I never learn. I shouldn't say anything about this thread but I am
compelled to after reading some of the (what I believe to be) mistaken
notions of falling/collapsing towers.
In regard the 2,000 foot tower that is reported to have fallen within
a radius of 70 feet: I find that entirely plausible. Consider, if you
will, the possibility of a structural failure brought about at a low
level on the tower, say at or just below the first set of guys. Isn't
it entirely feasible (and even probable) that the tower would then
essentially collapse straight or nearly straight down? Why would the
tower, given that form of failure parameter, "lean over" and crash
some distance away when there were all those upper level guys to keep it
from doing so until after the momentum was essentially straight down?
Why all the doubting Thomases out there? Is it because of the felled-
tree concept that we believe towers fall the same way? That sort of
plebian thought process is what prompted the young lady (when I permitted
my 130 foot tower) to tell me imperiously that I would have to place it
130 feet from any edge of my property! Most towers I've heard of that
fell, fall within a short radius of the base. By short, I mean quite
There, I've had my say. I feel better. That was better than a belt of
vodka. Flame away.
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com