The existence of evidence is not veridical in nature: that’s why we classify evidence as circumstantial, observed, etc.

In other words: if nothing has changed about the eyewitness accounts in the last 26 years, then there is no new reason to doubt the (overwhelmingly likely) explanation for them.

I responded to the claim "there is literally zero evidence for it" by pointing out that there is circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness accounts.

The problem is that this circumstantial evidence contradicts actual hard evidence on the wreckage.

Circumstantial evidence that seems to be contradicted by other evidence is still evidence. To claim that there is 'literally zero evidence' is literally wrong.