In Plane Site 9/11 Wow...just Wow.

[tkthafm]

ITT: We claim the US funded/sponsored/trained al-Qaeda. When asked for evidence we respond with irrelevant "lectures" and the poster to the movie "Green Zone".

Wr wrote:

---

tkthafm wrote:

---

Wr wrote:

---

great movie about this topic. 

anyway, what the poster above said me about sums it up.

Plus do you have any idea how many of billions of dollars we still send to these countries in aid? And you don't think any of that money eds up biting the us back in the butt? 

If you don't understand how the world today works,let me tell you. You don't get anything done without incentives. Monetary incentives drives world economic/political policy. As much as the US would like to continue to ride out the argument that these folks are bloodthirsty religious fundamentalist, at the end of the day they still use money and incentives to get their work done. 

 
My man...

Save me the lessons about "how the world works" and provide me with evidence for your claim. That's all I'm asking for. 

Why don't you look on cnn for yourself. there have been a plethora of news stories that have come out showing the undeniable paper trail between the us and terrorist states and organizations. Plus what happened to the Bush Doctrine
"Bush Doctrine"-'We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.'






This doesn't sound like the same thing as knowing where OBL is for 6 years and still sending Pakistan billions of USD in aide...

Right.
al-Qaeda ? Where is this evidence ? Let me "go look on cnn myself" for things that don't exist.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by Wr

great movie about this topic. 

anyway, what the poster above said me about sums it up.

Plus do you have any idea how many of billions of dollars we still send to these countries in aid? And you don't think any of that money eds up biting the us back in the butt? 

If you don't understand how the world today works,let me tell you. You don't get anything done without incentives. Monetary incentives drives world economic/political policy. As much as the US would like to continue to ride out the argument that these folks are bloodthirsty religious fundamentalist, at the end of the day they still use money and incentives to get their work done. 

 
My man...

Save me the lessons about "how the world works" and provide me with evidence for your claim. That's all I'm asking for. 

Why don't you look on cnn for yourself. there have been a plethora of news stories that have come out showing the undeniable paper trail between the us and terrorist states and organizations. Plus what happened to the Bush Doctrine
"Bush Doctrine"-'We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.'






This doesn't sound like the same thing as knowing where OBL is for 6 years and still sending Pakistan billions of USD in aide...

 

[tkthafm]

ITT: We claim the US funded/sponsored/trained al-Qaeda. When asked for evidence we respond with irrelevant "lectures" and the poster to the movie "Green Zone".

Wr wrote:

---

tkthafm wrote:

---

Wr wrote:

---

great movie about this topic. 

anyway, what the poster above said me about sums it up.

Plus do you have any idea how many of billions of dollars we still send to these countries in aid? And you don't think any of that money eds up biting the us back in the butt? 

If you don't understand how the world today works,let me tell you. You don't get anything done without incentives. Monetary incentives drives world economic/political policy. As much as the US would like to continue to ride out the argument that these folks are bloodthirsty religious fundamentalist, at the end of the day they still use money and incentives to get their work done. 

 
My man...

Save me the lessons about "how the world works" and provide me with evidence for your claim. That's all I'm asking for. 

Why don't you look on cnn for yourself. there have been a plethora of news stories that have come out showing the undeniable paper trail between the us and terrorist states and organizations. Plus what happened to the Bush Doctrine
"Bush Doctrine"-'We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.'






This doesn't sound like the same thing as knowing where OBL is for 6 years and still sending Pakistan billions of USD in aide...

Right.
al-Qaeda ? Where is this evidence ? Let me "go look on cnn myself" for things that don't exist.

 

[jthagreat]

in plane site put me to sleep

 

[jthagreat]

in plane site put me to sleep

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by Wr

great movie about this topic. 

anyway, what the poster above said me about sums it up.

Plus do you have any idea how many of billions of dollars we still send to these countries in aid? And you don't think any of that money eds up biting the us back in the butt? 

If you don't understand how the world today works,let me tell you. You don't get anything done without incentives. Monetary incentives drives world economic/political policy. As much as the US would like to continue to ride out the argument that these folks are bloodthirsty religious fundamentalist, at the end of the day they still use money and incentives to get their work done. 

 
My man...

Save me the lessons about "how the world works" and provide me with evidence for your claim. That's all I'm asking for. 

Why don't you look on cnn for yourself. there have been a plethora of news stories that have come out showing the undeniable paper trail between the us and terrorist states and organizations. Plus what happened to the Bush Doctrine
"Bush Doctrine"-'We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.'






This doesn't sound like the same thing as knowing where OBL is for 6 years and still sending Pakistan billions of USD in aide...

 

[dukes 1800]

if its anything like loose change its all bogus. i dont believe all the conspiracies that people come up with are crazy

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

ITT: We claim the US funded/sponsored/trained al-Qaeda. When asked for evidence we respond with irrelevant "lectures" and the poster to the movie "Green Zone".

There's not even a question that the US, along with the Saudis and Pakistan sponsored the muj's against the Soviets. After the USSR was defeated and withdrew, some percentage of the muj's turned against the US. Especially after the Gulf War of '91. 
You arguing as if it's even debatable is completely stupid. It's a fact. It happened. There was massive blowback from the Afghan cover action against the Soviets. 

Pre-1979-1989, Afghanistan: The CIA's Biggest Covert War

By Mark Zapezauer

During the Reagan years, the CIA ran nearly two dozen covert operations against various governments. Of these, Afghanistan was by far the biggest; it was, in fact, the biggest CIA operation of all time, both in terms of dollars spent (US$5 to US$6 billion) and personnel involved.

Its main purpose was to "bleed" the Soviet Union, just as the U.S. had been bled in Vietnam. Prior to the 1979 Russian invasion, Afghanistan was ruled by a brutal dictator. Like the neighboring shah of Iran, he allowed the CIA to set up radar installations in his country that were used to monitor the Soviets. In 1979, after several dozen Soviet advisors were massacred by Afghan tribesmen, the USSR sent in the Red Army.

The Soviets tried to install a pliable client regime, without taking local attitudes into account. Many of the mullahs who controlled chunks of Afghan territory objected to Soviet efforts to educate women and to institute land reform. Others, outraged by the USSR's attempts to suppress the heroin trade, shifted their operations to Pakistan.

As for the CIA, its aim was simply to humiliate the Soviets by arming anyone who would fight against them. The agency funneled cash and weapons to over a dozen guerrilla groups, many of whom had been staging raids from Pakistan years before the Soviet invasion. For many years, long after the Soviets left Afghanistan, most of these groups were still fighting each other for control of the country.

One notable veteran of the Afghan operation is Sheik Abdel Rahman, famous for his role in the World Trade Center bombing.

The CIA succeeded in creating chaos, but never developed a plan for ending it. When the ten-year war was over, a million people were dead, and Afghan heroin had captured 60% of the U.S. market.




Source: Excerpted from CIA's Greatest Hits 

You don;t have to believe me. 

Listen to Robert Baer (amongst a number of other former government officials), a former CIA officer tell you.

 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

ITT: We claim the US funded/sponsored/trained al-Qaeda. When asked for evidence we respond with irrelevant "lectures" and the poster to the movie "Green Zone".

There's not even a question that the US, along with the Saudis and Pakistan sponsored the muj's against the Soviets. After the USSR was defeated and withdrew, some percentage of the muj's turned against the US. Especially after the Gulf War of '91. 
You arguing as if it's even debatable is completely stupid. It's a fact. It happened. There was massive blowback from the Afghan cover action against the Soviets. 

Pre-1979-1989, Afghanistan: The CIA's Biggest Covert War

By Mark Zapezauer

During the Reagan years, the CIA ran nearly two dozen covert operations against various governments. Of these, Afghanistan was by far the biggest; it was, in fact, the biggest CIA operation of all time, both in terms of dollars spent (US$5 to US$6 billion) and personnel involved.

Its main purpose was to "bleed" the Soviet Union, just as the U.S. had been bled in Vietnam. Prior to the 1979 Russian invasion, Afghanistan was ruled by a brutal dictator. Like the neighboring shah of Iran, he allowed the CIA to set up radar installations in his country that were used to monitor the Soviets. In 1979, after several dozen Soviet advisors were massacred by Afghan tribesmen, the USSR sent in the Red Army.

The Soviets tried to install a pliable client regime, without taking local attitudes into account. Many of the mullahs who controlled chunks of Afghan territory objected to Soviet efforts to educate women and to institute land reform. Others, outraged by the USSR's attempts to suppress the heroin trade, shifted their operations to Pakistan.

As for the CIA, its aim was simply to humiliate the Soviets by arming anyone who would fight against them. The agency funneled cash and weapons to over a dozen guerrilla groups, many of whom had been staging raids from Pakistan years before the Soviet invasion. For many years, long after the Soviets left Afghanistan, most of these groups were still fighting each other for control of the country.

One notable veteran of the Afghan operation is Sheik Abdel Rahman, famous for his role in the World Trade Center bombing.

The CIA succeeded in creating chaos, but never developed a plan for ending it. When the ten-year war was over, a million people were dead, and Afghan heroin had captured 60% of the U.S. market.




Source: Excerpted from CIA's Greatest Hits 

You don;t have to believe me. 

Listen to Robert Baer (amongst a number of other former government officials), a former CIA officer tell you.

 

 

[dukes 1800]

if its anything like loose change its all bogus. i dont believe all the conspiracies that people come up with are crazy

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

ITT: We claim the US funded/sponsored/trained al-Qaeda. When asked for evidence we respond with irrelevant "lectures" and the poster to the movie "Green Zone".

"Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh talks to Democracy Now about his explosive new article in the New Yorker Magazine. Hersh reports that John Negroponte's decision to resign as National Intelligence Director was made in part because of the Bush administration's covert actions including the funding of radical Sunni groups - some with strong ideological ties to al-Qaeda - to counter Shiite groups backed by Iran. Hersh also reports the Pentagon has established a special planning group to plan a bombing attack on Iran and U.S. military and special-operations teams have already crossed the border into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives.

The funding of Wahhabi/Salafi groups, often labeled Islamic fundamentalists in the media, is reminiscient of US policy in the Middle East especially through the mid-70s and early-80s which eventually gave rise to groups such as the Taliban. During this period US administrations, alongside Israel, promoted "fundamentalist" groups to create suitable conditions for their own interests in the region. In the case of the Israelis, their support of such groups was primarily with the aim to evade a settlement plan over Palestine"

I mean a lot of people did resign from the Bush Administration when all this started making the news.

You even have Colin Powell coming out and saying his biggest regret was not resigning from the bush administration and also the UN speech announcing the WMD's in Iraq.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

ITT: We claim the US funded/sponsored/trained al-Qaeda. When asked for evidence we respond with irrelevant "lectures" and the poster to the movie "Green Zone".

"Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh talks to Democracy Now about his explosive new article in the New Yorker Magazine. Hersh reports that John Negroponte's decision to resign as National Intelligence Director was made in part because of the Bush administration's covert actions including the funding of radical Sunni groups - some with strong ideological ties to al-Qaeda - to counter Shiite groups backed by Iran. Hersh also reports the Pentagon has established a special planning group to plan a bombing attack on Iran and U.S. military and special-operations teams have already crossed the border into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives.

The funding of Wahhabi/Salafi groups, often labeled Islamic fundamentalists in the media, is reminiscient of US policy in the Middle East especially through the mid-70s and early-80s which eventually gave rise to groups such as the Taliban. During this period US administrations, alongside Israel, promoted "fundamentalist" groups to create suitable conditions for their own interests in the region. In the case of the Israelis, their support of such groups was primarily with the aim to evade a settlement plan over Palestine"

I mean a lot of people did resign from the Bush Administration when all this started making the news.

You even have Colin Powell coming out and saying his biggest regret was not resigning from the bush administration and also the UN speech announcing the WMD's in Iraq.

 

[james earl zones]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by tkthafm


So you have no evidence. 

That's all you needed to say. 

Gonna have to pass on watching that 2 hr "lecture".

This is the problem. There's various evidence of all different sorts and I'm not willing to write page after page when it is all available on the net. Written and explained better then I ever could. If you're not curious enough yourself then you're already a lost cause. 
It's like people are proud of being ignorant. You prob spend more time searching for fap material then it'd take you to watch that lecture. 

It is impossible and illogical to call this a debate when one party of the debate will not even research the prompt in question. If he is not willing to look at what you provide and rebuttal properly, this discussion is pointless and you win by default. If this were a real debate dude would have been disqualified due to lack of research. 

All of this. We're expected to spoon feed people information that's readily available through Google. If you really wanted to learn something you'd research on your own. Instead its the same heads coming into these threads with their mind already made up that this is all conspiracy. You want evidence? Where are the security tapes from the Pentagon? Where are the plane pieces? No black box? Why did so many witnesses end up missing or dead? All the plane parts from the WTC were cleaned up and shipped away before an investigation began. WHAT THEE HELL HAPPENED TO BUILDING 7? WHY WAS IT REPORTED COLLAPSED 30 MINUTES PRIOR TO IT FALLING? What really happened to Barry Jennings?

 

[james earl zones]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by tkthafm


So you have no evidence. 

That's all you needed to say. 

Gonna have to pass on watching that 2 hr "lecture".

This is the problem. There's various evidence of all different sorts and I'm not willing to write page after page when it is all available on the net. Written and explained better then I ever could. If you're not curious enough yourself then you're already a lost cause. 
It's like people are proud of being ignorant. You prob spend more time searching for fap material then it'd take you to watch that lecture. 

It is impossible and illogical to call this a debate when one party of the debate will not even research the prompt in question. If he is not willing to look at what you provide and rebuttal properly, this discussion is pointless and you win by default. If this were a real debate dude would have been disqualified due to lack of research. 

All of this. We're expected to spoon feed people information that's readily available through Google. If you really wanted to learn something you'd research on your own. Instead its the same heads coming into these threads with their mind already made up that this is all conspiracy. You want evidence? Where are the security tapes from the Pentagon? Where are the plane pieces? No black box? Why did so many witnesses end up missing or dead? All the plane parts from the WTC were cleaned up and shipped away before an investigation began. WHAT THEE HELL HAPPENED TO BUILDING 7? WHY WAS IT REPORTED COLLAPSED 30 MINUTES PRIOR TO IT FALLING? What really happened to Barry Jennings?

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by tkthafm

ITT: We claim the US funded/sponsored/trained al-Qaeda. When asked for evidence we respond with irrelevant "lectures" and the poster to the movie "Green Zone".

�

"Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh talks to Democracy Now about his explosive new article in the New Yorker Magazine. Hersh reports that John Negroponte's decision to resign as National Intelligence Director was made in part because of the Bush administration's covert actions including the funding of radical Sunni groups - some with strong ideological ties to al-Qaeda - to counter Shiite groups backed by Iran. Hersh also reports the Pentagon has established a special planning group to plan a bombing attack on Iran and U.S. military and special-operations teams have already crossed the border into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives.

The funding of Wahhabi/Salafi groups, often labeled Islamic fundamentalists in the media, is reminiscient of US policy in the Middle East especially through the mid-70s and early-80s which eventually gave rise to groups such as the Taliban. During this period US administrations, alongside Israel, promoted "fundamentalist" groups to create suitable conditions for their own interests in the region. In the case of the Israelis, their support of such groups was primarily with the aim to evade a settlement plan over Palestine"

I mean a lot of people did resign from the Bush Administration when all this started making the news.

You even have Colin Powell coming out and saying his biggest regret was not resigning from the bush administration and also the UN speech announcing the WMD's in Iraq.

tkthafm doesn't deserve the net. He'd be fine living in the feudal age. All this info available and choosing to be ignorant. For thousands of years people wanted info but couldn't get it. Now it's easy to get and some don't want it. 
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The good thing is that governments around the world fear the power of the net because most people aren't like [/font]tkthafm.

 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by tkthafm

ITT: We claim the US funded/sponsored/trained al-Qaeda. When asked for evidence we respond with irrelevant "lectures" and the poster to the movie "Green Zone".

�

"Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh talks to Democracy Now about his explosive new article in the New Yorker Magazine. Hersh reports that John Negroponte's decision to resign as National Intelligence Director was made in part because of the Bush administration's covert actions including the funding of radical Sunni groups - some with strong ideological ties to al-Qaeda - to counter Shiite groups backed by Iran. Hersh also reports the Pentagon has established a special planning group to plan a bombing attack on Iran and U.S. military and special-operations teams have already crossed the border into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives.

The funding of Wahhabi/Salafi groups, often labeled Islamic fundamentalists in the media, is reminiscient of US policy in the Middle East especially through the mid-70s and early-80s which eventually gave rise to groups such as the Taliban. During this period US administrations, alongside Israel, promoted "fundamentalist" groups to create suitable conditions for their own interests in the region. In the case of the Israelis, their support of such groups was primarily with the aim to evade a settlement plan over Palestine"

I mean a lot of people did resign from the Bush Administration when all this started making the news.

You even have Colin Powell coming out and saying his biggest regret was not resigning from the bush administration and also the UN speech announcing the WMD's in Iraq.

tkthafm doesn't deserve the net. He'd be fine living in the feudal age. All this info available and choosing to be ignorant. For thousands of years people wanted info but couldn't get it. Now it's easy to get and some don't want it. 
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The good thing is that governments around the world fear the power of the net because most people aren't like [/font]tkthafm.

 

 

[tkthafm]

@ wawa

Again, I know what blowback is. I know we funded AFGHANI Mujahideen through the ISI.

There is 0 evidence we actually trained/funded any Afghan ARAB Mujahideen (see: Bin Laden & later what would become al-Qaeda). This is what I'm asking for. If you have evidence, please, don't be shy.

Note: Afghan Arab =/= Afghani native. Everyone knows some Mujahideen turned against us, most notably the Taliban. This is a far cry from claiming we founded al-Qaeda, or facilitated/allowed for 9/11. (evidence ?)

@ WR

 some with strong ideological ties to al-Qaeda

A swing and a miss. I'm well aware we are funding things like Jundallah in Iran (for obvious reasons). The question was al-Qaeda itself.

For something you guys claimed was SO OBVIOUS, you are really struggling to give me some simple evidence. 

Straw-man, Red herring.. ad hom... but 0 evidence. I love it.

I'm the moron here though. Got any more hollywood movie posters to show me ?

 

[tkthafm]

@ wawa

Again, I know what blowback is. I know we funded AFGHANI Mujahideen through the ISI.

There is 0 evidence we actually trained/funded any Afghan ARAB Mujahideen (see: Bin Laden & later what would become al-Qaeda). This is what I'm asking for. If you have evidence, please, don't be shy.

Note: Afghan Arab =/= Afghani native. Everyone knows some Mujahideen turned against us, most notably the Taliban. This is a far cry from claiming we founded al-Qaeda, or facilitated/allowed for 9/11. (evidence ?)

@ WR

 some with strong ideological ties to al-Qaeda

A swing and a miss. I'm well aware we are funding things like Jundallah in Iran (for obvious reasons). The question was al-Qaeda itself.

For something you guys claimed was SO OBVIOUS, you are really struggling to give me some simple evidence. 

Straw-man, Red herring.. ad hom... but 0 evidence. I love it.

I'm the moron here though. Got any more hollywood movie posters to show me ?

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

THIS
Its cool to believe in these conspiracies but when you actually have to sit down and rationalize it actually figure out the motives and the ridiculous amount of people having to be involved. And to keep it all a secret. You have to come back around to reality and stop thinking life is a cartoon.

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

THIS
Its cool to believe in these conspiracies but when you actually have to sit down and rationalize it actually figure out the motives and the ridiculous amount of people having to be involved. And to keep it all a secret. You have to come back around to reality and stop thinking life is a cartoon.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by tkthafm


@ wawa

Again, I know what blowback is. I know we funded AFGHANI Mujahideen through the ISI.

There is 0 evidence we actually trained/funded any Afghan ARAB Mujahideen (see: Bin Laden & later what would become al-Qaeda). This is what I'm asking for. If you have evidence, please, don't be shy.

Note: Afghan Arab =/= Afghani native. Everyone knows some Mujahideen turned against us, most notably the Taliban. This is a far cry from claiming we founded al-Qaeda, or facilitated/allowed for 9/11. (evidence ?)

@ WR

�some with strong ideological ties to al-Qaeda

A swing and a miss. I'm well aware we are funding things like Jundallah in Iran (for obvious reasons). The question was al-Qaeda itself.

For something you guys claimed was SO OBVIOUS, you are really struggling to give me some simple evidence.�

Straw-man, Red herring.. ad hom... but 0 evidence. I love it.

I'm the moron here though. Got any more hollywood movie posters to show me ?

 
I guess conspiracy theorist watch too much of what politicians are saying....

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by tkthafm


@ wawa

Again, I know what blowback is. I know we funded AFGHANI Mujahideen through the ISI.

There is 0 evidence we actually trained/funded any Afghan ARAB Mujahideen (see: Bin Laden & later what would become al-Qaeda). This is what I'm asking for. If you have evidence, please, don't be shy.

Note: Afghan Arab =/= Afghani native. Everyone knows some Mujahideen turned against us, most notably the Taliban. This is a far cry from claiming we founded al-Qaeda, or facilitated/allowed for 9/11. (evidence ?)

@ WR

�some with strong ideological ties to al-Qaeda

A swing and a miss. I'm well aware we are funding things like Jundallah in Iran (for obvious reasons). The question was al-Qaeda itself.

For something you guys claimed was SO OBVIOUS, you are really struggling to give me some simple evidence.�

Straw-man, Red herring.. ad hom... but 0 evidence. I love it.

I'm the moron here though. Got any more hollywood movie posters to show me ?

 
I guess conspiracy theorist watch too much of what politicians are saying....

 

[tkthafm]

We did fund the Mujahideen.

The Afghani Mujahideen. Some of whom later became the Taliban. (We are fighting them today). This was already explained (did you read ? probably not)

She didn't admit they armed, trained, or funded al-Qaeda specifically, so what was the point of you posting that video other than having nothing else to respond with.

Where is your "undeniable paper trail" ?

Please don't tell me your only evidence consists of twisting Clinton's words from a minute long interview clip

"Ignorance ALWAYS shines through" 

You're 0 for 2.

I'll give you 1 more shot at giving me evidence before you strike out. Good luck son.

 

[tkthafm]

We did fund the Mujahideen.

The Afghani Mujahideen. Some of whom later became the Taliban. (We are fighting them today). This was already explained (did you read ? probably not)

She didn't admit they armed, trained, or funded al-Qaeda specifically, so what was the point of you posting that video other than having nothing else to respond with.

Where is your "undeniable paper trail" ?

Please don't tell me your only evidence consists of twisting Clinton's words from a minute long interview clip

"Ignorance ALWAYS shines through" 

You're 0 for 2.

I'll give you 1 more shot at giving me evidence before you strike out. Good luck son.

 

[callhimar]

Please, tell me what makes sense.
The United States and Western powers in general have a very recent history of imperialism in the Middle East. The split up the territory of the Ottoman Empire and divide it amongst themselves, and put people in power who served the interests of the imperial power, and not the people of the country. After World War 2 this was brought to a halt by the collapse of imperialism and the great European empires, but before this could happen there were a number of uprisings that were absolutely crushed by these large powers. A good example of this would be the Iraqi revolt of 1920. From this, a great deal of anger brewed deep within these societies and there was very little trust for Western powers/intervention in the affairs of many Middle Eastern nations. 

Fast forward to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in '79. Bin Laden was already an important figure in recruiting fighters for the "jihad" against the Soviet forces. He found an ally in the United States who's main goal at the time was to embarrass the Soviets whenever they could. The U.S. along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia trained and armed the Mujahideen in their fight. This obviously led to the Soviets being defeated and leaving. However instead of attempting to stabilize a volatile situation in Afghanistan the United States left too. This led to a long, bloody civil war that ended with the Taliban taking control of most of the country, allowing Al Qaeda to take up residence. 

Bin Laden needed this because he'd dug himself a hole. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in '90 Saudi Arabia was worried they were next. Bin Laden went to them and said "Don't worry, we can use the fighters we used in Afghanistan to protect the holy land" to which Saudi Arabia said "

". They instead decided to take the help of the Americans. This infuriated Bin Laden as he saw them as the Western enemy who was going to occupy the Holy Land, which was somewhat true because we had begun showing interest in having bases in Saudi Arabia. This was seen as unacceptable to Bin Laden and led him to carry out attacks, which ultimately ended in his exile from Saudi Arabia and his family cutting ties with him. The same thing happened when he went to Sudan, after a while they couldn't deal with the pressure put on them to get rid of him so they sent him out. Afghanistan was all he had left.

Bin Laden is seething with anger at this point obviously. He sees the United States building bases across the Middle East (actually happened/still happening), he sees the United States sanctioning Iraq throughout the '90's leading to many dying from lack of medicine, etc (also happened, was exacerbated by Saddam himself to make America and the world look worse, but did happen), sees Americans carrying out an attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant which supplied many necessary drugs to the entire country and led to the deaths of thousands (actually happened), he sees continued, unquestioned, support of Israel and the use of American made weapons on Palestinian civilians (still happens to this day) along with many, many other American policies seen as a continued tampering in the affairs of Arabs (i.e. propping up dictators, etc). So THIS is why terrorism was used against the United States in the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings and subsequently the 9/11 attacks. You may not agree with the use of terrorism, but there are certainly a great deal of legitimate political gripes there, not just some simple "they hate us because we're free" nonsense. 

Now, think about this logically, if a building is hit by a plane traveling at roughly 400 mph, with enough fuel to go from one end of the country to the other, there is going to be a long burning fire. Also, the fire would be so far up that nothing could be done to effectively put it out. Is it not logical that the structural integrity of the building would be compromised, causing it to collapse? 

A plane is heading toward a building that is essentially five rings of reinforced concrete. Is it not logical that when it hits there wouldn't be much left of it and it wouldn't penetrate that far through?

Say this is all just an elaborate scheme to go to war in the Middle East and take their resources, would it not be logical that when the war becomes too costly and a complete DRAIN on the countries economy they would say "Hey wait a minute, we should probably end this charade before it gets any worse here." What sense does it make for a country to drag itself to economic ruin with two extremely costly wars? It doesn't, at all. 

So this, or the conspiracy theories people come up with in their basements?

I hope I've addressed everything here.