via http://www.metafilter.com/

This is tough to listen to, folks.

I don't know why I watched that. Downvote.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

on third thought - this does kind of go against our guidelines. But I think it's gray because of the nature of the event, and the fact that it isn't visually explicit. It is heart-wrenching and hard to watch.

Well, the fireworks factory explosion wasn't visually explicit either and that was pulled...but I don't know, this IS historically significant. I can't vote for it though.

This video has provoked such strong emotion in both the youtube comments and at metafilter (http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/53349) It's made people talk, get involved and remember. I considered it might be against the guidelines (snuff) but also weighed it's viral aptitude (128,000 views at youtube).
http://www.youtube.com/results?search=tower+collapse+phone&search_type=search_videos&search=Search)

I don't imagine Cosgrove's "young kids" much like their father's death being a "viral video". But there's no such thing as tact on the internets, I suppose.

wow, thats really hard to listen. I have seen the pictures of the collapsing towers a hundred times but when you actually hear someone who dies in that building its really odd. I don´give it a vote though.

intense

I wanted to vote it down but then decided against it because it's not bad, but it's not good either. While we all have the power, I will remain neutral. It was tough to listen to and each of us needs to remember the lives lost were individuals like you and me. It's definately a tough one to watch.

I don't have enough gruesome curiosity in me to click "play". Why would you want to hear someone die, regardless of the circumstances?

The Internet isn't good for you.

Perhaps it's time the rules were made a little more explicit. How is this different from the video (currently at #4) in which some moonbat razes a town and then shoots himself? In both videos, people die but not in a 'visually explicit' way. (That wasn't a rhetorical question BTW, I'm genuinely interested to hear what people think.)

Posting Guidelines, #3: "We do not want pornography or "snuff" films (in which people die). There are plenty of other sites that have these markets covered, but it's not for us."

Do the rules need to be made clearer, or are we capable of self-censoring?

Disclaimer: I haven't actually watched this video, I don't really have the stomach for it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I think maybe you are right haggis. I think it is up to interpretation. Keep in mind that all gold star posters have the ability to discard this, if they want to step up, and feel strongly enough about it.

I don't think that this really belongs here. Most people (like me) will watch it, but it just brings back the feelings of that day all over again.

joshd,

I chose not to vote for it for that reason. That was however, the day where I learned to enjoy crying again.

Anyone can go to the court documents and pull down both Exhibits with this audio. I think the other woman's audio is more tragic. Anyways, this isn't technically a snuff film. It's like 9-1-1 audio, that normally has text going by, not re-enactments. This 'mash-up' serves no purpose but to appeal to people's accident rubber-necking. (Unless you want to make the argument that it is important to bear witness.. But sadly the gov't won't release anything but these two audio soundbites. Why not all of them?)

I watched through the whole vid even though I didn't want to, but I felt it was important to find out what you see before making a decision.

mlx: you do make some valid points, but I do agree with the fact that we also removed the fireworks video that killed the videographer.

You could also argue that that video had historical significance - perhaps not as earth changing at 9/11, but it was a "personal 9/11" for the people who lived around that factory.

And joedirt, technically this is even more of a snuff film than the fireworks videographer, since in that vid you do not even know the man died; here you hear it happening, and it's heart wrenching.

In addition to that, I read a comment on Youtube from a 16 y.o. who commented that this prompted tears. The policy as it stands keeps VS a "safe place" where you can expect some limits to what will appear in the vids. I have a lot of regret doing this, b/c I do think it's a powerful video that many people should see, but in my humble opinion, VS isn't the place for it.

The final reason, which I believe swayed me the most (if not the previous one), is to keep it off out of respect for his children. Should they decide they want to honour their dad by broadcasting it, then I think the decision should be theirs (just like how in Canada media are allowed to witness the return of KIA soldiers from Afghanistan at the option of the family).

For those reasons, and despite my reluctance born of the "Remembrance Day"/"Veterans Day" vow to "never forget", as well as my inherent bias against 'censorship' in various forms, the debate has made me feel strongly enough about this to say *discard

I apologize to those who disagree, however I hope I've made the reasoning clear.

although i think it's significance should not go unnoticed, i also believe this to be inappropriate for VS. nothing like watching a fat cat climb down a ladder, and then a total mood-shift to this...

Discarding this video (discard called by gold star member Krupo)