Can you explain how cessation of existence is known to be possible?

People from other sects may argue against Buddhism on the following grounds. I invite the community of BSE to explain by reasoning or analogy how cessation of existence, which is known as the Nibbana-principle, as it is explained in Buddhism, isn't a philosophical fallacy of "something turning into nothing" in order to refute those arguments. I call the idea of "something turning into nothing" a fallacy because it can be explained to contradict the law of conservation of energy or simply put; supposedly no existant thing known to a man is known to simply disappear without a trace and thus destroyed without being somehow transformed into some other state, in particular neither matter, nor energy or information can be deleted without a trace, afaik this has been experimentally established as a truth. If cessation of existence, an abandoning of all being with no fuel for a future is possible, then how is it logically acceptable? You are welcome to try showing how "something turning into nothing" is not a fallacy if you want to try that. Extra points if you substantiate your answer with EBTs. Put shortly the problem here is such that a person says; 'Buddha Gotama teaches annihilaton and it's impossible, it cannot happen that existant things can be annihilated.' It's a strawman argument.