160 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



Captain White. Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge. 



Mr. Kendall. Is that the same firm that designed the towers? 



Captain White. It is. 



EVALUATION CALLS FOR SEAWORTHINESS OF REMAINING TOWERS 



Mr. Kendall. Now, Captain, why would you go back to the same 

 firm that had designed tlie towers and who had attempted the repairs 

 on tower No. 4 to make an inspection of the structural integrity of the 

 remaining two towers ? 



Captain White. Well, it seems to me that it was rather basic, that 

 we were given a job by the Air Force to make an investigation to 

 determine the seaworthiness of Texas towers No. 2 and No. 3. 



Associated with that job was a matter of extreme urgency, because 

 there was a lot of concern, certainly, following the tragedy of Texas 

 tower No. 4, as to what the condition of the other two towers was. 



Now, this concern was shared not only by the people that were on 

 the towers themselves, but by the families of those people. This was a 

 matter of urgency. So it seemed to me that the best people who were 

 in a position to go out on those towers, and specify and determine 

 which parts of the towers should be thoroughly investigated, to de- 

 termine their structural accuracy, was the firm that originally de- 

 signed the towers. 



Mr. Kendall. Well, Captain, with all deference to the time ele- 

 ment and the urgency of the matter, it appears from the record that 

 the design engineers, time after time, have been consulted, and no 

 one else, about repairs to tower No. 4. Now they are called upon by a 

 new contract to evaluate their own work in towers No. 2 and No. 3. 



Now, it is not very likely, is it, that they would admit that there 

 was a design deficiency in towers No. 2 and No. 3 if they found one ? 



Captain White. I would like to disagree with you just a little bit 

 on one of the premises that you stated; that is, that they have not 

 been called upon to review their original design in no way. What 

 they have been called upon to do is to see whether the towers as con- 

 structed meet the requirements that were established by their original 

 design. 



Mr. Kendall. That is not what your memorandum of January 24 

 says, is it. Captain ? Does it not say that the purpose of the investi- 

 gation was to determine whether towers Nos. 2, 3 — and I am quoting 

 here — "were structurally capable of meeting the original design cri- 

 teria and performing their intended functions ? " 



Now, certainly that brings into play your whole concept of design, 

 does it not ? 



Captain White. I am sorry, could I see that ? 



Mr. Kendall. Yes. 



Senator Stennis. Off the record. 



(Discussion off the record.) 



Senator Stennis. Captain, you are ready to start ? 



Let us have order, gentlemen. 



All right, gentlemen, let us proceed. 



]Mr. Kendall. I believe I had a question pending, Mr. Chairman. 



