Let’s hope no airplanes fly into that tallest one, though, because a similar structural idea didn’t hold up too well when it was implemented in the World Trade Center.

Am I the only one who finds this somewhat offensive?

No.

The author makes a good point about structural integrety, but it could have been expressed a little better.

However, do you honestly believe that architect schools aren't telling their students "make it airplane proof" while designing new buildings.

Jet fuel isn't enough to melt steel, let alone weaken or "buckle" it. Otherwise why do demolition crews spend months of time and thousands of dollars meticulously arranging EXPLOSIVE CHARGES to get buildings to collapse neatly into their own footprint at freefall speed (just like the towers did)? If you believe the GWBush version of events then jet fuel brought down two towers that were designed to withstand planes of similar size, and even one 47story steel building that wasn't even hit (wt7). Of course if the GWBush official story was true, then the demolition companies around the world should all be sued for extortion for charging their clients thousands of dollars and wasting months of time, when all they needed was to spill a few drums of jet fuel on any random floor, set a match, and the building would fold neatly into itself in an hour and half, or less!

I don't find it offensive but the author has shows an amazing amount of ignorance and arrogance. Does the author really think that architects around the world are not concerned with a large number of disastrous possibilities, only one of which is an airplane collision? Does the author really think he is such an architectural expert to look at a concept painting and judge the structural soundness of the building's design?

Please don't forget that you are just a writer for a mildly entertaining web site about interesting technology.

casper - really...you STILL believe that.?

grow up.

Building is absolutly FAB!!!

@DJS: Ah, you must be my ex-wife! Thanks for the lovely comment, honey. I only hope you enjoyed reading my humble post as much as I enjoyed writing it.

Aw, Chuck, aren't you adorable. You made a funny! Of course that is what you were trying to do in your article; you know, when you callously referred to the tragic death of thousands of people. Yea, you're a real funny guy.

I thought I was funny charlie :D , some people need to stop getting so offended.

@murc
You mean you STILL believe the official story? Maybe its time to take some personal responsibility, start researching yourself, and stop digesting every story spoon-fed to you by guys in suits on tv.

Real patriots question the 9/11 GWBush official story
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

@casper: Get a grip. I'd suggest you read this exhaustively researched report from Popular Mechanics that completely debunks the paranoid fantasies that conspiracy theorists can't seem to shake off:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Really, whomever believes that load of bs is lost and can't be helped. They'll just get in the way so stop trying. This country and its policies are, and have always been completely fu©ked. The building is an excellent design and please direct your hostility towards the REAL people responsible. Common sense is not common at all people.

@charlie

I'm offended (a bit, but not terribly). The WTC towers were never designed for the impact of a 767 jet. If anything, the towers performed very well, allowing an hour for people to escape. If the towers hadn't been designed as robustly, there would have been many more deaths.

However, the building will probably be fine. It's rather similar in style to Lord Norman Foster's diagrid designs (e.g., Hearst Tower, Swiss Re tower), and Minoru Yamasaki (the architect for the WTC towers) used similar ideas in other projects of his (e.g., IBM building in Seattle). Chances are this tower will most likely be subject to far more stringent criteria than your average office or condo high-rise.

Phew! Too many parentheses and e.g.'s...

@casper

Sure, jet fuel isn't enough to melt steel, but you don't need to completely melt steel in order to instigate a building collapse. Chemical fires are plenty hot to buckle steel columns, and once the columns go, the rest follows rather quickly. Any structural engineer worth his salt knows that.

Generally, tall towers in dense urban settings are not dismantled by explosives. They're taken down floor by floor (e.g., the Deutsche Bank building near WTC).

You do realize that the airplane remark is a joke? You need quite a strong wall to resist a 190,000 lb airplane traveling at flight speed.

Everyone's getting too worked up about being PC that they missed the building. Sweet building, sweet post Charlie.

Cool,just plain cool.

I think it looks so kewl. I wouldnt mind living or working in there.

It's been 7 years now, we are past the point of not being able to make jokes about it. If you really are that concerned with not offending people, you might as well never open your mouth.

Yeah, it's been 7 years.. Thousands of people die every day, that's life. I'm tired of people being so serious still about what happened, I had no problem with the article, everyone else can just shut up.