9/11 must have been assisted by the US government

I have acknowledged my opponents arguments and refuted all of them. If I do not agree with them makes me a "troll" so be it.My opponent has repeatedly committed the "red herring" fallacy of focusing on trivial issues that are irrelevant to this debate. As well as the "argument from personal incredulity" fallacy. (1) Here is the link to the article from the Washintonpost read it for yourself you will see that my opponents claim that my source says that the Pentagon did not try mislead the 911 commision is false. http://www.washingtonpost.com...(2) My opponent stated: "A link on the same website that my opponent cited as evidence for the hijackers being alive, leads to a page on the same website that talks about how there are many different explanations for why the information of the hijackers match those of people still alive, explaining that one person had his passport stolen for example." http://911research.wtc7.net......Now he has shown by his own admission that the 911 commisions report was not accurate once again he stated "other explanations besides the one that my opponent gave..." "there are many different explanations for why the information of the hijackers match those of people still alive, explaining that one person had his passport stolen for example" Now his whole argument/case is based on what the official 911 commisions report says. If the 911 commisions report is not accurate in this case what else is not true? How much of the report is not accurate? What can we believe in the report it does seem to have much credibility. (3) Once again my opponent stated: "As for my opponents argument about the jet fuel and the WTC, his facts come from a website that also tries to argue that President Obama was born in Kenya. The type of people that create these websites do not have the best track record with facts. This is neither a credible nor reputable source. A paper from "The Chronicles of Higher Education" which is a prominent academic news source attempts to debunk Dr. Jones's claim as well as those of other controlled demolition proponents."Does my opponent want you think that in his opinion sources are not credible so they must be false? There is no attempt to refute my argument as you can see.(4) This is the Pentagon main website http://www.defense.gov... which leads to the website where it clearly shows Pentagon tours http://pentagon.osd.mil...My opponent stated: "Any "reasonable" person person can see that my opponent has not made a solid case" Really?He stated:"I am asking my opponent to put reputable sources because any conspiracy nut can post something on Wikipedia and site their own website. A big name news or academic source actually has a reputation on the line so naturally there is more incentive to provide facts." It does not make a argument true or false no matter where it comes from. He clearly cant refute any of arguments so he has repeatedly committed "argumentum ad nauseum" fallacy as well by claiming my sources are not credible.I also need to point out that a "conspiracy theory" is no longer a theory once evidence is shown that shows it is true it then becomes a conspiracy period. Once again if my opponent can refute my arguments which he claims he can, do so it is just that simple.