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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

 
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
 
Top