24 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 
Inc., the diver firm, certified that repairs to the collar connections 
were satisfactory 
The cost for replacing the Dardelet bolts with T-bolts was taken 
from the original “Military construction program, Texas tower” 
appr opriation. It was said that this repair reduced the tower move- 
ment to a lesser magnitude than at any time since its construction. 
In August of 1959, the 1st Naval District awarded a contract 
to Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge for a motion study of radome 
bases for towers No. 2 and No. 4. The report, dated September 16, 
1959, was prepared at Air Force request to provide information as 
to whether or not the motion of the tower would be within the limits 
of acceptable tolerances for operational radar purposes. The study 
had nothing to do with the structural stability or instability of the 
tower. The completion of this report in September 1959 constituted 
the last item of work performed by the Navy for the Air Force in 
connection with Texas tower No. 4 up to the time of its collapse. 
By January of 1960, less than a year after the collars were fixed, 
the operating personnel again complained of excessive platform mo- 
tion. Marine Contractors, Inc., performed another underwater in- 
spection in February 1960. In the report of Mr. Alan Crockett, 
general manager for Marine Contractors, Inc., there appears the 
following statement : 
This concern did a similar survey on tower No. 4 last October 1959 [sic; 1958] 
and the results did not show the magnitude of clearance to be found in the 
pins that we have appreciated during this survey. We feel that there is approxi- 
mately three-fourth-inch increase in clearance between the surveys * * *. The 
tower movement is very erratic in an oscillatory direction * * *. The noise 
factor heard on the tower in the vicinity of A caisson is resulting from the 
motion of the tower taking up total clearances in the pins and flanges on one 
side or the other to bringing the two metal surfaces together at the extremity 
of motion causing the metallic bang. 
For a more epapbie ip ea ee of the condition of the tower, there 
is reproduced on p. 25, a schematic diagram depicting the locations 
of the loose pins and worn connections. 
Loose pins and worn connections became a cause for considerable 
concern. On March 1, 1960, the Engineering Section of the 551st 
Aircraft Early Warning nid Control Wing at Otis Air Force Base 
telegraphed the 26th Air Division in Syracuse, N.Y., stating in sub- 
stance that the 4604th Support Squadron had notified the 551st 
AEW&C wing of excessive sway in the tower on January 20, 1960; 
that diver inspection in early February disclosed that pins had loos- 
ened from 14 inch tolerance to as much as 1 inch in some cases; that 
this prompted a meeting with the ey engineers, Moran, Proctor, 
Mueser & Rutledge, on February 25, who recommended the installa- 
tion of abovewater bracing; that such br: acing would cost from $400,000 
to $500,000; and that these repairs must be ‘accomplished on an emer- 
gency basis not later than August 1, 1960. 
An information copy of this teletypewriter exchange (TWX) was 
mailed to the First Naval District and is more specifically identified 
as unclassified message No. 0979. 
