246 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



Item 5, preliminary design of foundation structui-es, review of pro- 

 posed schemes and construction methods ; Moran, Proctor, Mueser & 

 Kutledge, $26,000; 



Item 6, functional design of superstructure, living space, equipment, 

 power, storage supply ; Anderson & Nichols, $9,250 ; 



Item 7, preliminary design of superstructures and mechanical equip- 

 ment ; Anderson & Xichols, $14,500 ; 



Item 8, cost estimates and outline specifications for foundation types 

 and proposed schemes; Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge, $14,000; 



Item 9, cost estimates and outline specifications for superstructures, 

 equipment, et cetera ; Anderson & Nichols, $9,250 ; 



Item 10, summarization of studies and theories for design criteria 

 for foundations; Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge, $5,000; 



Item 11, preparation of report; both firms, $8,000; 



Item 12, contingencies; both firms, $10,000. 



Mr. Kendall. Did that division of responsibility remain through- 

 out the completion of the project, or was any change made subse- 

 quently? 



Mr. Rutledge. This continued throughout the feasibility report. 

 At the completion of tlie feasibility report, the amount of work in- 

 volved in design was different than in the feasibility report, because 

 we were to design five structures which were quite different structures, 

 but the superstructure, the architectural, electrical, mechanical, was 

 close to being the same in each of the five. 



Mr. Kendall. Dr. Rutledge, a subpena was served on you, in effect 

 requesting that you produce all vouchers or memoranda showing 

 expenditures of money for the entertainment or social activities of 

 Captain Wesanen during this timie. Did you do that, sir? 



Mr. Shaw. If I might interrupt, Counsel ? 



Mr. Kendall. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Shaw. There was a specific time period specified in the subpena, 

 as I recall. 



Mr. Kendall. I think that is correct, sir. 



Mr. Rutledge. Sir, we searched our files for the time period speci- 

 fied, which was — I don't have it in front of me. 



Mr. Kendall. June 1, 1956, through January 1, 1958. 



!Mr. Rl^tledge. We found nothing for the specified periods, sir. 

 "\Ve searched our files from the beginning of the Texas tower investi- 

 gation to the present day. We find one expense slip in the amount 

 of $52.55. 



Mr. Kendall. That was for Captain Wesanen ? 



Mr. Rutledge. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Kendall. For what purpose ? 



Mr. Rutledge. This was July 22, 1954, railroad and taxi to Bronx- 

 ville, car mileage to Blind Brook Country Club, tolls, charges, Blind 

 Brook Country Club, dinner. 



Mr. Kendall. Dr. Rutledge, in the design of this tower, I believe 

 it was contemplated originally that the resistance to the passage of 

 wind should be kept at a minimum; is that correct? Wind and 

 waves, that is ? 



Mr. Rudledge. Yes, sir ; that is correct. 



Mr. Kendall. Now, is it not true that tower No. 4 would be sub- 

 jected, both to aerodynamic and hydrodynamic forces ? 



