The Usurper:

I have still honorably stood my ground & debated my point.


Not really... You have based your argument in documentations that debunk the official conspiracy. Then we have given you documents that debunk those debunkings.(I know, its not really a word)

But we have not debated any specifics fact for fact. From what i gather, if we do that, your argument will come down to something like, "well the government refuses to release those pictures" or something like that, right? Or, "its not likely that all 3 buildings would fall straight down like they did", right again?

It doesnt make any sense for us to get into a point by point debate, when in the end it comes down to evidence that nobody has?

Your best bet to win a conspiracy debate is to have someone, a live, real person, who was part of this vast conspiracy, an actual eye witness, and like Dan said, in a conspiracy of this magnitude, it would not be hard to find one. But lacking that, the best you have is a he said she said scenario, and that is giving your side a real lot at this point.