124 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



Evidence heard during the first 2 days of hearing- has pointed to 

 the method of putting the tower in position as the beginning of the 

 end. 



Also, evidence has been offered which has led the subcommittee to 

 question the structural integrity of the tower at the time it went into 

 operation because of damage sustained when it was placed on its per- 

 manent site some 80 miles from shore. 



Several additional questions have been raised thus far. One deals 

 with the underwater repairs which may have permitted some motion 

 in the tower's bracing system and which, in turn, may have caused a 

 gradual deterioration of the tower. 



Another question deals with the pin connections used in construc- 

 tion. A pioneer in the design and construction of offshore, open sea 

 platforms told the subcommittee that, in his judgment, pin connec- 

 tions should not have been used in the design. 



We are not questioning the concept of a three-legged braced struc- 

 ture. This theory has been proved both feasible and practical — as 

 evidenced in the design and construction of Texas towers No. 2 and 

 No. 3, which are still standing and upon which great reliance has been 

 placed by the Air Force, the operating agency. 



The subcommittee hopes the v^'itnesses to be heard today and in 

 subsequent open hearing will place in the record additional pertinent 

 facts that will help the subcommittee determine all of the circum- 

 stances surrounding the design, construction, and repair of Texas 

 tower No. 4, which may have led to its collapse. 



Today, we expect to hear the following witnesses : 



(1) Comdr. Edmund E. Foster, of the Civil Engineer Corps, 

 U.S. Navy, who was the resident officer in charge of construction from 

 January 1957 until November of that same year when the tower was 

 turned over to the Air Force, and remained in that assignment until 

 August 1959. 



(2) Capt. Thomas J. "White, who has been district public works 

 officer, 1st Naval District, since January 1960. 



(3) Alan Crockett, of IMarine Contractors, Inc., who made two or 

 three underwater inspections or surveys of the tower while it was still 

 standing in order to check its structural stability. After the tower 

 fell he went underwater and made examinations to determine the 

 cause. 



The Chair wishes to reiterate that it is the position of the subcom- 

 mittee that we will not intentionally go into the question of command 

 responsibility which is involved in the proceeding that has been 

 brought by the Air Force against some of its officers. In attempting 

 to prevent that, we have agreed upon a cutoff date of January 12, 

 this year. This will be adhered to as closely as possible. On that 

 date, which was 3 days before the unfortunate collapse of the tower, 

 a conference was held, the facts were considered, and there were cer- 

 tain exchanges of thought. 



The proceedings and charges against the officers and their defense 

 are altogether matters for the Air Force in accordance with established 

 procedures. 



We want to protect the Air Force and protect the rights of these 

 men. We do not want to prejudice or interfere with the Air Force 

 proceedings in any manner. We shall keep that in mind and want to 



