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

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
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.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
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?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

Tomi

Member
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
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

econ41

Senior Member
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:

davebeard

New Member
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.
 

econ41

Senior Member
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.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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:

There was no science to pulling it down; it was common sense. It needed to come down one spandrel, one panel, one column at a time, cutting through the connections. In the time we spent trying to pull, we probably could have given that thing a haircut and had it down.

In the end, of course, we cut it down, piece by piece. We were able to control where it was going and how it was going to fall. We had the blueprints of the façade and I would sit there with one of the demo guys, and we would decide where we were going to cut and drop. We would give the prints to the ironworkers, go over that with them, they would go up in a man basket and they would do what we asked them to do.

There was no concern that we’d accidentally knock the rest of the façade down. That’s how strong they were. The bottom of these crucibles were box beams. Eventually we cut them like you would a tree, on a wedge so that they couldn’t tip back. We’d leave a little stick in there, then we’d hook the cable up and just pull it away. Everything was taken out in controlled increments.
Content from External Source
(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.
 

Nada Truther

Active Member
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.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
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?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
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.
 

Edward Current

Active Member
this is still being used
The article mentions "the numerous photographs of what appear to be columns cut by shaped charges." There's only numerous photos of the one column like that, right? Not columns?

"Occam’s razor suggests that the BBC had some foreknowledge of an unprecedented global event." Okay, that just made me laugh.
 
Which I think means that at the time Gage claims the photo was taken it was actually buried about 100 foot deep in the pile of WTC1's core.

Round about this level, or deeper
Metabunk 2018-01-28 11-52-59.jpg
Complicating matters about estimating the amount of debris and how deep the columns were buried is how the WTC site was not even with street level everywhere, with an elevated plaza section to the east, stairways and ramps at the sides of the superblock, and the bathtub with the underlying steel lying far below street level on the sixteen acre site, right next to the relatively fixed street and roadways that didn't have a potential bathtub steel netting/concrete decking chasm underlying them.


During the collapse of the towers, there was reported to be numerous places in the pile where the debris would give way and fall into holes, showing the uneven nature of the base level of debris and highest intact ground level. Photos show that in some areas even close to the towers, the plaza level was relatively intact (such as near the sphere) while at what was the east and south entrance of the north tower and the south and east entrances of the south tower, the plaza level has collapsed to below grade levels

Although simulating the collapse of the towers by demolition, this video of the collapse of the towers made in detonate shows how the falling debris and overlaying weight of the fallen columns weighing on the ground level above the bathtub resulted in caving of the overlying plaza and street levels above the bathtub (instantaneously in some cases when those building pieces impacted the ground, while more gradually in other cases (fitting in with eyewitness accounts of how there were still collapses going on even after the towers collapsed)), allowing numerous holes and uneven surfaces to develop where the debris would suddenly give way

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UWrswoyDNU

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k9Tdp7W0I0&list=UUEXKRI7BzMSchg-1X9GEskQ&index=39


Here are some photos before most of that debris was removed
https://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/albums/72157708997281912

Even earlier pictures after the collapse of both towers are also seen here, with the columns that have fallen on west street having yet to be removed.
https://archive.md/xJ5gZ

This video shows even more of rare street level views of the World Financial Center and West Street areas right after the collapses (start around 1:40)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pa47YOqeYE
 
Last edited:

Nada Truther

Active Member
I am curious , since they are still using this as evidence, has anyone from "that side" ever tried to recreate this exact type of angle cutting to achieve such a perfect angle cut, in a similar column. It would seem to me that if I can't recreate it once, then it would be extremely difficult to do it four time, right next to each other, on interior columns in a 25 year old building.

I tried looking around myself to find this test, but it seems like no one has done it, in an attempt to recreate and show that shape charges could possibly create this.

found this guy's "proof" video. but nothing he produced looked like the angles: Jump to 8:39
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/fzelr/911_experiments_the_great_thermate_debate/
 

Nada Truther

Active Member
Cole proves nothing.. demonstrates the obvious
I agree that this video only really proves that thermite CAN cut steel, but clearly does not demonstrate how those particular angular cuts COULD have been made by Thermite. So, YES, this video proves nothing. What I was looking for was anyone who has seen a truther recreate the cuts exactly with thermite. I think that if I were thumping my fist on how something MUST have happened, that there would be some sort of scientific demonstration showing exactly how this happened or the point is moot.

I just wondered if there were any attempted "proof" videos out there besides this weak attempt...
 
I agree that this video only really proves that thermite CAN cut steel, but clearly does not demonstrate how those particular angular cuts COULD have been made by Thermite. So, YES, this video proves nothing. What I was looking for was anyone who has seen a truther recreate the cuts exactly with thermite. I think that if I were thumping my fist on how something MUST have happened, that there would be some sort of scientific demonstration showing exactly how this happened or the point is moot.

I just wondered if there were any attempted "proof" videos out there besides this weak attempt...
What I found really stunning was an argument presented just yesterday in the comments section of one of Myles Power's vids - the "truther" in question was actually arguing that angled cuts prove that cutter charges were used, because, after all, no one cutting the upright with a tool would have made an angle cut... because the shortest distance is of course directly across the upright. Anything else would have been "too much work."

So, apparently the forestry profession has had it wrong for at least a century... don't they employ angled cuts to control where the tree lands? I would expect the people cutting apart the WTC debris would have done the same. Certainly, if it were my job to cut an upright multi-ton I-beam, I'd do my damnedest to make sure it fell away from where I was standing.
 

Edward Current

Active Member
no one cutting the upright with a tool would have made an angle cut
Ah, a classic appearance of the believer's "would." Whenever I see someone use the word "would," it stops me cold — it seems like 9 times out of 10, it's used in the middle of a naive thought experiment by somebody believing some story, e.g., “the building would have tipped over,” “The wings would have come off,” etc. Always be wary of “would”!

And a big welcome to Ѧρσ$†l£ѴڃrDɜ, who's had my back on YouTube for years.
 

DannyBoy2k

New Member
What I found really stunning was an argument presented just yesterday in the comments section of one of Myles Power's vids - the "truther" in question was actually arguing that angled cuts prove that cutter charges were used, because, after all, no one cutting the upright with a tool would have made an angle cut... because the shortest distance is of course directly across the upright. Anything else would have been "too much work."

So, apparently the forestry profession has had it wrong for at least a century... don't they employ angled cuts to control where the tree lands? I would expect the people cutting apart the WTC debris would have done the same. Certainly, if it were my job to cut an upright multi-ton I-beam, I'd do my damnedest to make sure it fell away from where I was standing.
Particularly since it's pretty much determined that they did. Cut the columns almost all the way through, then pull them in the direction of the fall to make sure that they fell as desired.

But then, it's "al". (Yes, I know the comment)
 

econ41

Senior Member
Particularly since it's pretty much determined that they did. Cut the columns almost all the way through, then pull them in the direction of the fall to make sure that they fell as desired.
The problem of recycling claims that were rebutted or explained over a decade ago. Many of us didn't keep records. I made the naive assumption that once an issue had been explained there would be no need to explain again.

At that earlier time it was easy to access pictures of the use of "Thermic Lances" to make those cuts. Including if my memory is correct the one most often featured in truther claims.

Another sideline issue at that earlier time was that many were not familiar with "Thermic Lances" and there was minor confusion with "thermite" >> the red herring introduced by S Jones as a "marketing ploy" when he was losing his prominence as a TM leading figure.

Other than the common first six letters "thermi..." the two technologies have little in common. AND "thermic lances" were used. "thermite" wasn't.
 
Top