> Nono, the base would have the same area as that of the original. It would only be three times taller, since if it were of the same height and base, it would have 1/3 the volume, so building it 3 times higher would restore its volume to that of the original...
>
> Okay, I think I am being kind of confusing. So, let me put it this way. The formula for the volume of a rectamgular prism is Base x Height. So, if one of the WTC towers were 1500 feet tall (I have no idea of their dimensions, I'm just guessing) and its base were 1600 square feet (or 400 feet on each side), it would have a volume of 2.4 million cubic feet. If each floor were 10 feet tall, then it would have 240,000 square feet of office space.
>
> The formula for the volume of a rectangular pyramid is 1/3 x Base x Height. If one of the WTC towers were a rectangular pyramid with the same height and base, it would have one-third the volume of its rectangularly prismal counterpart. So if, again, the floors were 10 feet each, then it would have 80,000 square feet of office space.
>
> However, if the base remains constant, then the volume of a pyramid will vary directly with the height. So, if the WTC towers had been rectangular pyramids rather than rectangular prisms, had the same base, were three times as tall, and the floors were spaced the same, then they would have had the same amount of office space (thus not compromising their commerciability), the same base (thus not increasing the cost for land), in a pyramid form (thus enhancing its durability), and three times as tall (thus enhancing its builder's ego). All in all, a favorable alternative to the rectangular prism.
>
> kniv"all that mental math"etsil

But if you built a pyramid with such a comparatively small base, would it be any safer than a rectangular prism of the same dimensions?

In order to provide the structural stability being discused, I was assuming that you would have a pyramid with 45 degree sloped sides.

winter"Is the Transam Pyramid anysafer than other skyscapers?"mute