COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 131 



Commander Foster. I think theoretically ; yes, sir. 



Mr. Kendall. As a matter of fact, it is no longer theoretical in the 

 case of Texas tower No. 4, is it ? 



Commander Foster. I am familiar with it up until the time I left 

 the project, sir, but although I have read some of the recent develop- 

 ments, I am not particularly sure on the latter part. 



Mr. Kendall. You are fully aware of what happened from the his- 

 tory that has been given to you, are you not ? 



Commander Foster. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Kendall. In your judgment as an engineer, would not the fact 

 that it was found that the tolerances had increased to 1 inch substan- 

 tiate the judgment that this was caused by the motion of the tower 

 and the motion of the sea and the fetching up of the pins ? 



Commander Foster. I am sorry, sir, I got lost in that question. But 

 I would like 



Senator Stennis. He will restate it if you got lost. 



Mr. Kendall. I may be lost, myself. 



tower movement and impact of pins fetching up deemed not 

 responsible for deterioration in pin tolerances 



Based on the history that you have received, and including the fact 

 that it was subsequently developed that the tolerance in the pins, as a 

 result of an actual observation and inspection, had in some cases 

 increased to 1 inch, would it be your judgment as an engineer that 

 that was caused by the fact that the tower was moving and by the 

 impact of the pins fetching up ? 



Commander Foster. It would not, sir. 



Mr. Kendall. What would be your judgment on that question ? 



Commander Foster. If I may review as briefly as I can the history 

 of these braces and pins, I shall try to answer the question. I cannot 

 do it in a sentence or two, however. 



These braces were installed in the latter part of August and early 

 September of 1957. The tower was delivered to the Air Force in 

 November 1957. In the fall of 1958, we were advised by the Air 

 Force, and I believe it was the occupants of the tower, that they 

 had noticed excessive motion and we immediately engaged a firm 

 of divers, the Marine Contractors, Inc., to inspect these braces 

 find, in particular, the collars were what we had in mind, because 

 we felt some of the bolts might be loose, but also the pins at the 25- 

 foot level. They did so, and I believe they worked in September 

 or October of 1958. Their report was made in November. 



Now, this report a year after, or a little better than a year after the 

 braces were installed and the tower was in place, showed no evi- 

 dence of wear on any pins. It did mention one loose bolt, for 

 which I think there was an obvious reason : The collar at the other 

 end was riding, and therefore, this bolt was not fetching up, so to 

 speak. 



WEAR IN PIN connections NOT PERCEPTIBLE FOR YEAR 



But in the record, the evidence is that for a year, at least, no wear 

 was perceptible. We started repairs, but bad weather forced us to 

 cease. We picked up again when weather permitted in the spring, 



