Which is why the claim was NEVER China had no stone, but rather, I am no geologist, but China is a lime stone where hard stone are harder to come by.
So congratulations on refuting something no one claimed. 
Then why did you bring up in the issue of available stonemin China when discussing why the Chinese built out of stone. You were trying to explain away something that was refuted by the realities of of later dynasties

Second, really? Han dynasty made NO STONE STRUCTURE?
Do you mean Han dynasty made no structure with stone that are standing today? 
No Han stone structures still standing today, aside from a few tombs - no bridges, no temples, no public buildings of any kind. There are more ancient structures still standing and being used in Rome than in all of China..
Later dynasties did build out of stone and brick, and we find lots Chinese stone bridges from later dynasties, just not from the Han dynasty. The fact that later dynasties built temples, bridges, and other structures out of brick and stone raises questions about some of the coomon explanations given - such as earth quakes, unavailability of stone and brick. If it was simply a case of preference, no ancient text supports that view, and the logic is circular - Chinese built out of wood, therefore it must be out of preference.
If you are going to post, than you should have to ask me those questions, you should have known the answer before asking me.

The Chinese transported woods thousands of miles. Big deal. 
It is a big deal. 60 tons single block of stone across the open sea is larger than an existing Han dynasty ship we know of. It is easy to transport wood, you can float it down the river, and even the largest timber pillar weights a whole lot less than 60 tons. Stone blocks are much harder to transport.
And please provide an actual example of the Chinese transporting woods thousands of miles. The wood that was used for the Forbiden Palace I only tnougnt was transported hundreds of miles, not thousands. Still, even the heaviest pillar in tne Forbidden Palace weight on a fraction of the 60 ton pillars, and way less than the 200 ton obelisk the Romans transported to Rome from Egypt. There is no evidence that the Chinese ships even in the Song and Ming dynasty ever carried such a heavy single block.
Anyway, my point was that the excuse you try to make was not valid, since you can always import material if you chose.

Now if you want to make the claim that China could have make great giant structure with stones, but simply chose not to do so even though they have the stone, I like to see some research first. 
You made the claim, not me. I only assert that building out of wood requires a lower level of investment - it is easier to transport and carve wood, and the weight of any given wood section is less, so sophisticated lifting cranes used by Romans anf Greeks were not required.

The Romans used stone which was readily available. It wasn't like they picked out of the three and say nope we be using this. 
The example of the granite pillars of the Pantheon demonstrates that it wasn't always a case of what was readily available. Transporting a 60 ton pillar from Egypt across the sea is hardly counts as readily available.
Now, like any sensible people, they will often use materials that are readily available if they are sufficent for the purpose, but the Roman use of stone, brick, and concrete wasn 't necessarily dictated by a lack of wood. The Roman built impressive stone structures in tneir German province, yet Germany was heavily wooded at the time. Roofs were often built out of wood using sophisticated truss design.
It Rome, many of the low rent multi-story apartment buildings were built out of wood, Romans did build out of wood when it was suited. Just for buildings that matter, they typically chose stone, brick, concrete

The Chinese used whatever was readily available. They used brick and wood because these are readily available. 
Actually, the whole point is the Han did not readily use brick or stone (outside of a few tombs), but later dynasties did. We find brick pagodas and stone bridges from later dynasties, just not from the Han dynasries. Material for bricks were readily available, yet its use was restricted in the Han dynasty. And if the Chinese were transporting wood thousands of miles, that doesn't seem readily available.

Making any other claim would REQUIRE YOU to prove that the Chinese had wood, brick, and stone, and intentionally NOT use stone. 
No, the burden of proof is on you, not me. We know the Chinese had stone, later dynasties used it, we have structures such as stone bridges from them. Just not the Han. If you are going to claim, as you seem to do, that the Han dynasty knew how to construct stone bridges that wouldn't fall down, and other stone buildings, but simply chose not to, that is supply you need to prove.
That stone is more costly to use, more difficult to carve due to being harder, more difficult to transport due to greater density and weight, requires higher skill to construct since it is less forgivig in tension, and more planning to join, all means its use most probably requires greater investment than for wood. Maybe the Han didn't want to pay for that higher investment cost for items of public use, but only reserved it for use in tombs, maybe they thought the cost benefit analysis made them prefer wood for lower initial cost, maybe they didn't have the skills needed to construct stone bridges and temples, we can onnly guess.

_5.jpg)
