It's a nice attempt to spin this as an economics argument but that's definitely not what this is. There's not even any evidence to reinforce their hypothesis.
I could just as well say something like "it's interesting that the WTC collapsed the way it did in 9/11. Could it be because if it toppled over then the damage would have been too catastrophic? I'm just making an economics argument!"
I could just as well say something like "it's interesting that the WTC collapsed the way it did in 9/11. Could it be because if it toppled over then the damage would have been too catastrophic? I'm just making an economics argument!"