August 12, 2005

The 9/11 recordings.

Are you listening to them?

12 comments:

Goesh said...

No, I'm not. I think I still have some mild PTSD from the attack and I was far away from NY when it happened.

irish guard said...

I have listened to them all and am saddened to think that people had to hunker down in hope of receiving help that never arrived. While it was not for a lack of effort, I can only imagine how the rescue workers felt.

Now we are engaged in a battle overseas in which we are trying to bring those who cause that pain and suffering to justice. bit by bit, our national media and impatient hordes of others are counting the battlefield deaths rather than keeping their eye on the real target of eliminating terrorism.

MrsWhatsit said...

I listened, and I'm a little sorry that I did. It brings it to life all too clearly and puts me emotionally right back there again. How many of those voices from the field belong to people who didn't make it through that day?

Kathy said...

I too found the tapes upsetting. At the same time, it is clear that NYC emergency services were immediately responsive and dealing with the events as they were trained to do.

As an aside, the Times has oddly titled the page "Fatal Confusion," which implies that they view the events of 9/11 as stemming from "confusion" on the part of NYC emergency services, a plainly absurd notion. In fact, someone correctly identified that this was potentially a terrorist attack prior to the second plane hitting.

I do wonder what the heck is in the water over there.

MrsWhatsit said...

I noticed the same thing. In fact, the transcripts don't sound terribly confused at all. The speakers' descriptions of events seem quite accurate, given the situation, and for the most part they manage to maintain an amazing composure as they speak. But I guess the NYT found a way to hear what it wanted to hear in the recordings.

Ann Althouse said...

Mrs., Katie: I agree. I was listening to the recordings, thinking how together and professional everyone seemed, then noticed the heading "Fatal Confusion."

k said...

Yes, and two things crossed my mind. First, how very proud their families must be of them. Second, how charming their New Yawk accents are. I started just listening to their cadences, while reading the transcripts (which are not very well done at all!) for the words. And it made me sad, of course, as anything from that day/that week does, still does. I agree with you all... there wasn't confusion, at least not any more than what normally exists during any crisis event.

Can someone tell me this? Is "K" the new equivalent of "Over"? Is it because it's shorter to say, and to hear over the radio? And no, that's not why I sign my blogger name "k."

David said...

I am at my parents home and they watch two hours of news each night, so I am listening to them whether I want to or not.

Andrew Scotia said...

"K" as a alternate to "Over" which is not done much anymore is, as far as I know, unique to New York.

Probably chosen in the early days since it is not a "letter word" and is a hard consonant.

Sarah said...

Plenty of people use "k" in online chats as an alternate to "okay," which serves as a basic "yup, I heard you, you should probably talk again now," signal in that context. I wouldn't be surprised to see it elsewhere.

I can't listen to the tapes more than I have already (just the stuff CNN has played, really.) I still can't watch the footage of the second plane hitting without feeling sick, though, so.

briz said...

I won't be listening. It took me a long time to stop thinking and wondering about those I knew who died. I read the Portraits of Grief, saw a transcript of a final cell phone call from someone on my floor and tried to piece it together based also on when identification was made. I'm not going back there.

k said...

Sarah: I kinda doubt that veterans of the FDNY would use online chat conventions in their emergency radio dispatches... don't you? See Andrew Scotia's comment.