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.
View attachment 31500

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/Index/Associated-Press-Domestic-News-New-York-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/Index/Associated-Press-Domestic-News-New-York-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.
View attachment 31502



Drag the slider to see the two photos in context:
Metabunk 2018-02-01 00-03-58.jpg Metabunk 2018-02-01 00-04-26.jpg


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:

Comments

A close intellectually honest examination of the post collapse photos... and even the videos of the collapse of the core columns which survived the initial collapse is all one needs to determine that there was no controlled demolition. The facade obviously peeled away.. the core which clearly survived collapsed from Euler buckling... unable to self support without the beams inside the core which braced the columns.. and which was ripped off in the floor collapse.

No critical thinking shown in examining the visual evidence. This was explained to AE, Tony et al as early as Jan 2010.
 
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.
On YT, there is an account RKOwens4 who does a lot of 911 debunking videos. On one vid, workers are actually explaining that are cutting those cols. They cut them at an angle to they can anticipate where they fall.
 
Has anyone notified Richard Gage of this thread and the thorough debunking of his claim? Has he reacted to such a notification in any way?
 
Just adding a better AB comparison of the AP photos.
AP01102903234-AB-Crop.gif

Note these are just from the image thumbnails. The actual images are copyrighted, someone would have to pay to use them, but they would be a lot clearer.
 
Has anyone notified Richard Gage of this thread and the thorough debunking of his claim? Has he reacted to such a notification in any way?
What Gage says in the video is “Could this be thermite?“ He does not say it is evidence of thermite and so in his mind he is not a liar but just asking questions
 
What Gage says in the video is “Could this be thermite?“ He does not say it is evidence of thermite and so in his mind he is not a liar but just asking questions
Metabunk 2018-07-10 16-43-32.jpg
He says "This is some of the leftover 45 degree cuts on the columns at the world trade center you see them again and again and again. Could that be thermite?"

Not also the slide says "Before Iron workers on site", which is false as the photo was taken six weeks after to collapse.
 
What Gage says in the video is “Could this be thermite?“ He does not say it is evidence of thermite and so in his mind he is not a liar but just asking questions
That is understood. The issue is not what he wants to think as his excuse. The questions to establish "lie" are (a) is it false; (b) does he know it is false and (c) does he intend to deceive. Yes to all three == "lie".

Just to complicate it he is resorting to "lying by innuendo" which is the common trick of current truthers.

He leaves it to the listeners to draw the implied meaning...giving him an escape by deniability aka "I never said xyz"

It's not a clear cut issue of ethics but given Gage's lengthy experience he must be aware that there is proof that his claims or implied claims are false. Most - like me - would judge that he is deliberately trying to deceive or mislead his audience.

In other on-line discussions where pedantic rigour was important I have asserted that Gage (and T Szamboti) have been "Professionally Dishonest". It needs a lower threshold of proof. Though it is stated in various ways in professional codes of conduct the test is:
"When speaking as a professional and presenting a minor opinion which goes against the accepted view of the profession you are ethically obliged to make clear that you are in the minority". Something which AFAIK neither of those two ever does.
 
Last edited:
ok, but whats not clear is why they would cut on the angle like that?

the cut is longer, more material to go through, and this doesnt make sense.
 
The main reason is the "wedge" action to force the top bit to slide off and past the lower part - otherwise it would hang up. (Same reason that explosive demolition needs "cutter" and "kicker" charges ) The "toppling like a tree" aspect was probably influenced more by assessment of where the weight and balance of the top portion was - recall it was a part left standing after whatever random failures of the structure.
 
The main reason is the "wedge" action to force the top bit to slide off and past the lower part - otherwise it would hang up. (Same reason that explosive demolition needs "cutter" and "kicker" charges ) The "toppling like a tree" aspect was probably influenced more by assessment of where the weight and balance of the top portion was - recall it was a part left standing after whatever random failures of the structure.
That particular column section weighed 98,000 pounds. I suspect that moving this would be a touchy matter... and letting the mass slide off and then down to the ground and then lower the other end.... Maybe.
 
It was confirmed earlier that they cut them at an angle during cleanup.

Just to confirm that it was a deliberate practice of the engineers and iron workers on site to make diagonal cuts on columns that were dangerous to remove, here is the account of Charlie Vitchers, one of the construction workers on site, describing the removal of the southern tower's facade:

(Emphasis added. Nine Months at Ground Zero, The Story of the Brotherhood of Workers Who Took on a Job Like No Other, pg. 97.)

Of course it's not certain if the same wedge technique was used on this column, but it could explain why there is no slag on the upper left portion if that small section had been left in tact to be broken by the crane/grappler pull.
 
why they would cut on the angle like that?
The better question to ask is "Why WOULD they cut it straight?" What is the theory behind the angle of the cut and whether it indicates foul play or not. It seems to me that if we are pushing the theory of thermite cutting the column (Which was proven here to be not true), and the angle is evidence of this, then you are acknowledging that cutting it at an angle, with thermite, will make it fall in the manner that the conspirators want, why is it so hard to swallow that trained iron workers wouldn't know the same techniques?

My reasoning why they would "Cut" at an angle isn't just for the direction of the fall: In my experience with cutting steel with a torch is that angled or vertical cuts sometime are easier to cut, as much or the slag falls, instead of sitting in the cut and needing to be blown out. Although I would think that the better reason would be to control the angle of the fall.
 
Did anything ever happen with this? For me, this is one of the standout debunks on this site.

Did AE911 feed back? Did Gage change his presentations? Was the word put out by others, videos made, AE911 called out, etc?
 
I don't think AE911T retreats from the false statements. One claim of theirs was the distance from 1wtc to the West that structural steel was found after the collapse. This is easily measured from zoning maps overlaid on aerial photos. They exaggerated the distance by more than 100' (I forgot the specifics). What is the point of blowing such a simple and obvious observation? I suppose it supports their incorrect assertion that steel was exploded with great force off the tower.
 
Top