I tried to accommodate the 9/11 trutherism by pointing to videos discussing the problems inherent in conspiracy theories that did not use that as an example. I didn't downvote the original post and ignored early signs of confusion about how words work:

he casts doubt on "conspiracy theories" with a generalisation (that they are all theories)

This was followed in subsequent posts by map-territory confusion:

I'd have to dissagree, based on evidence...The evidence is: In his description of conspiricies in part 1, he never even once mentiones the word evidence.

That the video did not use the word "evidence" does not strongly imply that evidence was not provided. Spelling and grammar are tools to limit confusion, and writing "the word 'evidence'" as "the word evidence" isn't helping him.

The response:

your “map and territory” is looking mighty fallacious. I really REALLY doubt that you can vindicate it.

At this point, I was done but he went on:

as of yet, your “map and territory” is looking mighty fallacious. I really REALLY doubt that you can vindicate it.

To his credit, he apparently actually went and read about it, as he later said:

You didnt prove anything, and my later researching of "map and territory" or "belief and reality" (which i take to be a theory which is a proposed addition to the list of flaws and fallacies.) didnt lend any greater credibility to your point.

Its use of the term belief immediately characterises my argument as a belief, instead of evidenced based. Beliefs do not require evidence, they require faith. Therefore your fallacy does not apply here. Furthermore, it is very fallacious and risky to use this fallacy "belief and reality"

He doesn't understand how words work, doesn't understand beliefs and reality, and doesn't understand how to change his mind. I disagree with the implication that things other than tone aren't sufficient reasons to downvote his other posts.

It is not a coincidence that one person's arguments, sentences, and words are all muddled.

I endorse what wedrifid said as a reply to the new person's posts:

For the sake of brevity assume that the remainder of my reply consists of quotes of most of the sentences of the parent, each followed by "straw man", "non sequitur" or "no, that's just plain wrong".