"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Well they say it was a "fire" but they can't agree quite where the
fire
was. Some reports say it was 80 metres up the mast, others say it
was at
the base.

I don't buy the 80 metres up the mast, but the bottom of the mast
maybe.
It seems a feeder cable caught light, or so they say.....
--
Tony Sayer


An interesting thought.

The pics on Mike Brown's site seem to indicate that the mast came down
in something like a straight line? If the faire had caused a guy to
fail at the bottom mount (say 150ft) then the bottom section would
have been pulled out in the opposite direction. The rest of the tower
would have come straight down probably up or close to the second guy
point before toppling over, but surely the would still have been some
flexure, not the near straight that it looks to be.

If the fire was right at the base and the feeders had got hot and
caused twisting which made the bottom section drop from its (ball?)
mount, then again surely there would have been so bending.

Agreed the guys are not designed to take the weight of the tower, only
hold it up and stop it moving about, but unless some of the guys
snapped (which implies poor maintenance) then there must have been
some other cause.

That Mr Bin-Liner has got a lot to answer for!

--
Woody



PS
Ironically, I understand the collapsing mast missed the ntl: building
and fell straight on the Crown Castle accommodation!