In another case of deja-vu all over again, following our reporting the the original controversy over the Flight 93 Memorial having finally made it into the mainstream press (you remember the tale: with a group thinking it looks too based in Islam and should be completely scraped and a new design put in place, we find that the NY Times is now getting to a story we've been covering for quite a while now, which could be referred to as "the other Flight 93 Memorial controversy." This one relates to a story that you might recall us posting about a few times over the last couple of years about to professors, Lisa Austin and Madis Pihlak, complaining that their original designs for the memorial were either borrowed-without-credit or flat-out stolen from the designer who won the commission for the installation, Paul Murdoch (who is probably still banging his head against the wall about ever taking on this job in the first place, following the mess it's all become). Apparently now, after the Department of the Interior looked into a matter and found that no theft had occurred, Philak and Austin are taking their case to a National Parks Service conference, to continue to argue that their original plans for the Memorial were robbed. We'll see how it all plays out and let you know after the conference on Tuesday.