38 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



usually used. However, I believe that the whole subject of design 

 there is too extensive to go into. It is certainly conceivable that any 

 degree of rigidity could be obtained by any method, perhaps at a dif- 

 ferent cost. It is a matter of choice there. 



I assume that a pin connected job could have been designed for al- 

 most any degree of strength and rigidity. It would not normally be 

 the choice where you were choosing rigidity as a desirable quality. 



Mr. Kendall. Do you concur generally with Mr. Anderson's state- 

 ment that if you had been the designer, you probably would not have 

 used pin connections ? 



Mr. MiNNicH. I do not believe I can answer that question. I have 

 never — I was not, you know, in on the decisions that went along with 

 that. And also, Mr. Anderson has already stated that the design of 

 the Tower No. 4 leg structure was a part of a patented system, and 

 perhaps that may have — I have no knowledge of that — whether that 

 pin connection was part of the patent or not. 



Mr. Kendall. Mr. Anderson, I have in my hand here a document 

 that is entitled "Design and Construction Report on the Texas Towers 

 Offshore Radar Platforms," and the date is September, 1959. Your 

 name appears upon this document. 



What part, if any, did your firm have in the preparation of this ? 



Mr. Anderson. None. 



Mr. Kendall. Who prepared it ? 



Mr. Anderson. Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge. 



Mr. Kendall. Were you consulted about it ? 



Mr. Anderson. No. 



Mr. Kendall. Prior to its being prepared ? 



Mr. Anderson. No; we were not. 



Senator Stennis. Let the item that counsel and the witness are 

 referring to in their questions and answers be identified. 



Mr. Kendall. If we may, we will consider this a part of our official 

 files. 



Senator Stennis. All right. It is so ordered. 



Proceed. 



Mr. Kendall. That is all I have. 



Senator Stennis. Do you think, Mr. Anderson, that you have 

 brought out the main high points now, which led up to this contract? 



Mr. Anderson. I believe so, sir. 



Senator Stennis. Now, at this conference on July 22, 1954, Captain 

 Albers informed you that for the purpose of expediting the project, 

 the caisson legs and main truss system were to be assigned to Moran, 

 Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge, and the deck which sits on the top 

 would be assigned to your firm. Now, what reason did he give for 

 assigning one part of it to you and one part to the other firm? 



REASON FOR CHANGE IN DIVISION OF WORK BET^VEEN ARCHITECT ENGINEERS 



Mr. Anderson. I know of no other reason than, as I stated, in the 

 interests of expediting the work. 



Senator Stennis. Were you in that conference yourself? 

 Mr. Anderson. I was not personally there ; no, sir. 

 Senator Stennis. Did you have a representative there? 

 Mr. Anderson. Yes ; I did. 

 Senator Stennis. Who represented you ? 



