278 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



TOWER MEETS DESIGN CRITERIA IN SUJIMER OF 195 9 



Mr. RuTLEDGE. And the tower was inspected underwater for play 

 of pins, in my opinion, at that stage, which was in the summer of 1959, 

 following an inspection by Mr. Crockett, the diver, I believe the tower 

 was in a condition equal to the design conditions. 



Senator Stennis. All right. That is very specific, and very good. 

 That was my next question. When did it meet these conditions ; in the 

 summer of 1959 until when ? 



Mr. RtiTLEDGE. Until we received a report of looseness of pins at 

 the minus 25 foot elevation on the A-B side. 



Senator Stennis. Yes. 



Well, now, when was that ? 



Mr. RiTTLEDGE. Approximately 8 months later. 



Senator Stennis. Well, now, 8 months from the summer of 1959, 

 just making a quick calculation, would be somewhere around February 

 1960. 



Mr. Rutledge. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Kuss. February 14, 1960. 



Senator Stennis. That is all right. It is very clear. The condition 

 of the tower was less than its design strength, and it never did regain 

 its original design strength again ; isn't that correct ? 



TOWER STRENGTH DIMINISHES 



Mr. Rutledge. With the addition of the above- water bracing, it had 

 a strength equal to the design criteria, on the assumption that the re- 

 placement braces on the A-B side were defective. 



The actual looseness of the pins was measured during the installation 

 of the above-water bracing. 



The actual looseness of the pins or play in tlie pins was in the 

 order of three-eighths of an inch to seven-sixteenths of an mch, as 

 measured by the divere after they took the keeper plates off, and these 

 measurements were pait of the contract which involved the above- 

 water bracing, and the measurements are included in our report to 

 the Air Force dated September 9, 1960, on page 2. 



Senator Stennis. AU right. You know, of coui*se, from the record 

 that there is a conflict of evidence, as I understand it, about the ex- 

 tent of the looseness of those pins, and also the effectiveness of these 

 braces. We have the testimony of Mr. Brewer, I believe, about the 

 results of his motion study. Is that correct ? 



Mr. Kuss. Yes, sir. 



Senator Stennis. Do you want to address anything further to the 

 point I brought up, with reference to the conflict in the evidence? 



CONFLICT IN evidence ON EXTENT OF ^VEAR IN PIN CONNECTIONS 



Mr. RuTi.EDGE. There are two points there, sir, if I may bring them 

 out. 



Senator Stennis. Yes. 



Mr. Rutledge. First, on the looseness of the pins, part of the con- 

 tract between the Air Force and J. Rich Steers, Inc., for the installa- 

 tion of the above-water bracing was to remove the keeper-pin plates 



