You’re dismissing it as measurement error, right?
1) Measurement error should be random, but this shows a clear trend.
2) The graph has two distinct regions, one of uniform velocity, followed by one of acceleration. This supposed measurement error doesn’t seem present on the graph once acceleration sets in.
3) From memory, I think you can see this motion on other camera angles; the visible shell of the building twists slightly in the horizontal plane, counter-clockwise if seen from above, immediately before the onset of the precipitous collapse.
3a) If Chandler indeed measured a descent, and it is indeed the vertical component of a visible horizontal twist, the motion should be more easily measured horizontally than vertically.
So, would you support my second criticism of the UAF report, namely:
– “I think that the report’s emphasis upon simulation is premature. It would have been more useful to concentrate upon data gathering and measurement, establishing limits of accuracy of initial conditions, and then crowd-source multiple simulation scenarios in the manner of Seti At Home or Folding At Home.”
…or would you rather dismiss this, er, anomaly so that you can add your voice to the demolition chorus?