"It took many years for some people to come to the only logical conclusion about what caused the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7, and I only hope that the now obvious reality of what happened at the Pentagon does not get mired in endless circular debates"

Actually, to many people, the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 was obvious from the beginning when they first saw the buildings explode. To others, when they are shown close-up videos of the demolitions for the first time, in the proper context, they have no problem grasping immediately what happened. Perhaps there are a certain small percentage of people who were only swayed by the calculations and science to finally come to the logical conclusion while the videos alone did not persuade them, but it seems to be the case that most of the people who are still unwilling to conclude that the buildings were demolished even after seeing the videos are not going to be persuaded by the science/calculations to come to the right conclusion.

With the flyover theory at the Pentagon, it is a totally different story, and a much more serious problem to try to persuade the general public. WE DO NOT HAVE VIDEOS OF A PLANE FLYING OVER THE PENTAGON, or anything close to that. Even if the whole truth movement were to come to 100% unanimity at this point on the flyover conclusion, what makes you think we won't have a huge uphill battle to convince the general public of this theory, particularly when even the blatantly obvious WTC demolitions "took many years for some people to come to the only logical conclusion", when the flyover is by no means blatantly obvious, and would probably sound batshit crazy to most of the general public?

Don't you think we would have a much easier time persuading the public that a deception occurred at the Pentagon if we simply make the case that a Boeing 757 could not have done that damage, and therefore we were lied to, rather than trying to overstate the case and claim that the flyover is proven, and then when people ask to see the proof, we don't have any and merely plead with them that it is a logical inference?