The Usurper:You aren't a serious debater. You don't seriously stand on "logic" in your so-called counterpoints.

I thought you were against ad hominem arguments.  I also thought you were the one that called for letting the arguments speak for themselves. 

BTW, having evidence is meaningless if it's not credible or acceptable.  In a trial, lawyers are always trying to discredit the other's submitted evidence.  Some evidence stands up to close scrutiny, some does not.  So simply claiming you provided "evidence" isn't enough.  It has to take us some where.  And spare me the repeat; I know the evidence takes you somewhere.  But it's got to do more than that.  How long have you looked into this 911 stuff?  If a long time, then why do you expect people to "take your word for it" and accept everything you say on face value?

If you've only looked at it a short time, that is worse.  That simply shows that you fall for something without really checking into it in a deep and meaningful way.

Keep the facts coming.  Keep the questions coming.  Challenge assumptions.  But don't do the very thing you have criticized in others:  "to the man" attacks.