McAllister 1

Meaghan McAllister
Professor Nicola Wilson-Clasby
Composition II
21 October 2016
The 9/11 Memorial Museum: Thesis Statement- The 9/11 Memorial Museum due to the
controversy of the low quality design, force of Christianity, and commercialization of the
museum has created an unsettling feeling with citizens of New York and the families of the
victims of the terrorist attack.
Annotated Bibliography
Donofrio, Therese Ann. Ground Zero and Place- Making Authority: The Conservative
Metaphors in 9/11 Families' Take Back the Memorial Rhetoric. Western Journal of
Communication, vol. 74, no. 2, Mar. 2010, pp. 150169.
Donofrios focus in this article is highlighting the elements of the TMB (Take Back the
Memorial) group, which includes the families of the victims of 911, and explores how the
families protest how the world trade center is no place for politics. At first, TBM had an
issue with having the IFC (International Finance Corporation) associated with the
creation of the memorial museum. She explains the controversy over how the memorial
of 911 should be built. The IFC wanted to input a focus on history of freedom in the 911
Memorial Museum while the families of the victims completely disagreed with that.
Donofrio discusses the metaphors behind the World Trade Center and what a place and a
space really is. Donofrio explores the meanings in a place and connects it to the feelings
of the families of the victims. A place where something as tragic as the 911 terrorist
attack has created feelings associated with possession and a connection to that place. The
families of the victims have placed authority over the space where their loved ones have
passed, therefore they feel like they should be in charge of how the memorial museum is
set up. Donofrio also goes into depth about the commercialization of 911. She brings up
the fact that many businesses around the time of the tragedy were using advertising to
make money off it. Donofrio explains how TBM also is controversial about tourism and
the different aspects of it. Even though they want people to visit the memorial, they are
uncomfortable with the fact that people make money off it. Donofrio also explains how
the TBM group claims that there is theft behind the world trade center. TBM believes that
their rights and opinions of what to do with this location has been stolen from them. It is
a constant battle between who owns this place and who gets to decide what to do with
it. In conclusion, Donofrio explains the metaphors behind memorials specifically in the

McAllister 2
911 Memorial Museum. Possible metaphors are how this place represents a crime scene
or a sacred place. TBM, according to Donofrio, rely on these metaphors when it comes to
taking an authority over the place. The World Trade Center to them is a sacred place
where what happened there changed their lives forever. This article has helped me
explore the feelings of the families of the victims and how they have created a metaphor
behind the World Trade. Since I am focusing on the commercialization of the 911
Memorial Museum it also provides me with an outlook on it and the controversy over
tourism.

Kennicott, Phillip. The 9/11 Memorial Museum Doesn't Just Display Artifacts, It Ritualizes
Grief on a Loop. Washington Post, The Washington Post, 7 June 2014,
www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/the-911-memorial-museum-doesntjust-display-artifacts-it-ritualizes-grief-on-a-loop/2014/06/05/66bd88e8-ea8b-11e3-9f5c9075d5508f0a_story.html.
In the Washington Post article, Kennicott views the 9/11 Memorial Museum in a light
different from other people who have spoken on it. He focuses on the architectural aspect
of the museum and how according to him, the creators of the museum are playing grief
on a loop. Kennicott protests how the 9/11 memorial museum is similar in a way to other
museums. He believes that there is a prevailing theme within these museums. He claims
that these new museums are creating a new, morbid religion by tying education to
extreme emotions that feed into our media obsessed country. This new religion, to
Kennicott, focuses on rituals and repetition. Kennicott focuses on how the museum does
not focus on the right things. Instead, the design of the museum is pushing the ideas of
Christianity. Especially how it includes the Stations of the Cross and a quote from Virgil.
Kennicott also highlights how the museum focuses on repetition by replaying the trauma
to the visitors over and over again. Kennicott made more connections with Christianity.
There is a lot of repetition present by creating imitations of the personal memorials
people had left around city. Kennicott also focuses on how the museum is misinforming
people on the Muslim religion. Kennicott protests how the museum is not promoting a
big enough difference between the terrorists and the Muslims who have absolutely no
connection to the people who commit these crimes. The museum does not actually say
that all Muslims are terrorists but according to Kennicott he believes that the museum
allows that to happen by not completely defending Muslims. He says in todays society
that idea is built into Americanism and Christianity. He also brings up how there is
controversy over the gift shop to this memorial museum and an admission fee. He says
how the mistakes are not within the politics but rather than how the museum was actually
created. Kennicott criticizes on how the museum does not bring up the effect of 9/11 on
America as a whole. In conclusion, Kennicott has a negative view of the 9/11 Memorial

McAllister 3
Museum. This source will help me with my research because Kennicott brings a different
opinion about the architecture of the museum which is not often brought up. His
perspective shined a light on the commercialization and the propaganda behind memorial
museums. He allows a deeper insight on how museums can force a certain belief onto the
visitors by repetition.
Kimmelman, Michael. Finding Space for the Living at a Memorial. The New York Times, The
New York Times, 28 May 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/arts/design/findingspace-for-the-living-at-a-memorial.html#.
In Kimmelmans news article, he criticizes the 9/11 Memorial because he believes that
the museum does not fit into New York City. He describes the memorial as a place, which
is intended for the visitation of New Yorkers, that some New Yorkers dont even go to
and even avoid it. Kimmelman proclaims that the architecture of the outdoor memorial is
not suited for its purpose. What Kimmelman means by that is something that is supposed
to represent the recovery of New York City and its strength does the opposite. It was
supposed to include the ideas and opinions of the families and nearby neighborhood
residents but Kimmelman believes it didnt. In his opinion, the setting seems like it is
completely for tourists. He comments on how people will look at one of the fountains and
hardly look at the other. Kimmelman explains how these people are probably just in awe
of these fountains rather carefully looking at them and respecting the true meaning
behind them. There is no personal or human feel to the memorial according to
Kimmelman which turns him off from it and makes the memorial seem very
unwelcoming. He protests that the memorial does not do much in the representation of
New Yorks positive characteristics. He describes the seating as somber and
uncomfortable, like the rest of the memorial. The grass that is put there to effectively
make it more comfortable does the opposite because how little there is of it. He explains
how that cannot be a less happy arrangement. He protests that the quality of this
memorial is not how it should be. To him, it needs a more welcoming, New York feel
because that is what New York is all about. In conclusion, Kimmelmans opinions about
the 9/11 outdoor memorial are negative. Kimmelman complains that this memorial does
not do justice as it should. This source helps my research because once again it shines
another negative light on how this memorial was built and the mistakes that were made.
The misrepresentation of New York has led to a low quality memorial museum which is
not what the victims of the families deserve. Kimmelmans article has broaden the depth
of my research by revealing the mistakes that were made in the design of the memorial.
The tourism aspect has also drawn into the commercialization of this museum. Michael
Kimmelman is a New Yorker, giving this memorial a greater importance. The museum
being most appealing to tourists can conclude that some creators of this memorial
museum were motivated by making a profit off of the death of 3000 people.

Burlingame, Debra. The Great Ground Zero Heist. WSJ, Wsj.com, 7 June 2005,

McAllister 4
www.wsj.com/articles/sb111810145819652326.
Burlingames article is a protest of the IFC for what they were planning to do to the
memorial museum Burlingames article, although 11 years old, shows the original
intentions of the creators of the 9/11 Memorial Museum. Before being removed, the IFC
which is the International Freedom Center, was involved in the makings behind the
museum. Burlingame protests on how completely wrong their involvement in the
museum could potentially be. The title of her article, The Great Ground Zero Heist, sets
the main idea of the article by explaining how Ground Zero is being taken. In her view,
the IFC is stealing the memorial museum for their own benefit rather than to allow the
public pay their respects to the people who had passed. The IFC would have put a history
lesson about all the mistakes that the nation and world have made when it comes to
freedom. Burlingame realizes that the knowledge of those events is necessary but that the
9/11 Memorial Museum is not the place for it. Burlingame explains that when visitors go
to the museum that they will expect to see an actual memorial for the terrorist attack on
9/11 but instead see a history lesson on another tragedy. Burlingame highlights the person
behind all of it, Tom Bernstein. It is people like Bernstein who would mistakenly use a
memorial for a place of another tragedy and disregard the mourning and grievance of the
families and friends of the victims of the 9/11 tragedy. Burlingame says the lessons that
are supposed to be behind the tragedy shouldnt be forced in the same exact place where
many people passed. After all, there are still human remains at this gravesite. She
explores how the memorial museum should be what 9/11 was all about, the stories of the
heroes involved in it. Specifically about a firefighters body who was cut in half because
he was helping a woman by carrying her. Thankfully, the plans of the IFC were never put
into place. Her article helps my research because it brings forth even more mistakes of
the creators of the 9/11 Memorial Museum. Although the creators of the Memorial
Museum fixed this issue by removing the involvement of the IFC, it still helps outline the
background of the controversy that is behind the memorial museum. The IFC plans in
design of the museum would have created a greater uproar within the families of the
victims like it did to Burlingame.

Hamill, Denis. Hamill: 9/11 Museum Should Be Free to All. NY Daily News, NY
Daily News, 18 May 2014, www.nydailynews.com/new-york/hamill-9-11-museum-freearticle-1.1796718.
Hamills article consists of a complete protest against the $24 admission to get into the
9/11 Memorial Museum. Hamill believes that the money behind this memorial should be
government funded. Hamill makes claims that it is not because the government does not
have the money, but they are putting money in the wrong places. He, along with the
previous New York mayor Bloomberg, want to protest to the government that this
memorial, along with other existing ones, should not be paid for by the public, especially

McAllister 5
at such a high price. Hamill begins his argument by comparing price of admission into
the 9/11 Memorial Museum with the purchase of Manhattan Island. It cost the same
amount as the admission fare. Hamill brought this example into his work to show how the
times in NYC have changed. Hamill highlights other memorials that cost money to visit
and some that dont, proving that our nation does not have a positive standpoint on how
to handle the financial situation behind memorials. Hamill quotes Pete King who is a
U.S. representative in NY 2nd congressional district. Pete King also believes that the
memorial should be free to visit and claims that D.C. has an issue with giving New York
funding for projects like the Memorial Museum. Hamill repeatedly exclaims that what
the country is doing is wrong by charging money to visit a memorial. He calls it horrors
for dollars. To get this money from the government, he believes we need people from all
political parties to get all of the present issues together. He refers to the scene of 9/11 as a
battlefield of American history and that it isnt something like a tourist attraction,
supporting his belief in that no one should have to pay to visit a memorial. In conclusion,
his point behind all of this is that the 9/11 Memorial Museum is not a place for a tourist
attraction but rather a place that one can freely remember and respect the victims of this
attack. This source helps me with my research because it gives even more reasoning for
why the 9/11 memorial museum is being commercialized. The present commercialization
is discouraging and defeats the purpose of memorials. It has created different
controversies from many different groups of people Hamills extreme protest against the
admission fee brings up the feelings of many different people that it should not cost
anything or at least as much as $24 dollars to visit and honor a memorial.