3. WHO Did 9/11 & WHY?
In order to understand why the attacks of September 11, 2001, in New York took place, we will have to look at some background.
It all has to do with the quest for American dominance of Eurasia. Russia, China and the Central Asian nations were rattled by these American attempts to destabilize them.
In September 1994, BP did a deal with Azerbaijan to develop three oil fields, calling it the “Deal of the Century.”
The next problem was how to transport this oil to the West.
Two options existed:
- South to Iran and then to the Persian Gulf ports.
- Northwards via Chechnya and then to a Russian Black Sea port.
Neither option suited the Rockefeller Empire.
The family had an alternative plan: to build a pipeline from Baku to a Turkish port on the Mediterranean.
To press this point, the CIA created a problem for Russia in Chechnya, which Russia invaded in December 1994 in what became known as the First Chechen War.
New York informed Moscow:
“See, this route is not stable, and we are unable to use this. Rather, we will build an alternative route.”
And so it came about.
This war, in turn, greatly worried the Kremlin. So much so that, in 1995, at the initiative of Russian leader Boris Yeltsin, five of these countries got together and formed the “Shanghai Five,” a loose union to combat the US.
Further meetings were held every year.
Then, finally, on June 14–15, 2001, they formed an entity called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
The countries were:
- Russia
- China
- Kazakhstan
- Uzbekistan
- Kyrgyzstan
- Tajikistan
It was a union for economic and military cooperation. Later, combating terrorism became part of the SCO agenda.
See map below.
This was the trigger for 9/11, which gave the Pentagon a pretext to move into Afghanistan and Central Asia.
Below is a quote from the book The Grand Chessboard, published in 1997 and authored by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Rockefeller geopolitical advisor:
“It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America — the most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.”
He continued:
“To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.”
Within Rockefeller family circles, the 9/11 attack was called “the Event,” and it was allegedly discussed within the family as early as January 2001, just when Bush took office.
Look at the graph depicting the increased spending by the Pentagon between January and March.
The US WAS PREPARING FOR WAR, a full eight months before 9/11!
The January 2001 budget was about $900 million, February was $700 million, and in March it jumped to $5.8 billion.
And it continued to grow thereafter.
All told, the Pentagon’s budget for hardware went up by around 30%.
What the Pentagon would normally spend on ships and tanks in one year for hardware, it was beginning to spend in one month.
Nearly $25 billion of the increase in Defense Department spending went towards hardware purchases.
The 9/11 Attack
Regarding the actual attack itself, the article argues that it was conducted by the CIA.
Three separate CIA teams were allegedly used to plant explosives in each of the three buildings.
A 62-year-old CIA agent, Malcolm Howard, who reportedly worked for the CIA for 21 years as an operative, was allegedly in charge of a four-man team responsible for planting explosives in Building 7 — the very same building that collapsed without a plane crashing into it.
This alleged CIA operation was dubbed “New Century.”
Explaining how the building was brought down, Mr. Howard reportedly said:
“It was a classic controlled demolition with explosives. We used super-fine military-grade nano-thermite composite materials as explosives. The hard part was getting tons of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms into the building without causing too much concern. But almost every single office in Building 7 was rented by the CIA, the Secret Service, or the military, which made it easier.”
Howard allegedly explained that WTC 7 was:
“loaded with explosives in strategic points in the month leading to September 11.”
While the North and South Towers burned, fuses were allegedly ignited in WTC 7, and nano-thermite explosions supposedly hollowed out the building, destroying the steel structure, removing the reinforcements and allowing the office fires to tear through the building, hollowing it out like a shell.
“Everything went exactly to plan. We were celebrating. We kept watching replays of the demolition, and we had whiskey and cigars.”
The Rockefeller Empire and the World Trade Center
Besides creating a shock effect, the taking down of the World Trade Center also allegedly eliminated an occupancy problem for the Rockefeller Empire.
Remember that the dot-com bubble burst in March 2000.
These IT and technology firms occupied much of the office space in Manhattan.
As the property market goes in Manhattan, so goes the rest of the property market in the US.
The dot-com bubble had a negative cascading effect on the stock markets and the internal economy of the US.
High vacancy rates in Manhattan office space were bringing down property values.
If not checked, the decline in property values would have had a negative effect on mortgage holders, besides impacting bank earnings.
According to the article’s argument, Rockefeller thinking was that there was a need to eliminate “surplus” office space in Manhattan.
The 9/11 attacks allegedly solved this problem for the family.
The office space of three whole buildings was eliminated.
Firms were forced to relocate to other buildings, such that by 2002 there was supposedly a “shortage” of office space in New York.
Property values held up.
When the World Trade Center was completed in 1973, some nicknamed the two buildings “Nelson” and “David.”
This was because the older brother, Nelson Rockefeller, was the Governor of New York State, while his younger brother David — whose idea it originally was — was the financier of the project through their various banks, including Chase Manhattan, Citicorp and American Express.
The Turkmenistan–Afghanistan Gas Pipeline
In October 1995, Turkmenistan signed an agreement with Rockefeller oil company Unocal to build a 1,600-kilometre pipeline running from the Daulatabad gas field through Afghanistan to Pakistan.
This pipeline would then be extended through to India to power a gas-fired electricity-generating plant situated at Dabhol on India’s west coast.
This power station was owned by another Rockefeller Group company, the infamous Enron.
Washington needed a stable, single government in Afghanistan.
Thus, according to the article, the Taliban were assisted by both the US and Pakistan to complete their conquest and takeover of Afghanistan.
The Taliban began their conquest of Afghanistan not long after they entered Kabul in September 1996.
By 2000, most of the country was under effective Taliban control.
However, dozens of warlords and factions — some backed by Iran, Russia and other outside powers — continued to undermine the Taliban’s rule.
Turkmenistan had the fourth-largest reserves of gas in the world at the time, with approximately 3 trillion cubic metres, after Russia at 48 trillion cubic metres, Iran at 23 trillion cubic metres and Qatar at 14 trillion cubic metres.
Furthermore, at a conference in Berlin in July 2001 to discuss the Turkmenistan–Afghanistan pipeline deal, the US allegedly told Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Nazir Naik, who was the intermediary for the Taliban:
“Either we bury you under a carpet of gold, or under a carpet of bombs.”
This was a distinct threat, as the Taliban were not happy with the terms and conditions of the proposed gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan.
The Taliban turned the American offer down and turned to the Chinese.
At the end of August 2001, a Pentagon spokesman, Thomas White, said that the 60,000 American troops currently in Europe would now be shifted to Asia, as America’s real threat was now coming from China.
This was published in only one newspaper in the world, a Pakistani paper called Dharb-I-Mumin, dated September 7, 2001.
Four days later, the attacks in New York and Washington took place.
China, the Taliban and 9/11
On September 11, 2001 — the same day, and at around the same time, that the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings were hit by civilian jets — two Chinese People’s Liberation Army transport jets from Beijing landed in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
They carried the most important delegation the ruling Taliban had ever received.
They had come to sign a contract with Afghanistan that would provide the Taliban with:
- Missile-tracking systems
- State-of-the-art communications
- Air-defence systems
In exchange, the Taliban would promise to end attacks by Muslim extremists in China’s north-western regions.
By early October, the US military was invading Afghanistan.
According to the article, the aim was to prevent China from reaching the oil-rich areas of Central Asia and the Middle East.
For Russia, the US presence in Afghanistan was intended to block its possible breakout to the warm-water ports of the Indian Ocean.
There was no better platform for achieving this than Afghanistan.
How ironic that when the Shanghai Five formed the SCO in June 2001, this supposedly triggered the American intervention in Afghanistan.
Fast-forward 21 years.
This was one year after the humiliating withdrawal of America from Afghanistan.
The SCO had become a magnet for most of the East and Middle Eurasian countries.
In short, the removal of American military power had helped to unite Eurasia more than what the Americans would have wanted.
This, no doubt, had turned out to be AMERICA’S WORST NIGHTMARE!
A Side Point
We quote David Rockefeller’s advisor once again:
“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat — the public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”
The next step for the Rockefeller Empire, according to the article, was to CONVINCE the American public about the move to invade America.
And that could only be achieved through a huge shock effect.
And so, we had the events of 9/11.
The media played a big role in demonizing Osama bin Laden as the culprit.
They now had a justification.
The rest is history.
The Rise of the Surveillance State
Immediately after the incident, Washington began passing laws that, according to the article, turned the US into a police state.
It passed the Patriot Act, which increased the use of the state’s policing powers, thus reducing the democratic freedoms enjoyed by citizens up to that point.
As Brzezinski says:
“America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad.”
This was the first step.
What followed over the next two decades was an increase in technology, which, in turn, gave rise to the social media phenomenon.
And let’s go back to old Zbig and see what he had to “advise” his boss, David.
Remember, these statements were made in the 1970s — at the dawn of the computer age.
“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
He also wrote:
“Another threat, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy.
The Yen Carry Trade — Continued
The yen had fallen to 163.99 against the dollar on July 23, its weakest level since 1986, before suspected Japanese interventions and the subsequent U.S. operation drove it sharply higher. It strengthened to around 156.40 per dollar a few days later.
Tokyo did not disclose which reserve assets it liquidated to support the yen, but the intervention coincided with a sharp sell-off in U.S. government debt, strongly indicating that Japan unloaded part of its enormous Treasury portfolio to finance the yen purchases.
The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield jumped more than nine basis points on Friday to 4.735%, its highest level since 2023, while the 30-year yield reached 5.265% — a level not seen since the 2007 financial crisis.
Japan remains Washington’s largest foreign creditor, with Japanese investors holding approximately $1.143 trillion in U.S. government debt in May — already down almost $67 billion from April.
Sharp movements in Japanese markets can force investors to rebalance portfolios worldwide, placing upward pressure on U.S. and European government-bond yields.
Tokyo has not disclosed the precise cost of the latest operations, but analysts estimated that Japan may have spent close to ¥8.45 trillion — roughly $53 billion — during Thursday’s initial intervention alone.
Washington itself was forced to liquidate some of its euro holdings to support the yen, with the New York Fed selling Europe’s common currency on behalf of the U.S. Treasury. In effect, part of the burden of Japan’s rescue was shifted onto its European allies.
The story continues in Part 3…