Why does non-canonical books quoted in the bible not invalidate the books that quote them?

The Book of Enoch is famous for being quoted quite a few times in the New Testament. [This wikipedia page lists dozens of books that bible quotes that aren't canon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible) . I've seen arguments for why these books aren't included, but I've never seen anyone explain why the bible quotes them then. If the Book of Enoch isn't canon for instance, then why is Jude when it quotes it 4 or 5 times? What about all the other books the page lists? To be clear again, I'm not asking why these books aren't canon. You can find plenty of explanation for them. I want to know why books that quote it are considered canon. Wouldn't this invalidate them? Some of these are pretty major claims, like mentioning 'the watchers' from the book of Enoch. On top of this, there's also the common assumption that demons are fallen angels, but I've heard this isn't mentioned in any canonical book other than The Book of Enoch! Why is it such a common belief when its only mentioned in a non-canonical text. And yes, I know the Ethiopian church accepts it as canon, but that doesn't fix all the other less famous non-canonical books. What's the justification? As far as I'm aware, no bible verses defend these non-canonical books, they just take them for granted. Its also well-known that the infamous Book of Enoch heavily influence Christianity in its earliest years, thus why its quoted so many times. Regarding this, I do know that some books are simply lost. The letters mention other letters that are considered lost. Famously one of them is nothing but a reply to a letter that was sent to Paul mainly questioning his authority. This doesn't explain most books though, namely the ones that are 'historical' in nature.