"BOTH conclusions are primarily based off "inference" from the evidence but neither are proven any less than the other."

It's mainly from a presentation-to-newbies perspective that the two don't appear to be at the same level of immediate self-evident-truth, at least in a way that can be groked within a very short time. I'm visualizing the two potential contrasting types of conversations to newbies that would go something like this:

A) Truther presenting WTC7 controlled demolition evidence to a newbie:

Truther: have you actually seen the controlled demolition of WTC7?

Newbie: WTC7? no

Truther: watch this [start video of WTC7 collapse]

Newbie: [about 6 seconds later] Oh...Oh wowwwww...holy sh**! Yup, it's pretty obvious...that's obvious...

B) Truther presenting Pentagon flyover evidence to a newbie:

Truther: Do you know that no plane crashed at the Pentagon, but flew over the top instead?

Newbie: Huh? Are you kidding?

Truther: Nope. It's been proven. The plane definitely flew over the Pentagon

Newbie: That sounds crazy. How do you know? Where is your proof? Do you have a video?

Truther: No but there were 13 Eyewitnesses who corroborate each other to prove that the official flight path was staged and that a plane actually approached the Pentagon from a different path, but didn't hit. They staged the damage to light poles and the Pentagon to make it LOOK like the plane hit at a certain angle in order to trick people who saw the plane approach, into thinking it crashed, even though it didn't...

Newbie: Wait, what are you talking about? But why would they do that? That doesn't make much sense. I don't know, that sounds pretty convoluted to me. Show me some evidence.

Truther: The fact that the plane flew at a different path PROVES that it didn't hit but flew over instead

Newbie: How's that? I don't get it.

Truther: Ok, check it out...first of all look at these pictures of the Pentagon right after the event that show that there is no hole large enough for a 757 to have entered, and you can see that no visible wreckage was left on the lawn. See? Ok, now consider that for the plane...

Newbie: Hmmmm...can't you just tell me in like a few minutes...I don't know if I have that much patience. If it takes 81 minutes to understand, that seems overly complicated to me.

I guess I'm just trying to get my head around presenting the flyover conclusion quickly to a newbie without losing the person when I'm so used to being able to convert people in 6 seconds with the WTC7 video. Yes, I know, you will probably say that the proper way to do it is to just let the person watch National Security Alert, and in 81 minutes you will be able to show someone the poof.

"But you straight up admitted to having a psychological barrier when it comes to the Pentagon due to past disinfo and that has clearly resulted in a reticence to accept the implications of what we present. This is perfectly understandable. I just showed up here to help you get over the "shellshock" of the full scope of what we have uncovered.
;)"

It's not that I don't accept the implications of what you present. Like I've said, I already accept that the logical conclusion is that there must have been a flyover. And now that I've seen the media quotes by Roseborough and heard the phone call with him refusing to talk about it anymore, which is the clincher (in terms of "were there any witnesses to a flyover") after we already have what Roosevelt Roberts reported and Erik Dihle's supporting evidence, I am pretty much over my "shellshock" and am willing to settle on a specific theory now of what actually happened at the Pentagon. At this point it's really just a matter of thinking about how to campaign with it when you can't show someone the "proof" in, like a matter of seconds the way you can with WTC7. Which is why you made NSA...

If you could somehow add in the material about Roseborough to NSA I would think that would be really persuasive, even though Roseborough is refusing to verify and confirm anything at this point. Do you plan on doing this in a future edition?