Professor who white-washed the Crescent of Embrace was Paul Murdoch’s classmate at UCLAAn excerpt from the Park Service investigation into the Flight 93 memorial identifies one of their consultants as a scholar from MIT who “wishes to remain anonymous.” Another document identifies this person as a religious scholar or a professor of Islamic architecture. MIT does not have a religion department, and they only have one professor of Islamic architecture: Professor Nassar Rabbat, who has confirmed that he is the Park Service consultant.

A check of Rabbat’s background shows that he was a classmate of Paul Murdoch, both getting masters degrees in architecture from UCLA in 1984 and both doing their masters work on Middle Eastern subjects. Murdoch wrote a “masters project” titled: “A museum for Haifa, Israel.” Rabbat did a masters thesis titled: “House-form, climactic response and lifestyle: a study of the 17-19th century courthouse houses in Cairo and Damascus.”

This connection between Murdoch and Rabbat raises the possibility that Murdoch himself orchestrated the Park Service investigation into warnings about his own design. Rabbat denies knowing Murdoch, but given the blatant dishonesty of what he told the Park Service, that denial cannot be trusted.

Rabbat lied about something that every practicing Muslim knows

Rabbat’s first “major talking point” (from the Memorial Project’s White Paper, towards the bottom) is a blatantly dishonest excuse for why the Park Service should not be concerned about the almost exact Mecca orientation of the Crescent of Embrace. A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. Rabbat assures the Park Service that because the Mecca orientation of the Crescent of Embrace is inexact, it can’t be seen as a mihrab:

Mihrab orientation is either correct or not. It cannot be off by some degrees.

Absolutely false, and Rabbat certainly knows it. This goes to the most basic principle of mosque design: that all mosques are expressions of Muhammad’s prototype.

Muhammad’s original mosque in Medina was not oriented precisely on Mecca. It was built to face Jerusalem. Later in his career Muhammad changed the direction that Muslims were to face for prayer (their qibla direction). Instead of facing north from Medina to Jerusalem they were to face south, towards Mecca (Koran 2.142-145). To effect this change, Muhammad just started using the southerly wall of his mosque as his “qibla wall” instead of the northerly wall, even though this wall had not been built to face Mecca.

In the abstract, Muhammad held the qibla direction from Medina to be “south.” But Mecca is not quite due south from Medina either. Thus both in practice and in the abstract, Muhammad was not particular about an exact orientation on Mecca, and in Islam, what is good enough for Muhammad has to be good enough for everyone. He is the model.

This leeway to face only roughly towards Mecca for prayer is not some obscure bit of doctrine. Every practicing Muslim knows that qibla orientation does not have to be exact because they all have to avail themselves of this allowance pretty much every day as they seek walls that are oriented not too far off of Mecca which they can face into for their frequent prayers.

Rabbat just flat out lied about something that every practicing Muslim knows, and this is an expert in Mosque design. He knows better than anyone the historic leeway afforded in Mecca orientation.

Is Rabbat the source of Patrick White’s foolishness?

Rabbat’s dishonest report to the Park Service may explain an amazing argument made by Patrick White, Vice President of Families of Flight 93. At the July 2007 public meeting of the Memorial Project, White argued in a private conversation that the almost exact Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent cannot be intended as a tribute to Islam because the inexactness of it would be “disrespectful to Islam.”

At the same time as White was privately making excuses for the almost exact Mecca orientation of the crescent, he was telling the newspapers that the Mecca orientation claim was false and preposterous, so he certainly cannot be absolved. But it is possible that he himself was misled about how Muslims would regard an inexactly oriented mihrab.

The Memorial Project received Rabbat’s comments about a year earlier, and Patrick White certainly had access to them. It seems likely that when White said that an inexact orientation on Mecca would be “disrespectful to Islam,” he was following Rabbat’s “can’t be off” lead.

The crescent design also includes an exact Mecca orientation

If Nassar Rabbat actually read the information that Alec Rawls sent to the Memorial Project, he would know that in addition to the physical crescent, the Crescent of Embrace design also includes a thematic crescent, defined by architect Paul Murdoch himself. The upper tip of this thematic crescent is the point where, in Murdoch’s explanation, the flight path breaks the circle. If this thematic or “true” upper crescent tip is used to define the orientation of the crescent, then the crescent points exactly to Mecca.

If Rabbat really thinks that exactness is what matters, he would have been alarmed to see that this thematic crescent is oriented exactly on Mecca. Instead, he ignored it.

The Park Service already knew about the Mecca orientation of the crescent

The Park Service’s other Islamic scholar, Kevin Jaques, did the same thing as Rabbat. He admitted the similarity between the giant Mecca oriented crescent and a traditional Islamic mihrab, then concocted a blatantly dishonest excuse for why the Park Service shouldn’t be concerned about it. Jaques assured the Park Service that there was no reason to worry because no one had ever seen a mihrab this big before:

Thirdly, 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. Again, just because it is similar does not make it the same.

If Jaques and Rabbat were willing to engage in such blatantly dishonest excuse-making, why did they start out by admitting that the giant crescent was geometrically close to a perfect mihrab? Because the Park Service already knew that the giant crescent was oriented almost exactly on Mecca, and that a crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is the central feature around which every mosque is built.

Advisory Commission member Tim Baird would admit this explicitly in 2007, but it was obvious much earlier. What the Park Service wanted when it conducted its internal investigation in the spring and summer of 2006 was excuses not to be concerned about these damning facts, and that is what Jaques and Rabbat provided. Similarly for the egregious Daniel Griffith, the “professor of geospatial information,” who told the newspapers that “anything can point to Mecca, because the earth is round.”

The Park Service knew this was all fraudulent. Griffith’s “anything can point to Mecca” and Rabbat’s “it has to be exact” were complete contradictions of each other, but the Park Service gladly embraced both as excuses to pretend that there was nothing to worry about.

If these government functionaries were this desperate for a cover up, it is certainly plausible that they would accept any help they could get from Paul Murdoch. Not that it is hard to find radically dishonest, America-hating academics, but these three frauds are outliers even by worst standards.

More dishonest excuse-making from Rabbat

Rabbat’s next talking point is more of the same dishonest excuse-making:

Besides, in the US, a debate has been going on as to which is the right Mecca orientation: the one going through the North Pole or the one that follows a flat representation of the globe.

The orientation “through the North Pole” (55.2° clockwise from north, to be precise) is the great-circle direction to Mecca. This great circle direction to Mecca is the orientation of the Crescent of Embrace (almost exactly), and it is the direction in which almost all Muslims pray.

A few dissenters pray in the rhumb-line direction to Mecca (the direction of constant compass heading, which spirals down the globe in an east-southeasterly direction from North America). Rabbat pretends that the existence of these few dissenters somehow makes the whole matter of the Mecca oriented crescent a non-issue.

If anything, the debate over qibla direction shows the flexibility of the qibla direction, giving the lie to Rabbat’s earlier assertion that mihrab orientation “can’t be off.”

Rabbat certainly knows that the great-circle direction to Mecca is the dominant qibla direction. (It won out over the rhumb line direction for the very good reason that a person facing in the rhumb-line direction to Mecca is not actually facing Mecca, since the rhumb-line follows a curved path.) But don’t worry about a little thing like the crescent facing in the dominant qibla direction. Rabbat has plenty of lame excuses why you don’t need to care.

Tom Burnett’s call for a Congressional investigation

The Park Service won’t say how they came up with Griffith, Jaques and Rabbat so we have to force them. A lot of People must be forced to answer these and a lot of other hard questions, and the only way to do it is to heed Tom Burnett’s call for a Congressional Investigation.

Stop the Memorial Blogburst

1389 Blog – Antijihadist Tech
A Defending Crusader
A Fine Line Between Stupid and Clever
And Rightly So
Big Dog’s Weblog
Big Sibling
Cao2’s Weblog
Cao’s Blog
Chaotic Synaptic Activity
Error Theory
Faultline USA
Flanders Fields
Flopping Aces
Four Pointer
Freedom’s Enemies
Ft. Hard Knox
GM’s Corner
Hoosier Army Mom
Ironic Surrealism II
Jack Lewis
Kender’s Musings
My Own Thoughts
Nice Deb
Ogre’s Politics and Views
Part-Time Pundit
Right on the Right
Right Truth
Stix Blog
Stop the ACLU
The Renaissance Biologist
The View From the Turret
The Wide Awakes
Thunder Run

If you want to join the blogroll/blogburst for the Crescent of Betrayal blogburst, email Cao at caoilfhionn1 at gmail dot com, with your blog’s url address. The blogburst will be sent out once a week to the participants, for simultaneous publication on this issue on Wednesdays.

Leave it to some passionate curious and driven person to do what the “professionals” say can’t be done.

I’d keep my ear to the railroad tracks about this person of the post: Johnathon Goodwin.

Big hat tip to lawhawk at A Blog for All for pointing out this article on Johnathon who is making cars into low emission, high mileage speed demons. A turbine powered Hummer hybrid that can do 0 to 60 in 5 seconds and gets 60 mpg and generates 600HP? Got a diesel? He has done magic using left over cooking grease and even took a ’65 Impala and converted it to be able to get 25 mpg and lay a whooping on a Lamborghini on the drag strip!

A teaser from the Fast Company Magazine “Motorhead Messiah” article:

[…]
Goodwin leads me over to a red 2005 H3 Hummer that’s up on jacks, its mechanicals removed. He aims to use the turbine to turn the Hummer into a tricked-out electric hybrid. Like most hybrids, it’ll have two engines, including an electric motor. But in this case, the second will be the turbine, Goodwin’s secret ingredient. Whenever the truck’s juice runs low, the turbine will roar into action for a few seconds, powering a generator with such gusto that it’ll recharge a set of “supercapacitor” batteries in seconds. This means the H3’s electric motor will be able to perform awesome feats of acceleration and power over and over again, like a Prius on steroids. What’s more, the turbine will burn biodiesel, a renewable fuel with much lower emissions than normal diesel; a hydrogen-injection system will then cut those low emissions in half. And when it’s time to fill the tank, he’ll be able to just pull up to the back of a diner and dump in its excess french-fry grease–as he does with his many other Hummers. Oh, yeah, he adds, the horsepower will double–from 300 to 600.

“Conservatively,” Goodwin muses, scratching his chin, “it’ll get 60 miles to the gallon. With 2,000 foot-pounds of torque. You’ll be able to smoke the tires. And it’s going to be superefficient.”

He laughs. “Think about it: a 5,000-pound vehicle that gets 60 miles to the gallon and does zero to 60 in five seconds!”
[…]

Enough…read the lengthy article and believe yourself!

embedded by Embedded Video

More “gouge” here. Teaser from a blog entry:

11/21/2007 Sarge and Wendy’s Daily Blog

When you set your alarm clock for 4.30 a.m. to get up and dirt dive, it had better be worth it. The drive to Lake Wales airport is dark and cold. The coffee at IHOP on the way begins to make it bearable. Bleary eyes start to open and smiles begin to creep across tired faces. The smiles always become wider as you walk past Alan Gutshall who somehow manages to be first up, coffee in hand and always ready with a “Good morning, sir, good to see y’all” as you make your way to the 5.30 a.m. circle up.

In short, today was worth getting up for.

We set up the formation inside the armoury which is our home for the week, walked it out on the runway outside and boarded our aircraft around 7.30 for another crack at the 100 diamond. Spirits were definitely up. The chase CASA went over the base at 18,000 and by 12,500 feet the thirty-six way base was hammering through the sky. The formation built to 64 quickly and relatively smoothly by around 7,500 feet and the row 9 wings were called in. The row 10 wings came in shortly afterwards and the formation built into 90’s by the time it reached the 5,000 hard deck. Mike Lewis gave a “hold on” call in anticipation of the last four people docking and to the sound of arch calls we waited. And waited. And waited…and waited…and…well, you get the picture.
[…]

With stuff like this to do…why wouldn’t you want to jump out of a “perfectly good airplane?”

The Mechanik trailer

Opening notes:

• Required reading: Eagle1’s Sunday Ship History – Quonset Huts and Fred Fry’s Maritime Monday 92;
• I know I promised a different course today, but I left the primary source book behind on Friday. Next week will be the kick off of some interesting Maritme Matters.

RADM Julius A. Furer, USN
ADM Furer, a Naval Academy graduate of 1901 was the head of his class, and a man who got things done. Along the way, he set the stage for success in several warfighting areas, as well as supporting disciplines, earning a Navy Cross during WWI.From the Haze Gray website, the longest biography I could find on this man:

Julius Augustus Furer, naval constructor, inventor, administrator, and author, was born 9 October 1880 at Mosel, Wis. Appointed to the Naval Academy in 1897, he graduated at the head of his class in 1901. After sea duty in INDIANA (Battleship No. 1) and SHUBRICK (Torpedo Boat No. 31), he acquired a Master of Science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1905.

In the era of great naval expansion after the Spanish-American War, Furer established a reputation for professional competence in his remarkably expeditious outfitting of the Navy Base at Charleston, S.C., which at that time lacked a physical plant, natural resources, and a skilled shipbuilding labor force.

While serving in the Philadelphia Navy Yard in 1911, he applied new theories of scientific management. His advanced thinking and methods of procurement brought him the added task of purchasing all tools, machinery, and dock facilities for the Navy’s new base for the Pacific Fleet-Pearl Harbor. Furer installed the equipment in 18 months, but delayed his departure when submarine F-4 (Submarine No. 23) sank in 50 fathoms off Honolulu. He insisted on salvaging her, and invented a submersible pontoon which
raised the boat and enabled her to be moved to drydock. An investigation of her hull revealed a design error which was corrected to avoid similar accidents.

Furer returned to Washington late in 1915 and took charge of the Supply Division, Bureau of Construction and Repair. Against some opposition by advocates of smaller vessels, he proposed the construction of 110-foot submarine chasers to meet the threat of the German U-boat. Furer’s arguments persuaded the Navy’s General Board to order 450 vessels constructed on Furer’s basic design. These contributions to the American war effort earned Furer the Navy Cross.

Following the war, he reported to the staff of the Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet, and tirelessly devoted his talent to the improvement of damage control, ship design, and crew comfort. From December 1922 to April 1927, he was a member of the U.S. Naval Mission to Brazil.

Furer next was assigned to the Asiatic Station, where he developed extensively the aircraft facilities at Cavite,
Philippine Islands.

In 1928, he became Manager of the Industrial Department of the Philadelphia Navy Yard, and supervised the modernization of battleships PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) and NEW MEXICO (BB-40). Under his management, the yard set records for low costs and speed of construction.

Between July 1935 and December 1937, Furer was Naval Attache at embassies in London, Paris, Berlin, and Rome.

His technical advice aided the American delegation to the London Naval Conference in 1936.

A Rear Admiral at the outbreak of World War II, he became the Coordinator of Research and Development, and the
senior member of the National Research and Development Board. He coordinated widespread research that speeded
development of modern weapons systems for the Navy. These services won Furer the Legion of Merit 30 June 1945.

Julius Furer retired from active service in 1945, but was recalled to duty in the Navy’s History Division in 1951. During a second retirement, he wrote the widely acclaimed study, “Administration of the Navy Department in World War II,” published in 1960.

Rear Admiral Julius A. Furer died 6 June 1963 and is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

In honor of ADM Furer, the USS JULIUS A FURER (DEG-6, later FFG-6), a ship of the BROOKE Class, was commissioned Nov 11th, 1967 at Bath, ME, another fine product of Bath Iron Works. Another site, for the Plank Owners, is here.Decommissioned in the US Navy Nov 10th, 1988, she was recommissioned in the Pakistani Navy as Badr (D-161) and served in that navy until retuning custory to the US Navy in 1993. She was scrapped in 1994. The FURER was assigned to the Atlantic Fleet.

I found it at Obsideian Wings, where this man was one of the authors. I hadn’t read the blog before, but Andy had pre-positioned a post for this occasion.

He was killed in Iraq 1/3/2008. Yesterday.

Andy Olmsted, US Army, Blogger. Photo credit: Rocky Mountain News

“I am leaving this message for you because it appears I must leave sooner than I intended. I would have preferred to say this in person, but since I cannot, let me say it here.”
G’Kar, Babylon 5

“Only the dead have seen the end of war.”
Plato*

This is an entry I would have preferred not to have published, but there are limits to what we can control in life, and apparently I have passed one of those limits. And so, like G’Kar, I must say here what I would much prefer to say in person. I want to thank hilzoy for putting it up for me. It’s not easy asking anyone to do something for you in the event of your death, and it is a testament to her quality that she didn’t hesitate to accept the charge. As with many bloggers, I have a disgustingly large ego, and so I just couldn’t bear the thought of not being able to have the last word if the need arose. Perhaps I take that further than most, I don’t know. I hope so. It’s frightening to think there are many people as neurotic as I am in the world. In any case, since I won’t get another chance to say what I think, I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity. Such as it is.

“When some people die, it’s time to be sad. But when other people die, like really evil people, or the Irish, it’s time to celebrate.”
Jimmy Bender, “Greg the Bunny”

“And maybe now it’s your turn to die kicking some ass.”
Freedom Isn’t Free, Team America

What I don’t want this to be is a chance for me, or anyone else, to be maudlin. I’m dead. That sucks, at least for me and my family and friends. But all the tears in the world aren’t going to bring me back, so I would prefer that people remember the good things about me rather than mourning my loss. (If it turns out a specific number of tears will, in fact, bring me back to life, then by all means, break out the onions.) I had a pretty good life, as I noted above. Sure, all things being equal I would have preferred to have more time, but I have no business complaining with all the good fortune I’ve enjoyed in my life. So if you’re up for that, put on a little 80s music (preferably vintage 1980-1984), grab a Coke and have a drink with me. If you have it, throw ‘Freedom Isn’t Free’ from the Team America soundtrack in; if you can’t laugh at that song, I think you need to lighten up a little. I’m dead, but if you’re reading this, you’re not, so take a moment to enjoy that happy fact.
[…]

There is more…much more.

Thanks, Andrew, and to your family, also, for your sacrifice.

Just one more nail in the coffin…

Thank you, environmentalist whack jobs who think it’s better for marine mammals to not get confused with too many man-made acoustic signals in the water…

I know it’s not Monday yet, but I am about finished with a book loaned to me that tells a remarkable story worth passing along.

Consider the connections between a pending two ocean war, a small navy, old time craftsmen, a man with incredible foresight and perseverance, and a location far from the ocean that took on a challenge and did fine by the men who sailed into harm’s way.

Some of you may know of the story, but I’m going enjoy sharing what I found out, thanks to a WWII veteran’s widow, kind enough to share some family items with me.

Come back Monday the 7th to find out what I’m talking about.The Alamo movies

Not my story, and not a “sea story,” but a military one for your reading pleasure.

A story of disaster, survival, rumor, and, finally truth:

54 days before July 1st, 1957, Lt David Steeves, USAF had to bail out of his T-33 over the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

He walked (and hobbled and crawled) to safety, after the Air Force called off the search and notified his wife he had died…

And then the press ran amok, making assumptions and publically questioned the man. No one stood up for him, as they accused him, without any evidence, of selling his aircraft to our adversaries…

But…the happy ending comes 50 years later, with someone randomly surfing satellite pics on the net….

Read the incredible story.

Defenders of the crescent design for the Flight 93 memorial describe the landform around the crash site as a bowl shape that fairly dictates the use of a crescent design. On the Mike and Juliet Morning Show, Memorial Project Chairman John Reynolds was asked by host Mike Jerrick: “Why couldn’t you just use some other shape?”Reynolds cupped his hands together for the audience and insisted that the design had to be a crescent:

Because, if you do this with you hands, this is the land there. This bowl is America holding its heroes.

But in fact, the site is not a bowl shape at all, as one can tell by looking at the topo lines on the site plan. The land slopes continually from north-northwest to south-southeast:

The Sacred Ground Plaza that marks the crash site sits between the crescent tips (above the 4).

Instead of following the rim of a bowl, the crescent starts on a ridgeline above the crash site and circles around to well below it, passing across the middle of a wetland that sits about 70 vertical feet below the crash site.

Not only is the crash site not a bowl, but the crescent actually does not fit the natural landform at all. Of all the designs entered in the design competition, Paul Murdoch’s Crescent of Embrace is the only one that that fails to meet the Memorial Project’s single stated physical requirement: that design entries should “respect the rural landscape.” (Scroll down to
“purpose.”)

To create the full arc of the crescent, a raised causeway will have to be filled in across the wetlands that collect about half-way out the lower crescent arm:

This filling in of the wetlands would never be allowed in a private project. There are environmental laws against it.

To sneak his design past the requirement to leave the landscape undisturbed, Murdoch played a very clever trick. His preliminary Crescent of Embrace design did not build a causeway across the wetlands. It only showed a quarter circle of red maple walkway, with a natural footpath skirting around the bottom of the wetlands area instead of crossing it:

This original crescent design already had the flight path breaking the circle, turning it into what was called from the start the Crescent of Embrace, so it seems that Murdoch had in mind from the beginning to memorialize the terrorists’ circle-breaking/crescent-creating feat. He could well have had the basic geometry of his full terrorist memorial mosque already worked out, but he knew that he would never make the first cut if he broke the competition’s one rule and violated the wetlands, so he only showed a little bit of crescent, and had his innocuous looking footpath skirt the wetlands.

To turn his preliminary design into a full Islamic crescent, Murdoch needed to build his causeway. How did he justify this violation of the wetlands? With typical brass, declaring that the causeway created a “healing landscape”:

Here visitors will be most aware of continuously connected living systems as the circular path literally bridges the hydrology of the Bowl. [“Wetlands,” p. 5.]

The highway department should hire this guy for P.R.. He could sell the environmentalists on how close a new road will bring them tonature. Why, they will be “literally bridging it!” What could be better? Good pitch. The Memorial Project bought it.

Most remarkable is Patrick White, vice president of Families of Flight 93. In private conversation at the Memorial Project’s July 2007 meeting, White told one of Alec Rawls’s compatriots that an expensive drainage system had been developed for the crescent design and that no other design could work on the site because this elaborate drainage system would only work with the crescent design.

Duh. The crescent design is the only design out of all thousand submitted that needs a drainage system. Every other design left the wetland untouched, as the Memorial Project had asked. Yet these people all really seem to mean it when they insist that this is the only design that fits the land.

Didn’t they notice that not one of the other thousand designs was a crescent? How could that be, if the landform really dictated a crescent? How did they get so wrapped in the emotion of the crescent’s “healing embrace” that they can’t see anything else?

Because Paul Murdoch is an artistic genius who had these grieving people in the palms of his hands. The man is diabolical!

Stop the Memorial Blogburst
1389 Blog – Antijihadist Tech
A Defending Crusader
A Fine Line Between Stupid and Clever
And Rightly So
Big Dog’s Weblog
Big Sibling
Cao2’s Weblog
Cao’s Blog
Chaotic Synaptic Activity
Error Theory
Faultline USA
Flanders Fields
Flopping Aces
Four Pointer
Freedom’s Enemies
Ft. Hard Knox
GM’s Corner
Hoosier Army Mom
Ironic Surrealism II
Jack Lewis
Kender’s Musings
My Own Thoughts
Nice Deb
Ogre’s Politics and Views
Part-Time Pundit
Right on the Right
Right Truth
Stix Blog
Stop the ACLU
The Renaissance Biologist
The View From the Turret
The Wide Awakes
Thunder Run

If you want to join the blogroll/blogburst for the Crescent of Betrayal blogburst, email Cao at caoilfhionn1 at gmail dot com, with your blog’s url address. The blogburst will be sent out once a week to the participants, for simultaneous publication on this issue on Wednesdays.

For those who just can’t “go” anywhere without their iPods…

Click the pic to get to the websiteSpecial holiday pricing of ONLY $8.99 from ATechFlash.

If you still haven’t gotten that gift for your someone special, you’re welcome!