If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pravda)   Moscow skyscraper will not collapse after huge fire. Russian skyscrapers do not collapse   (english.pravda.ru) divider line 103
    More: Interesting, Moscow, laser weapons, tallest buildings, Kalashnikov assault rifles  
•       •       •

8650 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Apr 2012 at 1:04 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



103 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-03 10:59:23 AM  
Of course it won't collapse. They didn't use any thermite.

/I'm so sorry...
 
2012-04-03 11:11:43 AM  
The same thing happened to the skyscraper when it was growing up.

tvrefill.com

I don't think the fire learned it lesson.
 
2012-04-03 11:13:16 AM  
Fire can't melt steel.
 
2012-04-03 11:36:07 AM  
Must have used extra chicken wire.
 
2012-04-03 11:50:49 AM  
This story helped me spot a couple of truthers still lurking on Facebook friends' list. Very useful, in that regard.
 
2012-04-03 12:01:10 PM  
Thermite, chicken wire, ok we're good here.
 
2012-04-03 12:36:48 PM  

SnarfVader: Of course it won't collapse. They didn't use any thermite.

/I'm so sorry...


"The solid constructions of the Federation Tower were made from super-solid B-90 and B-100 concrete. They can endure fire for more than four hours. Therefore, the construction of the tower did not suffer from the fire"

clearly the russians learned SOMETHING from 911
 
2012-04-03 12:37:49 PM  

OregonVet: Fire can't melt steel.


I thought we took care of this in the Boobies.
 
2012-04-03 12:44:32 PM  
i232.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-03 01:07:16 PM  
There is no threat for the skyscraper to collapse

Of course not. Skyscrapers are built better than that. Which means the WTC was either built criminally defective, or...
 
2012-04-03 01:08:55 PM  

BurnShrike: There is no threat for the skyscraper to collapse

Of course not. Skyscrapers are built better than that. Which means the WTC was either built criminally defective, or...


it had a plane crash into it? he fixes the cable?
 
2012-04-03 01:09:16 PM  
Mmm, skyscraper
 
2012-04-03 01:09:43 PM  
It's because the fire didn't knock off the insulation from the support beams.
 
2012-04-03 01:10:31 PM  

BurnShrike: There is no threat for the skyscraper to collapse

Of course not. Skyscrapers are built better than that. Which means the WTC was either built criminally defective, or...


or the Russia building was built with reinforced concrete.
 
2012-04-03 01:10:33 PM  
Maybe they should hit it with a jetliner and see if that and a fire will knock it down. They could probably pay for a brand new skyscraper just by taking bets on the outcome.
 
2012-04-03 01:11:08 PM  
What did it scrap off the sky?
 
2012-04-03 01:11:26 PM  
WTC7
 
2012-04-03 01:11:37 PM  
OMG, TRUTHER THREAD! RUN! SAVE YOURSELVES!
 
2012-04-03 01:12:02 PM  

namatad: clearly the russians learned SOMETHING from 911


Actually, I think they learned more from this (new window)
 
2012-04-03 01:14:52 PM  
Won't stop truffers, but

There is no threat for the skyscraper to collapse, officials said. "The solid constructions of the Federation Tower were made from super-solid B-90 and B-100 concrete."
 
2012-04-03 01:15:23 PM  

Krymson Tyde: [i232.photobucket.com image 300x396]


Most creative filter evasion EVAR!
 
2012-04-03 01:15:59 PM  
The square of the fire reached 300 m2 on Monday.

Translation. How does that work?
 
2012-04-03 01:16:17 PM  
 
2012-04-03 01:18:11 PM  
Wanted for questioning:

www.buddytv.com
 
2012-04-03 01:19:02 PM  
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911 -myths-world-trade-center


The World Trade Center
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers-and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later-initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.

Widespread Damage
Claim: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."
FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel-and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength-and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air-along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse-was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

Seismic Spikes
Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

Fine Lines: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.
On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear-misleadingly-as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves-blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower-start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

WTC 7 Collapse
Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."


Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom-approximately 10 stories-about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors-along with the building's unusual construction-were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.



Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics
 
2012-04-03 01:20:07 PM  
Russian skyscraper spokesman?
lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-04-03 01:21:31 PM  

Egoy3k: Maybe they should hit it with a jetliner and see if that and a fire will knock it down. They could probably pay for a brand new skyscraper just by taking bets on the outcome.


Can I get that on pay-per-view?
 
2012-04-03 01:27:31 PM  
Before this skyscraper tallest building in Moscow was Lubyanka. You could see Siberia from the basement
 
2012-04-03 01:29:39 PM  
Of course not. First you need forty cakes laced with cyanide, then shoot it 3 times in the back, wrap it in carpet and shove the building into the Neva.*

*not guaranteed to collapse building
 
2012-04-03 01:32:26 PM  
Excuse the utter and complete threadjack, but how did we all miss this little made-for-Fark tidbit? (sidebar link in TFA)

Pussy Riot in the heart of Moscow splits Russia (pops)


/and now, back to our regularly scheduled conflagration.
 
2012-04-03 01:36:30 PM  
"The fire... was believed to have started when plastic sheeting came in contact with a spotlight illuminating a work area."

Yup, that's just about identical to the kind of damage that a passenger jet loaded with jet fuel would cause if it slammed into the building at 400mph. So, since plastic sheeting = 400mph 767 then it must be the superior Russian architecture that saved this building.
 
2012-04-03 01:44:29 PM  

Kuta: Mmm Skyscraper I Love You


Skyscraper (new window)
 
2012-04-03 01:45:37 PM  
Hello, how many apples can I get for these oranges?
 
2012-04-03 01:47:07 PM  
Charlie Sheen
 
2012-04-03 01:47:11 PM  

jpo2269: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-91 1 -myths-world-trade-center


The World Trade Center
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers-....blah blah blah


Don't blow your load too early bud.
 
2012-04-03 01:50:09 PM  
Everyone stop trolling; these threads are fantastic opportunities to identify the genuine Truthers in our midst.
 
2012-04-03 01:53:49 PM  

BigNumber12: Everyone stop trolling; these threads are fantastic opportunities to identify the genuine Truthers in our midst.


Yeah, we need to out and beat those bastards! We don't need no science bullshiat in here.
 
2012-04-03 01:59:39 PM  

BurnShrike: BigNumber12: Everyone stop trolling; these threads are fantastic opportunities to identify the genuine Truthers in our midst.

Yeah, we need to out and beat those bastards! We don't need no science bullshiat in here.



Go on...
 
2012-04-03 02:03:08 PM  
Fire on the top of the building, without any mass above it to compress the weakened structure and collapse.

Plus the thing is made off concrete, not steel, which is highly resistant to fire. If they didn't cut too many corners (this is Russia we're talking about) a modern concrete skyscraper is basically indestructible.
 
2012-04-03 02:04:34 PM  
demondollrecords.com

^Russian heritage
 
2012-04-03 02:06:05 PM  

BigNumber12: BurnShrike: BigNumber12: Everyone stop trolling; these threads are fantastic opportunities to identify the genuine Truthers in our midst.

Yeah, we need to out and beat those bastards! We don't need no science bullshiat in here.


Go on...


Well, I'm just saying. We should castigate and harass anyone who doesn't think exactly what we do, right? Land of the Free as long as you're like me and all that.
 
2012-04-03 02:06:10 PM  

jpo2269: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-91 1 -myths-world-trade-center


http://prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.ht m

Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.

It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.

The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?

Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.

Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.

This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.

images.free-extras.com

Go ooooon...
 
2012-04-03 02:07:19 PM  
Yogimus Smartest
Funniest
2012-04-03 01:47:11 PM


jpo2269: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-91 1 -myths-world-trade-center


The World Trade Center
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers-....blah blah blah

Don't blow your load too early bud.


Sorry, I had to be at the gym in 26 minutes..
 
2012-04-03 02:13:05 PM  

CrazyCracka420: Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.


Bwhahaha!!! Uh, no.

BurnShrike: Well, I'm just saying. We should castigate and harass anyone who doesn't think exactly what we do, right? Land of the Free as long as you're like me and all that.


Wow, you are a farking truther too?

Lulz
 
2012-04-03 02:17:12 PM  

BurnShrike: BigNumber12: BurnShrike: BigNumber12: Everyone stop trolling; these threads are fantastic opportunities to identify the genuine Truthers in our midst.

Yeah, we need to out and beat those bastards! We don't need no science bullshiat in here.


Go on...

Well, I'm just saying. We should castigate and harass anyone who doesn't think exactly what we do, right? Land of the Free as long as you're like me and all that.


memecrunch.com
DON'T WANT US TO KNOW THE TRUTH
 
2012-04-03 02:18:00 PM  

BurnShrike: BigNumber12: BurnShrike: BigNumber12: Everyone stop trolling; these threads are fantastic opportunities to identify the genuine Truthers in our midst.

Yeah, we need to out and beat those bastards! We don't need no science bullshiat in here.


Go on...

Well, I'm just saying. We should castigate and harass anyone who doesn't think exactly what we do, right? Land of the Free as long as you're like me and all that.



Nobody's stopping them from flaunting their ignorant, loudmouthed, boogeyman-based, "I'm enlightened and you're not" drivel. But Freedom of Speech does not prevent others from pointing out what a dumbass a person is.

And frankly, if you're willing to dismiss out-of-hand the mountains of evidence and research that both describe the exact mechanics of the collapses and address point-by-point the various conspiracy theories, in favor of "just asking questions" type rhetoric, then perhaps a bit of mockery is in your best interest.
 
2012-04-03 02:25:46 PM  

BigNumber12: BurnShrike: BigNumber12: BurnShrike: BigNumber12: Everyone stop trolling; these threads are fantastic opportunities to identify the genuine Truthers in our midst.

Yeah, we need to out and beat those bastards! We don't need no science bullshiat in here.


Go on...

Well, I'm just saying. We should castigate and harass anyone who doesn't think exactly what we do, right? Land of the Free as long as you're like me and all that.


Nobody's stopping them from flaunting their ignorant, loudmouthed, boogeyman-based, "I'm enlightened and you're not" drivel. But Freedom of Speech does not prevent others from pointing out what a dumbass a person is.

And frankly, if you're willing to dismiss out-of-hand the mountains of evidence and research that both describe the exact mechanics of the collapses and address point-by-point the various conspiracy theories, in favor of "just asking questions" type rhetoric, then perhaps a bit of mockery is in your best interest.


That's a very good point. If you use the popular mechanics straw man articles as your proof, you're more of an idiot that "truthers".
 
2012-04-03 02:26:09 PM  
Is it wrong that I saw it was Pravda, and just assumed they'd grabbed some stills from "The Towering Inferno" to use for the pic?

/Other sources have it too, so it might be legit
//there's got to be a morning after . . .
 
2012-04-03 02:28:04 PM  

CrazyCracka420: That's a very good point. If you use the popular mechanics straw man articles as your proof, you're more of an idiot that "truthers".


That is why I like to use the NIST reports, which tend to send the cockroach truthers scurrying.

Of course you just cited the Chertoff's counsin lie, so... yeah...
 
2012-04-03 02:28:50 PM  

CrazyCracka420: This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.


You don't need an article to debunk the truther myths anyway just go as a structural engineer. Hell ask a mechanical engineer about thermal expansion. Here I'll give you some info;

The coefficient of linear thermal expansion of steel is 13x10^-6 m/m K that means that for every degree kelvin steel increases it's length expands by 13x10^-6 m for ever meter of it's length.

So lets assume a 10m beam is subjected to say a 1000 degree temperature change.

1000 k x 13x10^-6 x 10 m = 13x10-2m or 13cm

I don't feel like doing any more math but I'd like you to think about the magnitude of force that would be required to compress a steel beam by 13cm along it's length, because that's force that it would exert outwards when heated.

I probably screwed up my math somewhere but I can tell you from experience that thermal expansion is a real motherfarker. You can't brace against it, the material will get hot if exposed to heat and when it's hot the material will be the size it wants to be. The worst part about it is that the expansion is based on a percentage of the length of the object but the force exerted is based on the overall displacement.
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report