In defense of history's worst: Osama Bin Laden is innocent (Part 1)

I thank Con for his interesting (but mistaken) arguments on this innocent man. I will follow the same structure as Con since all I have to do is refute his arguments.Broken vase argumentMy opponent has decided to display his understanding of reasonable doubt through the analogy of the broken vase. Just because the plausible conclusion is that he broke the vase does not mean there aren't any other reasonable theories. His brother or sister could've knocked it over and blamed him - the vase could've been placed in an unstable location - the cat could've knocked it over by accident. These arguments can only be disproved through examination of evidence, the mere fact that the child happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time does not mean he is guilty. This is exactly the same with my poor friend Osama Bin Laden - the wrong place and the wrong time. Con does not only have to demonstrate that "it is reasonable to think Osama broke that vase", Con has to demonstrate there is a lack of reasonable doubt. Reasonable theory does not necessarily mean there is a lack of reasonable doubt.9/11Con has wisely started his argument off with the infamous occam's razor that has hijacked biblical debates for centuries. However, we aren't trying to prove if belief in a God is rational here. We aren't trying to see which is more likely. Occam's razor does not state that all other theories aren't reasonable. It doesn't say that the best theory has no reasonable doubt. You cannot walk into a criminal case and say Occam's razor says it is most likely that you killed the person. He then responds to my attack of his source - and indeed I have committed many fallacies. However, I would like to highlight that bias does not extend simply to left wing or right wing, bias is intrinsically rooted into any sort of representation. Having said that, I will now provide my own evidence in showing that 9/11 was a hoax. On a side note, I am not claiming that the hijackers were a hoax, I am simply saying Osama was not the man behind it. Nothing else.My own evidenceIn this source, Fox News, arguably one of the most 'mainstream' news sites that my opponent has also used, reveals the 9/11 hoax as a demolition. If voters believe this to be a reasonable theory, then sufficient doubt is cast on Osama Bin Laden and he is therefore innocent[1][2]. On the same strain, here is another reasonable theory that someone else was responsible, as seen in this interview[3]. Top Bin Laden expert has also claimed the confession to be of a clearly overweight and imposter Bin Laden[4].Each of these sources stand on their own and cast reasonable doubt (I would argue more than reasonable) into Osama's involvement and direct order on the attack of the twin towers and terrible tragedies that happened on that fateful day of 9/11 where a single, god loving, innocent man had to shoulder the blame and hatred of the world.Other CrimesLike my opponent stated, El-Hage is not relevant for this debate - I was simply highlighting a weak link in his previous argument. However, it is interesting to note that even my opponent agrees he is not "certain that Osama ordered the bombings, but it is the best explanation." I'm sorry, but you cannot simply accuse an innocent man because it is the best explanation, there must be evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It is a man's life and his legacy and his family's legacy on the line is, I'm afraid we'll have to do better than the best explanation. As I stated in my previous round, the fact that Bin Laden never stood trial should mean that he was innocent, as the assumption should always be innocent until proven guilty. Bin Laden was never proven guilty and my opponent has provided insufficient evidence.Al-QaedaSince my attacking of Con's sources has been argued to be fallacious, I will be using my own sources to debunk the whole Al-Qaeda myth. Again, I would like to reiterate that I am not required to provide empirical evidence, I simply have to cast reasonable doubt. I will provide a few of many videos with CIA agents and many other experts to show that Al Qaeda never existed[5][6][7][8].ConclusionI have provided more than enough evidence to cast reasonable doubt on Osama Bin Laden ever committing the atrocities he was wrongly accused of. Hopefully I have not violated any fallacies in this round, nor have I attacked my opponent with any fallacies and I hope he reciprocates this in his rebuttal of my evidence.Unfortunately, my opponent's arguments are falling as quickly as the twin towers.[1] http://www.youtube.com...;[2] http://www.youtube.com...;[3] http://www.youtube.com...;[4] http://911blogger.com...;[5] http://www.youtube.com...;[6] http://www.youtube.com...;[7] http://www.youtube.com...;[8] http://www.youtube.com...;