I can ses they deliberately did not, but gerrys argument seem to hinge upon them saying that it was. If it wasn't, then gerry has no real argument here.
Total denial,
Here's a selection of what you have stated on this thread so far Mick -
First Mick doubted that there were studs on the beams.....see post #62 - he corrected this.
Then he doubted their function....#87 - "Can you actually stop steel expanding by holding it in place?"
He then sought out drawing S-8-10 and continued to assert that the BEAMS had no studs. (various posts)
Later, he admitted the studs, and asked "would they make a mechanical difference?" post #129
Claimed that verinage would work on a steel framed building in pist #131
He asked on Sep10th how much i thought the beam would expand, I answered the same day and gave him the figures.
#176 Stated that "640.69*.00000701*1040 = 4.67, but like I said, NIST never claims a longer expansion"
#181 I showed him where NIST claimed expansion of "at least 5.5inches"
#229 Tries to argue against ae911truth instead of me "This seems to be the crux of the AE911 argument"
#237 Dislikes me focussing on details "You seem to like focussing on details (like the stiffener plates, and the 11 vs. 12 inch seat, and the temperature, and the thermal expansion coefficients of steel)"
#259 Tries to discard the whole topic of the thread "Why do you need to get the initiating event right? "
#265 Claims I am..."linking two separate things. The initiating event was just what eventually caused C79 to buckle by itself"
#267 Begins to invent new initiating events "The initiating event was likely something similar"
#272 Further avoids the specific event claimed by NIST "It could be this, or something similar, or something else. "
#274 Says "It would certainly be helpful" to find out what the initiating event was.
#325 Continues earlier character assasination of TS "More and more people like Tony Szamboti, who were already convinced the NIST analysis was rigged"
#329 Uses screenshots from my video and then claims in #356 to have done them himself "I roughly based it on"
#329 Claims that collapse preceded initiating event "And that's not even accounting for the other damage that was going, possible other falling beams. Other failed or failing connections"
#332 Tries to ignore elements and calls NISTs initiating event hypothetical "It's your hinging of everything on the stiffener plates in the hypothetical initiating event that's an oversimplification"
#335 Claims NIST did not state that "This is exactly what happened down to the last inch!!!"
#342 Asserts that the structural drawings that I and NIST used are not correct " a possible omission of stiffener plates"
#345 Tries to skip past the initiating event "Do you doubt that column 79 buckled?"
#352 Huge blind assertion "You don't invalidate the entire thing by adding a stiffener plate"
#364 Further denial of drawings and NISTs statements "You are just pointing out a possible inaccuracy in this one hypothetical event"
#370 Hedges his bets on the initiating event "I'm not at all convinced that the Col79 unseating is not the initiating event"
#376 Ignores who mentioned Tony in this thread first be ommiting to refer to his earlier post which said "Tony seems like he would be a little predisposed to make such an assessment"
#396 Still denies NISTs initiating event "Would you agree that NIST don't actually refer to the unseating of the girder as the initiating event"