It was heavily implied (see below).
Yes, it’s called Civil Engineering. And they do know what would happen and have pretty good models (verified by experiment) to explain them.
Why do you call for these experiments and models to be repeated and done again?
The problem is that you don’t accept those results. That’s the same as denying the results of Pavlov’s experiment and calling for them to be performed again, to answer whatever inane and specific objection you had.
Why the double standard? Why accept results in one field but not another? Your question makes no sense, since it simply assumes (without proof, I might add) that there is no physical model for how skyscrapers work and how they can fail under certain conditions. That’s not true. Those models exist, and they’re pretty good. If you don’t want to accept the results of those experiments, it’s on you to show where they fail.
ETA: From another thread but it applies here equally well.
When would you have us accept a result?