This can be a hotly contested issue, but if an earthquake like this strikes the midwest or eastern united states we could have just as much widespread damage, injuries, and deaths. I took a lot of heat from guys in my class that couldn't understand why I did not want a brick house in Indiana. The reason: earthquakes. What structures suffer the most damage in earthquakes? Non-reinforced brick and cement buildings.
Many people fail to realize earthquakes happen in places other than the west coast. Case in point the New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811 and 1812. Multiple earthquakes of magnitude 8.0+ occurred just south of St Louis, with damage reported as far east as Maine. There is a 40% chance another series of 6.0+ will occur in this region in the next 50 years. If it strikes near St Louis, Indianapolis, Chicago, etc. we are going to see widespread damage and destruction of these cities due to the common place of brick buildings with no reinforcement.
Back to the topic at hand, the FAA has had towers that survived major earthquakes, and towers that have collapsed. The only collapse I know of was in the 1964 Alaska quake when the 60 ft tower in Anchorage collapsed killing one person.
All this being said, as a survivor of the 89' Loma Prieta quake, I would not want to be in any tall structure if a greater than 6.5 earthquake occurred and honestly, I think your only course of action would be to hold on and pray if you were in a tower.
