Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[ozeco41]

...Anyway, it would be fun if more people might actually participate in my debate with Bilbo.

Your idea of "fun" is different to mine BUT I actually looked at the linked blog.

My interest in WTC 9/11 collapses is in explaining the collapse mechanisms to people who genuinely want to understand. I'm not interested in talking to delusional or dishonest people.

However if you want some assistance on specific issues ask and I will see what I can do. Try this as a sample:

Bilbo said... "If there really was greater than free fall acceleration¹, then gravity alone was not the cause of the collapse² and NIST's explanation is false³. Propellent by explosives could explain greater than free fall acceleration⁴."

1 Greater than free-fall is possible, it is not unexpected and near enough certain it did occur at WTC7 - lengthy threads here with data.
2 Wrong. Bilbo clearly has no concept of the physics of "free body falling". Lengthy discussions and explanations on this forum if you need the info.
3 Two points. First the primary issue is about the facts of WTC 7 collapse. Second whether NIST was right or not is irrelevant. A common confusion of objectives by truthers which, sadly, many debunkers perpetuate. (Look at this thread ) Even if NIST was wrong it does not change the actual historic event.
4 Two points also. First 'free body physics' explains over "g" without the need for external applied force. Second explosives are not likely to apply such a force - a rocket motor could. Explanation of "explosives couldn't do it" also on this forum.



PS I have several times posted a "thought exercise" about the free body physics of this sort of situation - here is a recent example - look under the first spoiler - it may offer you some points but is probably too sophisticated to post direct for Bilbo - he isn't clever enough.

 

[Justin39640]

If/when the Penthouse fell the enabling structural damage was below the penthouse. How did that enabling structural damage expand and gear up to enable a global collapse? Damage is not multi-directional it's DOWN.

See, when the column collapsed under the penthouse (because it was unsupported), it left the columns next to it unsupported and they started to collapse. Then the columns next those failed columns were unsupported and they collapsed, etc, etc. That's not even including many thousands of tons of falling debris causing even more damage to the internal structure. It's really not a difficult concept to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbjbIjQmdjI#t=1m02s

 

[chrismohr]

David, if I understand the NIST graph correctly, during the first third of Building 7's fall it gradually went from zero acceleration to greater and greater acceleration. For about 2.25 seconds that one point on the perimeter wall that was actually measured went into approximately freefall. NIST said "at freefall," but in fact if you look at femr2's more precise measurements, that point on the top perimeter wall actually fell at very slightly faster than freefall for a total of about 3/4 second. That means there must have been some other force acting on the building. The only two forces acknowledged by Chandler et al are gravity and resistance. But greater-than-freefall indicates some other force must be involved. I propose some kind of leveraging or torqueing somewhere in the collapsing building. Therefore, at least three forces at play created what I call "zero net resistance" : perhaps a lot of gravity, a little bit of residual structural resistance, a little bit of torqueing or leveraging. It's in my video #18 (see links on my signature page).

 

[tsig]

15 seconds? Free fall would have been what?

$0.00 that's why it's free.

 

[kid meatball]

Watch -- I know you already have -- the videos of WTC7 collapsing. Now let me ask: How is it possible for WTC 7 to go into instant free fall? And I mean it was instant. First, the penthouse fell. Second, the building remained standing , the roofline perfectly still/stationary. -- it was supported by structural resistance. Third, it instantly began free falling from a standstill. It was instant. The building was standing still. It was up straight supported by the resistance below; its roofline perfectly level and not moving; then, … instant free fall. After the penthouse fell:
“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.” (...i.e., from a standstill instantly into a free fall. Does anything NIST says contradict this? And if it does, does that agree with what we can all see in the videos?)
“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Everything above matches exactly what anyone can see in the many videos.

Do not any of you see what I -- and most people -- see? I expect all of you to say, "no, that's not what I see." If so, what the heck are you seeing?

We see the same as you, we just interpret it differently. Read this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182833

It discusses an independent analysis of the video trace of the fall of WTC7. It is very educational. In short, it will disprove your "instant" free fall. It was a fast transition to free fall, but hardly "instant." I would also point out that femr2 has "looked" at the collapse in great detail and at great length. Your "looked" is watching a few videos.

 

[LSSBB]

We see the same as you, we just interpret it differently. Read this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182833

It discusses an independent analysis of the video trace of the fall of WTC7. It is very educational. In short, it will disprove your "instant" free fall. It was a fast transition to free fall, but hardly "instant." I would also point out that femr2 has "looked" at the collapse in great detail and at great length. Your "looked" is watching a few videos.

Thanks, I also provided a link to the femr2 video thread in the OP, if only the intrepid mr. watts would bother to read it, as well as the posting by proxy Bilbo.

 

[tsig]

http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc.html


Poor Bilbo is lost in woo on 911. If he has a rational side, you need to have him apply his critical thinking skills to 911 truth to see the massive fraud, and silly lies.

http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc.html

It is like debunking Santa to a 5 year old. Don't do it. If he was an engineer, or able to comprehend engineering and physics (which any smart layperson can, and do) he would not be so silly making excuses for the lies, and the fantasy of CD made up my nuts in 911 truth.

it is sad people fall for 911 truth lies so easy, and without effort

Not sure you can get more "cartoon physics", or be more wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

faster than g, all in a gravity collapse. OOPS, 911 truth is wrong, Got Physics?

This quote:

But the burden of proof is on those who claim that the buckling columns provided only negligible support

Shows what seems to be a common misunderstanding, that a buckled column somehow is able to sustain any weight.

 

[MileHighMadness]

You drop a spinning dumbbell (and I’m not talking about a Truther). One side of the dumbbell is travelling faster than free-fall, the other side is falling slower than free-fall; however, the net sum is free-fall.

Given the complex dynamics of the phased collapse of Building 7, with the central core failing first, followed by the exterior shell, I’m not surprised we got free-fall (or slightly greater) for 2.25 seconds, on one small portion of the exterior shell.

Then Richard Gage will pin his hopes on just about anything, just as long as money keeps coming in the door.

Just my humble opinion…

 

[beachnut]

While the brevity and superficiality of Bilbo's posts often do indicate insufficient effort on his part as a layperson adjudicating a technical dispute, the overwhelming majority of your comments, beachnut, have been much worse. They are almost pure rhetoric, and not very helpful. As you can see in my thread with Bilbo, what I am more interested in are substantive points. The last point you make in your post could be interesting if it involved more than a random Youtube clip, which shouldn't convince anyone of anything (a common strategy of truthers themselves, of course).

Anyway, it would be fun if more people might actually participate in my debate with Bilbo.

Your friend is making fun of 3,000 murdered on 911 by spreading dumbed down lies freely without evidence. Bilbo thinks talk is evidence, and he makes up silly physics to debate his fantasy with you. WTC 7 burned all day, and collapsed. Gravity collapse, no explosives, the thermite stuff is another fantasy started by an insane person fired from BYU. Fired for spreading lies about 911.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

Here is "faster than G", faster than free fall, and it proves stuff can be seen to move due to gravity and appear to be faster. Means gravity collapse, stuff falling all over the place can have speeds you don't expect. Since the interior of WTC 7 was collapsing, the interior had speeds faster than the exterior, and would not offer resistance, but help the collapse progress without resistance.

The interior of WTC 7 was collapsing before the rest of the exterior collapsed.

Did you get it, the interior was collapsing before what you see as the facade. Hello.

LOL, Bilbo links to the dumbest 911 web sites in history. He drank the Kool-ad and publishes lies about 911 with out thinking about how stupid the lies are. He does not care, he is on a mission of woo, and he posts dumber claims each time you engage him. Can't wait for his Flight 77, and Flight 93 claptrap.

Bilbo has no clue his claims are lies. He can't comprehend physics, and never read NIST to see the claims he posts are idiotic lies.

Bilbo says: "Propellant by explosives could explain greater than free fall acceleration."

This is his best effort. No, gravity can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

Bilbo has to present evidence, not talk made up by nuts in 911 truth.

Silly talk of explosives which propel stuff down. Did the explosives suck WTC 7 down? Silently? lol

It is hard to "debate" illusion, fantasy, and lies made up by 911 truth "experts" in woo. Bilbo is gullible, and can't do physics. How can you debate a collapse with someone who thinks silly lies and talk are evidence? How? He will Gish gallop, and move the goal posts with propellant explosives, thermite, super nano-thermite, or the super secret silent sucking explosives of the NWO - giving a pass to 19 murderers who understand 911, who did 911 on the cheap. What a great thing, publish lies and link to web sites which spread dumbed down lies on 911.


Pure rhetoric physic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

Your friend Bilbo believes in a fantasy and has no tools to debate - he is making it up as he goes. He will not spend the time to even talk to his physics teacher in HS, or college. Too busy not doing the work to solve why he posts lies about 911. Next time take physics 101, just to get some science stink on your philosophy of debating fantasy.

You should read NIST when you start debating NIST. Did Bilbo? You guys came to class unprepared, this is rocket science, and you are doing philosophy and debating fantasy. Debating fantasy?

This is why Gage has made over a million dollars, 911 truth followers/true believers (in a faith based woo fest) don't do their own thinking, they read 911 truth web sites and that becomes their bible. Bilbo worships 911 truth as his My Blog List, and blindly follows without being skeptical, he drank the Kool-aid, and sat down to worship with 911 truth, doing nothing but talk, no action, just talk. Bilbo's web site is ignorance.

You expect others to do the work Bilbo has failed to do, to do the research, math, physics, and engineering, Bilbo is too busy to do because he is spreading lies faster than free-fall. Debate? Bilbo's claims are false on face value. Exactly like Bilbo is saying 2+2="cat", and then refuses to learn math.

As you can see in my thread with Bilbo, what I am more interested in are substantive points.

Which point made by Bilbo are substantive? Bilbo has a fantasy, you are debating lies, Bilbo has no substantive points, he makes up his physics based on what he thinks physics should be, ignoring the fact WTC 7 was collapsing for over 10 seconds before the "free-fall" of one part of the top of the collapse. What about the rest of the building? One part, in a debate of woo. Wow.

Is Bilbo an engineer? Are you? You don't have to be to understand 911 truth is bogus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE
This one video proves objects can appear to be moving faster than a free fall object, under gravity. Are you and Bilbo incapable of understanding physics? This proves there is no need for explosives to make things appear at free fall or faster, or why some parts might appear to moving at free fall in a gravity collapse. But ignore reality, and make up more fantasy - it is what 911 truth does. Can't wait for Bilbo's take on Flight 77 and Flight 93, what rehash of woo will he pick for the rest of 911 events?

Not sure if you can help your friend, his Blog List is core of anti-intellectual claptrap on 911 issues. http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc.html Why do people fall for lies like your friend? He thinks he is exposing fraud, and he is fraud. irony

What NIST needs to do is go back and try to simulate the actual free fall period that did occur.

Here is Bilbo's conclusion. Because Bilbo does not understand models, he wants another model to show free fall? lol
I don't know how to tell Bilbo his ignorance of engineering models has him making up what NIST needs to do, and Bilbo never read NIST. How can you make up a need out of ignorance? Bilbo takes a youtube nut on 911 issues, and falls for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgOGmUo9O2Y
A nut who thinks thermite was found at the WTC. A religion of woo, 911 truth. When I go to Bilbo's web site, I follow the links and more idiotic claims about 911 pop up. A legacy of woo.

 

[Robrob]

Shows what seems to be a common misunderstanding, that a buckled column somehow is able to sustain any weight.

I've tried to simplify it for them before. A cardboard tube from toilet paper roll can support a heavy load. Squirt water on it and watch it sag and collapse.

Back in the day, when I was young (and smaller) At camp we used to do a trick balancing on an empty soda can on one foot. If you carefully leaned over you could quickly tap the sides and make the can instantly smash flat.

 

[jaydeehess]

You drop a spinning dumbbell (and I’m not talking about a Truther). One side of the dumbbell is travelling faster than free-fall, the other side is falling slower than free-fall; however, the net sum is free-fall.

Given the complex dynamics of the phased collapse of Building 7, with the central core failing first, followed by the exterior shell, I’m not surprised we got free-fall (or slightly greater) for 2.25 seconds, on one small portion of the exterior shell.

Then Richard Gage will pin his hopes on just about anything, just as long as money keeps coming in the door.

Just my humble opinion…

It should be noted that the Center of Mass of a free falling object will be accelerating at g. In fact the sum of the acceleration of all points on the object will be g. Now if one can only see and measure one point on that object and tries to attribute the measured acceleration of that point to all points, then one will be what is referred to in scientific circles as 'wrong'.

In addition, it is patently obvious that an internal collapse preceded the fall of the exterior frame. However of course, the interior was connected to the exterior by beams and girders of 40 storeys and as the interior fell those girder connections would have been pulling down and inward on the perimeter frame. When the perimeter began its fall it therefore was being pulled down and inward(south) in addition to being accelerated by the effect of gravity.

These two issues have been illustrated, described, outlined a dozen times at least in the last few pages. Several dozen times in this and others threads.
The FACT of greater than free fall acceleration has been posted time and time again. iirc that fact shows up even in Chandler's own data, though I don't know if he bothers to addressed it. That FACT illustrates, definitively, that a simple 1d analysis, and simplistic attribution of strict 1d velocities to that measured point on the exterior of the building as being indicative of all the forces and effects across the width and depth of the structure is woefully in error. Such an approach is sophomoric at best and deliberately misleading at worst. Chandler, a high school physics teacher, might be excused for failing to recognize all possible mechanisms in play. NIST can be excused for not bothering with this minutia of the last few seconds of collapse as it can offer nothing at all wrt the cause of collapse.
However, AE911T cannot be excused for buying into and supporting the premise put forth by Chandler that this last couple of seconds somehow illustrates the use of explosive demolitions.

 

[alienentity]

How is it possible for WTC 7 to go into instant free fall? And I mean it was instant....
Do not any of you see what I -- and most people -- see?

You can't see, with your eye alone, what the acceleration is. Nobody can.
All of us see it fall.

Various studies have been done; by NIST, David Chandler, Femr2 and probably others. None of them show that freefall began instantly, so your question is based on a misunderstanding of the onset of global collapse.

If you correct your misunderstanding you will have your answer: the columns buckled, and there was resistance during that process.
There were zero explosions as this occurred, ruling out any kind of high explosive demolition charge.

I suppose if you really want to grasp at straws you might posit some kind of unknown technology employing silent explosives, but you might as well join the 'molecular dissociation' camp of Judy Wood in that case. Why go there?

The controlled demolition meme of 9/11 Truth is nothing but an elaborate red herring.

 

[beachnut]

It becomes a tag team of woo. Who said that, Chandler did, and he taught physics. Has to be true, someone else said it. Gage has the words from experts, he is not responsible, experts said so. Gage is free from responsibility as he uses what "experts" so to "beg for dollars" in the name of a new investigation.

The primary mover in CD is gravity - E=mgh released is the majority of energy used in CD, and all in a gravity collapse. 911 truth experts are nuts on 911 and make up science to support their claims.

 

[ozeco41]

You drop a spinning dumbbell (and I’m not talking about a Truther). One side of the dumbbell is travelling faster than free-fall, the other side is falling slower than free-fall; however, the net sum is free-fall.

That is probably as simple an example as we can use. Same level I think as the classic "ball" and "lever with cup" model.

The problem for both is that anyone who does not comprehend the physics is also almost certainly unable to translate the model into any application at WTC7. Simply put if their brains are not practised in working that way they wont understand the example model. They may see that it works - a partial step forward - but wont understand why it works. Therefore cannot take the principle and apply it in a real world scenario.

Given the complex dynamics of the phased collapse of Building 7, with the central core failing first, followed by the exterior shell, I’m not surprised we got free-fall (or slightly greater) for 2.25 seconds, on one small portion of the exterior shell....

The occurrence of free fall was not something that any competent engineer/applied physicist would consider worth commenting on - none of us including NIST would be surprised. The trap for NIST was when Chandler started asking about free fall NIST was in a no win situation. If they didn't answer he would make mileage and if they did answer he would make mileage. And dishonestly in either case.

Then Richard Gage will pin his hopes on just about anything, just as long as money keeps coming in the door.…

 

[BasqueArch]

Watch -- I know you already have -- the videos of WTC7 collapsing. Now let me ask: How is it possible for WTC 7 to go into instant free fall? And I mean it was instant. First, the penthouse fell. Second, the building remained standing , the roofline perfectly still/stationary. -- it was supported by structural resistance. Third, it instantly began free falling from a standstill. It was instant. The building was standing still. It was up straight supported by the resistance below; its roofline perfectly level and not moving; then, … instant free fall. After the penthouse fell:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.” (...i.e., from a standstill instantly into a free fall. Does anything NIST says contradict this? And if it does, does that agree with what we can all see in the videos?)
“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Everything above matches exactly what anyone can see in the many videos.

Do not any of you see what I -- and most people -- see? I expect all of you to say, "no, that's not what I see." If so, what the heck are you seeing?

"The building was standing still. It was up straight supported by the resistance below; its roofline perfectly level and not moving; then, … instant free fall. ... What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

That is a quote from Chandler -
http://rememberbuilding7.org/free-fall-collapse/

This free fall claim is wrong, Chandler is wrong and his and NIST's graph prove it.
"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors ... - NIST
Look at Chandler's data. Chandler is blind to his own data that shows the start of the collapse at less than FFA due to the resistance of the columns.
To this day Chandler and others continue to fool the truther sheeple with this disinfo.


post edited

NIST before Chandler
The upper 18 stories took 40 percent longer to fall than free fall time.

NIST after Chandler
The upper 18 stories took 40 percent longer to fall than free fall time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2 for Public Comment (Draft Aug 2008)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
“Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles. “
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909257


NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A Report (Final November 2008)
SUMMARY
"The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time.

A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below."
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610


The lower columns buckled and at a small angle the splices failed, then the north wall fell with no resistance.
............

Exterior columns shown buckled, failed splices.

NIST’s velocity graph showing first stage of less than FFA. (Downward velocity shown as positive.)

Chandler’s velocity graph showing NIST’s first stage of less than FFA. (Downward velocity shown as negative)

NIST before Chandler
The upper 18 stories took 40 percent longer to fall than free fall time.

NIST after Chandler
The upper 18 stories took 40 percent longer to fall than free fall time.

Lower columns buckle, column splices fail, building wall falls unresisted at FFA. ......

It's no shame being wrong about this free fall claim for the first time. Thereafter, it's a lie.

 

[LSSBB]

While the brevity and superficiality of Bilbo's posts often do indicate insufficient effort on his part as a layperson adjudicating a technical dispute, the overwhelming majority of your comments, beachnut, have been much worse. They are almost pure rhetoric, and not very helpful. As you can see in my thread with Bilbo, what I am more interested in are substantive points. The last point you make in your post could be interesting if it involved more than a random Youtube clip, which shouldn't convince anyone of anything (a common strategy of truthers themselves, of course).

Anyway, it would be fun if more people might actually participate in my debate with Bilbo.

I have been trying to explain to Bilbo how over-g on the exterior can occur, and he just doesn't understand the basic physics of a free-body diagram and how forces stack up. I think he needs to take (retake?) a course in Physics or talk directly to a physicist to have it explained to him.

 

[ozeco41]

I have been trying to explain to Bilbo how over-g on the exterior can occur, and he just doesn't understand the basic physics of a free-body diagram and how forces stack up. I think he needs to take (retake?) a course in Physics or talk directly to a physicist to have it explained to him.

That is my opinion also. I considered and half drafted an explanation but decided against posting. I'm not into blogs or YT style 'debate'. Given that forums are dying in the arse I may need to change my attitude ---- or change this hobby.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Usually all I ask is how "freefall" gives a specific, unambiguous reference to explosives and controlled demolition, then their poker face ensues

 

[ozeco41]

Usually all I ask is how "freefall" gives a specific, unambiguous reference to explosives and controlled demolition, then their poker face ensues

I take it one step further and ask "explain how you can get free fall by using CD." That one can be answered but not by "truthers of little brain".

The one that cannot be answered is the claim that explosives were used to project heavy beams from the collapsing "Twins"

Ain't life easy when you are on the winning side. You have to pity the truthers fighting their losing battle.



Yeah -- OK "lost battle"

 

[egalicontrarian]

LSSBB replies:
"I think [Bilbo] needs to take (retake?) a course in Physics or talk directly to a physicist to have it explained to him."
I agree with this. My debate with Bilbo on his previous post was specifically about how, in order to avoid simple mistakes, a layperson ought to have expert guidance when attempting to adjudicate an expert dispute (and especially when the layperson wants to side with a tiny minority). Unfortunately he so far refuses to understand my position, instead interpreting it somehow as a direct defense of FEMA or something, which wouldn't make any sense. You can see how this went in the previous post.

ozeco41 replies:
"That is my opinion also. I considered and half drafted an explanation but decided against posting. I'm not into blogs or YT style 'debate'. Given that forums are dying in the arse I may need to change my attitude ---- or change this hobby."
I think a change of attitudes might be good, and your participation on Bilbo's blog would be helpful. One disadvantage of forums is that they are full of so much extraneous material. One thing that's good about a blog like Bilbo's is that he takes himself to be able to adjudicate a technical dispute with very, very few words, and fairly little ad hominem. So you can have a fairly efficient exchange that wouldn't take too much of your time. A while back on this forum Oystein noted that he had had a respectful debate with Bilbo. (Speaking of which, what happened to Oystein? And Sunstealer?)

Grizzly Bear replies:
"Usually all I ask is how "freefall" gives a specific, unambiguous reference to explosives and controlled demolition, then their poker face ensues"
This is one reason why Bilbo's post is somewhat more interesting, because he makes the more narrow argument that the official explanation merely fails to explain free fall, and that on the basis of this more study is needed. That being said, as far as I can tell Bilbo does think free fall is evidence of controlled demolition, on the basis of a superficial common sense style argument: (i) one way to achieve free fall is to remove all supports all at once; (ii) one way to remove all supports all at once is controlled demolition; (iii) so one way to achieve free fall is controlled demolition.

One argument offered here against the more narrow claim is that insofar as the NIST simulation model wasn't intended to explain all parts of the collapse, but merely the onset, the 2.25 seconds in question are not germane. This claim is somewhat hard to evaluate as a layperson. A model is always idealized in multiple respects, but that doesn't mean all anomalies in the explanandum would be acceptable. So it's important to know which sorts of anomalies are problematic and which are not. I don't know how to do this except by either (i) becoming a trained expert with lots of experience in this sort of thing; or (ii) extensive review and engagement with experts who have such experience. Of course Bilbo is implicitly unwilling to do this (I say "implicitly" because, as you can see from the previous post on his blog, he seems to refuse to respond to this aspect of my position).