PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 museum opening ceremony question


ex_matelot
15th May 2014, 15:25
Can somebody please tell me what the musical piece is called that the New York Philharmonic orchestra played today at this ceremony?

I can only describe it as something I've heard in military themed films, played in scenarios fitting of 'The last post'.

Thanks.

Phalconphixer
15th May 2014, 17:12
Didnt see the ceremony but have seen a couple of highligts courtesy of BBC news... I think the piece you are referring to is this...
Fanfare for the Common Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanfare_for_the_Common_Man)

Aaron Copland - Fanfare For The Common Man - YouTube

tony draper
15th May 2014, 17:51
A good rendition but rather a strange collection of pictures to accompany it, what has astronomy and a drunken Noah got to do with the common man?:confused:
Am I missing something?
Still there are many strange things on youtube
:)

Lonewolf_50
15th May 2014, 18:01
I suspect that Al Qaeda Members are very pleased that someone has, at no expense to the Al Q folks, funded and built a museum to their greatest success to date.

sitigeltfel
15th May 2014, 18:05
There was an article on the BBC 5pm news about the museum and some prick asked the question, "will muslims be offended?"

tony draper
15th May 2014, 18:09
Wasn't there some row about them wanting to build a new mosque close by a few years back?
:uhoh:

500N
15th May 2014, 18:44
Yes, there was.

Big row.

tony draper
15th May 2014, 18:53
Did they get the mosque?



They would have got it here.

con-pilot
15th May 2014, 19:09
Did they get the mosque?

Well yes and no Tony. What they got was a Islamic cultural center, technically not a mosque.

Constitutionally the Muslims have the right to build a mosque anywhere any other religion can build a church or synagogue, as the case may be.

500N
15th May 2014, 21:50
I wonder if they have any info on OBL in the museum ?

And of course the op to kill him !

John Hill
16th May 2014, 00:37
I suspect that Al Qaeda Members are very pleased that someone has, at no expense to the Al Q folks, funded and built a museum to their greatest success to date.

It is rather curious this tendency shared by many to erect memorials to glorify their defeats.

gupta
16th May 2014, 00:44
That, John Hill, would have to be one of the most insensitive and offensive posts that I have seen from you.

500N
16th May 2014, 00:50
But that is nothing that is not expected from John Hill.

Dushan
16th May 2014, 04:17
Gupta, he can do better. Give him some time.

John Hill
16th May 2014, 04:29
That, John Hill, would have to be one of the most insensitive and offensive posts that I have seen from you.

Whats your problem? America bombed them and a few months later they struck back.

But dont feel so bad, as I said America is not alone as other countries glorify defeats too, Gallipoli, Dunkirk to name just two.

Earl
16th May 2014, 04:42
we kind of have some bad leadership here now in the USA government concerning this,
let these ones fart out of tune again i am sure Americans will be all all over them
quick.
Wont be like last time.
All of us angry here.
And yes we can make a difference.

500N
16th May 2014, 04:46
John

You really take the cake.


And BTW, NZ was at Gallipoli as well as Australia !

John Hill
16th May 2014, 05:11
And BTW, NZ was at Gallipoli as well as Australia !

Full marks that man! That's where the 'NZ' in ÁNZAC' comes from but I am sure you knew that eh? There was a Kiwi or two involved at Dunkirk too and of course I am sure there must have been some involved in 911 as well. What was your point again?

ex_matelot
16th May 2014, 05:22
Phalconfixer - Thanks! That's the very one I meant.

mikedreamer787
16th May 2014, 05:22
IMHO there should be no museums or anything
for the reason Lonewolf_50 stated in his post.

There should've been a WTC MkII or something
similar built in its place, with perhaps a plaque
of remembrance for the 911 dead.

But again just MHO.

John Hill
16th May 2014, 05:49
Agreed, a memorial plaque or somesuch.

chuks
16th May 2014, 06:30
I think that one should call 9/11 a failure rather than a defeat. Of course such as John Hill will rush to disagree with that, seeing us, as they enjoy doing, as involved in some sort of conflict with some sort of shadowy counter-forces: Al Quaida, the DPRK and its doughy leader Field Marshall Kim Jong Un ... whomever the vivid imaginations of such can conjure up as our foes. Then every little act of terror constitutes a defeat for the USA, even when that is merely some deluded loser blowing himself up. Sadly our own leaders tend to go along with this deluded world-view, sending our troops off to fight and die chasing shadows.

Unfortunately, we had George W. Bush and Dick Cheney at the helm during 9/11, when their response was not exactly thought through: our "War on Terror." So now we end up fighting shadows. If 9/11 had been better assessed, simply as a failure to protect ourselves against easily foreseeable criminal acts, then we should have dealt with our own failures without instead ignoring them to focus on fundamentalist Islam as sole perpetrator of an act of war.

I found the memorial quite depressing, particularly the way one had to be screened to get into it. Then there was this terminally tacky little shop attached to it, stuffed full of pseudo-patriotic tat, from a baseball cap bedizened with the flag right up to a customized Harley-Davidson motorcycle. No, sorry, wrong number!

cattletruck
16th May 2014, 08:02
a failure rather than a defeat

Same with the memorial at Pearl Harbour.

To quote from the move Tora! Tora! Tora!

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

meadowrun
16th May 2014, 08:13
" I am afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant" is a famous quote attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, one of the most famous Japanese naval admirals, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. However, there remains some uncertainty over whether he actually did say it. One source indicates it actually was an entry in his diary.

500N
16th May 2014, 08:16
Splitting hairs.

It is or was a very astute observation.

acbus1
16th May 2014, 09:12
It is rather curious this tendency shared by many to erect memorials to glorify their defeats.
I doubt that the objective is to celebrate a defeat.

The objective is to remember the dead, injured and bereaved and, in the case of 9/11, to record inspirational examples of bravery and sacrifice of self for others, to name but a few of the qualities that emerged.

con-pilot
16th May 2014, 17:00
de·feat

verb \di-ˈfēt, dē-\

: to win a victory over (someone or something) in a war, contest, game, etc.

: to cause (someone or something) to fail

: to control or overcome (something)


None of the above applies to the attack on 9/11, nor to the building a museum to in remembrance of the attack.

Was the building of a museum of the Oklahoma City bombing an admission that Timothy McVeigh was victorious, caused Oklahoma City to fail in some way or as a result took control of Oklahoma City?

No. Same applies to the 9/11 attack, there was no defeat, no more than Pearl Harbor was some sort of a defeat.

SJMBEME
16th May 2014, 17:05
The defeat in a battle is quite often a rallying cry that enables the defeated to win the war.

Lonewolf_50
16th May 2014, 17:06
Con, I went to the Murah building memorial / museum last year, with my uncle and aunt who hail from MWC originally, and now OKC. No, it is not a memorial to the McVey, it's major emphasis is on the people and the efforts of those who rescue, and all the people who came to help.

I am sure there are similar tributes in this museum in NYC to all those who went out of their way to help, and to get people out before the towers fell.

But my observation still stands, since where one sits may determine what one sees. As a boy, I was advised that some Americans referred to the Russian War Memorial in West Berlin as "the monument to German marksmanship." :cool:

con-pilot
16th May 2014, 17:29
Con, I went to the Murah building memorial / museum last year, with my uncle and aunt who hail from MWC originally, and now OKC

What, no calls, no beers? Hurt I tell you, hurt. :(

Nobody likes me. :{














Just kidding. ;)

V2-OMG!
16th May 2014, 18:41
Whats your problem? America and lackeys bombed them and a few months later they struck back.

I suppose you would label Capt. John Ogonowski (AA Flight 11) as one of those American "lackeys," since he flew heavy metal in Vietnam before joining the airline. Regardless of whether or not any war is "right" or "wrong" or a collective "victory" or "defeat," he served the cause because he was called.

When Capt. Ogonowski was not flying for American, he operated a working farm. He was again called - not by the military - but by the Dept. of Agriculture. They were looking for American farmers who could help with the "New Entry Farmer Project." New Entry was a project that would give Cambodian arrivals a new start in the United States. Capt. Ogonowski immediately donated 15 acres of prime farmland. He helped the Cambodians extensively with the hard, physical aspect of farming - often neglecting his own farm. The Cambodians flourished and their farming became profitable. Even then, Capt. Ogonowski always seemed to "forget" collecting any rent for the use of his land. *He called helping them "a good chance" for himself. Maybe he thought of it as an act of personal compensation, decades after Vietnam.

That is why I will always honour the 9/11 Memorial as a tribute to the individual vs. a collective "victory" or "defeat." Individuals like Capt. Ogonowski who gave so much. His story is one of thousands.

Thousands.

And we will never know most of those other stories.

*John Ogonowski: Salt of the Earth
From Out of the Blue, by Richard Bernstein

John Hill
16th May 2014, 18:57
as one of those American "lackeys,"

Your comments made me recheck my memory banks. I had been thinking that Britain had taken part in the earlier cruise missile attack on Afghanistan (and Sudan) but on re-checking I no longer think that is the case. Therefore please delete any reference to "lackeys".

Nothing in my post is intended as a reflection on any individuals involved except the decision makers.

V2-OMG!
16th May 2014, 19:24
Noted.

Thank-you.

chuks
16th May 2014, 19:48
When we post, we cause others to reflect upon ourselves.

There's always a risk of coming across as a thoroughly nasty piece of work by posting thoughtlessly upon something such as 9/11.

broadreach
17th May 2014, 00:08
We all know that 9/11 was an attack on the United States and all it stands for, by a well organised handful of Al Qaeda militants, all Muslims.

I was dismayed by the US government's initial reaction, though. The buildings hit were the World Trade Center; those killed in the attack were of every religion on earth, from nearly every country on earth and, in that respect, it was an attack on humanity itself; it could only have been more globally encompassing had the buildings been the UN headquarters. The Bush government emphasised the "Attack on America" aspect almost exclusively and, in doing so, missed an extraordinary opportunity to harness more international outrage against Al Qaeda. As it played out the only references to deaths of other than American nationals came through the media, slowly.

500N
17th May 2014, 00:32
Broadly

That is a very good point indeed.

If he had said an attack on the world and America he could have harnessed more support.

broadreach
17th May 2014, 01:00
Thanks 500N,

I guess it's not the bottom line but, all those brave firemen who died in the final collapse were not intent on saving only American lives but ALL lives, of any nationality or religion. And I think it would have been the same had a similar tragedy occurred in Iran or anywhere else.

Ethel the Aardvark
17th May 2014, 01:44
My utmost respect to the families of all involved in this tragedy.
The rationale I feel I hear for the reason this happened was that terrorists are hell bent on destroying the infidel and the democratic west.
I read this the other day
since 1945, the US has tried to overthrow more than 50 governments, many democratically elected; grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries; bombed the civilian populations of 30 countries; used chemical and biological weapons; and attempted to assassinate foreign leaders.
A bit of a concern even if 10% were true!
As John says the decision makers have a lot of explaining to do!

Matari
17th May 2014, 02:26
It's not always as we think. George W. Bush, on Sept. 21st:

And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support.

America will never forget the sounds of our national anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.

We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo.

We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America.

Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own. Dozens of Pakistanis, more than 130 Israelis, more than 250 citizens of India, men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan, and hundreds of British citizens.

CNN.com - Transcript of President Bush's address - September 21, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/)

Ethel, brush up on your Soviet history. You'll see there wasn't only one player post WWII. Do you enjoy your internet, GPS, and comfortable life today?

John Hill
17th May 2014, 04:46
In North Korea people are told all the good things of life including TV, computers, refrigerators etc etc were brought to them by Great/Dear/Young Leader but in the rest of the world we are told to give thanks to another deity.:hmm:

West Coast
17th May 2014, 04:48
Wtf does that mean?

John Hill
17th May 2014, 05:11
You should have paid more attention in school.

West Coast
17th May 2014, 06:10
I did, unfortunately there weren't any courses offered in gibberish.

Hempy
17th May 2014, 07:16
I would have thought that the 9/11 Museum was a memorial to the people killed that day and the bravery of those who tried to save them, as opposed to a 'glorification of defeat'. Depends on your political agenda tho I suppose.

Btw, the New Yorkers would have been better served by rebuilding the towers completely, making them bigger and more 'powerful' in the process imho. The atrocity was committed to garner a reaction...the only way to defeat that purpose would be to show them 'Business as Usual'.

The general British population showed it best during the Blitz in WW2.... "You can't stop us". THAT was Churchill's finest hour.

chuks
17th May 2014, 07:55
I think we can take that as read, coming as it did from a man who cannot spell "deity." That is you told, West Coast!

I will stick with my vision of 9/11 as primarily a failure on the part of the USA. Not least, the airlines failed in their duty to protect the lives of their passengers and crew, but like most accidents, there had to have been a chain of failures that led up to catastrophe.

Now we have two very large holes in downtown Manhattan, an absence that constitutes a presence, some crazy sort of "sacred ground," and if that's not nonsense then I don't know what is. Oh, wait ... there's still this "War on Terror" going on, right? Victory shall be stopping fanatics from blowing themselves up? Good luck with that one.

Joseph Conrad had terrorism, a bomb outrage, as the centerpiece of his novel The Secret Agent, published in 1907 and based, loosely, on the Greenwich Bombing of 1894. It's tempting to assign fixed causes to the terrorism of today, but that's really kind of an ignorant thing to do if that means focusing on the actions of the USA as the prime cause for it; that's the sort of thing someone who can't even spell correctly might do.

Hempy
17th May 2014, 08:37
I
....but like most accidents, there had to have been a chain of failures that led up to catastrophe.

"Accident"? First time I've ever heard it described as that before....

John Hill
17th May 2014, 09:02
coming as it did from a man who cannot spell "deity."

I bet you were so pleased to find that little slip!:)

chuks
17th May 2014, 13:28
I should have phrased that differently. Not to say that 9/11 was an accident since it clearly was an attack, an act of terrorism, I meant to say that, like many accidents, 9/11 depended on a chain of failures to make it possible.

I think one might characterize 9/11 as our failure to prevent an attack, to focus more on our failure than on the attack itself. What I am getting at is sort of like leaving the keys in your car and then having it stolen; should you focus more on your failure to secure your car, or on the act of theft?

For instance, an FBI agent was on the trail of one or more of the 9/11 hijackers, alerted by the way a student pilot did not want to learn how to take off or land, until the agent was told to tend to other business and drop an investigation that might have uncovered the plot.

Then there was the way that air crew had been trained to deal with hijackers, when the idea that the hijackers might intend a suicide attack with the hijacked aircraft was not seriously considered. Instead it was just, "Ho-hum, another unscheduled trip to Havana."

Proper attention to either one of those things, obvious in hindsight, might well have "broken the chain" and prevented the catastrophe.

AtomKraft
17th May 2014, 13:57
9/11 was an awful attack for sure, and as someone else posted, it was like an attack on humanity as there were people of many nationalities killed that day.

Looking back on it, I think there was a real choice in how the US responded to the attack.

The random lashing out that has taken place since 9/11, has done more damage than the attack itself- to America.

Perhaps a quiet rebuilding of the towers, a reflection on US foreign policy and a bit of a hard think about Americas posture generally would have served better.

chuks
17th May 2014, 15:45
I think that a lot of the nature of the response, arguably of a mistaken nature, might be laid at the door of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, two rather limited people in a position of great power. What's done is done, though.

The most bitter joke is that President Obama, holder of the first Nobel Peace Prize ever awarded for "not being George W. Bush," has carried on with Guantánamo and extra-judicial killing, drone strikes, seemingly unable to come up with any alternative to these wrongs of the Bush administration, despite having been elected on a promise to do exactly that.

Perhaps some prominent Kiwi pundit should sharpen up his crayons and write Barack a letter telling him exactly what to do.

AtomKraft
17th May 2014, 16:11
Indeed, Chuks.

Were I an American, I might wonder what the point of voting is.

Dushan
17th May 2014, 16:12
In North Korea people are told all the good things of life including TV, computers, refrigerators, etc., etc. were brought to them by Great/Dear/Young Leader, but in the rest of the world we are told to give thanks to another deity.:hmm:

Last edited by John Hill; 17th May 2014 at 05:04. Reason: Spelling corrected to gratify our leading grammar troll.



Still didn't make those corrections as they should be.

West Coast
17th May 2014, 16:15
Atom

Yet if you're a European you were fooled by his soaring rhetoric and his mad skills with a teleprompter.

To paraphrase Brick, 200,000 screaming Germans couldn't be wrong.

Or the Nobel committee for that matter.

AtomKraft
17th May 2014, 16:26
Westie.

Well, I am a European (a Scot), so clearly never had a vote!

The ones fooled were your fellows.

I realised long ago that voting changes little, or nothing.

9/11 was dreadful, but the wild lashing out that followed has made things ten times worse.

It's all such crap.

West Coast
17th May 2014, 17:22
Indeed, many on this side were fooled. Europe's love affair with him may not have extended to the ballot box but was just as visceral.

AtomKraft
17th May 2014, 17:29
Westie.

In the gentlest possible way, it was Americas love affair with him that was the problem.

Europe had FA to do with his election, or GWBs for that matter.

Don't blame us for your own mistakes.

con-pilot
17th May 2014, 17:30
I realised long ago that voting changes little, or nothing.


Sorry, but I think you're wrong. If all one does is to vote for a President in presidential elections, yes you are correct. However, if one votes in every election they can, starting at the lowest level and if by some miracle so does everyone else that is able to do the same does, then voting has a real impact on how one's government will be run.

But only then will voting really make an impact.

AtomKraft
17th May 2014, 17:34
Con
I agree with you in principle- it's what the vote is FOR that's important.

Example: in a US or UK general election, ones choice is the blue Tories or the red Tories. Therefore, why bother?

In the coming Scots referendum on the other hand, voting is vital.

As always, context is king.

con-pilot
17th May 2014, 17:43
We vote in every election, local school board, county commissioners, judges and up to and including Presidential.

I my humble opinion, the most important vote starts at the bottom and least important is at the top, the one for President.

But then again, I believe that if three people in every precinct that voted for Obama, had voted for Romney, Obama would not be President today.

Makes you think.

West Coast
17th May 2014, 17:54
Atom

His election was an American failure no doubt. Europes love affair with him was real and undeniable just the same.

500N
17th May 2014, 18:03
The longer Obama stays in, the more red faced the Nobel committee gets !

I wonder how they can live with the decision !

AtomKraft
17th May 2014, 19:19
Sure Westie.
But it wasn't so much who he was, as who he wasn't.

And that was YOUR fault.

lomapaseo
17th May 2014, 19:22
Time to close this thread

It is seriously off subject

West Coast
17th May 2014, 20:11
Atom

While I didn't vote for him, I do bear that cross.

Yours is free (for the most part) you got to love all up on him and then run away. I'm still stuck with him till Hillary replaces him.

I'll be moving to,the newly independent Scottland when that happens. Can I bring my guns?

AtomKraft
17th May 2014, 21:24
Westie.

Bring 'em.

Ethel the Aardvark
18th May 2014, 01:47
Nobel and their peace prize, are they still involved with bofors?

A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but no aircraft to drop it from.

West Coast
18th May 2014, 02:37
Wouldn't that mean the NZ Air Force as well then?

Hempy
18th May 2014, 04:37
No. They dont have bombs either :)

500N
18th May 2014, 05:25
They have C-130's ;)

AtomKraft
18th May 2014, 06:34
Ethel.
So true.
Just because you drop the bombs from an aircraft, don't mean they're legal.

Bombs is bombs.

I think the quote is "a terrorist is someone who has a bomb, but no Air Force".

:rolleyes:

Lonewolf_50
19th May 2014, 13:02
What, no calls, no beers? Hurt I tell you, hurt. :(

Nobody likes me. :{
I was there on a day when the coldest on record day in April (23d?) hit OKC. It was very much a family visit, as I had not seen my Aunt and Uncle in some years and they are both over 80. My entire program was family focused, and I got to see one of my cousins ... the one I rarely see anymore due to his wife being somewhat of a pain and he being a good husband who has had to take sides.

I had the idea to see if you were in town, but when we looked at the schedule, I could not wedge in something for a meet with you were you in town.
Apologies. If I am to be in OKC again, I'll make sure you get a heads up, and we'll arrange something.:ok:

Back to 9-11.
It is called the world trade center, but it was built by Americans to make some other Americans money. The latest version likewise.

chuks
19th May 2014, 16:38
There's a World Trade Center in Bremen, Germany as well, out at the airport, but it's nothing much, just some low-rise office buildings. It must have been built by Germans to make some other Germans some money. Commercial real estate is like that, isn't it?

I think that if you look into it, you may find that the New York City WTC was not such a hit with its tenants, that it was a bit of a white elephant in the real estate market of its time, never succeeding in its intended function. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had to take some of the space just to give it some business, from what I remember reading about that.

I visited the sight-seeing floor once, when I was struck by two things: the way the building swayed gently in the wind, and the way one could look down upon air traffic. Later I flew past it, using that Hudson River visual corridor in an Aztec, when looking up at the WTC was also impressive.

Unfortunately, the WTC's size and location, in the American city with the largest Jewish population of any city in the world, seems to have made it a very attractive target for fanatics. First they tried to blow it up and failed, but their next try succeeded, of course. One has to wonder if rebuilding the WTC on a similarly gigantic scale is such a very clever idea.

con-pilot
19th May 2014, 16:59
One has to wonder if rebuilding the WTC on a similarly gigantic scale is such a very clever idea.

I kind of think of it as a "IN YOUR FACE!" sort of thing.

Like getting knocked down by a cheap shot, when you were not looking, but getting back up and saying "Try that again."

As for that being 'clever', don't know, depends on the resolve and strength of the one hit by the cheap shot.

Lonewolf_50
19th May 2014, 17:35
Later I flew past it, using that Hudson River visual corridor in an Aztec, when looking up at the WTC was also impressive.
I too have flown that VFR corridor quite a few times. My thought flying by one day was "I wonder if they pay any attention to the helicopters flying by" and I concluded that they didn't. Too busy making money, or trying to, to pay any attention to what is outside their windows.

Yes, I was guessing, but I think that guess was closer than it was far.

I recall there was some sort of restaurant at the top, which I never visited (sorry to say) since I was appalled at the prices when I looked into it.

con-pilot
19th May 2014, 17:43
I was there on a day when the coldest on record day in April (23d?) hit OKC

Okay, you're forgiven, probably wouldn't have left the house anyway with it being that cold. :p

Next time maybe we can work something out. :ok:

I too have flown that VFR corridor quite a few times

The Hudson River Approach? Flown it many times myself. On a clear night it is spectacular.

Lonewolf_50
19th May 2014, 17:54
From the GW bridge to the Lady (Statue of Liberty) ... at 500 feet. Always got a kick out of the non-carrier aircraft parked on Intrepid. :p

The first time I flew that route, I began to appreciate the "concrete jungle" appelation that applied to Manhattan. l

11Fan
19th May 2014, 18:19
Always got a kick out of the non-carrier aircraft parked on Intrepid.

One wonders how many bolters they had before they finally caught a wire.