26 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 
struction of this tower and, although it was obviously in further diffi- 
culty of an emergency nature, he took no affirmative action to ascer- 
tain the cause of the trouble. In a letter dated March 15, 1960, to: 
Colonel Stephany of the Air Force, he advised that he did not want 
the Navy to become involved in what he had orally termed nickel and 
dime maintenance and repair but that since “the motion difficulty 
appeared to be related to the original design,” he would look favor- 
ably upon a request for the Navy to administer the engineering and 
repair contracts to correct the difficulty. In his testimony during the 
hearings, he stated in substance that by “original design” he also in- 
cluded the collar connections for the replacement diagonals. 
The Air Force did not accept the offer he proferred on behalf of the 
Navy and dealt directly this time with the original designers, Moran, 
Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge and the original builder, J. Rich Steers, 
Inc. 
The installation of the X-bracing above water was a matter of 
emergency because a condition existed which would result in the prob- 
able loss of the tower if it was not corrected. This bracing was in- 
stalled at elevations plus 9 feet to plus 58 feet above water in the area 
presenting maximum resistance to the passage of waves, and repre- 
sented a scheme which was diametrically opposed to the original con- 
cept of keeping resistance to wave passage to a minimum. No effort 
was made to rectify the admittedly serious conditions of loose pins 
and worn connections underwater but, nonetheless, the design engi- 
neers on August 10, 1960, certified that the above-water X-bracing had 
restored the tower to its original design strength. 
