Comment: AGAIN, you haven't "covered" CIT mrbengal

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Is their any evidence to the (see in situ)

AGAIN, you haven't "covered" CIT mrbengal

You've thrown the link to the documentary out preemptivey in the OP and then attempted to misrepresent and quickly handwave it. When I pointed this out, as well as your other distortions and the way you were/are setting up a false dilemma, you then repeatedly and blatantly attempted to backpedal and misrepresent MY clearly stated position in order to confuse readers, as you usually do.

The plane was on the north side of the gas station in the final seconds before the alleged impact. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for it "to hit the light poles, hit the generator trailer, and/or to cause the required low and level directional damage to the building, as the link joeneesima posted demonstrates, and as is further demonstarted here.

Do you concede that the plane was on the north side of the station, as the witnesses in the best locations to answer this question all independently insist it was? Or did they all have "simultaneous matching hallucinations"?