yeah, I think your argument in the third video was the strongest point. I don't think pat Curley did bad until his closing statement. I simply want to know the truth and debates such as this help to refine and polish areas where dust may have collected or unravel knew areas of interest.

His closing statement was fallacious shit. He is right in that even if there was a new, independent investigation there would be some questions unanswered which would no doubt lead to speculation.

I've heard Richard Dawkins compare 9-11 truthers to creationists. In that, he believes like creationists, 9-11 truthers find small holes in the official theory and try to exploit them.

This of course is something that someone who is not well-read in the arena of government special ops (for lack of a better phrase) would say.
9-11 Truthers do not only have small holes to combat the official theory but rather are able to provide a separate much more tangible theory for the event of 9-11 which is based on historical behavior, known protocals which were broken, testimony, science (something which seems lacking in the official account), etc.

Anyway, good job Jon.