The 9/11 Vore Conspiracy argues that the twin towers were not hit by planes externally. Instead, planes were built inside the towers, and continually inflated which eventually caused a collapse.

The anonymous theorist, reviewing footage of the 9/11 attack, stops the footage numerous times to point out "weak zones" of the town that gave in as a response to the increasing weight of the internal aircraft.

He highlights areas in the footage that portray people and objects being violently thrown out of the windows with force, as well as small billows of steam and fire, happening at the lower floor levels of one of the towers.

"Look at this shit. You're telling me there's just random ass explosions going on? Down here? We ain't even remotely close to where the plane collided. Bull fucking horse shit.'

The theorist explains that the planes were built by "crazed U.S. government scientists who watched too much Doctor Who, it was like that of a real life TARDIS experiment".

"They built these massive towers, for what? Business? Hell nah, have you seen the economy pre-9/11? It was shit. We didn't have the money nor energy for no goddamn tower of that size, and definitely not two."

We asked why the experiment would take place in the middle of a city as crowded as NYC. The theorist responded:

"It's hidden in plain sight. NYC's got all the resources in the world, right at your disposal. Nah, seriously man, look at these streets, there's a fuckin' garbage pile up just down the road. You know what kind of technology you can find in these piles? There's some fuckin' money to be made. Plus you get to make a nationwide scare if your experiment fucks up, and publicity means more money. They had all to gain and nothing to lose."

The theorist explains that any and all footage taken inside the Twin Towers pre-9/11 was simply simulated, props, or illusion. Footage of NYC recorded in a position respective to which the twin towers overlooked, was created via a clever series of mirrors originally sourcing from the "432 Park Avenue" building.

The theorist claims that any and all footage of the planes are "so fake, it's laughable", he states: "Nobody saw any planes... not in real life. Outside of what the TV stations would tell you, not a single soul saw an actual, physical plane hit the buildings. Hell, you could ask everyone in New York today, you won't find a single person who saw a plane."

Snapshots:

1. 🏀🇺🇸 District Attorney does a little... - archive.org, archive.today

2. Many defense attorneys backed her - archive.org, archive.today

3. was interviewed on public radio - archive.org, archive.today

4. mp3 link - archive.org, archive.today

5. ethical violation - archive.org, archive.today

6. Rollins to go fuck herself - archive.org, archive.today

7. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-p... - archive.org, archive.today

8. https://twitter.com/GoldenbergLaw/s... - archive.org, archive.today

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

lmao that interview was fucking great and it sounds like the host changed his tune real quick when the emails started rolling in, probably telling him they were possibly breaking the law.

I was talking to someone the other day about this type of situation our "urban" court systems are in right now. In Soviiet Russsia, the real violent criminals got super light sentences, if at all, when they committed things like rape or murder. Their trials were basically a formality. the reasoning for this was that the law system viewed their violent crime as a left over consequence of the previous bourgeoisie capitalist system. That the offender was like a child with no other choice but to commit the crime because of these outside forces acting on them.

But.... god forbid you commit a crime against the workers' party, the punishment was harsh and severe. Usually ten years in the gulag for things like complaining about the hardships under the new 5 year plan and someone heard you, or hiding a silver coin in your mattress and someone turns you in, or the horrible crime of your neighbor wanting your flat and narcs you out for made up stuff.

Your seeing this today where urban court systems are releasing violent criminals after short periods of time served with the justification being the entire court system has oppressed them. Whereas, god forbid you do a heckin' misgendering, you should be captured, hung upside down and burned alive.

I give it ten more years.

Whereas, god forbid you do a heckin' misgendering, you should be captured, hung upside down and burned alive.

Ye thats about the same as gettin banned from Twtter's mental health Aschwitz

Pour one out for all our captured, hung upside down and burned alive homies 😢😭

[removed]

[removed]

A prisoner arrives at the gulag. The guard asks, "How long is your sentence?"

The prisoner replies, "Ten years."

"Ten years?" exclaims the shocked guard. "What did you do?"

"Nothing, I swear."

"Don't lie. If you did nothing, you would only get five years."

Your seeing this today where urban court systems are releasing violent criminals after short periods of time served with the justification being the entire court system has oppressed them. Whereas, god forbid you do a heckin' misgendering, you should be captured, hung upside down and burned alive.

This comment is so gy and retrded it forced me to comment on rdrama. Keep it up!

Whereas, god forbid you do a heckin' misgendering, you should be captured, hung upside down and burned alive.

What? How so?

In Soviiet Russsia, the real violent criminals got super light sentences, if at all, when they committed things like rape or murder. Their trials were basically a formality. the reasoning for this was that the law system viewed their violent crime as a left over consequence of the previous bourgeoisie capitalist system. That the offender was like a child with no other choice but to commit the crime because of these outside forces acting on them.

Sounds like a load of shit. Murder was usually punished by execution, violent criminals went in the gulags. The Soviets basically had gulags instead of prisons so everyone went there, only 1% of convicts went into regular prisons instead of gulags. FYI, ~20% of gulag prisoners were political prisoners in 1953 (under Stalin), the rest were criminals. It can be assumed that the proportion of political prisoners was probably much lower afterward, I cannot find stats on it though. Anyway your claim that criminals were rarely given sentences, is obviously false. The 2.4 million gulag prisoners in 1953, minus the 400k or so political prisoners, would still given the Soviet Union a rate of criminal imprisonment higher than modern America (2 million criminals imprisoned per 180 million Soviet population in the 50s vs 2.2 million criminals imprisoned per 330 million population).

Maximum gulag sentence was 15 years, but you'd be lucky if you survived that. Violent crime in the Soviet Union was lower than in the United States and much lower than in modern Russia; one of the things Russians tend to be nostalgic about with regards to the Soviet Union was the fact that the state didn't pussyfoot around. The Soviets were not nice.

Yes there were theoretical notions that crime would cease to exist with the end of bourgeois society and capitalism. If crime still existed it was evidence that socialism had not been properly built yet though, the Soviet Union was always trying to "build socialism" and never really considered themselves a fully socialist society. They did not put the cart before the horse and stop punishing criminals before they stopped existing. Clearly if some guy murders a worker, that's less production for the five year plan isn't it? Why would Stalin just tolerate that?

But.... god forbid you commit a crime against the workers' party, the punishment was harsh and severe. Usually ten years in the gulag for things like complaining about the hardships under the new 5 year plan and someone heard you, or hiding a silver coin in your mattress and someone turns you in, or the horrible crime of your neighbor wanting your flat and narcs you out for made up stuff.

Again, most gulag prisoners were criminals, not political prisoners. There were a lot of political prisoners, but it's not like this was the exclusive focus of the Soviet repressive state apparatus'.

Your seeing this today where urban court systems are releasing violent criminals after short periods of time served with the justification being the entire court system has oppressed them.

What? I think the main justification for the reduction in sentencing length is a reaction to the excesses of the 80's and 90's, when hysteria over crime lead to a lot of dumb laws being passed that were a massive overreaction and lead to our prison population per capita going up like five times over. There's only been a slight downtick since then honestly in the past five years, you are whining like the world is ending but current sentencing levels are still harsher than anything before the 80's. It's also largely been concentrated on non-violent criminals. You're making things up.

I think you may be propagandizing over bail reform, just a reminder that people held in pre-trial detention who cannot afford to pay bail are, in fact, legally innocent, and are not being spared from whatever punishment they would received if, in the future, they are judged to be guilty. It is baffling that you are apparently fine with a wealthy rapist being released on bail, but holding a poor guy who (allegedly) stole a backpack for three years without trial on a bail he couldn't afford is literally the point of anarchy. Whether or not someone is released pending trial, or subject to pre-trial detention, should logically probably be more tied to the danger they pose, rather than whether or not they can afford to pay an arbitrary sum of money, should it not? That seems kind of logical. But no oh no you bleeding heart libs you're letting all the crims out the prison (I don't know the difference between prison and jail), you can tell they're crim because they're brown, you don't need a trial.

Whereas, god forbid you do a heckin' misgendering, you should be captured, hung upside down and burned alive.

Or worse, cancelled on Twitter! Get offline, nobody has ever been sentence to anything for a misgendering, you rightists are always throwing a tantrum.

While on Adderall, I also produced this thesis on Soviet history, which I extracted and will attach here as an addendum:

This also depends heavily on era. Repression was high in the Russian Civil War because it was chaos, they averaged 30k political executions a year during the war. After the civil war Lenin and the party let off a lot, this was more or less continued throughout the 20s before Stalin had consolidated his power. I believe in 1928 the Checka had a total of 30k political prisoners, and they were kept separate from criminal prisoners. The gulag system also did not exist at this time and the authorities were actually opposed to forced labor. It was a relatively freewheeling period in Soviet terms, they pulled back the repressive civil war policies that they realized would lead to rebellion if continued. The Party was still interested in reforms and there was a great deal of optimism, there was debate within the party and collective leadership, Party members were protected from execution for their opinions and so were more willing to speak out against the leadership and offer differing policies.

Then of course the late 20's gives into the Stalin era, as Stalin successfully purged all possible opposition, Trotsky in 1927, and then Bukharin in 1929. The repression early in the Stalin era were indeed mostly related to his ambitious policy of rapid industrialization. The first five year plan, for instance, called for reducing the share of the economy devoted to production of consumer goods from 80% to 50%, redirecting it instead to investment in industrial capacity. Naturally this would result in a dramatic drop in quality of life in that period, in return for long term gains. The first five year plan did have impressive economic results, producing double digit GDP growth in the middle of the great depression, with little to no foreign trade or investment. The Soviet Union actually had issues with illegal immigration later in the 30's from Finland and elsewhere in eastern Europe, unlike the capitalist countries there was work to do there, it's possible the Soviets wouldn't have won WWII without it. (Although it arguably set the course for the eventual stagnation of the Soviet economy; the rest of their history they neglected consumer goods, people had money but nothing to buy, and eventually they began missing out on important advances born out of consumer demand that occurred in the west, like the personal computer, because they were just obsessed with increasing steel and tractor production).

Now as part of preparing for the rapid industrialization, they decided to cut back on grain prices, to reduce the demand for consumer goods by ruralcels. But this lead to a massive shortage of grain - which it turned out eventually was the result of peasants hoarding grain hoping they could profit if price controls were lifted in the future. Bukharin was a lib, and was like hey we gotta raise those prices back up. Stalin was instead more or less furious, he considered it blackmail by the rich peasants, forcing the state to abandon its industrialization plans to line their own pockets.

This was the source of the collectivization and dekulakization campaign more or less, the economy of scale of a combined farm would theoretically allow for economy of scale and greater production. But also it would allow the state to keep tighter control over the grain supply and make it difficult to withhold and hoard surplus. Wealthy peasants who were more likely to have a surplus and more likely to be withholding grain were especially the target, and of course this campaign involved a great deal of executions and stays in the gulag. Most of these would have been done outside of the justice system.

There was also the general increase in harshness in other aspects of the five year plan, for instance, harsh penalties to wreckers or saboteurs who failed to meet targets.

In the late 30's, Stalin had more or less totally centralized control over the party. This was more or less true by the early 30's honestly, with the expulsion of Bukharin from the Politburo. However in the early 30's Stalin was still maintaining the prohibition on execution of party members. He would basically just trot out his defeated political enemies from time to time and have them deliver humiliating speeches filled with contrition and praise for Stalin.

By the late 30's he apparently tired of this, he was worried about potential upheavals after the great famine, and was paranoid about potential rivals to power existing, no matter how neutered they had been. So he instituted the great purge. First he tortured confessions out of his biggest political enemies he had grudges against from way back, like Zinoviev, and had them shot. Then he dug deeper and started shooting figures like Bukharin. Later on he more or less just started shooting every Old Bolshevik, even ones that had been more or less loyal to him weren't safe. Partially this was Stalin's paranoia about people with revolutionary cred being a danger to his power; but the newer members of the party were more than willing to play along, as it meant spots in the hierarchy would open up for them to fill.

This also came hand in hand with other waves of repression throughout the country. Minorities considered to be potential fifth columns, the intelligentsia, the military (this would be disastrous in the early stages of WWII), more kulaks, family members of purged party members, etc. They killed about half a million in all over two years.

In WWII and shortly after, Stalin moved a lot of ethnic minorities around. Usually somewhere in Siberia. In some cases a lot died during these transfers.

After WWII Stalin really didn't do much bad though, besides the 500k or so political prisoners at any one time. They even (somewhat strangely) abolished the death penalty for two years to celebrate the victory in WWII.

With Kruschev political prisoners were massively reduced and this was more or less the case throughout the rest of the Soviet Union's existence, there was some uptick with Brezhnev but Brezhnev was no Stalin. The 80's in the Soviet Union of course was much freer and the late 80's was the wild wild west, they more or less let off of all censorship, by 1988 all political prisoners had been released. For this they rewarded by being gutted, destroyed, and looted by the United States throughout the 90s. The United States, more or less, took the Soviet and Russian liberalization as an opportunity to go buck wild and spend a decade just nonstop anally raping it's foolish enemy that thought we could all get along. I do not see a second wave of liberalization forthcoming, given their experience with the last.

Long post bot 😭😭

Lmao I didnt read any of this

Good find. Hilarious that a prosecutors office is saying that public defenders don’t have their clients best interests in mind

Tbh if I was a public defender and my client had big 'ol trailer park meth-infused titties, I wouldn't prob only have my interests in mind 🤷

Public Defenders have the best interests of their clients in mind for all of the 15 minutes total they have to devote to their case.

It's kind of hilarious when people just think public defenders = lawyers and lawyers = money and castigate them with greedy lawyer stereotypes. Public defender is the one lawyering job you do not do for the money, you could make more money being a janitor. The state pays them as little as possible in order to discourage people from choosing to become them, by discouraging people from becoming public defenders they can ensure the few remaining are likely not the brightest of the bunch, and are simultaneously completely overloaded with a deluge of cases such that they can at best offer them a token defense (or tell them to take the plea deal and hang up). This makes things easier for the prosecutor, who will no longer suffer the indignity of having their conviction rate tarred simply because the poorcel they fingered for the crime was actually innocent.

All 👏 prosecutors 👏 are 👏 bastards cat ladies 👏

[removed]

Hi Neon_needles!

This is libel, and harassment - a civil tort, and a violation of the Reddit Content Policies.

The comment has been reported to Reddit administration. You have been banned from this subreddit. I reserve the right to sue you to reclaim damages to my reputation, and to pursue criminal charges against you. Reddit is likely to suspend your account.

Goodbye.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Nice drama! I've been getting into legal and court drama lately.

Check out Leonard French on youtube. He'a an attorney who covers a ton of courtroom and lawyer drama.

Well, like doctors, attorneys must be licensed before they can practice law or run for DA/AG/Judge. But i do agree with you. I live in a state elects judges. Kind of stupid when judges are supposed to be impartial and unswayed by political pressure.

Kind of stupid when judges are supposed to be impartial and unswayed by political pressure.

Judges are supposed to appear to be impartial and unswayed by political pressure so that it lends more credibility to their ultimately politically motivated judgements that reinforce the position of the ruling class. They figure out which ruling would please their paymasters worse, and then work backwards from there devising the legal reasoning that would be necessary to semi-convincingly arrive at that position.

It really is baffling to hear rightists claim "We need a conservative in there so that we can interpret the law and constitution as written instead of a political ideology!" You would think that if there were some neutral and objective method of interpreting the law and constitution, it could be taught, and replicated by anybody regardless of political ideology. A liberal, a marxist leninist, a Nazi, my niece, any of the above should be able to replicate these supposedly objective and provable methods of legal and constitutional analysis, which are non-subjective. It seems awfully strange and suspect to me, that you are supposedly concerned about the correct, non-political interpretation of the law, and your solution to this is to ensure that only adherents of a certain political ideology are the ones interpreting it. I would honestly think that the best way to avoid political bias would be to ensure that the judges represent a variety of political views.

But somehow you people are drooling over the prospect of some massive supermajority of the court being adherents of a certain political ideology with no real opposition - how can such a composition of judges be trusted to restrain themselves when their membership so perfectly fails to represent any group in society outside of maybe a grab bag from the Republican party convention? Even if they had the best of intentions, it would inevitably turn into a self-pleasing circlejerk wouldn't it?

Nick Rekieta's better 😤

Trumpoid covered in anime weeb shit

Goddamn what an embarrassing YouTube channel to admit you like

[removed]

I’m surprised you morons don’t elect doctors.

The county coroner can be elected and that includes non-doctors

[removed]

Hi Canadapoli!

This is libel, and harassment - a civil tort, and a violation of the Reddit Content Policies.

The comment has been reported to Reddit administration. You have been banned from this subreddit. I reserve the right to sue you to reclaim damages to my reputation, and to pursue criminal charges against you. Reddit is likely to suspend your account.

Goodbye.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Who needs doctors when you can vote for daddy instead?

She had to of known that was unethical. It’s a major part of the ABAs model rules and all law students are required to take an ethics class. I specifically remember learning this rule. There is also an attorney ethics exam you must study for/pass in almost every state.

She's blÅck. Or MexicÅn I can't tell. Affirmative action means you don't need qualifications.

[removed]

Affirmative action only applies to college admissions, they still have to pass the same tests to graduate. Like isn't that the thing you guys always harp on as being so great about abolishing affirmative action, higher graduation rates? This is because you weed out more people with lower academic credentials obviously, the remainder is on average better prepared for college and more likely to graduate. If affirmative action meant you didn't need to pass the qualifications to graduate, obviously, graduation levels would be unaffected. Supposedly under your theory all the blacks would just pass anyway due to the magic of AA so they'd have a perfect graduation rate, right? How can it be simultaneously possible for affirmative action to reduce graduation rates while abolishing the need for qualifications?

The point of AA of course is to increase the number of graduates, not the percentage of some smaller group that happen to graduate. Like a lot of people who are just below par for admission, would in fact (if admitted anyway) eventually be able to pull their shit together and graduate with a satisfactory score. That is the goal of affirmative action, building the education of an impoverished group in society by giving some of the ones who would not otherwise qualify for admission the opportunity to prove themselves. Even knowing that fewer of them will ultimately succeed, having more educated people of that group can help remedy their status in the future.

White people just use it as an excuse to call black people stupid, like regardless of that persons actual individual history, or if affirmative action policies even still exist at any institution they've ever been a part of (they've been ravaged in the past ~30 years), it means they can call all black people stupid forever from now on. You could abolish SNAP and TANF tomorrow and probably for 50 years later old white folks would be complaining about welfare queens. But tbh, if white people didn't have affirmative action, they'd just find some other reason to call blÅck people stupid. It's sort of their thing. So really, it's no huge loss.

Btw, have you tried crying more?

At 21:40, a defendant named James calls in and complains that his public defender isn't returning his calls.

You know public defenders often with a hundred cases a week, sometimes a hundred cases a day. It's a joke. The public defender isn't returning the calls because he's swamped. To the state of course, the ideal system is pretty much just everybody being at the mercy of the prosecutor, it resents the fact that well off defendants can buy good defense as it is. They are constitutionally obliged to provide defense to indignant defendants, but obviously over time they tend to wind up allotting as little as they possibly can. Until you have the modern situation, like you don't merely get a dumb or substandard lawyer, you get a guy who has 15 minutes tops to devote to your entire case. In combination with cash bail usually set without regard to ability to pay, this usually means that the justice system for poor people is more or less effectively, the mercy of the prosecutor, take whatever plea deal offered regardless of if the charges are bullshit simply because it's impractical to sit in pre trial detention for months to years awaiting trial in which hopefully a guy who spent 15 minutes reading up on the case will get you off.

The right to attorney and right to bail mean that the well off have ample opportunity to defend themselves from the state, but obviously these rights are inherently dependent on having wealth and may as well not exist to the poor. This effectively leaves us with a two tier legal system, the legal system for the wealthy in which all the checks and safeguards to exercises of state power are tested and tried in turn, and the legal system for the poor, which is the mercy of the prosecutor. The rest of it is window dressing.

If she trolls like this every day, I'm a fan.