Doesn't seem like an intellectually honest article. It starts out saying 300 miles of pipe creates too long of an expansion to handle at either end and that the

Doesn't seem like an intellectually honest article. It starts out saying 300 miles of pipe creates too long of an expansion to handle at either end and that the design doesn't address this. Although even then the expansion is well within the realms of an airport runway, for example. But the whole proof by contradiction at the start is proved wrong when he quotes the design document saying there is expansion provisions at the stations, not just the very start and end. So his entire first calculation that is supposed to prove the design untenable is erroneous based just on the parts of the design he himself quotes.