# Movement of Column 79 as Expressed in WTC7 UAF Presentation

Discussion in '9/11' started by gerrycan, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:16 AM.

1. ### gerrycanBannedBanned

In the presentation which can be seen here

the movement of the floor system is accounted for around column 79, specifically at around 55 minutes in.

[moderator add video quote as per No Click Policy/Deirdre:]

The particular slide on which this can be seen can be viewed here on page 69/85

http://ine.uaf.edu/media/92216/wtc7-structural-reevaluation_progress-report_2017-9-7.pdf

As can be seen, the movement to the East is expressed as a positive value in the x axis of 1.92"
You can also see to the right of that figure that the y axis value is also positive and is 0.73"

What this means is that the floor, which as Dr Hulsey makes clear remains composite and moves with the steel, "it moves together".
The movement is being expressed relative to the original position of the column and the elements, but is being expressed within the context of the movement of entire building.

So when Dr Hulsey stated that the Column and the whole thing moved 2" East, he was correct

(less the 0.08") BU and he was stating it relative to their original position.

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2017 at 11:07 AM

I'm not seeing a point here.

3. ### gerrycanBannedBanned

The Y axis figure. You hadn't noticed it. Let's have the convo here in the context of the thread that you banned me from. Why not make it just us that can post ?
ADD - it would save me from having to make 200 posts like the last one and it will be easier to follow. Nice and clear.

What about the Y-axis figure (0.73)? That just means "the floor" moved north 0.73" relative to something.

Sorry Gerry, but your OP is a bit of a ramble. Perhaps you could add a diagram with some labeled frame of reference, points and vectors to clarify?

5. ### gerrycanBannedBanned

I never saw you mention the y axis until now. Anywhere. Maybe I missed it, genuinely.
So we agree that the movements are being expressed RELATIVE to their original position now, and that's a start.

So you said that the floor moved North "RELATIVE to something". What might that be ? Is it perhaps the CoS ?
I think it is relative to it's position at column 79. Do we still agree ?

• Disagree x 1

I have no idea what your point is.

And frankly you seem very confused yourself. Draw a diagram.

8. ### OysteinActive Member

Hulsey, showing that slide 69 that the OP references, say:

This is WRONG.
NIST did NOT fix the exterior wall.
[DELETED REST OF MY POST]

Shucks - I should have gone on listening to a very confused Hulsey:

So what I had written earlier does not apply here, and I deleted my following post accordingly.

Sorry for the confusion.

Last edited: Sep 19, 2017 at 12:44 PM

I not sure how this is relevant to Gerry's OP, but then I'm not sure what point he's trying to make there either.

This thread is heading to Rambles unless Gerry can come up with a better explanation.

10. ### deirdreModeratorStaff Member

I don't think it is, but I saw "y-axis" in Oysteins post so didn't delete it as off topic.

My guess is Gerry is trying to get to some point about the CoS. I'm not sure Gerry realizes everyone agrees that in Hulseys model the column (and floor) moved 2 inches east from .. well from every other point to the west.

I like detective stories, but this 'clue' type posting is getting tiresome. I wish people would just come out and say what they mean instead of dropping a bunch of cryptic posts figuring there will be some "big reveal" at the end.

11. ### OysteinActive Member

I edited my first post, and deleted the second, as I just found out that Hulsey was confused in his presentation about what model he was talking about. His correction, which I added to my first post, made my comment inapplicable.

12. ### gerrycanBannedBanned

Well Mick, looks like one of us knew all about relative motion at the appropriate level, and it was me.
The above thread stands well with me and I hope you remember who just sepnt the time schooling you on how FEAs work.
Don't suppose this comment will ever see the light of day, but you will always know that you didn't have the humility to unban me even though i had to teach you about FEA in order for you to see how correct I was, and how wrong you were. Sad. But true.

Oh and I kept the private convo in which you were SCHOOLED - from 2 sources. with times in background real time with your answers coming in.

• Funny x 1
13. ### deirdreModeratorStaff Member

Moderator Note - deirdre

Approved above post #12, just to document the strangeness of comments moderators have been dealing with the last few days and to show why I have given Gerrycan a 2 day ban... namely excessive off topic posts, excessive misrepresenting of other members, impoliteness, more interest in 'fighting' than in constructive output etc.

• Like x 1

This essentially boiled down to what was the frame of reference for the (1.92,0.73) movement. i.e. a clarification of:

This seemed to imply it was an absolute movement, but then it was not quite clear. So discussion ensued - in which there seemed to be some confusion about what frames of reference actually were. My last substantive point was:

Now i understand the notion you present of having a variable frame of reference centered on this calculated CoS [Center of Stiffness], this varies every frame. I can understand that idea, but I can't really see any reason to do that.

So when we talk about Hulsey's +2" movement, I don't know if that is in that frame of reference, or in the global frame of reference.

You've said:
[private message text removed]

So this is a bit confusing. Is the movement relative to their original position in global coordinates (A), or in the floating (and as yet unspecified) CoS frame of reference (B).

My suspicion here is that Hulsey is not using any particular frame of reference. But because of the way the building expands, there's a region of zero motion (a thermal centroid). Nothing it relative to that, it just doesn't move.​

This does not seems like a particularly complicated point. Fixed or floating frame of reference?