‘unusual’ does not equal ‘unsafe’. Read carefully what I wrote (or better yet, read what AndrewL has written as he’s doing a better job of explaining this stuff). Thus far you’ve presented no evidence that the building did not meet the standards set for it wrt safety. Merely pointing out that the design is unusual and then pointing at the fact it failed catestrophically in an event it wasn’t designed to meet…well, you haven’t exactly made any case if you know what I mean.
So what? Do you have a cite that they didn’t meet the safety standards set for them (or for the building at large)? Again, pointing out that the building (or parts of it) were ‘not normal’ means nothing, in and of itself. Do you have some indication that a building built along ‘normal’ or ‘usual’ lines would not have failed catestrophically in a similar scenerio?
I don’t know (though my guess is the answer is ‘yes’)…its YOUR claim to prove if you can. I’ve read nothing indicating that the buildings design contributed to the a failure that would not have occured had the building been of a different design. I’ve seen no indications that the building failed to meet the applicable safety standards set.
-XT