|
Post by XAsstCoach on May 7, 2009 10:09:48 GMT -5
Tough one. Yes, there should be a memorial. But NO, the government shouldn't steal the land to accomplish it. Kind of defeats the purpose of remembering the heroes fighting back for freedom, only to have the gov't steal the land to remember them. U.S. to Condemn Land for Flight 93 MemorialThursday , May 07, 2009 AP PITTSBURGH — The government will begin taking land from seven property owners so that the Flight 93 memorial can be built in time for the 10th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, the National Park Service said. In a a statement obtained by The Associated Press, the park service said it had teamed up with a group representing the victims' families to work with landowners since before 2005 to acquire the land. "But with few exceptions, these negotiations have been unsuccessful," said the statement, which was to be released later Thursday. The seven property owners own about 500 acres still needed for what will ultimately be a $58 million, 2,200-acre permanent memorial and national park at the crash site near Shanksville, about 60 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. "We always prefer to get that land from a willing seller. And sometimes you can just not come to an agreement on certain things," park service spokesman Phil Sheridan said. Two owners account for about 420 acres the park service plans to condemn, including Svonavec Inc. — which owns 275 acres, including the impact site where 40 passengers and crew died. About 150 acres are owned by a family that operates a scrap yard. Most of rest of the land to be condemned are small parcels, two of which include cabins. "It's absolutely a surprise. I'm shocked by it. I'm disappointed by it," said Tim Lambert, who owns nearly 164 acres that his grandfather bought in the 1930s. The park service plans to condemn two parcels totaling about five acres — land, he said, he had always intended to donate for the memorial. "To the best of my knowledge and my lawyer, absolutely no negotiations have taken place with the park service where we've sat down and discussed this," Lambert said. Lambert said he had mainly dealt with the Families of Flight 93 and said he's provided the group all the information it's asked for, including an appraisal. While he knew that condemnation was a possibility, he thought it was an unlikely scenario and that the park service and family group had wanted to acquire the larger parcels before dealing with owners of smaller properties. "I was never told that May was the drop-deadline," he said. In February, government officials and representatives of the 33 passengers and seven crew members killed when the plane crashed on Sept. 11, 2001, pledged to dedicate a memorial on the site by the 10th anniversary. Officials said then that more than 80 percent of the needed land had been secured. United Flight 93 was traveling from Newark, N.J., to San Francisco when it was diverted by hijackers with the likely goal of crashing it into the White House or Capitol. The official 9/11 Commission report said the hijackers crashed the plane as passengers tried to wrest control of the cockpit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2009 11:00:26 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced this is anything more than wishful thinking. Do we have any proof that the passengers actually brought this plane down? That they even put up a fight? They have some transcripts from some recorder, but they aren't all that convincing.
I just object to things that become history without any decent groundwork.
This is, of course, a separate issue from having a memorial -- or the govt seizing the land for the memorial. But it's mentioned in the article as fact. Again.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 7, 2009 11:22:51 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced this is anything more than wishful thinking. Do we have any proof that the passengers actually brought this plane down? That they even put up a fight? They have some transcripts from some recorder, but they aren't all that convincing. What?! Yes, there is plenty of evidence as to what happened onboard that flight. Obviously the passengers did not "bring the plane down". They wanted to take over the plane, not to crash it. When they did take over the plane, the hijackers crashed it.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on May 7, 2009 11:27:58 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced this is anything more than wishful thinking. Do we have any proof that the passengers actually brought this plane down? That they even put up a fight? They have some transcripts from some recorder, but they aren't all that convincing. Most of the opinion seems to be that the hijackers were at the controls and brought the plane down. It's not definitive as to whether or not the passengers managed to enter the cockpit. I thought that the cockpit voice recorder supposedly recorded the hijackers talking about whether or not they should just crash the plane then and there. One reasonable theory is that they just brought it down because they didn't feel that they could overcome the passengers and complete the attack on the original target (I thought it was the White House).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2009 12:55:34 GMT -5
There is not plenty of evidence, mike. Not in anything I have read. Believe me, I'm no conspiracy nut. I've just been watching this story from Day 1. They were kicking around this uprising scenario from the get go and I still believe it is a myth. It certainly isn't backed up by any credible evidence.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on May 7, 2009 18:48:10 GMT -5
blame bUsh
|
|
|
Post by snowman on May 8, 2009 0:07:58 GMT -5
Believe me, I'm no conspiracy nut. I've just been watching this story from Day 1. They were kicking around this uprising scenario from the get go and I still believe it is a myth. It certainly isn't backed up by any credible evidence. From Day 1 you say? Really? Gee when was that? I'm not sure anyone remembers September 11. Maybe you are the only one!!! No wait, maybe those people who died have loved ones, some of whom were on the phone with passengers when it happened. You know, I'm going to guess that just based off the number of people who had to go to therapy to cope with it that quite a few people remember that day, even if they'd rather not. I'm sorry nobody on the plane thought to call you so you could believe, but you know, on the worse day of their life, when they lost their mother, their brother, husband or wife, I'm going to think that their first reaction wasn't to track down other survivors and come up with a good plot for a movie. Instead, their accounts and the transcripts led the 9/11 commission to conclude that the passengers didn't take the cockpit, but the terrorists felt that their time was up and they would take the passengers lives while they still could, even if that wasn't their full objective. FWIW, even if you think they all sat there paralyzed in fear and didn't do a freaken thing, they were civilian victims of a the worst terrorist act in American history. Go find Kimi Beaven, or Melodie Homer who lost their husbands, find Laura Brough who lost her mother, or any of the other of the family and friends of the passengers on that flight and tell them that because their flight didn't hit a building on camera, their loss mean less. Tell them that you don't believe their account of the events and that you think they are lying. Ruffda, you've said some dumb things on here, mostly to get a laugh, but this isn't funny and personally, I'd like you to have at least a single fact before you question the memory of these people you never met.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 8, 2009 0:56:41 GMT -5
the attack on the original target (I thought it was the White House). FWIW, I think the information that has come out indicates the White House was considered as a target but it was decided it would be too hard to locate and hit, so the intended target was the Capital.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on May 8, 2009 8:43:04 GMT -5
Who has the energy to worry about whether they brought the plane down or not, when we could be worrying about the government's ability to completely ignore our 5th Amendment to freedom from seizure of property? This country died a long long time ago -- the two corpolitical parties have been doing a GREAT JOB at keeping everyone too distracted by inane crap for the last few decades.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2009 9:25:30 GMT -5
Believe me, I'm no conspiracy nut. I've just been watching this story from Day 1. They were kicking around this uprising scenario from the get go and I still believe it is a myth. It certainly isn't backed up by any credible evidence. From Day 1 you say? Really? Gee when was that? I'm not sure anyone remembers September 11. Maybe you are the only one!!! No wait, maybe those people who died have loved ones, some of whom were on the phone with passengers when it happened. You know, I'm going to guess that just based off the number of people who had to go to therapy to cope with it that quite a few people remember that day, even if they'd rather not. Spare me the sarcasm. I wasn't saying I was the only one following these events. I was saying I've been following how this specific story -- the takeover/rebellion -- grew from day one. Why are you being such a jerk about this? Do you know the facts about the "phone" calls? Do you know how the 9/11 commission came to their conclusion? Just because we want something to be true, doesn't make it true. Which was what I was saying. Do you think I don't care about these passengers? That I don't care about their loved ones? I'm not the ogre you are making me out to be here. snowman, whose memories am I questioning? The victims? They are all dead! Do you mean the loved ones? They don't know what happened. They will tell you that. I'm sorry my comments offended you, but this response is not necessary. There is a storyline here that has moved from speculation to accepted fact. Kind of like the poor Columbine kid who everyone believes was asked if she believed in God and answered yes just before she was shot. There are things we *want* to believe that take on a life of their own.
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on May 9, 2009 10:27:26 GMT -5
Who has the energy to worry about whether they brought the plane down or not, when we could be worrying about the government's ability to completely ignore our 5th Amendment to freedom from seizure of property? This country died a long long time ago -- the two corpolitical parties have been doing a GREAT JOB at keeping everyone too distracted by inane crap for the last few decades. Kind of surprised myself the focus here so far has been on the events of flight 93 instead of the stealing of the land by the government. Speaking of which, what does it mean when the government condemns the land (aside from giving them the right to steal the land)?
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on May 9, 2009 11:51:34 GMT -5
Who has the energy to worry about whether they brought the plane down or not, when we could be worrying about the government's ability to completely ignore our 5th Amendment to freedom from seizure of property? This country died a long long time ago -- the two corpolitical parties have been doing a GREAT JOB at keeping everyone too distracted by inane crap for the last few decades. Kind of surprised myself the focus here so far has been on the events of flight 93 instead of the stealing of the land by the government. Speaking of which, what does it mean when the government condemns the land (aside from giving them the right to steal the land)? The use of the word "condemn" in the article seems to be a bit strong although it is part of the process. This is not like a local government revoking the right to occupy an unsafe building. This case is clearly about eminent domain, and the Park Service is not going to simply take the land without some sort of compensation. Check the Wikipedia article on eminent domain, and it notes that some descriptions include condemnation, appropriation, or compulsory purchase. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domainHere's some other articles on the situation that use the term "eminent domain". The first actually mentions that the authorization to use eminent domain to secure land for the memorial is in a larger appropriations bill passed in 2007. The second (seems like a blog) suggests that a reason for using eminent domain is to quickly sort through this rather than having it tied up in long negotiations or sorting through liens. Eminent domain process on land for 9/11 memorial under waywww.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_624148.htmlNational Park Service To Use Eminent Domain For Flight 93 Memoriallawprofessors.typepad.com/property/2009/05/national-park-service-to-use-eminent-domain-for-flight-93-memorial.html
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on May 10, 2009 21:42:16 GMT -5
Thanks BearClause. The use of the term condemn threw me for a loop...I would have been less confused if the article had used "eminent domain" instead.
|
|