I think that he meant that, while the towers were sure to fall down on the day that they were hit by airliners, with a better design they could have held up for a few more minutes, or maybe even hours, giving more time to evacuate victims.
OK…
I still don’t buy it, but it’s not worth the argument.
I don’t think that is a fair or legitimate interpretation of what I’ve written.
You seem to have chosen to try to find something you can object to, by taking the least likely and most bizarre interpretation possible, and then attributed it to me.
If what I have written is so obscure as to be capable of your interpretation, why not take the opposite approach, and see if you can understand it as something sensible? This isn’t ‘politics’ or the ‘pit’.
OK. I’m not going to pursue it any further. But if you want to clarify, feel free.
Galloping Gertie is jealous.
You’re referring to the 1963 Vajont (a/k/a Vaiont) Dam? That one wasn’t a failure of the structure itself, as it happens; the disaster came from overfilling and inadequate understanding of the geology which collapsed in a huge landslide that sent a monstrous mass of water over the dam and down the valley below.
Yes, but isn’t the root cause similar to what is happening now? A failure to understand and prepare for a shift in geology caused by water infiltration?
In the dam failure, the problem was upstream, here the problem is not upstream.