Originally Posted by
Lyman
There is evidence the tyres were rotating in the horizontal, you agree.
No. Possible/probable indication yes, but not evidence. I'm no more an accident investigator than Nick Thomas is, so I too am unable to draw conclusions or say "evidence" with certainty from those photographs.
Originally Posted by
Lyman
For the statements in the quote to be true, you offer a lack of evidence that the condition existed elsewhere.
No. I you want to call my PoV about those photographs as "evidences", then what I see in pictures showing the runway before 2,800m is an
evidence of lack (of wobble), not a
lack of evidence.
And that's really different
Originally Posted by
Lyman
The source of your evidence of absence is blurry photography of a carbon stained runway.
The source of "my" "evidence" is no more blurry than yours, my dear chap.
And I didn't base my arguments on the pics (or pic)
alone.
Originally Posted by
Lyman
The "Explosion"? Have we proven without doubt it was not caused by the tyre blowout?
That would be impossible, right? Because it occurred after the fire started, and defeats the tyre as cause of fire?
Yes indeed.
And because parts of tyre were found before the "Explosion" place, as shown in my previous post.
And because, as shown in my edit of the previous post, there is a more sensible explanation provided (even if somehow hidden in the appendix 6, which explains I didn't remembered it.