It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nearly 5 minutes of Unedited audio from within WTC on 9/11 - ***WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES AND AUDIO***

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
***WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES AND AUDIO***

This audio is a recording of a 911 call made by Kevin Cosgrove on 9/11 from the 105th floor of the WTC.
You can hear the collapse at the end (graphic)..
There are no audible explosions, which one would expect to hear if there were any, especially of the magnitude suggested in 911 Eyewitness.

www.rcfp.org...

10 Meg file, I had a problem where it saved it as an HTM file on my computer, so you may need to rename it to MP4 when it's finished.

From here:

www.rcfp.org...

WARNING: Some images are graphic (pictures of burned bodies in Pentagon, body parts in street from WTC attack).

EDIT: added graphic warning in title

[edit on 13-4-2006 by AgentSmith]


ok i understand the audio file got saved as html file but im not exactly a computer wiz but could anyone help and assisting me in trying to convert it to an audio file..thanx



SMR

posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
If you have winamp to listen to music, you should be able to play the file.Just rename to .mp4 rather than .html
You can skip all that if you wish and just get this mp3 version instead

You can right click save-as if you wish.

Audio - Melissa Doi: Click to listen ( .mp3 format )
Audio - Kevin Cosgrove: Click to listen ( .mp3 format )



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
If you have winamp to listen to music, you should be able to play the file.Just rename to .mp4 rather than .html
You can skip all that if you wish and just get this mp3 version instead

You can right click save-as if you wish.

Audio - Melissa Doi: Click to listen ( .mp3 format )
Audio - Kevin Cosgrove: Click to listen ( .mp3 format )


thanx for links


and ya the last couple seconds of the kevin Cosgrove tape literally chilled my bones and as for the supposibly "explosions" heard at the end ..IMO it could have been anything.

but yes very scary to listen to



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vinci

Originally posted by Majic
Be Prepared
It's okay to talk about it.


When I was younger I use to have an addiction to gore media. Including 9/11 victims. I was watching decapitation videos, marine-torture videos, etc. etc. I developed a special syndrome where I would imagine them everywhere I went and they'd warn me if I stopped watching they'd hurt me. It's been ~3 years and those photos reminded me of all my imaginations and such.

Still okay to talk about it? No offense but your post even more reminded me of the dead people I saw in mirrors and such. Although fully recovered mentally and emotionally, not a pleasant memory. Especially at 2 am.


You will not recover if you don't talk it out. Listening and watching is NOT talking about it. I do not agree to the recent profiteering of these tapes and video/jpeg of the 9/11 victims.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
TextDid anyone mention the fact that the audio on this thread is taken from the mousouii trial? If "They" did it then the audio would be scrubbed of any explosions to use in the testimony and be ok for public consuption.

They fell faster than gravity.


Humanist4TRUTH



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
(We believe that) Gravity travels at between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light, so I agree that if the towers had fallen faster than this it would be a sure sign of foul play


However they did not, what I think you mean is that they fell faster than free-fall. Again, they did not, this image shows that (ignore the white box, that was put in by the people where I got the image from):



You'll note large chunks of the debris have overtaken the main collapse of the building by far, the debris is at free fall, not the building.
For the building to be in free fall the debris would have to be accelerated beyond actual freefall speed...


[edit on 22-4-2006 by AgentSmith]


SMR

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
An interesting image here I made from a video into gif.
I was looking for video of demolitions and saw this.
This effect looks very familiar to me.....





Sorry if image tags are wrong...I tried



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
C'mon Agent Smith you're taking the free fall thing too literally.

So it didn't fall quite as fast as free fall, but it fell close enough for there to be no resistance from lower floors, that were not damaged.

There is no way to explain this, the lower floors had to have been compromised in some way. It wasn't the fires, it wasn't the plane impact, it wasn't the weight of the upper floors, so what could it have been?



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Im so humbled at the fact that you can bring this to the general public (likemyself), guess some off us do not have the same Iq as many in here.... Although I was not there on 9/11 I watched this on the television, seeing them towers come downlike that was shock enough... but to hear a guy trying to get help and then at the end the tower collapsing is to me disturbing....beyond..horror. I Just hope this never happens again...



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   


So it didn't fall quite as fast as free fall, but it fell close enough for there to be no resistance from lower floors, that were not damaged.


What are you talking about?

Look to the left of the tower in the photo he posted, see that large piece of debrs?

It looks to be 30-40 floors below where the collapse is still happening.

Close to freefall, yeah right.

[edit on 22/4/06 by Skibum]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Remember that BillyBob posted a thread a while ago showing that the Towers did fall faster than free fall for an amount of time.

This is because free fall speed is only attained after positive acceleration. The Towers can be seen falling ahead of free-falling debris at an already-steady pace while the debris is still accelerating.

You guys forget this too quickly, but it really is damning evidence. The only replies from the official-supporting camp were really just confusions of the argument, which would embarrass me, personally.

Here's BillyBob's thread.



There is the image he posts as evidence of demolition; a faster-than-free-fall demolition wave.

Here's some clarification on how this can be faster than free fall in the beginning, but then a little slower than free fall later, for those of you who may be confused:



[edit on 22-4-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
They may have heard explosions, as you would expect in a situation like this, but I find it hard to believe that a camcorder across the way can pick up these ear-shattering demolition explosions and yet a microphone in the building near the point collapse initiated did not (even though it clearly picked up the collapsing noise).


[edit on 13-4-2006 by AgentSmith]


...if there are no explosions on the taped phone call, either the frequency drop explainations of previous posters are correct, or the phone call was faked (or electronically doctored). The overwhelming preponderance of evidence from eyewitnesses on the ground and the seismic evidence recorded says there were explosions, and so does the photographic evidence from virtually every piece of film recorded that day. Logic also suggests that since the buildings collapsed at or faster than the speed of free fall in a vacuum, some additional method was used to bring those buildings down ( besides the impact of the planes into the upper floors).

This seems like a no-brainer to me. What is your rationale for presenting it the way you have, as a sort of "debunk"?



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Again, if the building fell 'at or faster than the speed of freefall in a vacuum', how come the debris from higher up which is falling at free fall in atmosphere has overtaken the collapse of the building by far?



This implies that the building is in fact falling slower than freefall even in atmosphere. Not 'at freefall in a vacuum' not 'faster than freefall in a vacuum' - slower than freefall in atmosphere.

The 'heros' that produced the muck they pass off as 'evidence' tried to be so clever they forgot to use common sense and observe the obvious clues in front of them. If the building was falling at the speed of or faster than 'freefall in a vacuum' please explain how debris has overtaken it by far, especially if you subscribe to the ridiculous idea promoted by the eyewitness DVD for instance of the debris being thrown 'up and out'.
It's a shame that the multiple implications of one theory can't even tie up with each other.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   


how come the debris from higher up which is falling at free fall in atmosphere has overtaken the collapse of the building by far?


Isn't it obvious, the debris is "falling" at a rate much faster than freefall would allow.

My theory on that is there are rocket motors attached to each piece of debris to propel them downwards, in order to give the illusion that the building is falling slower than the debris. It took alot of planning to get those rockets onto the debris, but in the end it seems to have worked.
Its apparent the debris "fell" faster than the building, when in reality it was propelled by rocket motors.

Just look at the enormous piece of debris that "freefell' 30-40 stories
below where the collapse is happening. There are smoke trails from the rockets. If thats not proof enough I don't know what is.


[edit on 23/4/06 by Skibum]


SMR

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
You have voted skibum for the Way Above Sarcastic award. You have 1 million more votes this month.

Can anyone explain why or how debris can be ejected UPwards while a building is falling DOWNwards? If gravity works as I think it does, the debris we see being ejected forcefully upwards does not calculate.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
Isn't it obvious, the debris is "falling" at a rate much faster than freefall would allow.

My theory on that is there are rocket motors attached to each piece of debris to propel them downwards, in order to give the illusion that the building is falling slower than the debris.


What? lol

You're joking.... right? There are much simpler explanations.


AgentSmith,

I really wish you would look at this thread and consider what is being said. The building was not coming down at free fall speed, but neither did it have to accelerate when it first started collapsing. It started at a steady pace just below free fall and continued at that pace all the way down, so the destruction wave was "faster" than free fall while free-falling material was still accelerating.

The only way the building could've skipped acceleration, is if the damage wasn't really the result of the building falling on itself. The expulsions from the building were unrelated to anything falling. And that's the only logical conclusion you can come to here. Like I said, I really hope you'll review that thread. This is getting ridiculous. This is the most scientifically simplistic proof we've yet to offer and people still aren't seeing it/refusing to see it.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Oh my god...very disturbing I almost cry.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
If gravity works as I think it does, the debris we see being ejected forcefully upwards does not calculate.


Luckily there isn't any debris being ejected forcefully upwards. It has been explained pretty clearly in the past, the only reason there are arcs in the trails behind the debris is pretty clear when you watch the video, the building falling causes the air to rush down which in turn causes the arc effect. You can see this by watching the video and following the larger pieces down.
Unless of course, you prefer to believe a certain video which superimposes an arc over debris implying it was ejected a couple dozen stories below you see it originate from.
Think man and use your own eyes, stop believing crap just because some false messiah tells you otherwise.

[edit on 24-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
can anybody explain how the repeater picked-up and recorded all of the radio traffic from tower 2 and nothing from tower 1? They were all on the same frequency using the same exact system and equipment.
Originally the repeater failure was the reason given for such a large number of firefighters getting killed when tower 1 collapsed , and that their radio's failed to receive the 'evacuation orders' that were supposedly transmitted after tower 2 dropped like a sack of hammers.

4 months after the magic show started the Port Authority produced taped recordings that proved the repeater was functioning during the time that the 'report' claimed this equipment failure was responsible for so many dead firemen in tower 1. The mayor and commissioner signed the report and supposedly two chief's went to the scene at some point and confirmed that their radio's did not function in the area of tower 1. Maybe to verify the signed 'official' report claiming the repeater failed, they didn't consider the possibility of the Port Authority producing a tape 4 month's later that would blow this big fat lie out the water, but it did, it most certainly did.
So since the repeater was obviously working during this time, how could it only contain the radio traffic from tower 2 and not tower 1? of course it could have been edited out during the 4 months it existed in 'limbo', BUT how did they disable the radio frequencies from travelling within' tower 1 since the chief's who claimed to be on ground floors were unable to get any confirmations of their "evacuation calls" ?

If that's not freaky enough.
and boy this makes me wanna field dress some,, thing

The Commissioner has not given a public statement or shown any interest in the contents of the tapes that the FDNY has been "reviewing" for the last FOUR YEARS??, eventho' pieces of the radio traffic that was released back in 11/02 verified that the repeater WAS functioning. AND they also proved that there were firefighters on the 78th floor of tower 2 during the same time a supposed "raging inferno" melted support beams and caused the metal skyscraper to fall to the ground. AND on those tapes you can hear the firemen describe the fire conditions where the jet fuel "officially" melted the steel as being "so tremendous" that he requested TWO whole engine companies with TWO lines to put it out... then,,, poof! the whole entire structure went crumbling to the ground.
Those damn MUSLIMS !!

anyway,

My quesiton is, how can the Commissioner not only fail to make a statement, or re-open the investigation into the murder of his men, or question the Port Authority about the delay in producing the tapes, or ask how radio traffic in tower 1 was mysteriously disabled, or investigate the beams that melted from an extensive time while exposed to 2000+ degree temperatures, or not say a word on the contents of such 'questionable' information on the tapes he's had for FOUR YEARS, or fail to pass on the warning he got,, to his men, ...
how can the Commissioner of the FDNY treat this situation almost exactly like the POTUS? with a mountain of Proof to confirm the "report" that him and the mayor both signed was false?

I KNOW !!

It's because SICK Nick was hypnotized by the same person that caused the mayor to have the WTC debris sent overseas and RECYCLED in less than 6 months.
THAT's why he doesn't care that he signed on the dotted LIE
THAT"s why it doesn't bother St. Nick when he hugs the crying widows or the children of the Great men of the FDNY that made 'the ultimate sacrifice' on that sad sad day.
I think they got funkin' robbed if you ask me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It would seem to look that way to the rest of the FDNY when the P.A's radio recordings first surfaced. MAN, I would just LOVE to find a few of them that would be interested in answering some of the calls of their murdered brothers.

Wooo !!

wrong just ain't the word for that bad ole' hypnotist.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   


Some people may find the screams at the end with the sound of the tower collapsing disturbing. It's basically just a 911 call, but the main issue I'm trying to get across is that there are no explosions..
As it's in the tower and near the impact zone you'd expect to hear if any explosives had been used as some suggest.



Sorry if this has beeen previously answered.
This is hard to listen to, especially at the end. But as for the explosions not being audible would'nt a 110 story building collapsing be insanely loud aswell?, which it does'nt appear to be. So can you tell me how you feel this makes a justified case (if any implied) for the point you're trying to make?


[edit on 29-4-2006 by Xeros]

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Xeros]

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Xeros]

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Xeros]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join