That proves my point - you see them differently because you are biased towards one (in this case, ground zero). You say you see it as a symbol of healing, without regard for the millions of people that see it as a symbol of conquest and disrespect towards the victims of the worst terrorist attack in US History. They are either both OK because they are legally protected, or they are both wrong because of the immense sensitivity of its opponents. You can be for one or the other, it just means you're biased.
You are simply framing the issue in one point of reference and judging all opinions from that point. Like I said, they both should be legally protected, but one is a step in a peaceful direction and one is not. The only thing I'm biased towards is good will.