1. You seem to be saying things that do not accurate convey what you mean. You said that you are not convinced. But yet, you drew two picture to prove your point that it's not possible for the explosions to happen behind the path of the rockets.
2. Well, if an air burst munition had went off, it would had resulted in broken windows and leave behind shrapnel marks on the buildings and parking lots. No evidence of that. Air burst munition would not had caused the fireball either. But let's assume that was a fuel air explosive, but if it's a FAE, windows would be blown out and there would be indications of a point of detonation radiating outwards.
3. Now you are the one introducing the label of channel 4 stooping down to uneducated wild guesses. I did not say nor mean that, but if that's what you think, good by me.
Assessments may be made in good faith and turn out to be incorrect. There are different theories by different credible aviation experts around the world over the disappearances of MH370. One of them could be right, or it could turn out that all of them are wrong. But that don't by default earn them the label of uneducated wild guesses. And I certainly did not imply that. I worry for your penchant to jump to illogical conclusions.
4. I certainly did not say that we should believe the most parroted news available because there is no independent and neutral party in the world. First let me correct you by pointing out that you said independent and totally neutral organisation or persons. Note the operative word totally, which you conveniently omitted when you responded to me. Next, I did not allude that we should believe the most "parroted news", which by the way is a term you introduced and I did not say that. My point is very clear. There is no such a thing as totally neutral organization. We can term an organization as generally neutral, claimed to be neutral, largely neutral, by and far neutral. But totally neutral? Name me one.
You had on numerous occasions claimed that people are putting words in your mouth. But what I see instead is that you are creatively and/or wrongly reading into what people actually meant, and putting words and claims into their mouths instead. This is concerning.