Debunked: The WTC 9/11 Angle Cut Column. [Not Thermite, Cut Later]

Debunked Angle Cut Column 2.jpg
This image is famous in 9/11 conspiracy culture:

hdanglecutlarge.jpg

The column in the center of the photo (by Sam Hollenshead) has been cut at an angle, presumably during the cleanup process. Yet Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911) still insist it was cut before the building fell, and looks nothing like a normal cut, and hence is evidence of thermite. Here's an AE911 slide they used just a few weeks ago:

upload_2018-1-27_13-52-44.png

Here's Richard Gage, head of AE911, discussing this:
Source: https://youtu.be/cjzZ7Yot_5s?t=1m11s

However other photos of the scene show the exact same column, so we can figure out where it is, and when it was cut.
Metabunk 2018-01-31 22-34-42.jpg

This photo from Oct 29, 2001 shows the angle cut column after it has been cut. It also shows the adjacent column as it falls to the ground, having just been cut.
Metabunk 2018-09-04 14-18-25.jpg

Image Source: http://www.apimages.com/metadata/In...United-/76b06dee64e5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/54/0
Date: Oct 29, 2001.

The clincher is that the column was still there earlier that day, with no cut. On October 29th.
Metabunk 2018-09-04 14-19-05.jpg
Image Source: http://www.apimages.com/metadata/In...-United-/e0279fc464e5da11af9f0014c2589dfb/1/0


The position of the column is right at the bottom of the pile of debris that formed when WTC1 collapsed. It took weeks to dig it out.
Metabunk 2018-01-31 22-39-20.jpg



Drag the slider to see the two photos in context:


It appears in other images from after Oct 29th, which show it in the same position.


Hence the column was cut several weeks after the collapse. People have been claiming something as evidence for over a decade. But they were wrong. Again.


[Update] Some people have reported difficulty seeing the match of the Hollenshead image with the AP image. Here's a guide to the matching features between the two.
Metabunk 2018-02-08 08-14-22.jpg

And in a wider context we can see other columns and pieces of debris that line up in both images

Metabunk 2018-02-08 08-21-27.jpg

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is a summary of the thread discussion. The original question that started this follows, and the thread contains more information reinforcing the location and timing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
So, I assume you are saying that this thread convinced you that this particular piece of so called evidence for CD is not evidence of CD.

Would I be correct to assume that if a fellow truther comes to metabunk and tries to argue that this diagonal cut is evidence for CD, you would help us explain to him that this is incorrect?

I was agnostic regarding whether these columns bore evidence of attack by incendiary charges, and would dissuade anyone from basing their conclusions on them alone. I haven't read the above discussion, but I trust that it does show these were cut down conventionally.

[off topic content removed]
 
Gage also makes similar unfounded claims about this photo:
Metabunk 2018-02-05 10-23-51.jpg

Saying:
This demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding of the World Trade Center site for someone who has spend so long heading an organization supposed focussed on the truth of the matter.

Here's the photo:

Source:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzexcav1.html

Here's a wider shot:



Even wider (slightly different angle, but the sunlit columns are identifieable)



This is clearly well into the cleanup process, some time in October. Gage's assertions here are nonsensical.
 
If it was not important why did AE911T and others use the column as an example of pre cutting for a controlled demolition?

It's not important to me. One reason is why would we expect to see cuts to the perimeter columns at ground level? Might be more plausible to look for thermitic attack on core columns at the basement level.
 
It's not important to me. One reason is why would we expect to see cuts to the perimeter columns at ground level? Might be more plausible to look for thermitic attack on core columns at the basement level.

The column in question (and those around it) are core columns at the ground level. Based on the photographic evidence provided in this thread, they clearly were not pre-cut at the ground or basement level, right?
 
The column in question (and those around it) are core columns at the ground level. Based on the photographic evidence provided in this thread, they clearly were not pre-cut at the ground or basement level, right?

I don't see what you mean. Are you asking me if I believe it was cut down in the aftermath?
 
I don't see what you mean. Are you asking me if I believe it was cut down in the aftermath?

You are staring at a set of core columns that were obviously not pre-cut cut at the ground level or the basement level. So what about that leads you to conclude that it therefore:

...Might be more plausible to look for thermitic attack on core columns at the basement level.

It seems to me you did not understand that the column at issue here (which was given an angle cut during the clean-up) and the columns in its immediate vicinity (which were also cut during clean-up) were core columns.
 
It seems to me you did not understand that the column at issue here (which was given an angle cut during the clean-up) and the columns in its immediate vicinity (which were also cut during clean-up) were core columns.
He said he didn't read the thread. so he doesn't know where the cut column is.
 
Even wider (slightly different angle, but the sunlit columns are identifieable)
this shot shows to the left a bit more..so you can see the debris up against those candlestick things is gone.
gzexcavate1 (1).jpg

gzexcavate3.jpg
 

Attachments

  • gzexcavate6.jpg
    gzexcavate6.jpg
    164.4 KB · Views: 394
Last edited:
The photos are similar to these from November 8th, 2001. Two months after the collapse.

Metabunk 2018-02-05 12-58-56.jpg

Metabunk 2018-02-05 12-58-09.jpg

Here's Gage's photo roughly in context. Note the sunlit columns in the back line up. Again,

Metabunk 2018-02-05 13-02-19.jpg

And with perspective correction and blending.
Metabunk 2018-02-05 14-04-02.jpg

Again there's a fundamental misunderstanding on Gage's part here. How on earth he managed to characterize this photo as "during rescue operations, prior to cleanup" is baffling.
 
Last edited:
You are staring at a set of core columns that were obviously not pre-cut cut at the ground level or the basement level. So what about that leads you to conclude that it therefore:



It seems to me you did not understand that the column at issue here (which was given an angle cut during the clean-up) and the columns in its immediate vicinity (which were also cut during clean-up) were core columns.

Yes, I haven't followed the discussion so I'm sure you're right. But it might be better to look for evidence of thermitic attack in the basement levels was more my point there.
 
Yes, I haven't followed the discussion so I'm sure you're right. But it might be better to look for evidence of thermitic attack in the basement levels was more my point there.

Why? The columns sub-grade all appeared to be intact.
 
Why? The columns sub-grade all appeared to be intact.

Were it possible to gain access to the remains of the twin towers, had they not been sold on the open market, I would look for evidence of incendiaries and/or explosives to corroborate the eyewitness testimony of a secondary explosion in the basement.
 
Were it possible to gain access to the remains of the twin towers, had they not been sold on the open market, I would look for evidence of incendiaries and/or explosives to corroborate the eyewitness testimony of a secondary explosion in the basement.

Look at the photos in this thread. What would an explosion in the basement do? And what evidence would it leave. Why would this evidence not show up in site photos?
 
Here's the basement, showing angle cut columns at around ground level. Everything is intact below that. And, as we have seen here, was largely intact ABOVE that for the core, for a few floors.
Metabunk 2018-02-05 14-48-44.jpg

Also answers some questions about where the concrete went.
 
Look at the photos in this thread. What would an explosion in the basement do? And what evidence would it leave. Why would this evidence not show up in site photos?

That's a bit obtuse. I was suggesting analysis ought to have been done on columns from the basement level - testing for residues, analysing deformation, looking for any changes in the grain, etc. I don't mean just casting your eyes over a few pictures and remarking that several columns survived.
 
You mean like Richard Gage did? You agree his analysis here was pretty bad?

I don't think he should have claimed the angle cuts demonstrated thermite, if that is what he did. I can see the appeal of giving AE a bloody nose, but these angle cuts are a soft target. Like going after the claim that jet fuel melted the steel beams, or 1 & 2 fell at 100% of free fall. You're not looking for evidence that might challenge your beliefs.
 
I don't think he should have claimed the angle cuts demonstrated thermite, if that is what he did. I can see the appeal of giving AE a bloody nose, but these angle cuts are a soft target. Like going after the claim that jet fuel melted the steel beams, or 1 & 2 fell at 100% of free fall. You're not looking for evidence that might challenge your beliefs.

This is silly. We challenged our beliefs in this thread by pouring over hundreds of photographs, any one of which could have contradicted them. I personally purchased over 10 books detailing, in narratives and photographs, the state of the wreckage at ground zero. You, on the other hand, won't even challenge your beliefs by reviewing just how flimsy Richard Gage's presentation has been for 10 years, even though the hard work has been done for you. Suddenly looking over three pages of thread is too much for you to possibly bear and be bothered with. You'd rather snipe at the work without even engaging with it, seemingly because you somehow knew we should have assumed ex ante that a key part of Richard Gage's public presentation for 10 years has been built on a fundamentally false claim that could be verifiably falsified with a few days of research. Why should we have assumed that, do you think? What made this claim in particular an easy target for debunking? Richard has been making it for ten years without ever hinting that he thought it was any flimsier than his other claims.
 
Last edited:
but these angle cuts are a soft target
Angle cut photos get hundreds of conspiracy hits on the internet. They are black and white proof of deceptive claims or at least proof of shoddy research. Claims of 'that squib doesn't look right to me' are subjective and , as you have demonstrated, the science is hard for some people to understand. So, it's claims like these - when not retracted by Truthers - aer what make most people stop blindly believing every conspiracy claim they see on youtube.
 
It still doesn't make the angle cuts important. [off topic text removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're not looking for evidence that might challenge your beliefs.

I was very specifically looking at evidence that Richard Gage, the head of the largest and most influential 9/11 "Truth" organization, has used in his online course on 9/11 he gives to architects. It's also something he specifically called me out by name as being wrong about, and presented this column, the slag, and the irregular cut line, as evidence that proved me wrong.

So should I simply ignore everything Gage says now? Would you recommend other Truthers do likewise?
 

You're not looking for evidence that might challenge your beliefs.
I did. or so I thought. or more the other way around. I was once a small-scale truther and penetrated my social enviroment with BS about 9/11. guess what challenged my belief? a long thread with a rational guy who just asked a few questions about the nonsensical nature of an "inside-job" of that scale and the extremly high odds of something going wrong in this "masterplan". I figured suddenly that I had nothing more than opinions, and those "evidence" I thought I knew, was just that; opinions, misinterpretation of pictures, videos and physics and the abillity to blend out what dindnt fit my frame of beliefs. admitting to myself that I would go so far to activly avoiding rational and logical thinking to justify those beliefs (mostly political ones, I guess) was a painful experience but worth it, cause I wanna know, not believe.
 
the cut into the columns itself is an adapted version of tree felling, humbolt scarf cut allowing control of & direction prior to the push with machine


treecuts.jpg

https://www.husqvarna.com/uk/forest/when-working/usage/directional-felling/
 
I did. or so I thought. or more the other way around. I was once a small-scale truther and penetrated my social enviroment with BS about 9/11. guess what challenged my belief? a long thread with a rational guy who just asked a few questions about the nonsensical nature of an "inside-job" of that scale and the extremly high odds of something going wrong in this "masterplan". I figured suddenly that I had nothing more than opinions, and those "evidence" I thought I knew, was just that; opinions, misinterpretation of pictures, videos and physics and the abillity to blend out what dindnt fit my frame of beliefs. admitting to myself that I would go so far to activly avoiding rational and logical thinking to justify those beliefs (mostly political ones, I guess) was a painful experience but worth it, cause I wanna know, not believe.

I accept that's your perspective, but I don't agree.
 
Richard Gage is functionally a science and engineering denier and his ignorance (mis)informs his beliefs and statements. He makes many demonstrably false statements in support of his CD thesis, yet refuses to acknowledge them and that his thesis collapses without these false statements as support.

He has a disingenuous approach of being a person just posing questions. Others appear online with the same approach. However when those questions are answered he and others refuse to accept the answers because it again undermined this confirmation biased positions.

As a result he will avoid interactions with engineers and scientists who show his beliefs are not grounded in science or engineering and chooses instead to lead the naive with all manner of logical fallacies including appeal to authority, something he is not qualified as.
 
This is silly. We challenged our beliefs in this thread by pouring over hundreds of photographs, any one of which could have contradicted them. I personally purchased over 10 books detailing, in narratives and photographs, the state of the wreckage at ground zero. You, on the other hand, won't even challenge your beliefs by reviewing just how flimsy Richard Gage's presentation has been for 10 years, even though the hard work has been done for you. Suddenly looking over three pages of thread is too much for you to possibly bear and be bothered with. You'd rather snipe at the work without even engaging with it, seemingly because you somehow knew we should have assumed ex ante that a key part of Richard Gage's public presentation for 10 years has been built on a fundamentally false claim that could be verifiably falsified with a few days of research. Why should we have assumed that, do you think? What made this claim in particular an easy target for debunking? Richard has been making it for ten years without ever hinting that he thought it was any flimsier than his other claims.

It's called judgement. Could you bring up angle cut columns in the pub and expect someone to believe that they indicate that Bush authorized a false flag attack on US soil? Wouldn't make any sense. Even if they had been cut with thermite, noone would follow. Showing them to be post-destruction artifacts is just a moment for you to enjoy, a 'gotcha' in the face of AE.
 
It's called judgement. Could you bring up angle cut columns in the pub and expect someone to believe that they indicate that Bush authorized a false flag attack on US soil? Wouldn't make any sense. Even if they had been cut with thermite, noone would follow. Showing them to be post-destruction artifacts is just a moment for you to enjoy, a 'gotcha' in the face of AE.

Ah, judgment. So simple. So it's easy for you to judge this lie of Gage to be a whopper, but if you met Gage at the pub and he told you he and a team of fringe academics had found top secret, military-grade NANO THERMITE (cue ominous music) in the rubble dust (this crackshot team had all been too busy for 10 years to get such finding independently verified, but they promised they'd get around to it soon!), then you'd figure it'd be time to rush off to the internet to tell people the government investigation couldn't be complete unless it searched for thermitic residue on columns in the basement of the towers?

We're getting off topic, but, suffice to say, you should fiddle with your BS detector to see if you can get it stuck in the "on" position. It seems like it's inconsistent at best.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting just how many photos of the site are not available online - either being just in books, or behind some paywall like the AP or Getty Images that only gives you a thumbnail.

Here's some relevant from Getty:


Oct 2, the pile around the "stump" of the WTC1 core is stripped away.
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/1166677
1166677.jpg

Oct 11, the wider north core structure begins to emerge. Higher section have already been removed.
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/525525130
525525130.jpg


Wider view
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/525525138
525525138.jpg

Oct 16
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/51985710
51985710.jpg

Oct 17, the line of five remaining columns at the North of the core of WTC
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/1168793
1168793-1.jpg

Oct 29 2001, angle cut column in lower left
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/1172104
1172104.jpg

Crop showing the column
Metabunk 2018-02-07 17-05-59.jpg


Oct 29 2001, in the general area
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/97271284
97271284.jpg

Oct 29 2001, Cutting columns
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/97270737
97270737.jpg



Oct 29 2001 (interesting angle cuts)
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/1172116
1172116.jpg

Nov 15 2001
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/1367452
1367452.jpg

Nov 13 2001
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/2244060
2244060.jpg
 
The response I've had from at least one truther is that it's not the same column in the AP image. I find this rather baffling, as it's obviously the same. He's argued at quite some length on the issue.

Here's all four known images of the column.
Metabunk 2018-02-07 17-39-48.jpg
 
This is excellent and shows what length one needs to go to confirm or deny an assertion. The diagonal cut column appears in multiple photos from multiple views.
 
that's why the slide photos are so nice. it's easy to see how all the other debris surrounding it is exactly the same.

And the face with the "T" and the the bottom curve of the white.

Here I've skew the top and adjusted for perspective.

[compare]
Metabunk 2018-02-07 18-35-57.jpg

Metabunk 2018-02-07 18-33-29.jpg
[/compare]
 
The truth is even if he can't see that it is, in fact, the exact same column as the OP pic - this side by side clearly shows that "a" column after being cut can still be a diagonal cut with slag around the edge. Event he dirt smudges on the precut column match the dirt smudges on the cut column.

[compare]
Metabunk 2018-02-01 00-03-58.jpg Metabunk 2018-02-01 00-04-26.jpg
[/compare]
 
Could you bring up angle cut columns in the pub and expect someone to believe that they indicate that Bush authorized a false flag attack on US soil?

If I thought that the angle cut column was definitive proof of thermite and a False Flag Attack on American soil, authorized By Bush...Yes I would. But, when someone then showed me definitive proof that this was, in fact, proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it was cut by clean up crews with a torch; then I would withdraw my statement, say that they were right and I was wrong, and then start looking for my next piece of hard "evidence" to throw into the argument. But I would acknowledge that I was wrong about the beam. I wouldn't just change my tune to "it doesn't matter".
 
If I thought that the angle cut column was definitive proof of thermite and a False Flag Attack on American soil, authorized By Bush...Yes I would. But, when someone then showed me definitive proof that this was, in fact, proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it was cut by clean up crews with a torch; then I would withdraw my statement, say that they were right and I was wrong, and then start looking for my next piece of hard "evidence" to throw into the argument. But I would acknowledge that I was wrong about the beam. I wouldn't just change my tune to "it doesn't matter".

I already said I was agnostic on the angle cuts, and am happy to accept that they bear evidence of the cleanup process, not of attack by thermite. What statement should I withdraw? Look elsewhere for evidence of what happened that day.
 
Here are some very detailed shots of the portions of the core columns that momentarily survived the collapse of the top block of the north tower (all taken by Aman Zafar from Jersey City):

wtc-71_1_small.jpg

wtc-72_1_small.jpg

wtc-73_1_small.jpg

wtc-74_1_small.jpg

The third and fourth photos are so detailed and clear that it might be possible to figure out which columns remained standing in this group.

Also, as a side note, here is another photo from Above Hallowed Ground: A Photographic Record of September 11, 2001:

IMG_4907.jpg

This photo was taken on September 11 after some of the dust had settled. One can clearly see a substantial section of the northern or western wall of WTC1 was stripped off the building by the top block in almost a single piece, which is wholly inconsistent with any theory of controlled demolition that has been articulated by AE911Truth & Co. This section of debris is rarely seen in photos because this was one of the first sections cleared to facilitate an access road to Ground Zero.

So we have evidence that a substantial section of the core was obviously not blown-up or otherwise destroyed by a controlled demolition and that a substantial section of the outer columns was not blown-up or otherwise destroyed by a controlled demolition. The circle of possibility for how a controlled demolition could have taken place and what its purpose would have been is tightening.
 
Last edited:
Here are some very detailed shots of the portions of the core columns that momentarily survived the collapse of the top block of the north tower (all taken by Aman Zafar from Jersey City):
great find! I scrolled trough the pictures and noticed that Aman had also a series of shots which seems to show the still standing core in the collaps of the south tower (green rectangle roughly outlines tower):
south1.jpg south2.jpg
cant remember to saw that ever anywhere. shown pictures here (on Amanzafars site): pics wtc-41_1_small.jpg to wtc-44_1_small.jpg
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Franckly Debunked: MH17 Air to air missile Assumption ? [Unrelated 35° angle] Flight MH17 25
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 15
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 75
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top