You are dodgeing the human factor. The twin towers which perised in 9/11 was heavily critisized for cutting coners when build. It method of building wasn't resistant for flight impact, I remember that critisism back in the 80'ies. The reason why the cut coners, was for lowering the price, such greed is the ever haunting human factor, which we can't deliver ourselves from.

With greater project the danger becomes greater.

Here in Denmark where I live, our roofs collapses on modern buildings with no more than a few years old, because of sloppy architechts who didn't account for heavy snow fall, which is idiotic since they should take account for such simple common occurant factor.

Trial and error. We learn from our mistakes. We build on our mistakes. Building codes and regulations for commercial buildings are our safeguards against danger. Objective structural standards, ideally, should increase safety. Greed is a human condition, and essentially a flaw. We cannot condemn an art form on account of a mistake. Isn't that rationalizing an argument, based on an unnecessary condition?

There must be legal accountability in any commercial building. The responsibility must lie with the individual. We cannot allow avoidable mistakes to limit advancement, and diminish our capability.

You still don't understsand, you speak of trial and error, gaining experience from that, when they alredy had the experience and knowledge of arial collisions, some years prior a WW2 bomber had collided with a building and the building had actually survived the impact.

The building hit was the Empire State Building.

What limits individuals?

Possible is objective. Possibility cannot be limited by what one "deems," but by what one demonstrates. Amplifying opinion does not make it fact.

There is no reconciling individual ability and society, since society is a collection of individuals with abilities. What must be reconciled is ability with disability, and that is a tall order.

Like if it isn't environmentally friendly...

Architecture movements come and go. The forefront of the skyscraper movement began in Manhattan right before World War 1. Right now, the movement encompassing architectural thought is the green movement, evidenced by the push for LEED recognized buildings. I don't believe it is because 9/11 that skyscrapers are not being put up, that is oversimplification; rather, tall buildings are out of style.

Skyscrapers were initially seen as 'total architecture'. These buildings were so tall, and, as a result, far from the natural environment, that architects attempted to created their own environments inside these buildings, to make their own realities. They attempted to get away from nature, which is exactly what tall buildings do.

Now, in a time that environmentally friendly and naturalistic buildings are advocated, a building whose mere purpose is to detach itself from nature is not sought after.