9/11 Deniers: Do They Have Credibility?

One of the emerging debates in American politics today is between the mainstream historians and fringe revisionists who claim that 9/11 did not in fact occur, and that the event was simply inserted into history without anybody fully checking the veracity of the claims regarding an Al Qaeda derived attack on key US economic, political and military targets.

Did it really happen? Is there some credibility to either side of the argument?

Let's hear your views.

>>15 Since the start of the Cold War, USA has toppled unfavorable regimes as well as protected favorable ones. The only criterion has been economic cooperation. As defined by the amount of profit from given country's economy going to American shareholders.

A large part of Latin America, Vietnam, and even Congo. Surely there was some other reason than outright colonialism? Right now the "Communist" enemy has been "replaced" with a "terrorist" one, except that terrorism isn't even an ideology.
Waging "War on Terror" is like invading countries whose militaries use the flanking maneuver.

This jingoist behavior is reminiscent of wild animals keen to accentuate their territory. Is American "sphere of influence" anything but such primitive behavior?

If America truly wanted to help some society by invading a country or region, they'd invade Somalia, of all places. Surely a "peacekeeping force" (a real one, not an excuse to avoid Congress approval for war) would make Somalia a bearable place.

But that's not how it works. A war must be justifiable to the general public. It must be feasible to win a war. International backlash must be within a set limit. Must not step on some other empire's toes. The main goal is making money, still.