Re: DATA on collapsing WTC

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

At 22:32 9/19/01 -0400, Ludwik wrote:
> > > At no time was it a free
> > > fall because the acceleration was never larger than 7 m/s^2. In
> > > other words, the net force down was never as large as m*g.

> > > > For many of us averaging nine distances is acceptable.
> > > > In my table times are as specified by Glen for the middle
> > > > frame of each set.

After reading Ludwik's note above, I copied Glenn's  data into
NLREG and checked the models that he used.

I did not find very close agreement with his parametric fits.

I compared Ludwik's manipulated data against the raw displacements
 that Glenn measured. I did not find a very close match here either.
However, on balance, I concur with Ludwik that the data are more
representative of a 0.5 to 0.7 g acceleration.

I wonder if perpective error is a factor? I see that the statistics
warn that these models may be inappropriate to the data, as they stand.


brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>  Altus OK
                Eureka!