9/11 must have been assisted by the US government

I must admit that it is wearing, trying to argue with someone who does not acknowledge my argument besides saying that it is wrong and adding some snide comment. I get the impression that I am arguing with a troll :( My opponent is making no sense in his argument. I understand that to the audience, this is turning into a "he said, he said" type of argument but please bear with me for a moment. As I said earlier, part of debating is giving some ground when you realize that you have made an inaccurate claim. Obviously I made a mistake by I admitting that I, like everyone else, am occasionally fallible since it seemed to have stoked the flames of my opponent's outright denial of my argument but that inaccuracy, in no way discredits the rest of my claims, especially those that are cited from reputable sources. The fact of the matter is that my opponent has not used one single reputable source to back up his argument correctly. My opponent suggests that I cannot refute his claims. I hope that it is pretty obvious to the audience that I have. Anyone can create a website and post a load of bogus information. For all I know, my opponent may own these websites from which he is citing from, although I personally have reservations about that. For the sake of debate though, I will address my opponents points even though I have already done so once before: 1. My opponents still claims that the 9/11 Commission concluded that the Pentagon tried to deliberately mislead them. HIS OWN SOURCE FROM HIS LAST POST SAYS OTHERWISE!!! All you need to do is look at my last argument. 2. The purpose of the quote about the terrorist IDs was to show that there were other explanations besides the one that my opponent gave. I specifically said "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." **Please note the use of the phrase "for example" at the end** The coincidence that other factors existed such as the ones that my opponent pointed out are circumstantial evidence. That means that the evidence is compatible with his story, not proof that it actually happened the way my opponent suggests. 3. My opponent takes two quotes from last argument and says that they are examples of red herring. While he might think that this is just a distraction from the rest of his argument it is, in fact, an outright refutation of the controlled explosion theory, if only he took the time to read it rather than make a random comment. 4. And as for the Pentagon website, IT IS ACTUALLY THE PENTAGON'S MAIN WEBSITE!!! Does my opponent honestly think that some random tour group can get into, what is currently, one of the most secure and secretive government buildings in the world. Only the Pentagon officials give tours inside of it. On top of that, it has a military domain name (.mil) that is only available to the military and not a private tour group. In case my opponent still doesn't believe me, I challenge him to find the official Pentagon website himself. He will inevitably come up to the same page unless of course he chooses to link to the DOD's main website. Any reasonable person can see that my opponent has not made a solid case. He has spent more time taking long quotes and adding one sentence to the end instead of doing any actual analysis. 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. My opponent keeps on saying that I am not refuting his arguments but I am indeed, painstakingly looking through his "sources" (which I'm sure he's not even doing based on the fact that some don't even support his argument) and sifting through all of the nonsense to find that there is no solid foundation to which these arguments rest upon. I hope my opponent's next post will have an actual argument in it, rather than another condemnation of my "inaccuracies".