Why ponder about it? If you believe that the two stories are not linked then why not just post on your original thread?
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...le-humber.html
Wind Turbine damage through blade and structural failures.
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf
Wind Turbine Accident data
'Blade failure
By far the biggest number of incidents found were due to blade failure. “Blade failure” can arise from a number of possible sources, and results in either whole blades or pieces of blade being thrown from the turbine. A total of 139 separate incidences were found:
Pieces of blade are documented as travelling over 400m, typically from much smaller turbines than those proposed for use today. In Germany, blade pieces have gone through the roofs and walls of nearby buildings. This is why CWIF believe that there should be a minimum distance of at least 2km between turbines and occupied housing – in line with other European countries - in order to adequately address public safety and other issues including noise and shadow flicker.
.....
Structural failure
From the data obtained, this is the third most common accident cause, with 60 instances found. “Structural failure” is assumed to be major component failure under conditions which components should be designed to withstand. This mainly concerns storm damage to turbines and tower collapse. However, poor quality control, lack of maintenance and component failure can also be responsible.'
Watch the UFO media call 'cover up' when the fault is found to be a mechanical failure?!