Claiming that the plane did not hit the Pentagon - while refusing to accept that a flyover has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt - is no different then claiming that an unassisted collapse of building 7 is impossible - while refusing to accept that controlled demo has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Notice how you just used wordplay to conflate the analogy:

"I have to wonder if you are intentionally refusing to understand the difference between the WTC demolition evidence vs the Pentagon flyover inference"

You are comparing demolition "evidence" to the flyover "inference". Well, the proof of controlled demolition is primarily the impossibility of an unassisted collapse - meaning that the controlled demo is an INFERENCE. We can remove nanothermite from the equation, because most 9/11 skeptics (including Richard Gage and DRG) believe that controlled demolition is proven without it. Agreed? In other words, direct evidence for explosives is not necessary meaning that controlled demolition is an INFERENCE.

A very logical inference but an inference nonetheless.

So, while I agree with you that the flyover is also primarily an inference (if we similarly remove Roosevelt Roberts and Erik Dihle from the equation much like we did nanothermite for the sake of discussion since the north side evidence proves a flyover without them), so is controlled demolition.

I have to wonder if you are intentionally refusing to understand the similarity between the evidence supporting the impossibility of an unassisted collapse of Building 7 proving the INFERRED conclusion of controlled demolition in relation to the evidence for north side approach supporting the INFERRED conclusion of a flyover.

Sorry, Keenan, but you are waffling on your position and arguments. If you say you don't think the plane hit, you MUST support a flyover. However, in a desperate effort to argue against this very clear, very obvious, and ONLY POSSIBLE conclusion, you were attempting to argue in FAVOR of an impact of a "smaller military" plane.

While I guess that's not technically the "official story," a plane impact IS the official narrative and clearly you WERE arguing for this as a possibility.

So which is it? Do you believe the plane hit or not? If not you have no reasonable or valid grounds with which to dismiss the fact that a flyover is the only option.

Just like controlled demolition: it is simply the only option given what we know.