I literally just saw about the Tai Po fire in Hong Kong and there are comments on a certain news outlet's Facebook post that have me rushing to Blog my OPINIONS.
Comment #1: And yet none pancaked on itself *thinking emoji*
Wow, really? At this time 44 people have been confirmed to have died and over two hundred are missing and you're making it about debunked 9/11 conspiracy theories?!
Various commenters thereafter have brains in their possession:
- did a jet crash into them going 600 mph? - cos force of impact has a consequence separate to the fires
- and not 3ton [sic*] of aviation fuel - * each plane carried an estimated 60-74 tons, not three; burning aviation fuel is fundamentally different to burning the contents of apartments
The twin towers collapsed not because of fire per se but because of impact damage and a frankly unimaginable quantity of fuel being introduced to the building.
The building collapses were shocking because they were, for most, entirely unexpected. The World Trade Centre had been designed to withstand an aircraft impact (expecting situations such as a smaller plane, flying slower in bad weather rather than a fully fuelled large plane flown with intent), it had been designed to withstand fire (again with office contents burning rather than a couple of petrol tankers' worth of intensely combustible fuel that reaches temperatures far higher than could reasonably have been foreseen).
It's too early to speculate on the cause(s) of the Tai Po fire but initial blame is falling on soon-to-be-banned bamboo scaffolding and plastic mesh surrounding the site; fires on construction and renovation sites are sadly common - usually eventually traced to human error or electrical faults. Mostly these buildings are burning as any fire would, at the temperatures which would be expected. That alone makes them of no comparison to the WTC without considering construction materials, floor plans, even the weather.
The building collapses were shocking because they were, for most, entirely unexpected. The World Trade Centre had been designed to withstand an aircraft impact (expecting situations such as a smaller plane, flying slower in bad weather rather than a fully fuelled large plane flown with intent), it had been designed to withstand fire (again with office contents burning rather than a couple of petrol tankers' worth of intensely combustible fuel that reaches temperatures far higher than could reasonably have been foreseen).
It's too early to speculate on the cause(s) of the Tai Po fire but initial blame is falling on soon-to-be-banned bamboo scaffolding and plastic mesh surrounding the site; fires on construction and renovation sites are sadly common - usually eventually traced to human error or electrical faults. Mostly these buildings are burning as any fire would, at the temperatures which would be expected. That alone makes them of no comparison to the WTC without considering construction materials, floor plans, even the weather.
Comment #2: For everyone out there memeing [sic] about 9/11 it was a controlled demolition
Ah yes, all those firefighters died going in to rig an occupied building with explosives and then detonated before they cleared the site? Or maybe this numpty is saying the building had been rigged to blow and the powers-that-be filled it with first responders before hitting the button? If you're gonna come up with wild conspiracy theories at least try to make them make some kind of sense.
There was nothing 'controlled' about 9/11. It was pure carnage. I'm guessing that particular idiot wasn't even alive in 2001 and their entire knowledge is gleaned from a couple of Gen Z react videos to a timeline video on YouTube!
There was nothing 'controlled' about 9/11. It was pure carnage. I'm guessing that particular idiot wasn't even alive in 2001 and their entire knowledge is gleaned from a couple of Gen Z react videos to a timeline video on YouTube!
Comment #3: When did they free fall into their own foot print?
Back to the pancaking mentioned in comment one... trees fall over, people fall over, buildings fall DOWN. The Leaning Tower of Pisa is an example of subsidence, not collapse. If you're ever unfortunate enough to see a house burn down you may see the roof cave in, it doesn't shear off and fall to the side. A brick wall may collapse in any direction but it has an entirely different structure to the World Trade Centre, to most if not all high rises. Even a brick built structure over a certain height will fundamentally pancake as it collapses because there is no sideways momentum to be had. It is going to fall into its own footprint - it literally cannot go anywhere else.
Probably it's just a poor choice of words to say what #1 did and I present the same response: different fuel, different conditions. Maybe they will collapse eventually, maybe they won't. There are these things called "variables" which is why there are different outcomes for similar events. Kinda like how the Titanic sank when other ships have survived hitting icebergs. Sometimes we can't ever explain quite how an outcome was reached - we call it 'luck' (be it good or bad), 'fate', etc. In some ways those in the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001 were a variety of lucky... if the buildings had collapsed sooner more would have died - the vast majority of those below the impact level were able to evacuate; if the buildings had fallen later it would only have prolonged the sufferings of those above the impact level and doomed to die.
Probably it's just a poor choice of words to say what #1 did and I present the same response: different fuel, different conditions. Maybe they will collapse eventually, maybe they won't. There are these things called "variables" which is why there are different outcomes for similar events. Kinda like how the Titanic sank when other ships have survived hitting icebergs. Sometimes we can't ever explain quite how an outcome was reached - we call it 'luck' (be it good or bad), 'fate', etc. In some ways those in the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001 were a variety of lucky... if the buildings had collapsed sooner more would have died - the vast majority of those below the impact level were able to evacuate; if the buildings had fallen later it would only have prolonged the sufferings of those above the impact level and doomed to die.
Honestly, I'm flabbergasted anyone's daft enough to imagine a building on fire cannot collapse, as much as I am confounded that anyone's daft enough to imagine a building on fire MUST collapse within a specified timeframe.
*********************************************************************************************************
And while I'm of a ranting mood here's my take (AKA post to Facebook) on this science story from yesterday claiming people aren't adults until the age of THIRTY TWO (link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl6klez226o?fbclid=IwY2xjawOUbaVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEediEhRKwkk70_i7AzBoAWlkOa81DxchJiY3ehlKNsCk27kOCdlNKHWoy1OCM_aem_GtcdZpU1btHieYtYgXUS9w):
Sorry (not sorry) but what a load of old hooey.
For one: quit infantilising actual adults*. For another: do they ever consider that it's not 'age' per se that changes the brain so much as accumulated life experiences?! Most of us can pick out moments in time which changed our thinking forever.
This study tells us 'adolescence' continues until an age close to the average for first time parenthood (29.6 for mothers, 33.8 for fathers) - and not all that long after people leave home (25 to 28) - which seems more than a coincidence to me. People tend to 'become more adult' when circumstances MAKE THEM GROW UP. I'd like to see this study repeated in a society that has a younger average parenting age and is less coddling of young adults...
Note that the childhood phase ends around the same time they're really starting to notice the realities of the world, possibly every bit as significant as the hormonal changes. Nothing to change brain chemistry like the painful realisation that the supposedly responsible adults are largely idiots and no one actually has a clue what they're doing!
Also, it's fairly well established that brains deteriorate faster when they get used less. Getting the hang of adulting, settling into a work life, heading towards retirement... all things that require less learning and adapting to new process than earlier in life. And sure, age comes into it, but it's also just a common thing that we kind of get the hang of life in our middle years. I'd wager that people who continue learning, switch careers, and face new challenges later in life would generally (excl illnesses, brain injuries, inherited predispositions to dementia, and the like) exhibit different patterns of development.
* If your brain isn't fully developed until 32, and we considered that a protracted teenagerhood, what would it do to society? It'd gobble up a woman's most fertile years for a start. Under 32s couldn't be expected to work responsible jobs or serve in the military. Maybe we'd be all "they doesn't deserve jail, they're only 29, their brain isn't fully developed yet". Raise the driving age to 31 lol. Perhaps under 32s shouldn't be allowed to vote or serve on juries either?! It'd be absolute insanity.
There are already enough people who can't respect that under 25s can be autonomous, responsible, fully engaged members of society. Hell, there are those who treat 16 and 17 year olds like overgrown toddlers! Ageism in all its guises is rubbish.
At 32 my kids were 14/15 and 11/12. Some people are GRANDPARENTS at that age, others are lawyers, doctors, teachers. But scientists have decided they're 'immature' because they assume that brain development happens regardless of how the brain is being used. Just as traditional thinking doesn't assume that to become an adult at an arbitrary age (say 18) is natural development, but a state which needs to be taught or self-learned, brains IMHO move into different phases because of what is taught or learned leading up to that point. If brains show a certain set of changes by age 32 then there's a reasonable argument that it's cause and effect, not from time but experience. It stands to reason that experience triggers change more than mere existence. And if that is the case then people who are coddled and enabled will not mature and those who have to step up and become adults earlier in life will reach those stages faster. To my way of thinking CONTEXT IS KEY but these scientists have only looked at dates of birth and brain scans without taking into account ANY variables, not even gender or age at menopause!
UGH. Why are humans so bloody THICK?!
No comments:
Post a Comment