Published: July 03, 2008 11:15 pm      

Memorial design foes share views

While visitors to the blog of an adamant opponent of the Flight 93 memorial design were quick to send demanding e-mails to the National Park Service and the press, many were slow to speak publicly.

More than 100 Internet-savvy opponents from around the country joined the “Who broke the circle?” campaign. The e-mailed letter asks the park service to explain what they see as Islamic symbolism in the chosen design. It also urges the press to revisit the complaints.

“I just think this design is not right,” said Kelly Hyatt of Reno, Nev.

Hyatt said she has been following the developments since design finalists were chosen in 2005.

“I have been off and on e-mail lists,” she said, adding that she received a notice from blogger Alec Rawls, who wrote a book critical of the crescent shape as being evocative of Islam. He was asking her to join the campaign.

“It was a cut-and-paste kind of thing,” she said.

In response to the influx of e-mails, Flight 93 National Memorial Superintendent Joanne Hanley e-mailed a letter to those who voiced Rawls’ opinion.

“The National Park Service is keenly aware of these concerns, and took steps in 2005 to investigate this issue. In doing so, the NPS consulted with the Families of Flight 93, university and religious scholars, all of whom have concluded that the memorial design does not imply or depict any religious iconography,” she writes.

“We are all committed to having a national memorial that conveys the full honor due to the heroes of Flight 93, not the terrorists.”

Attached to her response are documents about the memorial, as well as a letter to Rawls in 2007 and a letter from the Families of Flight 93 to U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, who had expressed support of Rawls’ theory.

“Mr. Rawls continues to disseminate misinformation, twist facts, and incite emotional furor over the Flight 93 Memorial design based on supposed patriotic grounds,” the families wrote to the U.S. representative from Littleton, Colo.

Hyatt noted that she is glad to see the design has changed somewhat from its original form, but more is needed.

“At first, it really did look like a crescent,” Hyatt said. “Maybe the symbolism was unintentional. But what happens when it’s done? Then, you can’t change it.”

Of about 80 requests for comment, about 12 said they would be willing to comment in a phone interview. A few others said maybe.

Guy Macher of Celebration, Fla., spoke of a sincere anxiety over the memorial, and national events in general. Macher was stunned to hear that the crash victims’ family members support the design.

The crescent shape that Rawls contends is still inherent in the memorial seems an obvious reference to Islam, Macher said.

“To me, it is the equivalent of building a swastika to remember the Holocaust,” he said.

Bonnie Kuzminski of Valparaiso, Ind., heard of the controversy online a few months ago.

“Before 9/11, I wouldn’t have noticed,” she said. “I thought, ‘Come on. What is that.’ That’s why I got involved. It just seems like such a slap in the face to the families.”

She, too, was surprised to hear that the families back the design.

“I just hope they understand what they are actually building,” she said. “It seems offensive to me.”

To requests for comment, some sent e-mail responses ranting about the media, such as:

“I know the dangers of dealing with people who buy ink in 55-gallon drums, and write stories with a preconceived liberal-left narrative in mind.” And: “I am not prepared to see the words I’ve spoken twisted by knaves to set a trap for fools.”

Others made unreasonable demands, such as a Detroit-area man who refused to comment without final editorial rights, which is against Tribune-Democrat policy.

Two who joined the campaign said they changed their view in light of further research. They didn’t want to comment, either.