Why do the conspirators want to minimize damage in the first place? The whole point of needing a demolition of the towers is because they needed the casualty and damage levels to reach the level of Pearl Harbor according to the supposed significance of the PNAC document. Now they do the exact opposite and pull their punches when attacking the Pentagon? This seems extremely post-hoc and doesn't seem supportable without resorting to 'maybe' or 'could be'. No matter where the Pentagon was struck you can look at what was located there and assume there was intent to hit it at that specific location. If the Pentagon was struck in a location that maximized casualties, then the story changes and that becomes the conspirators intent. Q's complaints about sky's 'assumptions' seems pretty hypocritical when he simultaneously is making tons himself.
Q, as far as your probability stuff, fine whatever, 1 in 5 chance that the Pentagon would be struck there for the sake of your argument. I was not expecting you to move on to another entirely different 'coincidence', I don't think you've demonstrated anything on the coincidental NRO exercise yet so please formulate your argument at this point just using these two 'coincidences'.