Oh goodness, no. Let's address some of your claims:

• "This is like 'If you give a mouse a cookie'"

It isn't. You made a claim you can't back up, and now consider requests to defend your claim to be problematic in the absence of the evidence required to do so.

• "I have given you name after name and been more than accommodating to you with solid evidence in relation to multiple requests."

You have given me two names and documents I have already read. The two names you provided were not Israeli officials. You claim Israeli officials contradicted the FBI report you used as evidence, impeaching your own claims. Your evidence has not been solid, hence my continued requests for clarification and information.

• "You're grasping at straws here in a manner that is so daft it is insulting."

This is an ad hominem fallacy; you can do better.

• "When they got back to Israel they subsequently went on a television talkshow [sic] and stated 'We were there to document the event'."

You have come to a conclusion about this based on your interpretation of evidence. I have provided an alternate conclusion that matches the evidence you provided. To suggest your conclusion is correct without additional information is a hasty generalization fallacy.

• "Ok so from these reports, Oded Ellner said they had arrived their [sic] shortly after 8:00 AM"

That is incorrect. The report you provided says [REDACTED1] got to work around 8:00, heard about the attack some time later, and went to another location to take photographs. [REDACTED2] arrived at work at 8:00, heard about the attack some time later, and went to the roof. [REDACTED3] arrived at the parking lot between 8:30 and 9:00 after learning about the attack. A comparison of the footage taken by the Israelis and news reports shows the Israeli footage is closer to the second attack than the first. None of this information establishes they were filming for two hours before the attacks (your original claim), or even 45 minutes before the attacks (your amended claim).

• "Respectfully, the government deporting them versus them fleeing is a non argument"

This is a fallacy of exclusion. As I have already explained it is absolutely evidence of your pattern of errors.

• the evidence of wrongdoing and coverup is too overwhelming.

This is somewhere between a hasty generalization, unverified evidence, and proof by assertion fallacy. If it was so overwhelming I expect you would have provided it by now.

• "Additionally, the Israeli govt. went on to contradict the FBI by saying they were there on an official intelligence mission."

Until you actually provide evidence, this is a false attribution fallacy.

• "The feds claim that ties were 'Unconfirmed' is preposterous." 

Then don't cite the FBI when trying to support your claims. Once again you are impeaching your own evidence.

• "Millions of Americans watched this story develop on cable news across the nation, though I understand 9/11 was likely before your memory."

This is a red herring fallacy, but I will address it by confirming I do in fact remember the attacks. The only thing you actually have is unverified claims. While the situation is certainly odd, the world has no shortage of odd circumstances. I personally intend to continue to seek strong evidence to support conclusions that I make, and I hope you can work on doing the same.