284 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



Senator Stennis. Yes. 



Mr. Kuss. As I mentioned before, I believe, we felt that possibly, 

 if we got these above- water braces in, then we could go down and take 

 out the old pins and at least put in a larger one. But you could not 

 do that until the above-water braces were in. 



Senator Stennis. So that is when you installed the X-braces above 

 the water. You never were able to do anything about the loose pins, 

 were you ? 



Mr. Kuss. No, sir, you see, we were able to examine the loose pins 

 more carefully and we were still talking about them, but winter was 

 coming and we couldn't have done anything before the next year, 

 anyway. 



Senator Stennis. I^et me repeat this last sentence again : 



Thi.s is because the looseness induces impact stresses in the pins and pin plates 

 which are greater than for the nondynamic design assumptions. 



That means that it is greater than the design assumptions that were 

 cranked into the design ; is that right ? 



Mr. Kuss. Yes, sir; I think that is another one of the practical 

 statements. 



Senator Stennis. Beg pardon ? 



Mr. Kuss. I think that is another one of the practical parts of the 

 letter. Here is a member that is floating loosely in a hole and there 

 is bound to be some impact. 



Senator Stennts. It is so plain and well worded that I was afraid I 

 didn't understand it, not being an engineer. However, it seems to me 

 that you made it exceedingly clear. Your commonsense prediction 

 there was that the looseness would become increasingly greater as the 

 play enlarged. 



Do you have anything further? 



All right, Counsel. 



POSSIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY 



Mr. Kendall. ISIr. Rutledge, I believe you suggested the possibility 

 that the looseness in the pins could have resulted from a contractor 

 deficiency; is that right? The possibility? 



Mr. Rutledge. I would hesitate to call that a contractor deficiency. 

 I would say it would not be unusual if a one-eighth-inch tolerance was 

 specified and three-sixteenths of an inch actually did occur at one or 

 two locations. 



Mr. Kendall. I believe the first underwater inspection was made in 

 the fall of 1958? 



Mr. Rutledge. Yes, sir ; I believe this was in Septem.ber 1958. 



Mr. Kendall, And that revealed no slackness in the pin connec- 

 tions ? 



Mr. Rutledge. That is right, sir. 



]Mr. Kendall. If it had been the fault of the contractor, would not 

 the slackness have been revealed at that time ? 



Mr. RuTLEDGl:. Sir, this is a very difficult measurement to make, 

 and in order to make it the keeper plates would have to be removed. 

 These are the plates that hold the pins in position. To my knowledge, 

 the keeper plates were not removed at that time. 



