Creative Speculation

... are not "reality."

> Essentially, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the video to 'prove' bin Laden's involvement without it having to be proof.

Essentially, you wish you had some good reason for exonerating the 9/11 murders, but this bullshit is the best you can do, so you'll cling to it until hell freezes over. The video is weak circumstantial evidence, which is a type of evidence here in the real world, but it's not enough to get a murder conviction, or at least it shouldn't be provided that the jury consists of people with better reasoning skills than you seem to possess. But a rational person would consider the totality of the evidence against bin Laden, including his involvement in other terrorist attacks, and in my opinion, that evidence makes the confession credible. And even without it, in my opinion, there would indeed be enough other evidence to get a conviction. You are, of course, completely free to ignore that evidence and believe whatever bullshit you like, for whatever perverse reason you choose. That right, however, does not protect you from criticism if you try to blow smoke up peoples' asses and call it "facts" and "logical reasoning." Those terms have meaning that are beyond your ability to destroy.