|
Buildings collapse - have done for centuries. Knowing this, mightn't planners in large cities require tall buildings to collapse neatly in the event of structural failure? Imagine the mess if a large tower fell over sideways in a crowded city. I think it would be prudent to ensure that any tall building collapsed neatly built into its design. It makes sense.
Some buildings, due to their own structural requirements may need 'assistance' to collapse neatly, such as explosives etc - again, if this means that a single building collapse remains contained, that seems sensible to me.
The idea that every tower is wired for demolition is probably not something a building's manufacturer/owner wants to broadcast to the general populace, it's unlikely to convince people to pay their rent on time.
Now, I'm not sure what the issues are here, but I keep hearing about how the way the towers collapsed so uniformly appears to be suspect. It seems reasonable to me that in such extraordinary circumstances, people responsible for those buildings may need to make the decision to demolish the buildings neatly, rather than risk them toppling over and causing further devestation.
Does that sound reasonable?
On its own, I really don't think that issue alone is enough to warrant a governmental conspiracy.
|