[seamus]

Watching the floors collapse one after the other from the mere weight of the floors above looks like improper design. I say the building was inherantly unsafe.

The building was not inherently unsafe. There was nothing improper in the design, indeed, it was so revolutionary in its time that countless skyscrapers imitated its engineering. The floors collapsed one after the other because NO BUILDING can sustain the pressure and weight of 20 floors collapsing. None.

And the floors did not collapse because of the "mere weight" of them. They collapsed because thousands of gallons of jet fuel burned a fire so hot that it melted the steel girders that supported it.

You really ought to know something about elemetary engineering and physics before declaring that just because a building collapses after an unthinkable catastrophic event it is "inherently unsafe."

[MooCollins]

"And the floors did not collapse because of the "mere weight" of them. They collapsed because thousands of gallons of jet fuel burned a fire so hot that it melted the steel girders that supported it."

Unfortunately this is incorrect.
The building did collaps under it's own weight.
The girders that were heated amounted to only a few floors. This weakened them to the point of fatigue and caused the collaps of those floors which inturn cased the weight of all the floors above to to be multiplied by their momentum. Additionally reorganizing the load to proportions and places NOT designed to handle them. Each floor then failed as the loads and momentum built to a point where the energy literally became chaotic and an explosion of sorts emerged.

BUT you are "SPOT ON" about one thing, NO BUILDING of this construction or size is engineered to withstand this phenomena.

[Boatlawyer]

It occurred to me that the way the towers collapsed was a testament to good engineering. As hideous as the loss is now, it could have been worse had the towers toppled instead of imploding.

[Publius6961]

You really ought to know something about elemetary engineering and physics before declaring that just because a building collapses after an unthinkable catastrophic event it is "inherently unsafe."

Why not?

People eseentially as ignorant and clueless have been driving the engine of environmental change and despotism for decades, and few have noticed or challenged them.

Nothing is as indignant as an ignorant person on a moral crusade.
It's all about controlling others.