Thank you for pointing that out. 
Good god…its even funnier when you say it out loud.
Boy, Alphagene, you don’t give up and don’t know how to say “geese, I was wrong,” huh?
I guess that someone who thinks that yeast and virus are the same would see similarities between the statue of liberty and the CN Tower. It just follows based on your extensive experience with coughing and herpes, right?
After working with flu-bugs, did you work for somebody who knew the guy who’s wife was the secretary of the construction company president? That would provide you expert authority here, wouldn’t it?
Of course, at your age, I guess your parents could have signed the CN Tower, huh? Or were you born in Tennessee?
To the swelling opening strains of the William Tell overture, Arnold rides on on his white house.
"Listen, all you cowpunchers out there, we aim to keep this forum nice and clean! We don’t want no arguing or name-calling. Now I want all of you to shake hands and act polite!
Hi-yo Silver!"
As he gallops away, the remaining posters are left coughing in the dust raised by Silver’s hooves, and asking each other in hushed tones “Who was that masked man?”
Arnold and others, Sorry.
No problem. A disagreement about the definition of the word “building” isn’t an act of hostility.
And my “swell” comment wasn’t meant to be derisive towards you, Yuck. It’s that damn CN Tower! Look at the problems its causing. Tear it down, I say! 
Let me restate my hostility-free position on this topic. Technically, I’m out of my jurisdiction and I’m not about to mess with Arnold.
Wow, you can ride a house, Arnold? Now that structure serves a purpose!
Any man that can ride a house impresses the hell out of me.
ok, alphagene and others…
you can say what you want about the cn tower, and whatever other structures you like.
you can describe it in a way that compares it to a coat hanger if you like.
but that doesn’t escape the fact that it fits the definition of a building. it is therefore the tallest building.
now, i am not saying it should be king of the first three categories mentioned in cecil’s column, as they don’t include the antenna in their totals. that would be silly. but it clearly fits into the 4th category.
find me a definition of building that the cn tower does not fit into, and then you have something worth typing.
there are offices at the base of the cn tower. i have been in them.
so let’s say there is one floor of offices. pretty lame, huh? sure. then the cn tower would merely be one floor of offices with a big ass antenna on top of it.
how does that not fit into the fourth category of the tallest buldings?
i could build a shack that i use to sell lemonade that is a mere 6 feet tall. if i slap a 2000 foot antenna on top of it, it is suddenly the world’s tallest building in category 4.
how can you deny that?
don’t put pride before logic.
Ugh. It’s not “pride” that my argument stems from. Honestly? I personally couldn’t give a rat’s behind who owns the tallest building-structure-tower-antenna. I’m not going to change my citizenship over it. I feel no personal shame if the “Tallest Building” trophy goes to a structure in Canada or Malaysia.
OK let’s try this, for argument’s sake:
Antennas aren’t buildings.
I know, the CN Tower has a restaurant. Great. It’s an antenna with a restaurant on top of it. Regardless of how many tourists take an elevator to the top and regardless of how many things those tourists can do up there, the real purpose of the CN Tower is to be an antenna. Everything else is just a highly profitable afterthought.
Why aren’t antennas buildings? Antennas are built tall because maximum height is crucial to their function. Buildings are built tall because maximum volume is crucial to their function. The taller you build a building, the more offices, hotel rooms, or workstations you can put in your building. These offices need plumbing, ventilation, emergency escape access etc. all throughout the height of the building. That makes designing buildings different than designing a tourist trap on stilts, hence the separate category.
Discuss.
i realize that an antenna is not a building.
read my post prior to this. it explains what you seem to be missing.
i understand that most of the cn tower is antenna. that is fine. but there are offices at the bottom. thus, according to every definition given so far, it is a building.
so let’s assume it is a one-floor building with a giant antenna, which it very well may be.
that still fits into the 4th category mentioned by cecil.
how doesn’t it?
It seems like we’re flogging a dead horse here, but I’ll give my opinion.
How to decide whether a tall structure is primarily antenna with a few rooms attached, or primarily a building with an antenna on the roof?
I personally would suggest the following:
If more than half of the height is taken up by enclosed areas fit for human occupation, and the rest by the antenna, I will be willing to call it a building with an antenna.
If more than half of the height is taken up by an antenna, then I personally will call it an antenna.
Of course, if I read a better definition by a more definitive authority, I reserve the right to change my mind.
I sent an e-mail to the CTBUH to ask them why they don’t consider the CN tower a building, but I haven’t heard back. I searched in the CTBUH database for the tallest listing in Toronto, Canada, and they listed the CN tower with the classification “Tower” and not “Building”. I don’t know what criteria they use to determine what is called a tower. I couldn’t find a definition of the term at their website.
P.S. For those of you that made fun of my innocent (yet how appropriate!) typographical error: 
I was travelling from Bankok to Singapore by train at the beginning of the year and stopped off in Kuala Lumpur just to go up one of the Petronas Towers. Guess what? it’s a private building with no public access. :mad:
Had to go the KL tower to get my height buzz.
so does the lack of public access not make it a building? Or is that too inane and idea for this message board…oh wait, nothing is too inane for this message board.
coffee too much and sleeping not,
like Yoda make me talk
It’s not as if nobody can go up to the top to the Petronas Tower. You just have to have business there to do it. It’s not a tourist attraction, it’s a place of business.
There’s no observation deck in the Chrysler Building or the Library Tower, which is the tallest building in Los Angeles.
Apparently the people at Petronas don’t want the hassle of building a souvenir shop, an express elevator and hiring people to watch over you while you stand on the observation deck.
I might be inclined to back the CN Tower’s claim if you don’t have to sit through a short video before taking the elevator up to the observation deck like you have to at the Sears Tower.
There’s a supported radio mast in Poland which is slightly taller. There’s a site with a list of the world’s tallest “things”, but I don’t feel like searching for it right now.
Oh boy, I can’t believe I’m about to step into the middle of this one, but here goes…
My personal opinion is that a building typically has floors in sequence starting at the bottom of the structure and not stopping until the cap is reached. This cap may then have other things on top of it (antennas, decorative structures, crap designed to make the building seem higher, etc). The CN Tower does not seem to have anything other than an elevator shaft in between the floors at the bottom and the floors at the top. As pointed out in an earlier post, you can’t stop the elevator halfway up, get out and walk around. While I don’t know a lot about some of the other tall structures mentioned, I don’t believe any of them are designed with some floors at the bottom and some floors at the top and nothing in between.
According to
http://www.xs4all.nl/~hnetten/tallest.html
the Polish TV tower (2115’) fell down in 1991.
your complaint is noted, and that’s just super. wouldn’t it be great if the elevator would stop halfway up and let you out? oh boy!
but so far there is nothing suggesting that is a necessity to fit into the 4th category mentioned in cecil’s column…
…so your point is worthless in this discussion.
please try again.