I am sure you really don't want me going back to Evidence 101 but if I must, it would look like this: clear and convincing; credible and of high quality; consistent and collaborated. They can be in the form of empirical evidence; scientific evidence; expert witness reports; credible, consistent and collaborative sworn witness statements/affidavits etc.
So how was this standard applied in the case of Osama Bin Laden and the official conspiracy theory in your view? Was that clear and convincing standard met and so forth?
Again, I am sure you know a nod is nothing! The essence of conspiracy is to be in unison, nothing broken, no chink in the chain - if there's a chink, the conspiracy fails.
That's not exactly true. The essence of a compartmentalized conspiracy with a pyramid scheme is that the patsies and low level types (or "the base") take all the risks while those closer to the top (near the all seeing eye) take most of the profits. Imagine the structure of the scheme as a collateralized debt obligation, the low level or base "home owner" that doesn't even really own their own home in some ways is the patsy at risk of losing it all, the realtor is the handler at risk of losing little and the banker is like an upper level conspirator that can't fail as long as the "highly organized plot" holds (nod to George W... con... highly organized plot.... good one.).
Long and short of it, those closer to the top don't necessarily have to take risks. And sometimes the people that think they're "breathing together"/conspiring with others for profit figure that out the hard way, whether it's losing "their house" or a terrorist cell being wrapped up and people getting executed by the FBI after someone in it goes rogue and so forth. Given this view of a standard operating procedures for a highly organized or compartmentalized conspiracy, people could look at it this way... it's not as if the patsies isn't a douche bag or the homeowner isn't irresponsible. The curious thing about it, conspirators might be able to work less if they just worked honestly and openly. It seems to me that all the conspiring that goes on sometimes isn't worth the amount of labor that people put into it. Something along the lines of: "We want you to kill those people over there. Here is how much we're paying out of the profits we expect to make." Instead of: "They probably have WMDs in their underpants.. and they just attacked you collectively... so now you need to let us use you to attack them collectively... or somethin'."
The nod does not even meet the barest minimum threshold as 'hearsay evidence' under 'the balance of probabilities'
That's true. So even if Osama nodded to one of his henchmen and "conspirators"... it might not mean much and certainly wouldn't mean much in a court of law. But if you were looking at it as an overall picture outside of a court of law or just speculating, then trying to have a general sense of body language or imagining things about it and so forth might be interesting.
In any event, where is the "clear and convincing; credible and of high quality; consistent and collaborated" evidence that Osama organized 911 without any chinks in the conspiracy and so forth? He must have planned it for the day of the drills, yes?