Debunking the Debunkers: January 2020

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Coronavirus: Chinese Espionage Behind Wuhan Bioweapon https://www.infowars.com/coronavirus-chinese-espionage-behind-wuhan-bioweapon/

France Apology after History Textbook Links CIA to 9/11 - https://www.globalresearch.ca/france-apology-history-textbook-links-cia-911/5701808

Trump is Right: Raw thoughts on the new possible worldwide pandemic: http://trumpisright.blogspot.com/2020/01/raw-thoughts-on-new-possible-worldwide.html

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

SPOOKYWEATHER: Coronavirus Update: Cambodia, Germany, Sri Lanka Have Cases: 4,500+ Cases Total (Styx): http://spookyweather.blogspot.com/2020/01/coronavirus-update-cambodia-germany-sri.html

Trump is Right: President Trump! Please take action on coronavirus! YOU reading this contact the WH https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/: http://trumpisright.blogspot.com/2020/01/president-trump-please-take-action-on.html

Trump is Right: President Trump! Please take action on coronavirus! YOU reading this contact the WH https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/: http://trumpisright.blogspot.com/2020/01/president-trump-please-take-action-on.html

Sunday, January 26, 2020

56 Million Quarantined In China As Evidence Mounts Communist Govt Covering Up True Death Toll & Scale of Pandemic https://www.infowars.com/46-million-quarantined-in-china-as-evidence-mounts-communist-govt-covering-up-true-death-toll-scale-of-pandemic/

56 Million Quarantined In China As Evidence Mounts Communist Govt Covering Up True Death Toll & Scale of Pandemic https://www.infowars.com/46-million-quarantined-in-china-as-evidence-mounts-communist-govt-covering-up-true-death-toll-scale-of-pandemic/

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

University Study Concludes: Fire Did Not Bring Down World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 https://www.bitchute.com/video/bQXUXmCbwcSb/ #BitChute

French Publisher Under Fire for Featuring 911 Conspiracy Theory in Textbook - Coast to Coast AM https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/french-publisher-under-fire-for-featuring-911-conspiracy-theory-in-textbook#.XihNI155cMA.twitter

French Publisher Under Fire for Featuring 911 Conspiracy Theory in Textbook - Coast to Coast AM https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/french-publisher-under-fire-for-featuring-911-conspiracy-theory-in-textbook#.XihNI155cMA.twitter

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Fuck censorship up its poop hole til an ER is needed for perferation complications!: http://trumpisright.blogspot.com/2020/01/fuck-censorship-up-its-poop-hole-til-er.html

Monday, January 20, 2020

China Confirms Over 130 New Cases of Deadly Virus https://www.infowars.com/china-confirms-over-130-new-cases-of-deadly-virus/

Saturday, January 18, 2020

US Begins Airport Screenings After Second Patient With SARS-Like Pneumonia Dies In China https://www.infowars.com/us-begins-airport-screenings-after-second-patient-with-sars-like-pneumonia-dies-in-china/

US Begins Airport Screenings After Second Patient With SARS-Like Pneumonia Dies In China https://www.infowars.com/us-begins-airport-screenings-after-second-patient-with-sars-like-pneumonia-dies-in-china/

Friday, January 17, 2020

The CIA’s Influence Over the Media: Use of the Conspiracy Theorist Slur https://911truth.org/conspiracy-theorist-slur-cia-propaganda/ via @911Truth.Org

Killer Robots / Open Lines - Shows - Coast to Coast AM https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2020/01/17#.XiHhD4Tok3Q.twitter

Truth about opioid crisis exposed

Tucker Treads Dangerous Waters Calling Out the SACKLER FAMILY https://www.bitchute.com/video/7EyM6nECq7Q/ #BitChute

Amina Akhtar

@_AminaAkhtar

I have been reading "Say Nothing" by

@praddenkeefe

about The Troubles in Ireland and I have not been able to put it down. His next book is on the Sackler family & opioid crisis... say hello to the first book I have ever pre-ordered!

12:54 PM · Aug 22, 2019·Twitter Web App

Red Flag Nation: Anti-Gun Laws, Sanctuary Cities and the Second Amendment - https://www.globalresearch.ca/red-flag-nation-anti-gun-laws-sanctuary-cities-second-amendment/5700797

Thursday, January 16, 2020

The strange story of Daniel Lewin, the first victim of the 9/11 attacks

The Strange Story of Daniel Lewin, the First Victim of the 9/11 Attacks

Shoestring sun, 12/08/2019 - 6:11am

Akamai Daniel Lewin flight 11 Richard Clarke Satal al Suqami

The North Tower of the World Trade Center

Daniel Lewin is believed to have been the first person killed in the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001. The 31-year-old from Brookline, Massachusetts, was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to be hijacked that day. He was reportedly murdered by Satam al Suqami, one of the alleged hijackers, while the terrorists were taking over his plane.

Even before September 11, though, Lewin had secured his place in history. He was unusually intelligent and talented, and had excelled as a soldier, a student, and a businessman. Examination of his story, however, reveals many anomalies, contradictions, and odd coincidences that deserve scrutiny.

The official story of how he was killed is certainly suspicious. Lewin was very strong and had served in the Israeli military as a member of an elite counterterrorism unit. Al Suqami, in contrast, was short and thin, and had no military experience. And yet he supposedly took Lewin down with just a knife. Furthermore, Lewin was supposedly not originally going to be on Flight 11 on September 11. He was reportedly meant to fly to Los Angeles a day earlier but changed his plans so he could help take care of some issues at his company's headquarters.

It also seems odd that the first person to die in the 9/11 attacks--perhaps the most significant event of the 21st century--was an important figure in his own right, even before he became a key player in the events of September 11. Although he was little known among the general public, Lewin was a highly successful Internet entrepreneur. In 1998, he co-founded the pioneering technology company Akamai. Akamai's product utilized algorithms that Lewin helped devise, which could manage Web traffic in a way that was significantly faster and more efficient than existing methods.

He helped build the company from scratch to one that, by 9/11, employed about 1,500 people. Its success meant Lewin was, for a time, a billionaire and the technology he helped develop revolutionized how content was delivered over the Internet.

It has been suggested that, had he not been killed on September 11, Lewin could have become a household name, someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Some people even believed he would have gone into politics and could have become prime minister of Israel.

Certain aspects of Lewin's life seem unusual in light of the fact that Lewin was the first person killed in the 9/11 attacks. For example, while he was in the military, Lewin reportedly became committed to the cause of "wiping out terrorism." This means the first victim of America's worst terrorist attack, who may have died while trying to stop the hijackers on his plane, happened to be a man who was dedicated to stopping terrorists.

Furthermore, in the years before he died, Lewin acted as if he foresaw the 9/11 attacks or at least something on the scale of 9/11. He told people that a "cataclysmic event" would occur, during which people would turn to the Internet for information.

Of particular note, considering that Lewin died in a terrorist attack, is that just two months before 9/11, his company was visited out of the blue by the White House chief of counterterrorism. Richard Clarke went to Akamai to employ it to protect the White House website from an imminent attack by a computer virus.

And yet, while Lewin was the first person to be killed in the 9/11 attacks and an exceptional individual, surprisingly little attention has been paid to his story. Author Molly Knight Raskin explained how this lack of attention compelled her to write a book about him. "The more I heard about Danny," she said, "the more I wondered, 'Why hasn't this story ever been told before?'" She commented that "in all of those stories of September 11th, 2001," she had "never heard anything about him." [1]

Lewin's story is certainly remarkable. But parts of it indicate that there may be more to what happened on September 11 than we have been led to believe and so it requires close scrutiny.

LEWIN WAS KILLED WHILE FLIGHT 11 WAS BEING HIJACKED

Daniel Lewin, according to the official narrative of 9/11, was killed on the morning of September 11, 2001, when five Middle Eastern men armed with knives attempted to take control of Flight 11. He had his throat slashed by Satam al Suqami, one of the hijackers. [2]

Lewin was traveling on the 7:45 a.m. flight from Boston to Los Angeles--a trip he had frequently taken over the past year--on behalf of Akamai. He was going to California to sign a major business deal that he hoped would save his company, which was at the time struggling as a result of the previous year's dot-com crash. He was also set to attend the Credit Suisse First Boston Software Conference while he was in California. [3]

He was in seat 9B, in the business class section near the front of the plane. [4] Two of the alleged hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al Omari, were in the row of seats in front of his while al Suqami was in seat 10B, directly behind him. [5]

At 8:14 a.m. or shortly after, it is believed, the five hijackers on Flight 11 rose from their seats and began their takeover of the plane. In the course of doing this, al Suqami killed Lewin. Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m. Everyone on board and many people in the tower were killed in the crash. [6]

FLIGHT ATTENDANT SAID LEWIN HAD HIS THROAT SLASHED

Details of what supposedly happened to Lewin were described by two flight attendants, Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney, in phone calls they made from the rear of Flight 11 to authorities on the ground.

Ong reached the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Office in Cary, North Carolina, at 8:18 a.m. and, apparently describing what had happened to Lewin, reported, "Somebody's stabbed in business class." [7] Later during the call she said other flight attendants had told her "that a passenger by the name of Daniel Lewin may have been fatally wounded." [8]

Sweeney relayed details of the hijacking to personnel at the American Airlines flight services office at Logan International Airport in Boston in a series of calls beginning at 8:25 a.m. Presumably describing what happened to Lewin, she reported that "a passenger in row 9 ... had their throat cut by a passenger in seat 10B." She said the passenger whose throat had been cut was "bleeding severely" and was "not going to make it." [9]

Ong and Sweeney never mentioned whether Lewin was wounded in the course of trying to stop the hijacking. The 9/11 Commission, created by Congress to investigate the 9/11 attacks, tentatively concluded that he "may have made an attempt to stop the hijackers in front of him, not realizing that another was sitting behind him." [10]

But friends and relatives of his were certain that he would have tried to stop the hijackers. Many of them who were interviewed by Molly Knight Raskin for the book she wrote about him said that in light of his "physical strength, counterterrorism training, and fighting spirit," there was "no way Lewin could have sat idly by and watched terrorists hurt flight attendants and attempt to hijack the plane."

"Knowing his character and his training, we know that he got up and tried to do something," Marco Greenberg, one of Lewin's closest friends, commented. [11] "He wasn't one to sit passively by and see something bad happening and not try to get up and do something about it. It was in his nature to be a hero," one of his brothers said. [12]

LEWIN WAS HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL

While Lewin may be remembered simply as the first victim of the 9/11 attacks, even before September 11 his life was remarkable. The son of a psychiatrist and a pediatrician, he was born in Denver, Colorado, in May 1970 and grew up in a large house there. [13] When he was 14, though, he moved with his family to Israel.

At the age of 18, he joined the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), but after serving in the military for about four years, he left to study for degrees in math and engineering at the Israel Institute of Technology--better known as the Technion--in Haifa. [14]

After graduating, he successfully applied to study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a prestigious private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He consequently moved back to the U.S. in fall 1996 to study for a Ph.D. in applied math. [15]

He quickly established himself as a top student at MIT, and co-authored several papers on algorithms and complexity theory while he was there. [16] Significantly, Lewin and his professor, Tom Leighton, devised a way to handle Internet congestion that would speed up the delivery of content and make websites feel faster. [17] The algorithms they came up with became the foundation of Akamai, the company the two men set up in August 1998. [18]

Akamai established a network of servers around the world. This network could rewrite the addresses of its customers' Web pages and ensure fast access to them by providing the information requested by Internet users via any of the company's servers that were available, instead of via congested servers. [19] Its product, called FreeFlow, thereby enabled customers' Web pages and online applications to load faster and more reliably. [20]

FreeFlow was marketed as the "world's largest fault-tolerant network for distributing Web content." [21] Alan Edelman, an associate professor of applied mathematics at MIT, described it as "something like a limousine service that guarantees a short ride no matter what the traffic conditions." [22]

Akamai became a great success in the late 1990s Internet boom. It quickly signed up a healthy number of clients, thereby ensuring it millions of dollars in revenue, and Lewin and Leighton soon became wealthy men. [23] Wired magazine commented in August 1999 that "in less than a year, the little-known company is well on its way toward global domination." [24]

STORY OF HOW LEWIN DIED IS SUSPICIOUS

Lewin's story, however, includes many anomalies. The official account of how Lewin died on Flight 11 is especially hard to believe.

To begin with, Lewin would have been a tough adversary for anyone who took him on. He was, in the words of Lior Netzer, who served with him in the IDF, "a very strong guy." [25] He was 5 feet 10 inches tall and, according to Molly Knight Raskin, "built like a bull--burly and broad-shouldered, sheer muscle from head to toe." [26]

As a teenager, he regularly went to a gym in Jerusalem where he trained intensely. His strength increased so much that by the age of 16 he could bench-press more than 300 pounds. He was even crowned "Mr. Teenage Israel" after winning a coveted bodybuilding competition. [27]

LEWIN SERVED IN 'THE MOST EFFECTIVE COUNTERTERRORISM FORCE IN THE WORLD'

Lewin then gained around four years of military experience after joining the Israel Defense Forces when he was 18. [28] Notably, considering that he was supposedly killed by a terrorist, he served in the IDF's elite Sayeret Matkal. This unit was described by Vanity Fair as "the most effective counterterrorism force in the world." Its members have "almost unmatched counterterrorism skills," according to Raskin.

Lewin must have been highly regarded to be accepted into it. The Sayeret Matkal includes only about 200 full-time commandos and so getting in is rare, even for the best soldiers. Out of the thousands who apply at any one time, following two grueling test camps, only 20 to 40 men are selected. The fact that Lewin made it into the unit was particularly impressive considering that, according to Raskin, "for soldiers who were not Israeli-born, recruitment to Sayeret Matkal was almost unheard of."

Those who make it into the unit undergo nearly two years of intense training. This includes a course in counterterrorism in which they learn to storm planes and rescue hostages, and lessons in hand-to-hand combat. [29] Such training would surely have given Lewin a significant advantage against the hijackers on Flight 11. Indeed, it was reported that he had the skills to kill a terrorist "with a pen or a credit card, or just his bare hands." [30]

As well as having advanced combat skills, Lewin spoke some Arabic. He may consequently have picked up on the hijackers' intentions if he heard them discussing their plans to hijack Flight 11 in this language and might therefore have been able to come up with a strategy for stopping them when they attempted to take over the plane. [31]

Lewin appears to have excelled in the Sayeret Matkal since, after three years in the unit, he was promoted to the rank of captain. [32] Brad Rephen, who knew him as a teenager, commented on his success, saying: "About 2,500 guys try out for the unit he was in. Twenty-five make it and one gets chosen as an officer. It was him." [33]

LEWIN'S ALLEGED KILLER WAS SHORT AND SKINNY

Incredibly, considering his strength and military experience, Lewin was supposedly killed by a man who appears to have been quite feeble, someone he should have taken down with ease.

Satam al Suqami, a 25-year-old from Saudi Arabia, was just 5 feet 7 inches tall. [34] Like the other terrorists tasked with storming the cockpits and controlling the passengers rather than flying the hijacked planes on September 11--ironically referred to as the "muscle hijackers"--he was "slender in build" and "not physically imposing," according to the 9/11 Commission. [35]

A CIA report on the alleged 9/11 hijackers portrayed him as an unimpressive man. He came from a broken family, the report stated, and had little education. He had worked as a security guard for a hospital and only got involved with extremists two years before 9/11, in 1999. He was also unconcerned with religion, according to members of his family, was known to drink alcohol, possibly having a drinking problem, and may have taken drugs. [36]

However, London's Sunday Times reported that an investigation of the backgrounds of the alleged 9/11 hijackers found him to be a very different man. The investigation found that al Suqami came from a wealthy family, was intelligent and educated, and graduated in law at King Saud University in Riyadh. [37]

While these accounts appear to be describing two different men, neither of them described someone who would likely have made a particularly dangerous terrorist. However, a CIA report about al-Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan claimed that al Suqami received some training that would have helped prepare him for the events of September 11. It stated that he attended Khaldan, a large facility near Kabul, where he received basic training in fields such as firearms, heavy weapons, explosives, and topography. It also claimed that the "muscle hijackers," which included al Suqami, "engaged in months-long, daily, intensive instruction, which included martial arts."

How the CIA determined this and how reliable the claims are is unclear. The report stated that the information came from "a variety of intelligence reporting" but provided no further details. [38]

In fact, the young Saudi's behavior after he arrived in the U.S. in April 2001 seems inconsistent with the actions of a trained warrior preparing for the most important battle of his life. Al Suqami checked in at the Body Perfect Fitness Center, a gym in Lake Worth, Florida, on a number of occasions in June and July of 2001, and then purchased a one-month membership for the World Gym in Boynton Beach, Florida. He and other hijackers who joined gyms around this time "may have been told to go get as strong as they could get in case of body conflict or a fight," Jim Woolard, who owned the World Gym in Boynton Beach, surmised. [39]

However, trainers observed that al Suqami and two other alleged hijackers who attended the World Gym with him "did not appear to know how to use the equipment" there. They "simply clustered around the machines, never pushing any weights," according to the New York Times. "They would just stand around and watch," trainer Joe Farnoly recalled. [40]

Would such an unremarkable man as Satam al Suqami really have been capable of killing Daniel Lewin? Certainly, people who knew Lewin appeared to be highly skeptical of the official story of how the entrepreneur was killed. "Those of us who knew him well can't figure out how only five terrorists managed to overpower him," Tom Leighton commented. [41]

"With his training, he would have killed [the hijackers] with his bare hands," Brad Rephen said. Lewin "knew how to fight with knives and take knives away from people," he explained, and "would have taken [the hijackers'] knives or their box cutters away and used them against them." [42] "I'd be surprised if he didn't kill one or two of the terrorists before he went down," Marco Greenberg remarked. [43]

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WHO DESCRIBED LEWIN'S DEATH GAVE CONFLICTING INFORMATION

There are other oddities in the evidence relating to Lewin's death, in addition to the reports that such a tough man as Lewin was killed by a short, skinny hijacker armed only with a knife.

For example, the two flight attendants who described what had happened to Lewin contradicted each other over a notable detail during their phone calls to authorities on the ground. Amy Sweeney mentioned that Lewin was being cared for by a doctor and a nurse. [44] But when Betty Ong was asked, "Is there a doctor on board ... that's assisting you guys?" she said there were no doctors on Flight 11.

Furthermore, both flight attendants, independently of each other, initially said incorrectly that they were on "Flight 12" in their calls. When Ong reached the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Office, Winston Sadler, the resolution agent there, asked her, "Which flight are you on?" and she replied, "Flight 12." She gave the correct information, though, about a minute later. When Sadler asked, "What is your name?" she replied: "My name is Betty Ong. I'm number three [flight attendant] on Flight 11." She also immediately corrected Sadler when he subsequently told a supervisor that Ong was on Flight 12. "No, we're on Flight 11 right now; this is Flight 11," she said. [45]

And when Sweeney made her first successful call to the American Airlines flight services office at Logan International Airport, she told the employee who answered that two flight attendants had been stabbed on Flight 12. American Airlines Flight 12 was in fact a flight from Los Angeles to Boston that had not yet taken off. [46]

EVIDENCE SUGGESTED LEWIN HAD BEEN SHOT

Another anomaly is that some evidence indicated Lewin was shot, although investigations found that this scenario was highly improbable and he was most likely killed with a knife.

The first indication of a shooting on Lewin's plane was received by the operations center at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) headquarters in Washington, DC, at 8:44 a.m. on September 11. In a conference call with the FAA's New England Regional Operations Center, it heard that a passenger on Flight 11 had been shot. [47]

Another indication of a shooting occurred about 35 minutes later. At that time, Janet Riffe, the FAA's principal security inspector for American Airlines, was reportedly told by Suzanne Clark, a manager of corporate security at American Airlines, that a passenger on Flight 11 had been shot dead. [48]

Riffe, who was working at FAA headquarters and had been receiving information about the hijacking of Flight 11, called American Airlines headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas, at 9:20 a.m. for a status update. [49] Her usual point of contact at the airline was a manager of corporate security called Chris Bidwell, but he was away from his office and so her call was passed on to Clark. [50]

During the call, according to Riffe, Clark said one of the flight attendants on Flight 11 had contacted the American Airlines System Operations Control center and reported that the passenger in seat 10B--i.e. Satam al Suqami--had shot and killed the passenger in seat 9B--i.e. Daniel Lewin. Just one bullet had been fired, she reportedly said. [51]

Following the call, Riffe filled out an event sheet, describing what Clark had told her. The details she wrote down were subsequently entered into a log and the information in the log was included in a memo prepared by FAA headquarters personnel early that evening. [52]

INVESTIGATIONS REFUTED THE CLAIM THAT LEWIN WAS SHOT

Various agencies, though, later determined that it was highly unlikely that Lewin was shot. When the memo that described the alleged shooting was leaked to the press in 2002, FAA and FBI officials said the report of a gun being used on Flight 11 was a mistake. The FAA said the memo was just a first draft. FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the erroneous information in it was the result of "a miscommunication" and the error was corrected later in the evening of September 11. [53]

When the General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a comprehensive investigation of the alleged shooting, the American Airlines personnel it interviewed all denied reporting to anyone that a shooting had occurred on any of the aircraft hijacked on September 11. The GAO concluded that there was "no information to corroborate a shooting on American Airlines Flight 11." [54]

The 9/11 Commission also investigated whether a shooting occurred on Flight 11 and came to the same conclusion. It pointed out that the only possible sources of authoritative reports that a gun was fired on Flight 11 were the phone calls made from the plane by Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong. But, it noted, there were no mentions of a gun or a shooting in the tape recordings of these calls or the accounts of participants and witnesses to the calls. It also pointed out that while investigators found evidence of the alleged hijackers purchasing numerous knives in the period before September 11, "there was no evidence that they purchased or possessed firearms." [55]

Strangely, Clark denied that the alleged phone call in which she supposedly told Riffe about the shooting took place. When she was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission, she "unequivocally stated that she never made a report about a gun being used on Flight 11 on 9/11 or subsequently because she never had such information." She said she didn't remember talking with Riffe on September 11. She also said she didn't recall receiving any information about the weapons or tactics used on Flight 11 and only learned the seat numbers of the hijackers on the day after 9/11, thereby implying that she would have been unable to provide the information she supposedly gave to Riffe. [56]

LEWIN WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO FLY TO LOS ANGELES ON THE DAY BEFORE 9/11

There are other anomalies in the story of Daniel Lewin besides those relating to the hijacking of Flight 11 and his death. To begin with, Lewin was reportedly not originally meant to be flying to Los Angeles on September 11. George Conrades, Akamai's CEO, Tim Weller, the company's chief financial officer, and Steven Wolfe Pereira, the director of corporate strategy, flew from Boston to Los Angeles on September 10, 2001, to give a presentation at the Credit Suisse First Boston Software Conference on the morning of September 11. "Danny Lewin was supposed to be on our flight," Pereira claimed.

But according to Pereira, "There was something going on back at the office and--typical Danny--he said he would help take care of it." Lewin told his colleagues to "just go" and said he would meet them in Los Angeles. [57] If he had stuck with his original plans, therefore, he would have avoided being on Flight 11 and still been alive on September 12.

Lewin even rejected the request of some of his colleagues to cancel his trip so he could help them deal with the effects of the previous year's dot-com crash. Akamai was at the time faced with the difficult task of laying off hundreds of its workers. Consequently, on September 10, he called a meeting for some of his employees in which he proposed a new vision for the company.

At the end of the meeting, the attendees tried to convince him to cancel his trip to Los Angeles the following day, and stay with them to help with the layoffs and restructuring of the firm. Lewin appeared to be considering their suggestion but decided to stick to his schedule. "You guys will be fine," he said. [58]

LEWIN PREDICTED A 'CATACLYSMIC EVENT'

Curiously, in the years before 9/11, Lewin repeatedly talked about some kind of major catastrophe occurring in the future. It was as if he foresaw the event in which he would die.

He "talked about a time when there would be some cataclysmic event that would cause people to turn to the Internet for information," Molly Knight Raskin said. This event would "cause phone lines to go down" and "interrupt what then were more commonly used forms of communication." [59] Since 1998, he "had called attention to the unpredictable nature of news, foreseeing a time when technology rooted in his algorithms would have the power to keep the Internet alive under an extraordinary crush of traffic," Raskin wrote. [60]

When he visited CNN to try and gain the television network as a customer, he attempted to sell it Akamai's services with the argument that "CNN could one day see a news event so huge that no amount of servers or bandwidth could handle it." Internet users "would turn to CNN, which billed itself 'the most trusted name in news,' only to find blank or skeletal Web pages." [61]

The day when the "cataclysmic event" Lewin talked of occurred "really was September 11th," Raskin commented. [62] That day, like in the scenario Lewin warned of, CNN's website experienced trouble because so many people visited it for information and the increase in traffic actually forced it offline between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. CNN eventually had to contact Akamai and employ it to help keep the site running. [63]

COUNTERTERRORISM CHIEF VISITED AKAMAI SHORTLY BEFORE 9/11

An especially notable oddity considering that Lewin was killed in America's worst terrorist attack is that, just two months before 9/11, his company was unexpectedly visited by the White House chief of counterterrorism. Richard Clarke approached Akamai to request its help in protecting the White House website from a predicted attack by a computer virus called Code Red.

Code Red was created to conduct a "distributed denial of service" attack. This kind of attack involves thousands of compromised computers targeting a website or server at the same time, thus causing it to overload and become unavailable. [64] The virus was designed to specifically target the White House infrastructure on the Internet by bombarding the White House Web server with data, thereby shutting it down for hours or even days. [65]

Clarke became concerned when, in July 2001, he learned that 300,000 computers infected with Code Red were about to attack the White House's website. [66] To address the threat, he approached Akamai for help, even though he had never dealt with the company before and it had no previous experience of doing cybersecurity work. He turned up at its headquarters in Cambridge and, Tom Leighton recalled, said that "there was going to be a massive attack on the White House Internet infrastructure ... and he believed that [Akamai] could help him." [67]

Akamai agreed to provide the support that Clarke requested and when the Code Red virus struck on July 19, it was able to stop the attack by deflecting the requests that threatened to overload the White House website's server to Akamai servers around the world. [68]

Clarke presumably talked to Lewin when he visited Akamai since, as its chief technology officer, Lewin "effectively ran the company," according to Lior Netzer, who worked at Akamai at the time. [69] Ironically, just weeks later, the two men were key figures in the events of September 11. While Lewin was the first victim of the hijackings, Clarke was in the White House Situation Room when America was under attack and played a major role in coordinating the government's response to the crisis.

LEWIN WAS ESPECIALLY TALENTED

It is also curious that the first person killed in such a major historical event as 9/11 was an important historical figure, albeit little known for what he had achieved. Daniel Lewin was in fact an unusually talented and successful man.

"In purely objective terms, Danny was an extraordinary human being," Marco Greenberg commented. [70] The entrepreneur was "exceptionally smart," according to Leighton. [71] Todd Dagres, who met Lewin when he was studying at MIT, described him as "intellectually brilliant" and "creatively brilliant." [72]

Even as a child, Lewin had "seemingly limitless talents," Molly Knight Raskin noted. He had such a beautiful singing voice that he was given leading roles in the musicals staged at his synagogue and he was also an extremely gifted violinist. At school, he excelled academically and in athletics. [73] He could "outrun and outplay all of his classmates on the sports field," according to Raskin. [74] Micah Lakin Avni, who was friends with him as a teenager, described Lewin as "smarter, stronger, more driven, more charismatic, and more energetic than anyone that I have ever met." [75]

LEWIN EXCELLED AT UNIVERSITY

As previously mentioned, Lewin excelled in the Israel Defense Forces, becoming one of only a small number of recruits to be accepted into the Sayeret Matkal and then being promoted to the rank of captain in the elite unit.

His achievements continued after he left the military. The first university he attended--the Technion--is Israel's premier technology university. And in 1995, it named him the year's outstanding student in computer engineering. [76] While he was studying there, he also worked at IBM's research laboratory in Haifa and helped develop the Genesys system, a processor verification tool that was used widely at IBM and other companies. He graduated from the Technion with highest honors. [77]

Then, in 1996, he applied to study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on one of the top 10 computer science programs in the United States. [78] That year, only 100 out of over 2,000 applicants were accepted into the elite Laboratory for Computer Science at MIT and only five of these joined the theory group run by Tom Leighton, a professor of applied mathematics who was one of the world's leading authorities on algorithms for computing. Lewin was one of these five people. [79]

Leighton noted that, upon commencing his studies at MIT, Lewin soon stood out for his intellectual brilliance and his uninhibited personality. [80] In 1998, he was one of just a few MIT students to be awarded the Morris Joseph Levin Award for the Best MasterWorks Oral Thesis Presentation, for a paper he delivered in May that year. [81]

LEWIN BECAME A BILLIONAIRE

His biggest achievements, though, were with Akamai. With his work at the company, Lewin established himself as "one of the Internet generation's chief innovators," according to the Jerusalem Post, and by 2001, Leighton noted, he "was widely recognized as one of the most influential technologists of his generation." [82]

Akamai's rise to success was rapid and the company quickly gained some major customers. By June 1999, less than a year after it was established, these included 20 of the most popular websites, such as CNN Interactive, the New York Times, and Yahoo! [83] Earlier that year, Akamai was even contacted by Steve Jobs, the renowned co-founder of Apple Computers, who said he wanted to buy the company. (It declined his offer.) [84] And by the time Lewin died, just three years after it was established, Akamai employed 1,500 people. [85]

The company's initial public offering in October 1999 was particularly successful. On the first day of trading, Akamai shares increased in value by 458 percent, the fourth biggest climb ever for an IPO. Lewin was then, on paper, worth more than $1.8 billion. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz called him "one of the richest Israelis in the world." [86]

Lewin received recognition for his success at Akamai. In April 2001, Forbes magazine placed him at number 72 in its annual list of "100 Highest Rollers," which comprised the highest earners working in information technology. [87] And in July 2001, Enterprise Systems magazine placed him seventh in its "Power 100" list of leaders in information technology. [88]

Akamai's success continued after Lewin died. By 2013, the company regularly controlled between 15 and 30 percent of the world's Internet traffic, and delivered content for such well-known companies as Facebook, Twitter, and Apple's iTunes. It had offices around the world and over 3,500 employees. But its core technology still relied on the algorithms created by Lewin and Leighton. [89] The impact of Lewin's work, Leighton commented in 2002, "will be felt throughout the high-tech industry for many years to come." [90]

LEWIN WAS CONSIDERED A POTENTIAL FUTURE ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER

In light of how much he achieved by the age of 31, people have wondered what else Lewin would have accomplished if he had not died on September 11. CNN suggested that "he could have become a high-tech household name, like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs." [91] Others concurred. "There was talk that he would be Bill Gates' successor," Gil Rudawsky, a childhood friends of Lewin's, wrote. [92] Writer and content strategist Craig Playstead, who worked for Akamai from 1999 to 2001, commented: "There's no doubt in my mind that Danny Lewin would have gone down in the same breath as the tech titans of today if he were still around. [Mark] Zuckerberg, the Google twins [Larry Page and Sergey Brin], [Bill] Gates, the list goes on. He was in that league." [93]

Some people said he would have moved on to a career in politics. "Danny always thought that he might like to come back [to Israel] and enter Israeli politics, and influence the political situation," his brother Jonathan commented. [94] It has even been suggested that he was a possible future prime minister.

Indeed, one of his dreams was to become prime minister of Israel. When his friend Micah Lakin Avni visited him in 2000, Lewin said that "eventually he would return to Israel, we would set up a political party, and he would become prime minister." He said he would "spend hundreds of millions of dollars of [his] own money on the election campaign" and would "win an absolute majority in [the] Knesset." Avni believed Lewin could have achieved his goal. "I have no doubt that if he had not been murdered on 9/11, Danny would have eventually returned to Israel and he would have become prime minister," he opined. [95]

STORY OF LEWIN'S DEATH INCLUDES CONTRADICTIONS

It is curious that the first person to die in such an unprecedented event as 9/11 was a man with such a unique and remarkable life story. There are aspects of this story, however, that need to be investigated.

Certainly, the official story of how Daniel Lewin was murdered seems highly unlikely and ought to be examined more closely than has so far been the case. Could Satam al Suqami really have killed Lewin? Lewin should have easily fought him off. He was bigger and surely far stronger than the young Saudi, and must have had vastly superior fighting skills.

But if the official story of what happened to Lewin on Flight 11 is false, what really happened to the young entrepreneur? How did evidence revealing an incorrect story about his death come about and how was it possible for this story to be accepted as true?

Specific anomalies ought to be probed. These include the apparently false evidence that Lewin was shot rather than killed with a knife. The 9/11 Commission commented that it found it "troubling" that FAA security inspector Janet Riffe said American Airlines manager Suzanne Clark told her Lewin had been shot but Clark denied doing so. "This discrepancy is a problem that we should at least try to resolve if we can," it stated. However, it is unclear whether the 9/11 Commission ever got to the bottom of the issue. [96]

Additionally, why did Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney initially state incorrectly that they were on "Flight 12," not Flight 11, in their calls from the hijacked plane? Would two experienced flight attendants both make an error over such a rudimentary detail?

And why did Ong and Sweeney contradict each other over whether Lewin was being treated by a doctor, with Sweeney saying he was being cared for by a doctor and a nurse while Ong said there were no doctors on the plane? Sweeney said she was sitting next to Ong when she was making her calls and so the two women should have been receiving details of what was happening on the plane from the same sources. [97] How then could they have given authorities on the ground conflicting information about this issue?

The calls made by Ong and Sweeney were the only sources for the official story of Lewin's death, and so it is concerning that they contain these blatant anomalies. Was there more to them than the official story of 9/11 suggests? If there was, can the account of what happened to Lewin provided by the two flight attendants be believed?

LEWIN WAS COMMITTED TO 'WIPING OUT TERRORISM'

There are other parts of Lewin's story, in addition to the details of what happened to Lewin on Flight 11, that are curious. Whether these are significant in relation to the events of September 11 is unknown. All the same, they could be worth investigating, in case scrutiny of them reveals them to indeed be relevant.

Lewin's membership in Israel's Sayeret Matkal is surely notable. It seems an incredible coincidence that the man who was reportedly the first victim of America's worst terrorist attack had served in "the most effective counterterrorism force in the world," whose members have "almost unmatched counterterrorism skills."

Was it also just a coincidence that a man who is believed to have died while trying to protect the people on Flight 11 against terrorists had previously dedicated himself to the cause of "wiping out terrorism"? "As a soldier he believed that it was his job to risk his life to fight against people who were trying to do evil in the world," Lewin's brother, Jonathan, said. Jonathan Lewin added that Daniel Lewin believed that "the way to address terrorism was not to sit idly by and let innocent people be killed, but to actively go out and cut the head off the stick." [98]

And was there any particular reason why Lewin told people that a "cataclysmic event that would cause people to turn to the Internet for information" would occur? Was his prediction of a catastrophic event, which turned out to be accurate, simply the result of good judgment or did he have at least some degree of foreknowledge of 9/11, or a disaster on the scale of it?

COUNTERTERRORISM CHIEF LIKELY MET LEWIN BEFORE 9/11

An incident that should certainly be looked into is the visit made by White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke to Akamai in July 2001. Clarke's decision to request the company's help with protecting the White House website from the Code Red virus seems an odd choice. Tom Leighton suggested that his reason for approaching Akamai was that he had "figured out that we had a large edge network with a large number of servers close to where the users were and where the attacking bots were," and he "felt that if the traffic was directed through us, that the network had enough capacity to filter out the attack and protect the core." [99]

However, Clarke surely ought to have sought help from a company with extensive experience in cybersecurity when the White House faced such a major threat. Indeed, the distributed denial of service attack that was subsequently caused by Code Red was "of such proportions that some feared parts of the Internet would shut down, unable to cope with the unprecedented flood of data," according to CNET News. Before it began on July 19, 2001, "Many thought the massive influx of data could slow parts of the Internet to a crawl." [100] Why then did Clarke approach a company with no experience in cybersecurity work?

His decision to go to Akamai for assistance was also strange since he'd reportedly had no previous contact with the company. "We did not know him, but he somehow knew us," Leighton commented. [101] Surely, considering the seriousness of the threat, he should have gone to a company he had dealt with before and so knew from his own experience was reliable?

If Lewin talked to Clarke when the counterterrorism chief visited Akamai, as seems likely, it would mean two men who played key roles when America was attacked on September 11 met each other, apparently for the first time, just two months before the attacks occurred. For this to happen due to chance would have been an incredible coincidence.

It is therefore worth considering if there was an ulterior motive behind Clarke's visit to Akamai. Were there reasons, besides the threat of the Code Red virus, for it? And was this really the first time Clarke contacted Akamai or had he met at least some of its executives--perhaps including Lewin--before?

LEWIN'S STORY RECEIVED LITTLE ATTENTION

It is curious that the first person to die during such an important and historical event as 9/11 happened to be unusually talented and successful. Was this a coincidence or is there more to it?

There are probably numerous possible nefarious reasons why such a scenario could have occurred. As just one example, people involved with planning 9/11 may have wanted the first victim of the attacks to be a particularly well-regarded person so as to increase the amount of outrage the attacks would cause. They selected Lewin for this unfortunate role because they determined he was someone who stood out from the crowd and would therefore be particularly missed. (Indeed, a memorial service for him at MIT was attended by over 1,000 people. [102]) They then found a way to ensure he would take Flight 11 on September 11.

Something that may support this possibility is the claim that Lewin was only on the doomed flight because of a change of schedule. As previously mentioned, he was originally meant to fly to Los Angeles with some other Akamai executives on September 10, according to one of his colleagues. [103] Although he supposedly took a later flight so he could deal with some issues at Akamai headquarters, it is surely possible that there was a different as yet unknown reason for his change of plans.

But while Lewin was an exceptional man, relatively little attention has been paid to his extraordinary and fascinating life story, including his key role in the events of September 11. Molly Knight Raskin said she was astonished that many years after 9/11 she had been unaware of the story of the first victim of the attacks. "I lived in New York City on September 11th, 2001 ... and I was just really surprised that in all of the stories that came out of that day, I had never heard his," she commented.

She was also surprised that Lewin had achieved so much in his short life. "When I heard Danny's story, my first response was: 'This can't be true. This person cannot possibly have accomplished all this by such a young age,'" she recalled. [104] She remarked that as a journalist she knew from experience that Lewin's story was something that was "begging to be told" and so ought to have been reported extensively. [105]

Might the lack of attention have come about because authorities feared that awareness of suspicious aspects of it could have caused people to start wondering whether there was more to the events of September 11 than the official narrative of 9/11 suggests? In particular, greater attention to Lewin's story could have led people to question the dubious official account of how Lewin was murdered.

Daniel Lewin's story should surely receive more attention. While Lewin deserves recognition for his considerable achievements, investigation of aspects of his life might reveal important new details about 9/11, which could increase our knowledge of what really happened on September 11 and who was responsible for the terrorist attacks that day.

NOTES

[1] "Molly Knight Raskin." Costa Report, Genesis Communications Network, May 5, 2014.

[2] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, pp. 4-6; Staff Report: The Four Flights. 9/11 Commission, August 26, 2004, p. 8.

[3] Anne E. Lewin, interview by the FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 18, 2001; Steven Wolfe Pereira, "The Day After." Medium, September 12, 2016; Mitchell Zuckoff, Fall and Rise: The Story of 9/11. New York: HarperCollins, 2019, pp. 38-39.

[4] David Brinn, "A Model Life and a Heroic Death." Jerusalem Post, September 8, 2011; Anthony Summers, "The Eleventh Day." New York Post, September 11, 2011.

[5] Staff Report: The Four Flights, pp. 6, 8; Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time: The Brief, Remarkable Life of Danny Lewin, the Genius Who Transformed the Internet. Boston, MA: Da Capo Press, 2013, p. 203; Molly Knight Raskin, "The Genius Who Perished on Flight 11." Psychology Today, September 2, 2013.

[6] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 4-5, 7; Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, pp. 202-203.

[7] "Transcripts of 9/11 Telephone Calls: Betty Ong to Vanessa Minter, Winston Sadler, and Nydia Gonzalez (AA Raleigh Reservations Office)." American Airlines, September 11, 2001; Staff Report: The Four Flights, p. 8.

[8] Nydia E. Gonzalez, interview by the FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 12, 2001; Staff Report: The Four Flights, p. 12.

[9] Evelyn Nunez, interview by the FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 11, 2001; Michael Woodward, interview by the FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 11, 2001; Staff Report: The Four Flights, pp. 10-11.

[10] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 5.

[11] Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, pp. 218-219.

[12] David Brinn, "A Model Life and a Heroic Death."

[13] Anne E. Lewin, interview by the FBI; Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, pp. 4, 25.

[14] Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, p. 4; Molly Knight Raskin, "The Genius Who Perished on Flight 11"; Todd Leopold, "The Legacy of Danny Lewin, the First Man to Die on 9/11." CNN, September 11, 2013; Liel Leibovitz, "Remembering Tech Titan Danny Lewin, the Fighting Genius on Flight 11." Tablet, September 11, 2013.

[15] David Brinn, "A Model Life and a Heroic Death"; Molly Knight Raskin, "The Genius Who Perished on Flight 11."

[16] Tom Leighton, "Remarks Made by Tom Leighton to Commemorate the Naming of the STOC Best Student Paper Award in Honor of the Late Daniel Lewin." Speech, Montreal, Canada, May 19, 2002. ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory.

[17] Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, pp. 113-114; Molly Knight Raskin, "The Genius Who Perished on Flight 11"; Peter High, "Akamai CEO on the Company's Push Toward Cybersecurity." Forbes, March 25, 2019.

[18] Jack Schofield, "Daniel Lewin." The Guardian, September 15, 2001; David Brinn, "A Model Life and a Heroic Death"; Molly Knight Raskin, "The Genius Who Perished on Flight 11."

[19] Ronny Lifschitz, "Daniel Lewin--Akamai: Outstanding Student." Israel's Business Arena, December 22, 1999.

[20] Bridget Finn, "A Star is Reborn." Business 2.0, July 2005.

[21] "MIT and Akamai Plan a Faster Way to Distribute Content Over the Web." Gilbane Advisor, January 13, 1999.

[22] Alan Edelman, "Akamai Technologies: A Mathematical Success Story." SIAM News, December 1999.

[23] Regina Joseph, "Aloha Akamai." Forbes, June 18, 1999; Akamai, "Akamai Doubles Customer Base to 200 in Six Weeks." News release, January 5, 2000; David Brinn, "A Model Life and a Heroic Death."

[24] Paul Spinrad, "The New Cool." Wired, August 1999.

[25] Judy Maltz, "He Went Down Fighting." Haaretz, November 11, 2001.

[26] Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, p. 5.

[27] Ibid. pp. 30-31; Liel Leibovitz, "Remembering Tech Titan Danny Lewin, the Fighting Genius on Flight 11."

[28] "Lewin." Chicago Tribune, September 17, 2001; Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, p. 4.

[29] Rich Cohen, "Stealth Warriors." Vanity Fair, December 2001; Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, pp. 34-36, 38.

[30] Paul Sperry, "Lewin: Flight 11's Unsung Hero?" WorldNetDaily, March 27, 2002.

[31] Molly Knight Raskin, "The Genius Who Perished on Flight 11"; Todd Leopold, "The Legacy of Danny Lewin, the First Man to Die on 9/11."

[32] Judy Maltz, "He Went Down Fighting"; Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, p. 37.

[33] Paul Sperry, "Lewin: Flight 11's Unsung Hero?"

[34] 11 September: The Plot and the Plotters. Central Intelligence Agency, June 1, 2003, p. 36.

[35] "Staff Statement No. 16: Outline of the 9/11 Plot." 9/11 Commission, June 16, 2004.

[36] 11 September: The Plot and the Plotters, pp. 28, 36; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 232.

[37] "Hijackers Were From Wealthy Saudi Families." Sunday Times, October 28, 2001.

[38] Afghanistan Camps Central to 11 September Plot: Can Al-Qa'ida Train on the Run? Central Intelligence Agency, June 20, 2003, pp. 2-3; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 234.

[39] Richard A. Serrano and John-Thor Dahlburg, "Officials Told of 'Major Assault' Plans." Los Angeles Times, September 20, 2001; "Hijackers Timeline (Redacted), Part 2." Federal Bureau of Investigation, November 14, 2003.

[40] Tim Golden and Michael Moss, "Unpolished Secret Agents Were Able to Hide in Plain Sight." New York Times, September 23, 2001; Michael D. Sallah, "Terror Sprouts in Florida Sun." Toledo Blade, September 30, 2001.

[41] Tom Leighton, "Remarks Made by Tom Leighton to Commemorate the Naming of the STOC Best Student Paper Award in Honor of the Late Daniel Lewin"; David Brinn, "A Model Life and a Heroic Death."

[42] Paul Sperry, "Lewin: Flight 11's Unsung Hero?"

[43] Judy Maltz, "He Went Down Fighting."

[44] James Sayer, interview by the FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 11, 2001; Michael Woodward, interview by the FBI.

[45] "Transcripts of 9/11 Telephone Calls: Betty Ong to Vanessa Minter, Winston Sadler, and Nydia Gonzalez (AA Raleigh Reservations Office)"; Vanessa Dias Minter, interview by the FBI. Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 12, 2001.

[46] Evelyn Nunez, interview by the FBI; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Michael Woodward, American Airlines Flight Service Manager on September 11, 2001." 9/11 Commission, January 25, 2004; Staff Report: The Four Flights, p. 10.

[47] "ADA-30 Operations Center Activity Report, September 11-14, 2001." Federal Aviation Administration, September 2001; "Briefing Flight AA 11." United States General Accounting Office, August 30, 2002.

[48] "Executive Summary: September 11, 2001." Federal Aviation Administration, September 11, 2001; "Briefing Flight AA 11"; Team 7, "Facts vs. Fiction." E-mail to Philip Zelikow, 9/11 Commission, n.d.

[49] "Briefing Flight AA 11"; "Memorandum for the Record: Phone Call With Janet Riffe, FAA's Principal Security Inspector Assigned to American Airlines on 9/11." 9/11 Commission, September 11, 2003; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Janet Riffe, FAA Principal Security Inspector for American Airlines." 9/11 Commission, February 26, 2004.

[50] "Memorandum for the Record: Phone Call With Janet Riffe, FAA's Principal Security Inspector Assigned to American Airlines on 9/11"; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Suzanne Clark, American Airlines Employee." 9/11 Commission, November 18, 2003.

[51] "Executive Summary: September 11, 2001."

[52] "Memorandum for the Record: Phone Call With Janet Riffe, FAA's Principal Security Inspector Assigned to American Airlines on 9/11"; "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Frances Lozito." 9/11 Commission, May 11, 2004; Team 7, "Facts vs. Fiction."

[53] Blake Morrison, "9/11 Group Troubled by Gun Report." USA Today, February 27, 2002; Dan Eggen, "Airports Screened Nine of Sept. 11 Hijackers, Officials Say." Washington Post, March 2, 2002; "UPI Hears ..." United Press International, March 6, 2002.

[54] "Briefing Flight AA 11."

[55] Staff Report: The Four Flights, pp. 16-17.

[56] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Suzanne Clark, American Airlines Employee."

[57] Steven Wolfe Pereira, "The Day After."

[58] Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, pp. 199-200.

[59] Brian McCullough, "The Brief, Remarkable Life of Danny Lewin, Co-Founder of Akamai Technologies." Internet History Podcast, podcast audio, December 8, 2014.

[60] Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, p. 210.

[61] Ibid. p. 132.

[62] Brian McCullough, "The Brief, Remarkable Life of Danny Lewin, Co-Founder of Akamai Technologies."

[63] "Internet, Telecom Networks Put to Test in Wake of Terrorist Strikes on U.S." Network World, September 17, 2001; Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, pp. 211-212; Amy Newman Smith, "Scaling the Internet." Jewish Review of Books, Winter 2014.

[64] Carolyn Meinel, "Code Red: Worm Assault on the Web." Scientific American, October 28, 2002; Amit Roy Choudhury, "Internet's Gatekeeper." Business Times, September 24, 2016.

[65] Mark Reilly, "Code Red Wreaks Havoc." Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, August 26, 2001; Peter High, "Akamai CEO on the Company's Push Toward Cybersecurity."

[66] Andy Greenberg, "Weapons of Mass Disruption." Forbes, April 8, 2010.

[67] Peter High, "Akamai CEO on the Company's Push Toward Cybersecurity."

[68] Sarah Left, "Code Red Virus Traced to China." The Guardian, August 31, 2001; Andy Greenberg, "Akamai: Funneling Bits, Foiling Hackers." Forbes, July 1, 2010.

[69] Judy Maltz, "He Went Down Fighting."

[70] Marco Greenberg, "Finding the Next Danny." Haaretz, September 5, 2008.

[71] Todd Leopold, "The Legacy of Danny Lewin, the First Man to Die on 9/11."

[72] Richard Sisk and Monique El-Faizy, "First Victim Died a Hero on Flt. 11." New York Daily News, July 24, 2004.

[73] Gil Rudawsky, "At 29, a Billionaire; at 31, a Casualty." Rocky Mountain News, September 4, 2002; Judy Maltz, "He Went Down Fighting"; Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, p. 25.

[74] Molly Knight Raskin, "The Genius Who Perished on Flight 11."

[75] Micah Lakin Avni, "9/11: The Day Israel Lost Her Future Prime Minister." Times of Israel, September 11, 2016.

[76] "Paid Notice: Deaths, Lewin, Daniel M." New York Times, September 17, 2001; Gil Rudawsky, "At 29, a Billionaire; at 31, a Casualty"; "Akamai Remembers Danny Lewin." Akamai, n.d.

[77] "Memorial Service for Daniel Lewin Scheduled for Thursday in Kresge." MIT News, September 14, 2001; "Paid Notice: Deaths, Lewin, Daniel M."; David Brinn, "A Model Life and a Heroic Death."

[78] Molly Knight Raskin, "The Genius Who Perished on Flight 11."

[79] Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, p. 48.

[80] Molly Knight Raskin, "The Genius Who Perished on Flight 11."

[81] "EECS Students Garner Honors." MIT News, June 3, 1998; Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, p. 83.

[82] Tom Leighton, "Remarks Made by Tom Leighton to Commemorate the Naming of the STOC Best Student Paper Award in Honor of the Late Daniel Lewin"; David Brinn, "A Model Life and a Heroic Death."

[83] Regina Joseph, "Aloha Akamai"; Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, p. 160.

[84] Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, p. 138; Molly Knight Raskin, "The Genius Who Perished on Flight 11."

[85] Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, p. 200; Dave Hennessy, "Tiffany Mosher--Dataxu." Hennessy Report, podcast transcript, April 4, 2019.

[86] "Akamai Technologies Stock Surges on First Trading Day." Associated Press, October 30, 1999; Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, pp. 175-178; Molly Knight Raskin, "The Genius Who Perished on Flight 11."

[87] Clint Willis, "The 100 Highest Rollers." Forbes, April 2, 2001.

[88] "The Enterprise Systems Power 100: Our Picks for Today's Top IT Leaders." Enterprise Systems, July 2001.

[89] Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, pp. 221-222; Molly Knight Raskin, "The Genius Who Perished on Flight 11."

[90] Tom Leighton, "Remarks Made by Tom Leighton to Commemorate the Naming of the STOC Best Student Paper Award in Honor of the Late Daniel Lewin."

[91] Todd Leopold, "The Legacy of Danny Lewin, the First Man to Die on 9/11."

[92] Gil Rudawsky, "At 29, a Billionaire; at 31, a Casualty."

[93] Craig Playstead, "Remembering 9/11: The Smartest Person I Ever Met." Medium, September 11, 2016.

[94] David Brinn, "A Model Life and a Heroic Death."

[95] Micah Lakin Avni, "9/11: The Day Israel Lost Her Future Prime Minister."

[96] Team 7, "Facts vs. Fiction."

[97] "Memorandum for the Record: Interview With Michael Woodward, American Airlines Flight Service Manager on September 11, 2001"; Staff Report: The Four Flights, p. 11.

[98] Molly Knight Raskin, No Better Time, pp. 37-38.

[99] Peter High, "Akamai CEO on the Company's Push Toward Cybersecurity."

[100] Robert Lemos, "Code Red for Security." CNET News, July 27, 2001.

[101] Peter High, "Akamai CEO on the Company's Push Toward Cybersecurity."

[102] Gil Rudawsky, "At 29, a Billionaire; at 31, a Casualty."

[103] Steven Wolfe Pereira, "The Day After."

[104] "No Better Time: The Story of Danny Lewin With Author Molly Knight Raskin." Dr. Pat Show, Transformation Talk Radio, February 25, 2014.

[105] "Q&A With Author Molly Knight Raskin." Book Q&As With Deborah Kalb, October 1, 2013.

9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

Propaganda Can’t Melt Steel Beams

Air Defense Exercise a Month Before 9/11 Was Based Around Osama Bin Laden Carrying Out an Aerial Attack on Washington

9/11 Blogger receives no foundational or corporate support. We rely on your individual support.

One-time:

20.00

Monthly:

5.00

bitcoin

Username: *

Password: *

Request new password

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

Twenty Years Later: Facts About the OKC Bombing That Go Unreported

United Airlines Held an Exercise So Realistic That Its Personnel Had to Be Reassured That the 9/11 Attacks Were 'Not a Drill'

Fourteen Facts About 9/11

Dr. Graeme MacQueen : Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in the Twin Towers

Head of the FBI's Anthrax Investigation Says the Whole Thing Was a Sham

Tony Szamboti : On NIST's 9/11 Sins of Omission

We Were Lied To About 9/11 - Episode 3 - Erik Larson

William Binney– former NSA Technical Director-- signs AE911Truth petition

C-SPAN Washington Journal: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

CIA Director George Tenet Facilitated 9/11

Thomas Kean & Lee Hamilton Call For The Release Of The 28 Redacted Pages

NY1 coverage of the High-Rise Safety Initiative

Counter-Intelligence -- The Interview

War Crimes and 9/11: Why Dick and Don Are Suspects

Donald Rumsfeld and the Demolition of WTC 7

The “Strategy of Tension” in the Cold War Period

The CIA in Kuwait: Parallels to a 9/11 Suspect

The Holocaust, Mind Control, and 9/11

The 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry and 28 Missing Pages

Victims’ families demand release of 28 pages from 9/11 report

WeAreChange takes the mic after Super Bowl XLVIII to address the nation on 9/11

Getting Real About Richard Clarke

Targeting the President: Evidence of U.S. Government Training Exercises on 9/11

ReThink911 Fall 2013 Campaign Recap | WTC 7 Freefall Collapse Video Goes Worldwide

How to Debunk WTC Thermite

New Book Reveals 9/11 Suspects

Saudi Arabia - 9/11 Connection With Senator Bob Graham

Meet Lee Harvey Oswald, Sheep-Dipped Patsy Published on Nov 15, 2013

Jet Fuel Caused the Incendiary Explosions in The WTC Lobby?

Clyde Lewis (@ClydeLewis) Tweeted:1/15/20: BRIDE OF FRANKENSKIES – AND OTHER TRAILS OF WOEhttps://t.co/FateyycxGu https://t.co/cD1TFoEbwX in https://twitter.com/ClydeLewis/status/1217641938477649921?s=20

Clyde Lewis (@ClydeLewis) Tweeted:

1/15/20: BRIDE OF FRANKENSKIES – AND OTHER TRAILS OF WOE

https://t.co/FateyycxGu https://t.co/cD1TFoEbwX in https://twitter.com/ClydeLewis/status/1217641938477649921?s=20

No Imminent Threat? Trump Connected the Dots! https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/01/10/no-imminent-threat-trump-connected-the-dots/ via @rushlimbaugh

Sunday, January 12, 2020

SPOOKYWEATHER: Hiding 230 Years Of Global Heatwaves (Tony Heller): http://spookyweather.blogspot.com/2020/01/hiding-230-years-of-global-heatwaves.html

The U.S. Public Doesn’t Want War With Iran. The Senate Must Reaffirm That. https://truthout.org/articles/the-u-s-public-doesnt-want-war-with-iran-the-senate-must-reaffirm-that/ via @truthout

One nation under manipulation

Clyde Lewis

@ClydeLewis

Jan 10

1/10/20: ONE NATION UNDER MANIPULATION

https://groundzeromedia.org/1-10-20-one-nation-under-manipulation

MANE mBsmith

@mane_mbsmith

Replying to

@ClydeLewis

Shout it from the rooftop bro!

10:26 PM · Jan 10, 2020·Twitter for Android

53 Admitted False Flag Attacks - https://www.globalresearch.ca/53-admitted-false-flag-attacks/5432931

Jeffrey Epstein’s demise was not at his own hands https://www.infowars.com/jeffrey-epsteins-demise-was-not-at-his-own-hands/

911 - WTC7: First Tall Steel Framed Building To Collapse Due to Fire? Explosions Seen Inside WTC7? https://www.bitchute.com/video/pTwTpwzsQOk/ #BitChute

Saturday, January 11, 2020

SPOOKYWEATHER: Democrats Pretend To Oppose Iran Attack They Enabled (Jimmy Dore): http://spookyweather.blogspot.com/2020/01/democrats-pretend-to-oppose-iran-attack.html

9/11 and Jeffrey Epstein: Media Malfeasance on Steroids

Cynthia McKinney PhD

@cynthiamckinney

Sep 5, 2019

Larry Silverstein and Jeffrey Epstein: What they have in common.

9/11 and Jeffrey Epstein: Media Malfeasance on Steroids

unz.com

Bruce Marshall

@Leibniz011

Replying to

@cynthiamckinney

Thanks

Do not forget to read the Shimatsu articles on Epstein and beyond on Rense

https://rense.com/general96/victorias-dirty-little-secret-is-the-epstein-wexner-plot-against-american-manhood.php

3:49 PM · Sep 6, 2019·Twitter Web App

Retweet

Tucker Carlson OBLITERATES Neocons Pushing for World War Three

MA-121

@MA12117784234

Tucker Carlson OBLITERATES Neocons Pushing for World War Three https://youtu.be/itupc0yQ4Zg via

@YouTube

Tucker Carlson OBLITERATES Neocons Pushing for World War Three

youtube.com

2:41 PM · Jan 7, 2020·Twitter Web Client

Retweet

Friday, January 10, 2020

The establishment says never talk about this or be censored and/or sued...

Yeah, fuck that...

We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook https://www.bitchute.com/video/4OPInUqKV2Yu/ #BitChute

Sign petition to try to ensure Trump doesn't act unitarily on Iran

https://tinyurl.com/samr3vl

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Report On Sandy Hook Verdict Against Jim Fetzer

Editor's Note: Is Fetzer just a only ever half right about conspiracies firebrand asshole or a disinfo agent? Well, if it's the latter, there must be some real info to be had on Sandy Hook worth muddying the waters about. As I've said, we have the right and duty to question historical events and our government, who in Operation Northwoods suggested faking deaths and conducting mock funerals to stir up support for a war.

Breaking News

09 Jan, 2020

James Fetzer

EXPOSING FALSEHOODS AND REVEALING TRUTHS

Home2019DecemberKevin Barrett, The Legal Lynching of a Truth-Seeker: Jim Fetzer’s Stalinist-Style Show Trial (Expanded)

Kevin Barrett, The Legal Lynching of a Truth-Seeker: Jim Fetzer’s Stalinist-Style Show Trial (Expanded)

December 26, 2019 James Fetzerblog

KEVIN BARRETT

[Editor’s note: This report by Kevin Barrett captures what has happened in the Sandy Hook “Pozner v. Fetzer” lawsuit more adequately than anything else published on the case–including by me. For a curious development in the discussion thread on his article–which, until the shills began posting en masse, was perhaps the most intelligent discussion (absent certain posts on this blog) I have yet to read–see the appendix I have added at the end, which represents a most curious development.]

Part 1: Tuesday at the Trial: Just the Facts

Lenny Pozner’s defamation suit against Jim Fetzer concluded Tuesday, October 15, day two of the penalty phase of the trial. (Disclaimer: I have been friends with Jim since 2006, and though I don’t always agree with him, I respect his courage and sincerity. It was an honor to have lunch with him on this, the most critical day of the trial.)

Pozner won the first phase last June when the court determined that four of Fetzer’s statements alleging a fake death certificate for Noah Pozner were defamatory; then on September 13 Fetzer was found in contempt of court for sharing images of Pozner’s deposition. Fetzer argues that he shared the images, which the court had deemed confidential, as part of his legal defense research. Fetzer claims the images show that the Lenny Pozner in the deposition is not the same person depicted in at least some previous publicly circulated images of Lenny Pozner.

Pozner asked for one million dollars in damages from Fetzer. The jury’s job was to determine an award amount, which theoretically could range anywhere between zero and one million dollars. After almost four hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of $450,000 in damages.

The penalty phase of the trial began Monday with opening arguments and a lengthy videotaped deposition of a forensic psychologist, who asserted that Pozner suffers from PTSD as a result of Fetzer’s four defamatory statements. The forensic psychologist, who was presumably hired by Pozner’s legal team, predictably supported Pozner’s narrative: After suffering the loss of his son Noah at Sandy Hook, Pozner says, he experienced PTSD for more than a year, only to have his recovery cut short, and his symptoms exacerbated, by his discovery that online Sandy Hook skeptics were claiming that the school shooting was a hoax in which nobody died. Since then, Pozner says, he has been waging an online battle against Sandy Hook skeptics (he calls them “hoaxers”) which has kept him mired in PTSD. Much or most of the suffering he has experienced, Pozner suggests, is the fault of Jim Fetzer, whom Pozner and his lawyers are casting as the kingpin and prime inspiration of the Sandy Hook skeptics’ movement.

Fetzer’s legal team questioned the “Fetzer caused my PTSD” claim. While acknowledging that Pozner would have suffered PTSD from the loss of his son in December 2012, they suggested that it was not entirely Fetzer’s fault that Pozner has been re-traumatizing himself by spending much of his time since 2014 combing the internet for material that he says traumatizes him and trying to get it removed. Fetzer’s team’s cross-examination of the psychologist pointed out that normally PTSD sufferers avoid stimuli that reawaken the trauma.

The afternoon session featured back-to-back testimony from Lenny Pozner and Jim Fetzer, both called to the stand and questioned by the plaintiff’s (Pozner’s) lawyers. In front of a huge, adorable Noah Pozner picture projected on the screen, Lenny Pozner recounted dropping off his son Noah at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. He described seeing his son’s body at the funeral a few days later. He said that in 2014 he encountered the online claims of Sandy Hook skeptics and tried to engage with them in a cordial and transparent way, but soon began to feel harassed and increasingly upset at their claims that his son Noah had never existed. He said he has persistently tried to get such claims removed from the internet as a way of defending his son.

Below are reconstructions from my notes on Pozner’s testimony. The notes were cut short by a bailiff ordering me to shut down my laptop, since I was not one of the two mainstream journalists who had been approved for electronic devices.

Lenny Pozner:

Noah was a twin to my youngest daughter. The last time I saw Noah would have been on the morning of December 14. I dropped my three kids off at the car line.

(At the funeral) his forehead was the only part that was not covered (due to injuries).

I became aware of Mr. Fetzer in mid-2014. (Asked if he had read Jim Fetzer’s edited book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook): No, I haven’t read the book, just the parts about me.

I felt it said a lot of ugly things. I wanted to defend my son. I needed to be his voice. (Answering question): I’m concerned for my safety, my family’s safety. I’m concerned for my children’s future, how they could be treated.

I was concerned someone would do something…something bad.

(Asked why he thought Fetzer’s four defamatory statements had damaged his reputation): It causes people to believe I lied about my son’s death, that my son didn’t die….

(Asked how he has been affected in terms of fearing contact with people):

I’m very cautious about what I reveal…I never know how people might react…people might accuse me of being this villain that Mr. Fetzer portrayed me to be.

(Asked whether he held Jim Fetzer responsible for the criminal acts of Lucy Richards, who left obscene, threatening messages on Pozner’s answering machine):

Lucy Richards was sentenced to prison for making death threats against me. (But why hold Fetzer responsible?) It was the way she said what she said, and the way she talked about Noah, and about me…she accused me of faking my son’s death, hiding my son, that he’s not really dead. Part of her sentence is she’s not supposed to read (Fetzer’s) website.

Jim Fetzer, called to the stand by the plaintiff’s lawyers as a hostile witness, was questioned about his responsibility for the four allegedly defamatory statements, all of which involved claims that the copy of Noah Pozner’s death certificate circulated by Lenny Pozner in 2014 was inauthentic—claims Fetzer still argues were accurate. Fetzer said that he (and in some cases collaborators including co-authors, editors, and publishers) were indeed responsible for publishing those statements, which were not defamatory, but truthful. Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington immediately ordered the jury out of the room and admonished Fetzer that the court had already ruled that those statements were defamatory and that no further impugning the findings of the court would be tolerated. When the jury filed back into the courtroom, Judge Remington ordered them to ignore Fetzer’s statement.

Toward late afternoon the defense decided not to call two witnesses, Tony Mead and Kelley Watt, who had traveled from Florida to testify. Both sides offered closing arguments.

Though I missed the closing arguments (I had to pick up my wife after a dental appointment) a friend and colleague who wishes to remain anonymous summarized them for me. What follows is based on what my source, who was present in the courtroom as a spectator, recounted afterward.

Pozner’s attorneys made broad emotional appeals, saying Pozner has experienced pain and suffering due to losing his son and then having the wounds re-opened by his battles with online Sandy Hook skeptics whose ideas, they claim, are derived from Fetzer’s book and web postings.

Fetzer’s attorneys argued more narrowly on two key issues. They asked why the psychologist expert witness who diagnosed Pozner with Fetzer-induced PTSD did not estimate any monetary damages from that PTSD. Nor, in fact, did Pozner or his legal team. No claims were made about the dollar value of any losses in earning ability Pozner may or may not have suffered. There was no claim whatsoever of any loss of income or medical bills.

Fetzer’s team also argued that Pozner’s side had not presented any convincing evidence supporting the claim that Fetzer’s defamatory statements about the death certificate had caused Lucy Richards or any other unstable Sandy Hook skeptic to harass Pozner; no evidence was presented that the harassers even read Fetzer’s defamatory statements, much less acted on them.

Fetzer’s lawyers reminded the jury to set aside their personal feelings and emotions: They shouldn’t decide on the basis of whether they like or dislike Fetzer or agree or disagree with him. Damages are not supposed to be emotional or punitive, Fetzer’s attorneys said, but are only related to actual dollar-value loss (which had not been demonstrated).

The jury retired to consider their verdict. A few hours later, well into the evening, they ordered pizza. A few mainstream journalists, including a New York Times reporter, remained in the courtroom to await the verdict. The jury returned the verdict after about four hours of deliberation:

Jury Awards Sandy Hook Father $450,000 damages for defamation

Part 2: The Opinion Piece (Assuming We Are Still Allowed to Have Opinions)

Tuesday was the final day of Jim Fetzer’ defense against Lenny Pozner’s libel lawsuit. I attended and published a “just the facts” report that evening (republished with minor changes above). At almost the same moment I published my initial report, the jury came back with a verdict awarding close to half a million dollars to Lenny “Jim Fetzer gave me PTSD” Pozner.

Now it’s time for an opinion piece. And as much as I sympathize with Mr. Pozner, assuming his account is accurate, my opinion is that Jim Fetzer got a raw deal…and that the reverberations of this case will be disastrous unless it is overturned.

The whole courtroom drama was carefully scripted and controlled to ensure that the jury, as well as onlookers and reporters, got to hear only one side of the story. Fetzer was never allowed to present his defense.

Jim Fetzer’s defense is simple: Truth is an absolute defense against libel, and Fetzer published statements alleged by Posner to be libelous because he believed them to be true. What’s more, he still believes them to be true. Whether he is right I do not know. But I do know he is sincere in his beliefs.

I watched Jim Fetzer take the stand, swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”—and then watched him silenced and admonished, and the jury hurriedly chased out of the room, when he tried to speak the truth as he saw it. Jim merely said he still believed his “libelous” statements were true. Asserting the contrary would be a lie. Not saying anything would be a lie by omission. So he was admonished and threatened by the court for the sin of not lying on the witness stand!

As I understand it, at no point during the two phases of the trial was Jim Fetzer ever allowed to present to a jury the evidence that led him to believe that Sandy Hook was an Operation Gladio style psy-op (which those who have read Daniel Ganser’s NATO’s Secret Armies know is entirely plausible) and that there was no actual school shooting (which does seem farfetched, but stranger things have happened). How could he present a truth defense without showing the evidence that led him to believe his allegedly libelous statements were in fact truthful?

According to the 7th Amendment of the Constitution:

IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, WHERE THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED TWENTY DOLLARS, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY SHALL BE PRESERVED…

Yet as I understand it—and perhaps someone can correct me in the comments if I am wrong—Jim Fetzer was never given the right of trial by jury to determine whether he had or had not committed libel. Instead, an obviously biased judge presided over that crucial first phase of the case, denying Jim’s Constitutionally-guaranteed right to a trial by jury. The same judge prevented Jim from presenting his truth defense, which would have entailed giving Jim full scope to present the evidence that led him to believe his statements were truthful and therefore not libelous.

It was only in the second, penalty phase of the trial that a jury was convened. And during that phase, not only was Jim prevented from presenting his truth defense to the jury, he was prohibited from even mentioning it, or from telling the truth about his beliefs.

Meanwhile the Pozner team was allowed to engage in shameless emotional manipulation of the jury. They even projected a huge adorable picture of Noah Pozner on the screen as the backdrop to the crucial back-to-back testimony of Lenny Pozner and Jim Fetzer! (Jim Fetzer, of course, was not allowed to use the big screen to project images that raise questions about the official story of Sandy Hook—images that can be found in Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, but which were, along with all other evidence supporting Fetzer’s truth defense, in essence banned from the courtroom.)

Chilling Effect?

One of the most dangerous repercussions of Pozner-vs.-Fetzer is its potential chilling effect on free speech. The decision awarded more than half a million dollars in “damages” based on the premise that a book presenting an alternative interpretation of a historical event hurt someone’s feelings. There was no tangible connection between the “libelous” statements in the book and any actual damages—loss of income, medical bills, etc. It was all about emotions: “This tearjerking Hollywood-style courtroom spectacle has whipped us into tearful sympathy with Pozner and two minutes of hate for Fetzer. Let’s express our emotions with a damage award.”

Following the court’s logic, if a German-American’s feelings are hurt by a book portraying Germans as villains in World War II, why not sue the author for libel and ban the book? Why not drag the author into court—and refuse to allow him to present the reasons he thinks his anti-German interpretation of World War II is truthful? Of course that would never happen, since popular prejudices are in sync with hatred of Germany’s mythic villainy; the court would find ways to rig the process to support the popular prejudice.

So how about these more plausible examples: African-American plaintiffs sue publishers for hurting their feelings by publishing 19th-century texts that include libelous portrayals of blacks; the grandson of Lyndon Johnson sues authors who have hurt his feelings by arguing that LBJ participated in the JFK assassination coup; a father who lost a son in Iraq sues an antiwar author for hurting his feelings by asserting that the invasion of Iraq was a criminal war based on lies and that his dead son was a war criminal.

One can imagine an almost infinite number of possible “libel” cases along these lines. And while only a few are likely to actually happen, that is a few too many—because the chilling effect of such lawsuits will terrorize authors and publishers into avoiding controversial or unpopular historiography. This is precisely what the Bill of Rights, whose purpose is to protect controversial and disturbing speech about matters of public import, is supposed to prevent.

I have had my differences with Jim Fetzer on many issues, including Sandy Hook. Specifically, I think we should be very careful about asserting or insinuating “nobody died” theories about suspected false flag events, for reasons that should by now be obvious.

But this is bigger than Jim Fetzer and Sandy Hook. This is about saving the Bill of Rights, which is under attack today as never before. Regardless of whether Jim is right or wrong about Sandy Hook, regardless of how mistaken some of his approaches may have been, the outcome of Pozner v. Fetzer presents a clear and present danger to freedom of expression in the United States.

The process of Pozner v. Fetzer appears to have been rigged precisely for the purpose of engineering this controlled demolition of our Constitutional rights. It must be appealed and overturned.

CONTRIBUTE TO JIM FETZER’S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

APPENDIX: The $50,000 Challenge

A fellow calling himself “Michael Lewis” has challenged me (several times, now) to prove that I served as a commissioned officer in the Unted States Marine Corps, which I have regarded as a frivolous psyop. I replied by publishing photos including my commissioning as a 2nd Lt. USMC upon graduate from Princeton, a photo of the Regimental Staff at the USMC Recruit Depot in San Diego, where I served as a Series Commander with 15 DIs and 300 recruits under my command going through the training cycle, one series after another, and a photo of my first wife pinning on my bars when I was promoted to Captain, USMC, which this guy has (absurdly) discounted as “photoshopped images”:

These images appear on page 440 of Mike Palecek and Chuck Gregory, eds., White Rose Blooms in Wisconsin: Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer and The American Resistance (Moon Rock Books edition 2016). He has now reiterated his challenge, which I have accepted with three conditions as follows:

So I am calling his bluff. If he declines my terms, I am no worse off than I was before. If he accepts them and I prevail (which ought to be effortless), then I will be $50,000 ahead of the game in financing the trial I was denied by the indefensible finding of liability concluding the Summary Judgment.

Please follow and like us:

error20

$50, 000 challenge, Kevin Barrett, Legal Lyncihg, Michael Lewis, Pozner v. Fetzer

Post navigation

National Guardsman, “We will not comply” if ordered by Virginia governor to arrest police, confiscate guns

The $50,000 Challenge: Can Jim Fetzer prove he served in the United States Marine Corps?

January 9, 2020 0

Stephanie Sledge, 9 Years Pass & Nation Still Enduring Lies of Tucson Shooting

January 9, 2020 4

Scott Ritter, Iran holds all the cards in coming Middle East conflict with US, unless Trump is ready to drop a tactical NUKE

January 7, 2020 24

Patrick J. McShay, Targeted Assassinations and Foreign Entanglements

8 thoughts on “Kevin Barrett, The Legal Lynching of a Truth-Seeker: Jim Fetzer’s Stalinist-Style Show Trial (Expanded)”

JFK says:

December 29, 2019 at 5:48 pm

The whole world now knows what Judge Remington did to James Fetzer and to the rights guaranteed to every citizen of these United States.

Some people could not live with themselves under such circumstances; some persons would thrive on it. It’s the difference between a satanic cold-blooded psychopathic murderer who enjoys his trade and a God fearing Christian who always seeks to treat others fairly.

I do not need to say where Judge Remington falls on this scale. He knows where, and I suppose God does too.

I will say this though. Jim Fetzer is one great guy. God knows it too. May God give him all of his blessings. He surely deserves them and more.

Will says:

December 27, 2019 at 4:50 pm

Well, Dr….Has there been a response to your new conditions?

It may all be trolling nonsense, but is surely worth a shot.

Might be a good idea to discuss this on tonights Raw Deal.

James Fetzer says:

December 27, 2019 at 5:23 pm

He says he can send it to my attorney for a trust account. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Should have response tomorrow and more on SUNDAY.

Will says:

December 27, 2019 at 5:42 pm

Seems fair. At the least, it’s an interesting experiment. At the most, you’ll be $50K ahead for your appeal. But I’m not holding my breath.

It is curious, if legitimate, why Mike Lewis is so convinced you did not serve.

James Fetzer says:

December 27, 2019 at 5:44 pm

Agreed. I think he is a fake so I am calling his bluff.

Will says:

December 27, 2019 at 10:15 am

Blessings, peace and harmony to all here.

May the coming NEW YEAR be the most prosperous and serene of our lives..

Winfield J. Abbe says:

December 26, 2019 at 9:08 pm

I first met professor Dr. James Fetzer, Ph.D. almost 6 years ago. We both grew up at opposite ends of Pasadena, California, he in the South West part called South Pasadena, I in the North East part called Sierra Madre, a small town at the foot of Mt Wilson. He attended a different public school system than I did. Pasadena is a large city and our paths did not cross for about 75 years!

My late Mother and Father were both born and raised in Minnesota, he in Mora about 60 miles North of the twin Cities and she in St. Paul. He is descendant from a farming family from Germany while she is descendant from Norway and Denmark; her parents arrived as immigrants just before the turn of the 20th century. Both were highly responsible and highly intelligent citizens which I give thanks for every hour of every day. He graduated in Mechanical Engineering in 1936 while she graduated in English; she later earned a Master of Library Science from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Dad’s first job as a professional engineer was with the American Steel and Wire Company, owned by U.S. Steel Corp. at Cleveland, Ohio in about 1937; I was born there at Lutheran Hospital in 1939. They were tired of the cold weather and drove to California in a 1931 Chevy Coupe with rumble seat about 1940. After living in San Diego and Los Angeles they settled in a small town Sierra Madre in about 1943 where I was raised for the next 23 or so years until I left to make a new life in Georgia. Sierra Madre was probably as close to paradise as anything could be then.

As a boy growing up in Sierra Madre, I had jobs from about age 10 doing everything from weeding yards to washing dishes to delivering newspapers for the Pasadena Star News, to working in gas stations and garages and on and on and on. I earned almost enough money during the Summer to get me through UC Berkeley during the year,. I was also a hot rodder,. I am going to relate a short story of how I was also mistreated by a Superior Court Judge at about age 16 some 2300 miles across the country almost 65 years ago, very similar to the way professor Jim Fetzer was mistreated by Judge Remington in Wisconsin in this sham trial as so well described by Dr. Keven Barrett, Ph.D.

It was a beautiful Summer evening in Sierra Madre about 1955. I had a 1937 Chevy Coupe with full race GMC engine painted Zolotone black and white and looked like a speckled bird. My opponent in the drag race was named Stetson and had a 1932 Ford Coupe with a hopped up V-8. We carefully chose a rural road with very little traffic to minimize the risk of anyone or any property being harmed. I beat him by a few freight car lengths. The Sheriffs appeared on the scene., During the race my engine blew a few valves and lost most of its power. I ditched the law and watched them go by from the end of a dead end street. NO PERSON OR PROPERTY WAS HARMED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM PERIOD. Of oourse we were wrong and had violated the law but there were no, zero damages to anyone or any property period.

Of course my opponent, who lost the race dramatically, was apprehended by them and quickly spilled the beans about me to them; they were waiting for me at my home. They arrested me and after some time there was a trial in Los Angeles Superior Court under Judge Neely. After he listened and ignored my complaint that there were no legal places to race near by, and no one or property was damaged, what do you think my sentence was for a first offense? 6 months in jail and loss of license until age 18! Of course I had no lawyer then. My Father was there but what could he do? I was arrested immediately and jailed at a facility called Biscaluz Center named for a former Sheriff. I was incarcerated with some strong criminals, rapists, murderers and other criminals. This was a first offense. Again, no,zero damage of any kind to persons or property. Do you think this was a fair sentence? Do think Professor Jim Fetzer was treated fairly by Judge Remington in Wisconsin about 2500 miles to the East of where I received the shaft by the corrupt legal system in America? I don’t. This outrageous sentence would have caused me to miss graduation with my class at Pasadena High School too. To make a long story short, a stroke of luck came my way in the form of a probation officer named Rosenberg who got me released in about 6 weeks from my stay with hardened criminals. My teachers at Pasadena High School were great and helped me catch up and graduate with my class in 1956. By the way that punk from Hollywood did much the same thing in Florida a few years ago, only on very dangerous city streets but was permitted by buy his way out of prison. Our legal system is a totally unfair disgrace to every principle in our Constitution.

I say shame, shame, shame…on Judge Remington in Wisconsin for his gross unfair treatment of one of the top intellects and scholars in the country today. Judge Remington is a disgrace to Wisconsin, to the so called legal “profession” and to his distinguished Father who was a very prominent lawyer and professor of Law at the great University of Wisconsin. Judge Remington should take a good hard look in a mirror. The Sandy Hook Hoax is one of the most reprehensible lies perpetuated by our totally corrupt federal and state governments. Professor Fetzer and other associates, mostly with Ph.D. degrees, not at all comparable with a hack J.D. degree in Law, with the exception of a few like Alison Sunny Maynard, proved without any doubt, that Sandy Hook was a con to promote the gun control agenda. Rather than following the rules Judge Remington obliterated the rules. Instead of promoting TRUTH he has promoted LIES and is evidently so ignorant himself he does not even know it! He is in the same low league as the 42 federal judges named by name and location in the seminal book by former Engineer Earl W. Carey: “IBM and the Corruption of Justice in America”, Bismarck House, St. Louis, 1992. Judge Remington should do us all a favor and immediately resign. Shame on you! Professor Jim Fetzer, Ph.D. should be awarded the Medal of Freedom, not worthless Sports Hacks. Professor Jim Fetzer may be a better physicist than most physicists; a better mathematician than most mathematicians and a better logician than most logicians.

Winfield J. Abbe, Pasadena High School 1956, Pasadena City College A.A., 1958, A.B. Physics, UC Berkeley, 1961, M.S. Physics, California State University at Los Angeles, 1962, Ph.D., Physics, UC Riverside, 1966, Institute of Science and Technology Fellow, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1966-1967, Faculty Member with Lifetime Tenure, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 1966-1978; voluntarily resigned mainly due to lying and cheating by two deans and three department heads for over 5 years. These lies and cheating affected the lives of some very good young assistant professors who were better than virtually all the senior professors with a few exceptions! Secrecy is the enemy of the truth. Secrecy is why the con of Sandy Hook has been fostered. Judge Remington aided and abetted that con to every American Citizen in his corrupt Courtroom in Wisconsin. Shame on him! In America today secrecy is fostered by the full military armed force of our totally corrupt government. Are we any different at bottom than Nazi, Germany? Our Constitution does not address the fundamental problem of government secrecy. Awards for Superior or Outstanding Achievement in Mathematics Physics and Chemistry. First Prize in contest for best explanation of how the Gooney Bird works, Pasadena Star News, 1959, Highest score on 18 hour written qualifying examination at the doctoral level given 6 three hour parts for a week.

Thank you Probation Officer Rosenberg for getting me out of a jam of court corruption in LA in 1955. You changed my life. When I relate this story to others In Georgia they break out in laughter and relate stories of how they were going over 120 mph on I-20 and laughed about it with a State Patrol officer afterwards. So much for “Equal Protection Under the Law”!

BillAustralia says:

December 26, 2019 at 7:17 pm

Season’s greetings Jim and Kevin. I used to believe all the mass media bulldust. Now I know better. The president is a billionaire and holds the highest post in the land, and he is continually hamstrung, so from a power and prestige angle should get justice, but it is denied. Jim could not even present his case to his liking, he too is treated unfairly.

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Sunday, January 26, 2020

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Monday, January 20, 2020

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Friday, January 17, 2020

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Sunday, January 12, 2020

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Friday, January 10, 2020

Thursday, January 9, 2020