the UN to name only three threats to the American way. And let’s not forget the underlying foe common to all these issues.
Communism (shudder).
Now that the reds have ceased to be much of a threat (although to be sure ALWAYS an exaggerated one) ‘Islamism’ is needed to fill the bill.
And so like subliminal Commie messages in movies. Commie infiltration of local school boards. Etc. Etc. We have ‘Islamism’ wherever we look.
‘Conspiracies’ never disappear. Only the names of the ‘conspirators’ change.
Cheers.
AS, use google maps and look at the area, you can get topographical maps on it
the topography does NOT support a cressent
DiveCon:
Sigh.
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/050915flight93.asp
“The title of the design, “Crescent of Embrace,” refers to a central element in the memorial – a curving landform that formally reinforces the naturally occurring bowl-shaped topography surrounding the crash site. An allée of red maple trees that is flanked by forty groves together form a landscaped zone that further protects the bowl while forming a walkway that leads to the sacred ground.”
I’m still checking to learn if Architectural Record receives funding from CPUSA. Wouldn’t be surprised.
MataHarley typed:
Oh… I see. AS believes it’s a design based on the letter of the alphabet. The designers say it’s an “broken circle”. Neither suggestion is cogent, nor worthy of the Flight 93 passengers.
Not really Mata. The alphabet and the design are two different issues. Only wondering how much longer real Americans can endure the affront of using an Islamic crescent shape in our written language. As to what is ‘worthy’ I’m sorry your design didn’t do so well in the competition.
they LIED
there is no “bowl”
Quilly was correct, AS. Your ability to analyze is so single dimensional and juvenile, it’s embarrassing. Obviously you possess a highly inflated opinion on your self-perceived intellect and debate abilities.
The letter C in the alphabet “endured” by Americans has no relationship to design of a memorial dedicated to those who thwarted an attack by Islamic jihadists… who use the crescent as their symbol… being chosen. Such an argument as you present could only work successfully on a group of preschoolers..and only during their nap.
It is not whether a curve/crescent/broken circle/C (etc etc) is inappropriate in any case, but in *this* case.
Another example of not only your inability to carry on a cogent debate, but your schoolyard intellect. Not to mention, if that’s your idea of humor…. sound the gong and wipe that big “L” off your forehead.
DiveCon-
Call the architect!
MataHarley typed:
Such an argument as you present could only work successfully on a group of preschoolers..and only during their nap.’
That the memorial is some sort of stealth Islamic prank is the argument which seems to appeal to the preschoolers.
I merely treat it with the degree of respect it deserves.
The argument is that the memorial need not be one that incites the controversy. That anyone may see it as “stealth Islamic” – and that includes those who may shun that notion as well as Muslims who may take a quiet pride in the same – is enough to look to different directions for a less controversial design that does not evoke that perception.
That you “treat it with the degree of respect it deserves” is just another example of how self-absorbed you are. This just happens to mean something to many… something that can be rectified with a different design. If you look around, you are not alone on the planet, nor are you a deity. Thus your opinion of “degree of respect” carries a slender thread of weight, and even that – only to yourself.
Now we come back full “circle”, so to speak. Just why is it so important to ram *this particular design* down the throat of Americans? If it’s not “stealth Islamic”, then surely it can not be that important a design to fight for.
Or perhaps it’s more “stealth Islamic” than you think… assuming, of course, you think.
Arthurstone:
i don’t need to call them, i can read a topo map and see they are lying
there is no “bowl” there at all
you can see ofr yourself on google maps
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=flight+93&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.176833,82.529297&ie=UTF8&ll=40.056789,-78.8972&spn=0.046775,0.080595&t=p&z=14
added both ways
click the link and go to the terrain map
there is no “bowl”
MataHarley typed:
‘Now we come back full “circle”, so to speak. Just why is it so important to ram *this particular design* down the throat of Americans? If it’s not “stealth Islamic”, then surely it can not be that important a design to fight for.’
Hardly ‘rammed down the throat of Americans’ but rather the result of a process involving a large number of parties working (families of victims, NPS, various funders, etc.) in a very transparent way concluding in a competition where the winning design was selected. And the reason it’s important to continue the project with the chosen design is because this is how the process worked and this is what the organizers selected. That a few (very few) loud dissidents (very loud) disagree is not reason enough not to proceed.
She added:
‘That you “treat it with the degree of respect it deserves” is just another example of how self-absorbed you are.’
Uh. No.
As for ‘self-absorbed’, That would be Alec Rawls and his nutty argument and the tiny number of unfortunates (all of whom seem to have their own blog and post on each others blogs) who parrot the nonsense the guy peddles.
Like you.
I would settle for a simple statue of several people in civilian clothes with one shoulder down like they are getting ready to bust in a cockpit door … and on the pedestal the words “Let’s Roll”.
Yes a 15-panel selection process is a “large number of parties”… not. Perhaps, the most offensive was the selected name “Crescent of Embrace”. The architect was and is quite willing to modify this design so as to not give a misperception those that may consider a “crescent” a sign of success… as the terrorists would… some quiet self satisfaction.
Why, of course, go there when the families and the nation truly just want Flight 93 memorialized? What they want is something significant of it’s import. And considering it will be a national memorial… thereby something all of us pay for… why pick a design with a name and design so controversial.
Again, you are of the mentality you’d fight for something “for the people” (if it was something you agreed with anyway), but you want to ignore “the people” on this one. Again, a “crescent of embrace” is not the only design. The architect is willing to change it. The nation will pay for it. So why are you so damned against finding something that is “tolerant” to all since you’re so such a “tolerance for all” party member?
Or does that only work for stuff you personally agree with?
On a side note, I’ve never read one thing of Rawls on this (other than this post, of course..). This issue is pure logic to me. And frankly, it’s not one of my prime issues. So nice try as a slice a dice, bozo. But, when up against a preschooler mentality, I am apt to be more patient and tolerant of your asinine comments… when in the mood.
MataHarley wrote:
‘On a side note, I’ve never read one thing of Rawls on this (other than this post, of course..). ‘
You really should. He has spearheaded the opposition to the memorial (such as it is) and has the ear of one victim’s parent. Rawls has the architect pegged as an ‘Islamo-Fascist’ presumably taking orders from some Mullah somewhere. Interesting for an architect working and teaching in Southern California for 20 years. How he found the time to become so accomplished at Islamic symbolism while designing all those convention centers and residences I can only guess. Presumably extension courses.
She added:
‘Again, you are of the mentality you’d fight for something “for the people” (if it was something you agreed with anyway), but you want to ignore “the people” on this one.’
Actually ‘the people’ spoke. As imperfect as these things can be there was a lengthy, open process. The results didn’t go the way a few wanted so they’re making noise. They haven’t been ‘ignored’. Their concerns have been noted and the project goes forward. That a victim’s parent or two has fallen under the sway of group hysteria is too bad.
Hey, MHarpy: 1989 called. It wants its inane verbal trope back.
The “Crescent of Embrace” would be a slight against the Heroes aboard Flight 93 and their surviving family members.
It’s a freakin’ Islamic Crescent oriented in the direction of Mecca. There are probably hundreds of other designs that are less offensive. In its current form this THING honors the killers more than the Heroes. There has got to be other ideas and designs.
Gee, maybe with all this PC crap we should fix some other memorials to make them more PC. Maybe paint the Washington momument black so everyone will know he was a slave holder. Add a few Japanese soldiers to the Iwo Jima memorial, maybe shooting the flag raisers that actually didn’t make it back. Fly a Japanese rising sun flag from the USS Arizona to honor the Japanese pilots that lost their lives in WW2.
Makes about as much sense as a Muslim crescent oriented toward Mecca being used to “honor” brave men and women killed by Muslim fanatics.
Ah… “Dead Weight” weighs in with his usual value…
________________________________________
Arthur, the Stage I panel chose 5 designs. The final design came down to the Stage II panel of 15. Did they ever provide an aerial of the proposed memorial with the maples in full bloom so that it could easily be noted the similarities to the Red Crescent? I’m quite sure that the artist renderings made the walkway look beautiful at ground level. So one has to consider what was provided when they were soliciting feedback. Evidently, other than the name, the striking similarities of flora choice, orientation and aerial visual did not arise until these voices became vocal.
But it comes down to this… a panel of 15 chose. The Families of Flight 93 are “united”… but only in their board member votes. The board members choses to be the mouthpiece for all, stating they are unanimous. But not all familes are thrilled either. And yes, the Burnett family is one of them.
I don’t think the primary architect is some stealth Islamist attempting an under the table coup for terrorist. But I do think there are some judgments that should be questioned. The 44 translucent boxes for each death, for example… which includes the terrorists. Even the original name, the “crescent of embrace”… which is now probably changed to the “circle of embrace” with the newer modifications…. is offensive.
Granted, the architects probably never thought one thing about it. But it’s not what they or American’s perceive as just coincidence. This is one memorial who’s design should not give the Islamic jihadists any sense of pleasure… or inclusion… in any way. And obviously, the architects did not give a nanosecond of thought as to how their design might be viewed by Islamic jihad.
This whole thing strikes me as odd that so many resist these modifications when they are easy enough to remedy.
Maybe people are finally tired of being shouted down and bossed around by the right-wing noise machine.
wow, another lefting moonbat meme
MataHarley typed:
‘And obviously, the architects did not give a nanosecond of thought as to how their design might be viewed by Islamic jihad.’
The jury is out on that one. But as long as we’re speculating I’d wager your typical jihadist wouldn’t give this thing a nanosecond of thought.
We do know how the design is viewed by folks who see ‘Islamic jihad’ round every corner.
A small and very noisy number of people.
And actually Alec Rawls, the main force behind the opposition to the design has in fact decided the architect is a jihadist.
http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/
Architect Paul Murdoch’s crescent design is only the beginning of the crescent of betrayal. Murdoch’s emergence is actually the easy part of the story to understand. We hosted an open design competition in time of war. Of course the enemy would enter, and try to win a memorial to their heroes instead of ours. What is harder to explain is the year and a half now that the Memorial Project has spent avoiding and then covering up Murdoch’s plot. Those charged with memorializing “the flight that fought back” have struggled mightily to defend and protect their hijacker.
She added:
‘But it comes down to this… a panel of 15 chose. The Families of Flight 93 are “united”… but only in their board member votes. The board members choses to be the mouthpiece for all, stating they are unanimous. But not all familes are thrilled either. And yes, the Burnett family is one of them.’
Right you are. And my experience having served on various boards is that most everyone declines the opportunity to participate at the outset and then a few who didn’t participate whine at the result.
My 15 y/o and I were just in Shanksville for the first time on Monday, 8/25/08. The temporary memorial is heartbreaking in its unpolished sincerity, and the NPS ranger did a fine job describing the events of 9/11. During her talk, she showed some sketches of the proposed design, and spoke of a few elements that would be symbolic. I don’t remember her mentioning or showing a crescent, and I wasn’t aware of the controversy until I Googled “Flight 93 memorial” for info.
Now I’m sick: a Red Crescent? As a former exchange student and a NYC teacher, I’ve spent more time with more Muslim people than most Americans have. Believe me, Muslims here and abroad will be delighted by the presence of a crescent, symbolism intended or not. Shouldn’t that matter to the Ueber-sophisticated advocates of this design? Shouldn’t those people remove their egos from this equation just a bit and use some common sense?
If other iconic shapes–a heart, an infinity symbol, a cross, a circle–were used for this memorial, the symbolism would be clear. The use of a crescent in this context is either ignorant, cynical or cowardly.