COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 113 



tures of 8 to 10 feet. It is also something to worry about that when 

 you put an obstruction down there 25 feet in diameter and the current 

 probably going around it, that it will erode. But I am also quite 

 sure that the design engineer has taken that all into consideration. 



That is why I say I would not want to be presumptuous enough to 

 question it. But not knowing anything about it and having the experi- 

 ence of the others, why, it appears that you are on awful shaky 

 assumptions that 18 or 20 feet is enough. 



But I can say again that the design engineer probably has taken all 

 that into consideration, and that there was no erosion and that the 

 footings are in place, from those facts, you can assume that he was 

 correct. 



Mr. Kendall. But he would fall into your designation of a bold 

 man, I believe you said. 



Mr. DeLong. Well, it is bolder than I would want to be. 



Mr. Kendall. So I take it you would not design the tower to be so 

 constructed ? 



Mr. DeLong. I do not believe that that is an easy one for me to 

 answer. 



Mr. Kendall. Well, let us go to a slightly different question, Mr. 

 DeLong. From the standpoint of future experience, particularly with 

 reference to towers No. 2 and No. 3, for example, which are still stand- 

 ing, do you think it would be worth the expense to go down and recover 

 samples of the caissons and make footing measurements, and so forth, 

 to determine exactly what happened upon the collapse of the tower? 



Mr. DeLong. Well, Mr. Kendall, I do not know how you mean that. 

 Talking purely from the DeLong Corp., it would not mean anything 

 to us. 



Mr. Kendall. Not even in relation to towers No. 2 and No. 3 ? 



Mr. DeLong. No ; towers No. 2 and No. 3 — No. 3 was built the same 

 as No. 2. I do not think there are any problems. We feel confident 

 there are no problems with tower No. 2, and I think that No. 3 was 

 constructed as the design engineers drew it up, and so forth, and there 

 should be no problems with tower No. 3. Your problems are very 

 simple on tower No. 4 ; it is accumulation. 



Mr. Kendall. Mr. DeLong, this so-called tip-up method of erec- 

 tion, that is a patented process, is it not ? Mr. Kuss holds a patent 

 on that process ? 



KUSS TIP-UP method OF ERECTION OBJECTIONABLE TO DELONG 



Mr. DeLong. So we understand, but I do not think that he made 

 any charge for it or anything like that. But it is the Kuss method. 



Mr. Kendall. Do I understand you to say that if the Kuss method 

 had been insisted upon, you would have refused to bid upon tower 

 No. 4? 



Mr. DeLong. That is absolutely correct. If we did not have an 

 understanding that we could use an alternate scheme, we would not 

 have bid. 



Mr. Kendall. With whom did you have that understanding, and 

 at what point in time ? 



Mr. DeLong. Our chief engineer worked with the design engineers. 



Mr. Kendall. That was Mr. Suderow ? 



