portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

9.11 investigation

Video: Cynthia Mckinney Shakes Rumsfeld and Myers Over 9/11 Wargames

On February 16th Congressional leadership and two of the planners of the 9/11 attacks blocked, stalled and almost got away with ducking the central question about 9/11. Though they were not forced to answer McKinney's question, their reaction belongs to all of us. We know. They know we know. Don't hold your breath that Rumsfeld and Myers will ever be compelled to answer it, but also don't ever forget the heroism coming from the last bright light on Capitol Hill.
Mckinney - Real media file
Mckinney - Real media file
Transcript and additional articles available here:

Open Letter to Richard A. Clarke regarding War Games, 9/11 Timeline and Myers/Rumsfeld Testimony


(real video stripped down alternative player)


transcript 03.Mar.2005 20:57


Transcript, February 16, Rumsfeld and Myers questioned by Cynthia McKinney:

Cynthia McKinney: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

Duncan Hunter: The Gentle-lady is recognized.

McKinney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would that breakfast with the Secretary be open to the public?

Hunter: Well, if you want to bring all the omelets it might be, but ah -

McKinney: Well Mr. Chairman, the problem is - and I appreciate your adherence to the five-minute rule - however there are many of us who have important questions and my question in particular is about the four war games that were taking place on September 11th and how they may have impaired our ability to respond to those attacks.

Mr. Hunter: Well let me say the gentle lady...

[cross talk]

McKinney: I would like that question to be answered in public Mr. Chairman.

Hunter: Let me say to the gentle lady we're going to have other opportunities to have the Secretary in front of us and what we will do beyond having questions, if you want a question for the record, be able to put that to the record and have the answer on the record, but additionally at the next event where the Secretary testifies - we'll try to make sure that happens - we will start with the folks who did not get their question answered so you will have an opportunity.

McKinney: Thank you so much Mr. Chairman, and I hope the record is still open so that even that portion of my comment will be on this record.

Hunter: It will be so ordered.

McKinney: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

-- end of transcript

fascism moves on regardless of facts, IMPEACH BUSH NOW QUICK! 03.Mar.2005 22:56


brave Mckinney. soon the victim of Georgia's e-vote machines.

watch 04.Mar.2005 10:37

sgt. fodder

myers and rummie do a little ear to ear towards the end. look into rummies eyes, 72 years of lies.

Please Explain 04.Mar.2005 11:28

Green Dragon

Please explain what this question was concerning? What does she mean by wargames. It seems bloggers and conspiracy theorists are going nuts over wargames, but no body wants to explain what they are talking about.

Saying "war games" over and over does not explain what you are talking about.

When writing a news article, it is important to provide background information, so those of us who with our "heads in the sand" or are otherwise "left in the dark" can begin to understand where you are coming from.

The fact that Cynthia McKinnley asks this question intrigues me. I want to know what she is talking about?

Please enlighten me. For the sake of communication stick to standard collegiate writing. While I question, "the Kings English" and esp. "the Presidents English" (sic), standard collegiate English is an excellent mode of communication. Barring that, I'll take 7th grade English, the style in a typical rural newspaper.

- Patiently waiting for an answer.

more about the wargames / response to Green Dragon 04.Mar.2005 12:46

a 9/11 investigation reader

This is a good summary of the Wargames issue, and some of the questions it raises. This is from  http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html. There's some documentation/references there, and a google search of "sept. 11 wargames" brings up more. Of course, you'll have to look at the different people and sites raising these questions and allegations and decide for yourself if they are believable to you.

BTW, your requests for different types of writing are pretty snide sounding; i'm not sure if that's what you meant to do. More "developed" or "educated" English is often used to shut people out of communication (and hence power). PDX IMC has set a great counter-example by featurizing into the center column stories that are not written "up to" those standards, because the editors recognize that the ability to report on truth and facts is not dependent on education or linguistic athletics. It's the ring in a voice that's true not its grammatics, given that the grammatics are commonly understandable enough to get a point across.

i'll take an honest "misspelled" story that is passionate and radical (which is to say, real) over a completely "correct" one that is tepid or disingenuous any day.

Anyway, here's the "wargames" snippet:


On September 11, at least five different "war games" were being conducted by the military and intelligence agencies. These exercises included simulations of 9/11 type events, a plane into building scenario near Dulles Airport in Virginia, and deployment of fighters to northern Canada and Alaska (which reduced the number of fighters that were available to protect the US?). It seems that these exercises were the means used to paralyze the air defenses, thereby ensuring the success of the "attacks."

The British Navy was conducting exercises in the Indian ocean near the Middle East. A biowar exercise was also about to start in New York City. Who has the power to coordinate all of these exercises? Osama bin Laden? Saddam Hussein? Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah? Dick Cheney and the White House National Security Council?

It is difficult to believe that it is a bizarre "coincidence" that the military and CIA were conducting wargames similar to 9/11 on September 11, 2001. While it seems likely, if not blatantly obvious, that these war games were one of the means used to confuse the air defense system for sufficient time to allow the World Trade Center to be attacked, the war games do not answer the question of how the air defenses were suppressed for another half hour after the second tower was hit (at which time everyone knew that an attack was in progress). The Air Force had another half hour after the second tower to scramble interceptors to defend the Capitol (the plane that is alleged to have hit the Pentagon made its 180 degree turn over Ohio to head back toward D.C. about the time that the second tower was struck).

Perhaps a complete investigation would reveal if the national order to ground all aviation (an unprecedented directive from the Transportation Department) also included military airplanes as well -- especially given the chaos and confusion that morning, a stand down of key fighter interceptors would have been easily concealed. But the information about the wargames suggests that a "stand down" order was NOT issued that morning -- the confusion from the war games was how the defenses of New York and Washington were interfered with sufficiently to ensure the success of the attacks.

It is unlikely that the "inside job" conspirators would have risked the success of the operation on whether fighter plane pilots would have obeyed orders to do nothing as American cities were burning. It would be like asking a firefighter who had trained their entire adult life to "stand down" when their neighbor's house was burning and the inhabitants trapped inside (or worse, asking that firefighter to "stand down" from protecting the next house on the block from catching fire from the first burning house). In this analogy, the firefighter would probably ignore orders from his or her boss to stand down, and would seek to rescue the neighbors without worrying about the consequences until later.

The wargames provide a much better explanation for why there was an apparent stand down and failure to respond in time.

If a genuine investigation with subpeona power is ever held, the full details of the 9/11 wargames will need to be declassified and discussed in public -- who scheduled them, who set up the scenarios, the full communications records from the participants, the radar tapes (if they still exist) that were used as part of the simulations, and the identities of those officials who deployed part of the fighter defense fleet to northern Canada and Alaska at the very time that warnings were being sounded that a terrorist attack was imminent.

7th grade English... 04.Mar.2005 12:48

Former corporate media reader

...is about the standard for all newspapers, rural or not. big city rags also aim for that level. let's not get down on the folks living in the country.

lack of imagination 04.Mar.2005 14:43



In Reply 04.Mar.2005 16:27

Green Dragon

7th grade English: Good point. I come from a rural area. I was picking on my own locally distributed corporate media.

lack of imagination: If that exists, I would like to see a PDF.

a 9/11 investigation reader:

Actually, I am quite critical of "the Kings English" and the Doublespeak of Capital Hill.

I agree with your points on Collegiate English. I quite enjoy a well-written account written in local "slang"; Actually I question the conceptual dichotomy of slang vs. "standard English". However, I am principly concerned with a well-written, well-referenced account. Compare Mark Twains, "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" or Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon" versus the standard "rant"1. "Rants" can be poetic or inspiring, but are rarely informative.

Your snippet is an example of something that communicates. Now its a matter of following the references and drawing ones own conclusions.

Thank you.

1. The original rant informed us of very little. It only stated that McKinley asked a question concerning "War Games". It stated as fact that this was the central question of 9/11 without giving any evidence or background as to what she was asking about. How do expect anyone to take these questions seriously, if you don't take time to explain. We are expected to beleive this on faith alone. This is little different than the style of propaganda produced out of the state department or Fox News.

Would You, Could You, 04.Mar.2005 17:03

All By Myself

Would you like your information in a box
Would you like me to read it from the top
Do you want it spelled to the tee
Do you want it all explained by me
Do you need it handed to you line by line
And do I need to make sure that it all rhymes
Do I explain it for you and you and you
Or don't you have anything that you can do
I did my research and shared it on line
Without any goggling all you do is whine

Ha Ha 05.Mar.2005 15:36


"All by myself", Thanks for the great laugh, couldn't have responded better, all by myself.