Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
They say the antenna on top of WTC1 was 360-feet tall. Sure doesn't look it.

The Antenna:
''...[antenna or mast] that was added at the top of the roof in 1978 and stood 360 feet (110 m) tall...''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

www.ahsbatch68.org/Twin_Towers_View_Deck.jpg antenna1

http://www.cloudviewimages.com/WTC%20twin%20towers.jpg antenna2
Click to expand...

Using a picture like this:

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/sciam01/sci_am1_files/000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9.jpg

You can get a rough estimate of the height by using the width of the face of the tower.

The image must not be squashed/stretched more on one axis than another.(I don't know if that image is or not)
The fact that photo is not taken absolutely square on with the face of the building will affect the result, not much in this case I don't think.
The fact that it's a photo with perspective means that accurate calculation would have to involve perspective (and lens settings etc.) and camera position.
Other than that you can still roughly estimate.

If you can find a closer (further away but zoomed in more is better) pic, taken more straight on with a face of the tower and taken at a height closer to the top of the tower then use that for a bit more accuracy.

From the pic linked above, the face of the tower is 35 pixels wide and the antenna is 60 pixels high

If each pixel is approx(208/35=5.94 ft) then the antenna is approx(60*5.94=356 ft) high
 
Last edited:
btw, your antenna 1 pic doesn't show much at all and the 2nd pic shows from an angle looking up, both are fairly useless for making any judgement.
 
alexi_drago said:
btw, your antenna 1 pic doesn't show much at all and the 2nd pic shows from an angle looking up, both are fairly useless for making any judgement.
Click to expand...

I've seen few side-on shots where the antenna doesn't look that tall. But in the one from the deck you can see the base of the antenna and to me it doesn't look like the base of a 360-foot spire. I could easily be wrong though.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I've seen few side-on shots where the antenna doesn't look that tall. But in the one from the deck you can see the base of the antenna and to me it doesn't look like the base of a 360-foot spire. I could easily be wrong though.
Click to expand...

To put it into perspective, both towers were ~ 208 ft wide. Pictures taken from a distance show the antenna to be taller than the towers were in width.
 
bill smith said:
I've seen few side-on shots where the antenna doesn't look that tall. But in the one from the deck you can see the base of the antenna and to me it doesn't look like the base of a 360-foot spire. I could easily be wrong though.
Click to expand...

It looks like the picture's been taken with quite a wide angle lens (see how the row of people shrink very quickly with little distance) and correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that taken from the other tower? in which case that base looks pretty big to me and it looks like it's got a couple of levels of walkways around it next to the guys head.
 
Last edited:
alexi_drago said:
It looks like the picture's been taken with quite a wide angle lens (see how the row of people shrink very quickly with little distance) and correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that taken from the other tower? in which case that base looks pretty big to me and it looks like it's got a couple of levels of walkways around it next to the guys head.
Click to expand...

It's an odd shot. The spire is about 100 feet away from the guy if it is in the centre. If it was a telephoto shot, from WTC2 that usually has the effect of bringing the backgound to the front- foreshortening. Think of the guy runnning down the hill when he truck crests the brow...huge and looming right over him.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
They say the antenna on top of WTC1 was 360-feet tall. Sure doesn't look it.

The Antenna:
''...[antenna or mast] that was added at the top of the roof in 1978 and stood 360 feet (110 m) tall...''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

www.ahsbatch68.org/Twin_Towers_View_Deck.jpg antenna1

http://www.cloudviewimages.com/WTC twin towers.jpg antenna2
Click to expand...

So what? 1ft or 360ft so what? Please make your point. Is this going in the same way as the 'bridge' changing position. Please dont re -tell us that you think all the images of 911 are a clever hoax. Boring Bill
 
bill smith said:
It's an odd shot. The spire is about 100 feet away from the guy if it is in the centre. If it was a telephoto shot, from WTC2 that usually has the effect of bringing the backgound to the front- foreshortening. Think of the guy runnning down the hill when he truck crests the brow...huge and looming right over him.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you mean, it's wide angle, not telephoto. Here's a closer shot of the base.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/wtc%20base%20antenna/Blogger-pics/09-11-2001/antennabase.jpg
 
Last edited:
alexi_drago said:
I'm not really sure what you mean, it's wide angle, not telephoto. Here's a closer shot of the base.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/wtc%20base%20antenna/Blogger-pics/09-11-2001/antennabase.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow..I find that just incredible. Can you imagine that being the base of a 360-foot spire on top of a quarter-mile tall building ? Where are the support cables ? I know it WAS actually there but from an engineering point of view it's just hard to credit.
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii214/Blogger-pics/09-11-2001/antennabase.jpg
 
Last edited:
alexi_drago said:
I guess you'll be totally in awe of windfarms then. And maybe not believe they even exist.
Click to expand...

I'd be more interested in how it performed in high winds when the building swayed by 6 feet. Tell me why you think it's a credible design ?
 
bill smith said:
I'd be more interested in how it performed in high winds when the building swayed by 6 feet. Tell me why you think it's a credible design ?
Click to expand...

Staying in place for 30 years makes it a credible design*.

Engineers have a way with numbers that let them come up with design specifications that tend to hold.



*And no, I don´t know if it was added at, or sometime after, construction.
 
bill smith said:
I'd be more interested in how it performed in high winds when the building swayed by 6 feet. Tell me why you think it's a credible design ?
Click to expand...

I don't know much about the design and performance of such structures but I have no reason to doubt that it was there and was capable of serving the function it was designed for. As far as i know it was the claimed height and it never fell off.
 
Last edited:
Toke said:
Staying in place for 30 years makes it a credible design*.

Engineers have a way with numbers that let them come up with design specifications that tend to hold.



*And no, I don´t know if it was added at, or sometime after, construction.
Click to expand...

According to the wiki it was added 6 years after the completion of the north tower.
 
bill smith said:
I'd be more interested in how it performed in high winds when the building swayed by 6 feet. Tell me why you think it's a credible design ?
Click to expand...

The ability to bend is a strength, not a weakness. If the design was not to bend, much more steel would have been required with necessary increased cost and the net amount of floorspace would have been less.

More cost, less space. No benefit.

The Empire State Building is probably "stiffer". (I am not an engineer.) I worked in it and the walls of upper floor were finished in the original marble and the marble had big cracks caused by the sway. I dunno if the engineers of the day knew how to handle motion caused by wind.

In either building, you could feel the sway when the wind was up.
 
Last edited:
alexi_drago said:
It must've been designed to work with half it's legs missing then because as far as i know it never fell off.
Click to expand...

I am surprised that your engineering hackles are not standing straight up. I know mine are - and I'm not even an engineer.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom