> Yes, but tall towers are much, much more space-efficient than relatively low buildings. Let me remind you of the purpose of skyscrapers in the first place: to save space. Just think: if the WTC were a one-story building, it would take up 110 times as much land area as it did. Now granted, space doesn't matter as much when human safety is put into the equation, so I believe the pyramid-shaped design is very favorable, as far as stability goes. The pyramidal design, I think, would be able to withstand an airplane crash much better than a rectangular prism of the same base and height, since the ratio between the support below the hypothtical impact point and the mass above it will always be better. In other words, pyramidal buildings tend to be bottom-heavy, a much more favorable design than a rectangular prism of equal height and base. Furthermore, a pyramidal building would have 1/3 the volume of its rectangular counterpart. However, because of of its structural superiority, it could be built much taller than a rectanguler building, thus increasing its volume. If the twin towers were built three times as tall and in the shape of a pyramid, I actually believe that far fewer people would have died.
>
> kniv"too late"etsil

Of course, it would need the ground floor to be about a mile on each side, which might not be very easy in the middle of New York. But can someone work out how much floor space you would have in there? Would you actually need any other buildings?

winter"That would be HUGE"mute