Um, yeah. That's the point I've been trying to make and pieces able to be "launched" that far have to be weighty, unlike paper or nylon that's light enough to float in the wind. Didn't you see all the "facts" he got wrong that I pointed out? Why are you being dishonest in trying to insinuate that I did that? Why can't skeptics be truthful? For starters, the FDR supposedly said the crash was at 40 degree, not near 90 degrees as that guy contends. For the others, apparently we don't deal with links around here, only "sources." Just ask Hannibal. Then why did you bring it up? Since they go to challenge your "preponderance of evidence," they are very relevant. The only distraction is you trying to make up excuses to avoid answering them. It's a hypothetical. Challenges your logic. No reason to run from it. What would be "credible sources" in your eyes for that?