[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Setback requirements (was "permit in hand")

Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Setback requirements (was "permit in hand")
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:05:51 EDT
List-post: <>
In a message dated 9/2/2007 3:25:07 A.M. Greenwich Standard Time, writes:

Is there  an automatic assumption 
that standard engineering practice is questionable  with tower designs and 
that they are likely to fall down?  Nobody  makes that assumption with 100' 
plus high commercial  buildings.

That seems to be the case...most of the officials i worked with in FL and  
here in KH6 seem to think that towers fall over at the base sideways.  A  
hundred foot tower falls over 100 feet.  Yet, just about every tower  failure 
ever seen as a result of hurricanes or seen posts of on the  internet that did 
not happen.
It's hard.....and expensive to argue with ignorance down at city  hall.

************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at

TowerTalk mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [TowerTalk] Setback requirements (was "permit in hand"), Cqtestk4xs <=