34 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



ent. Tower No. 4 was much the most difficult of the four towers. 

 Therefore why does the statement stop at No. 2 ? Why does he not go 

 ahead, if he had anything to do with tower No. 4 ? 



Mr. Kendall. Possibly Mr. Anderson can answer why he termi- 

 nated his statement when he did, Senator. 



Mr. Anderson. I think, Senator, that it was a matter of time when 

 I stopped writing this. But my purpose in writing it was to bring 

 out the timing and events that took place through the original con- 

 tract phases of this project and up to the point when design started. 



Now, it just so happens 



Senator Stennis. All right. Senator Symington requested per- 

 mission to ask another question. Gentlemen, I think we better go back 

 to the regular order as soon as we can. 



Senator Symington. I am sure counsel is going to develop this, 

 Mr. Chairman 



Senator Stennis. Well, I think you have a good point. 



Senator Symington. Well, there are two points about it. First, as 

 I understood it from the testimony, the Navy was responsible for the 

 design and building of the tower. Therefore, I wonder why, in your 

 statement, you say you shipped your drawings out to the Air Force, 

 at Colorado Springs. 



Second, am I to understand that all this had to do with the tower 

 which is not under investigation and that you, if you had more time, 

 would have talked about the tower which is under investigation? 



Mr. Anderson. Well, sir, actually work proceeded on the design 

 of all towers, although the emphasis, or the priority was placed on 

 tower No. 2 which was the first tower to be put out. However, this 

 design, once started, went right through covering five towers. 



Senator Stennis. All right. Anything further on that? 



I think, gentlemen, if we could return to the regular order it would 

 be better. 



Senator Saltonstall, you have a point. We will take you next. 



superstructures for all towers generally similar 



Senator Saltonstall. Well, I just want to take that one step fur- 

 ther. Was the superstructure which you were responsible for, any 

 different on towers 2, 3, and 4, because of the difference in foundations 

 underneath them, or was the superstructure the same in each one? 



Mr. Anderson. No ; it was not the same in each one. Senator. In 

 basic principle it was the same, but details had to be changed, basically 

 because of the change in the leg structure and the method of attaching 

 the legs. On tower No. 4 there was a gate. Tower No. 4, as you 

 probably are aware, was handled quite differently from either of the 

 other two, in that the leg structure of tower No. 4 was fabricated, in es- 

 sence, completely and towed to the site, whereas on the other two, these 

 legs were put in the platform and were towed to sea as part of the 

 platform. 



On tower No. 4 the legs were towed separately, and the platform 

 was towed separately. After the legs were up-ended and in position, 

 then the platform was floated in between these legs and these gates 

 were closed in order to grip the platform for raising it. Because of 

 the difference in the detail, naturally, in our platform design, we had 

 to make allowances for that and incorporate that. 



