Was the east coast deliberately left defenseless on 9/11?

[philb]

War games in Alaska with jets normally on duty sent north.

And
Washington Defense Shield Deactivated Due To "Wargames" Pre-9-11 ? /
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/307357.shtml

[Rob Conn]

1. Ask Cheney

Ruppert makes it clear that Cheney had command authority over all the training exercises that day, and was also the de facto Commander In Chief during the attack on a video conference call that lasted for hours. If he didn't participate in the planning of the attack, he must have heard about the very specific intel warnings, and yet decided go ahead with Northern Vigilance, which withdrew a large number of our planes to Alaska. That makes me want to say yes to your question, but the answer is a little more complex.

Actually, we weren't really defenseless. The government had to change their initial story that no jets had been scrambled until after the explosion at the pentagon, because people in New York saw two jets patroling the airspace. And later we found out that planes had been scambled, but that some had travelled at half their top speed, while others were sent out over the water as though responding to a Russian airborne attack. So we weren't defenseless, but Cheney's bahavior that day made our defenses useless.

Here's a thought experiment. Lets think about what should have happened, or would have happened if it really were a surprise. All four of the jets were over unpopulated areas for a long time, and not invisible to military radar. The military would have determined that there was an attack under way, determined that the planes were headed toward populated areas, learned that the planes only had 30 people on board, and shot them all down, including the first, before they presented any greater threat. The only good excuse they have for this not happening is the confusion created by the exercises. But then the official response is that the exercises likely helped rather than hindered our military preparedness. So they've got nothing. We were not defenseless, but we certainly were not defended. - R.C.

[hack89]

2. Do you even read(and think about) the links you post?

"a missile shield over Washington, DC was deactivated several weeks before 9/11"

Lets see - first, such a system would be illegal under the ABM treaty. Second, there is no operational missile defense system (or have you missed the constant litany of failed and rigged tests) Third, it takes a long time to design and put such a complex system in place - therefore it had to have been done in the Clinton years. Fourth, you can provide absolutely no proof of such a system. Do you therefore believe that Bill Clinton secretly funded, designed, tested and installed an illegal missile defense system to protect Washington DC?

"Pentagon's Office of Naval Intelligence intentionally was set up to be killed off on 9-11"

ONI is not located in the Pentagon - they have a huge complex in Suiteland MD.

http://www.nmic.navy.mil/

As to the war games in Alaska, you do realize that the AF permanently stations its most capable F15's in Alaska as it is the closest state to Russia? There was no need to move aircraft north. Even if they did move some, so what? How many aircraft do you need to defend the east coast - do you believe that they left every airbase on the east coast deserted?

[HamdenRice]

3. Missile shields are not illegal under ABM

I don't intend to get into a debate of the substance of the OP, but I do want to offer a correciton.

There is nothing illegal under the ABM treaty about a missile shield over Washington if it exists. All the ABM treaty prohibits is a national missile shield intended to prevent penetration by nuclear ballistic missiles. A missile shield, or more properly, a surface to air missile defense system intended to shoot down unauthorized aircraft, conventional missiles is not only legal, but routine. It is widely acknowledged that there are various kinds of missile defense systems to protect DC.

[hack89]

4. You are right..

The phrase "missile shield" means one thing to me - I didn't consider it could mean something else to some else.

[Zynx]

5. What sort of missile defense system?

This has come up before as regards the Pentagon. There are three basic types of missile defense:

-- Guns. These are actually wholly useless. Guns are for killing helicopters and low, slow aircraft, and maybe a cruise missile if they got really lucky. The US hasn't used guns for anything major in a long, long time.

-- Missiles. This means Patriots - there is no other theater defense weapon in the US arsenal and things like the Stinger are worthless and a half for stopping a major air attack or incoming cruise missiles. Patriot batteries are large, defined military formations that can be found on the US Army's OoB and the actual equipment is big and easy to spot. There are none in or around DC.

-- Lasers. Not known to be operational, and once again quite large, as well as fairly close ranged. Ideas such as there being secret laser batteries in DC are absurd - laser turrets on buildings would be very easy to spot.

So I'm not seeing what would have to be "deactivated", especially considering that the not-in-DC Patriots are the only thing in the US arsenal that could come close to stopping a jetliner easily.

[philb]

6. Seems you need to read about Pave Paws

also read Dr. Griffin's books and the references he gives.

also part of the defense system that was dismantled was the fighter jet defense system;

many of them were off in Alaska or out west playing war games.