Disabled Vietnam Vet Hot Dog Vendor Arrested Outside Met
Stuy Pyro Leaves Notes In Hieroglyphics
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Tenants' Rights Flash Cards!
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Before going for the gold, French actress and Oscar winner Marion Cotillard made some remarks in a 2007 interview regarding 9/11, and some aren't as charmed by her words as they were by her Oscar speech. Nonetheless, Cotillard sides with the conspiracy theorists when it comes to 9/11...and the moon landing! BBC News has a partial transcript:
"We see other towers of the same kind being hit by planes, are they burned?" she asks. "There was a tower, I believe it was in Spain, which burned for 24 hours. It never collapsed. None of these towers collapsed. And there [in New York], in a few minutes, the whole thing collapsed."Well, WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein (who got the lease shortly before the attacks) did get a rather large insurance payout. As for Cotillard, she also noted that, "I tend to believe in the conspiracy theory," and finds them "addictive." Her lawyer stated that the actress "never intended to contest nor question the attacks of September 11, 2001, and regrets the way old remarks have been taken out of context."The Twin Towers, she claims, were a "money sucker" that would have cost much more to modernise than to destroy.
The actress goes on to cast doubt on the Moon landing of 1969. "Did a man really walk on the moon?" she asks. "I saw plenty of documentaries on it and I really wondered. In any case I don't believe all they tell me."
Only one way to settle this, she needs to face off with Bill Maher!
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
French idiot
(sigh)
The "out of context" excuse is sooooo worn out.
Come on. Lay off the Francophobia. It's not because she's French. It's because she's an idiot, plain and simple. Anyone who admits to being addicted to conspiracy theories is a bimbo of the highest order, no matter what country she comes from. That's why she's an actress and not a rocket scientist.
I cannot wait for her to weigh in on Area 51. And will she be in the upcoming X Files movie?
Dumbass.
That's why the filmmakers hire writers.
The writer comes up with things for the fictional character to say.
The actor's job is to say those things.
When they try to come up with things to say on their own, a lot of actors are . . . quite lost, actually.
Spiritof76: You are so right! Why we put so much importance on celebrity in this country is mind boggling. Just because someone acts, sings, or plays an instrument does not mean that their opinions on anything are worth a moment's thought... yet we continually buy the car that Tiger Woods endorses, or the watch that Uma Thurmann wears, or vote for the candidate that Chuck Norris endorses. OK, maybe not that last one. Maybe that means that there really IS a shred of hope. Maybe.
We have so few actual people in our lives that we adopt these celebrities as if they were actual members of our extended families, and then take their advice as we might from a brother or sister. Pity that we can't see them for what they really are.
Where were the men in the white coats with the straight jacket?
Where were the men in the white coats with the straight jacket?
shut up & act
has anyone ever been to the moon? no? exactly. You guys ever see capricorn one? or apollo 13? tom hanks sure looked like he went to the moon even though he didn't. I think it's pretty easy to divert the billions spent on supposedly funding "space programs" into more war profiteering. check it out on wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations
I've always waited for circus performers to give me their take on reality. It's a comforting feeling that I really give a shit about some Oscar winner and their opinion.
She really isn't that good looking either, other than her long fingers.
Let her stage a 9-11. She couldn't fuckin' deliver a pizza on time.
The absolute funniest video on the internets is where the geeky guy accosts Buzz Aldrin and demands answers about the moon landing and in so doing calls Buzz Aldrin a "coward." Mr. Aldrin, in his late 70's ,does not even wind up and hits the guy so hard he lifts him off his feet.
Conspiracy theorists are so awesome. They make me question the ability of people to govern themselves . . . but are funny in a comic book guy from the Simpson's kind of way.
I don't care what she thinks one way or the other.
How can conspiracy theorists discount physics, engineering and applied science?
Take your tin hats off and leave the room:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7hfGZNHVqk
Is this person the personification of what they call a dumb cunt?
No, Snoopy, you are.
I saw the Edith Piaf movie she was in, great movie, but really, the whole French conspiracy theory about 9/11 is pretty lame. I think they have created an entire cottage industry from it.
Well I for one would enjoy watching ol' Buzz Aldrin smacking this bimbo in the face. Stick to your lines and look pretty!
edex, science discounts itself. it's still relatively young. anything is possible still. applied sciences are always contradicting itself with more theory and testing. one day coffee is good for you the next day it isn't. I'm not saying we didn't go to the moon but it's a tough pill to swallow to say that we absolutely did. Why haven't we been back?
That chick's an idiot. The Spanish tower that so impressed her as it burned? It was hit by a prop plane.
Caption for photo: You gotta be THIS big ...
Whatever. I'd hit that!
babyhitter, we haven't been back becasue there is little incentive to go back and it is and was very very expensive. America's classically liberal capitalist democracy needed to best communism in space. The space race was a proxy for our respective ideologies. If we had faked it the Soviets would not have sat idly by and allowed a forgery. Of the Soviet Unions many flaws, gullibility (of anything other than communist rhetoric) was not one of them. There is nothing on the moon. Nothing. It is a dry wasteland. Or so our masonic overlords tell me.
I am all for skepticism, but based on seeking answers. Most conspiracy theorists assumes what they intend to prove and are staunchly resistant to alternate conclusions (i.e., the commonly accepted narrative) in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence. Hiding in 'anything is possible' negates the need for reasoned thought and discussion. The last refuge of a (logical) scoundrel, if you will.
I'm sure what she said sounded much more believable with the French accent and the staring at the breasts. You have to keep these statements in context, you know.
macneil, and yet 81.5% of americans prescribe themselves to a religon of some sort of which there is no empirical evidence or scientific basis. 67% of people believe in ghosts and superstition. and yet a french girl can't be skeptical that we didn't go to the moon without almost unanimous condemnation. funny how that works
You are very confused babyhitter. Those who ascribe to mysticism tend to not refute empirical observations. Catholics do not believe that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. Catholics did for a time, refute observations about the natural world and were and are rightly ridiculed for that (i.e., Galileo); as are most religions that try to bury empirical observations that refute their mystical belief system (i.e., anti-evolutionists, Islamic radicals). A conspiracy theorist's attack on reason comes not from an attempt to explain the inexplicable (i.e., faith, the meaning of existance, creeky floorboards, ect.), but an attempt to refute the observed and defined. Thankfully you've placed the average conspiracy buff right where he or she belongs: with religious wingnuts (like the inquisitors of old); and the soft-minded.
As a fan of "Michael Clayton," Osama Bin Laden just put out a jihad on Ms. Celbutard, er Cotillard. No one puts Tilda in the corner.
macneil, i am not confused. I am merely stating that many people who really believe in the tooth fairy and santa clause believe wholly that man went to the moon. I think you are confused that people who are agnostic that man went to the moon are all conspiracy theorists. We had empirical evidence that the CSI said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction of which none were found. I think you are too hung up on the conspiracy rather than the "theory". f rom wiki: The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim without examination, and a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting. The most widely accepted sense of the term is that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value.
Given this popular understanding of the term, it is conceivable that the term might be used illegitimately and inappropriately, as a means to dismiss what are in fact substantial and well-evidenced accusations. The legitimacy of each such usage will therefore be a matter of some controversy. Disinterested observers will compare an allegation's features with those of the category listed above, in order to determine whether a given usage is legitimate or prejudicial
OK, so she's a dumb actress. Shocking. Next!
I think she was making a commentary on the quality of spanish building materials. In fact, I heard she's also a spanish construction union spokesperson.
Actually Matty, I am with you on that. Buildings in the US are made out of cardboard, Twin Towers included.
Well...it's a good thing she's just an actress and not holding public office. We'd never vote an idiot actor into office...except for, y'know, Schwartzeneger...and Reagan...
Meh. So she's a dope, who cares? It's not a French issue. It's a dope issue.
To all of you who downplay anyone who would dare question authority, especially authority that conspires with others to inflict suffering...
Woodward and Bernstein were conspiracy theorists. Anyone care to question their legitimacy or place in history?
Just because you don't agree with conspiracy theorists, it does not make them wrong. All it really does is show the world just how rigid your mind is and how averse you are to new knowledge and evidence. Wake up and smell the roses... they don't always smell so sweet!
"Just because you don't agree with conspiracy theorists, it does not make them wrong."
No, it's subscribing to positions that lack any support, and/or are contradicted by the available evidence, that makes them "wrong."
"All it really does is show the world just how rigid your mind is and how averse you are to new knowledge and evidence."
This is just preposterous. I'm all for keeping an open mind, but the fact is that there are right or wrong answers, or more precisely, there are assertions that are supported by evidence and there are assertions that are so contrary to or lacking evidentiary support that they are not worth seriously entertaining.
If somebody told me that Rockefeller Center was actually a hologram generated by sophisticated alien invaders from the Andromeda galaxy, I would not be inclined to believe them, would you? Does that make me a stick in the mud closed-minded simpleton? I mean, it's not like that assertion is completely impossible -- there's probably some infinitisimal chance that an alien invader with enough technology to pull something like that off exists -- but until I see good evidence I am not going to believe it or even keep an open mind to the possibility.
What irks me the most about the 9/11 doubters is the insistence that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel means the towers must have been felled by explosives. Try explaining to the convinced that materials weaken long before melting and you get accused of being "sheep" of the Bush administration. And the belief that the towers were reinforced concrete.
"No, it's subscribing to positions that lack any support, and/or are contradicted by the available evidence, that makes them "wrong."
My point was that people tend to judge conspiracy theorists before hearing all of the evidence, which is why I brought up Woodward and Bernstein. Also, I used the word 'evidence' in its lawful definition - data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
"This is just preposterous. I'm all for keeping an open mind, but the fact is that there are right or wrong answers, or more precisely, there are assertions that are supported by evidence and there are assertions that are so contrary to or lacking evidentiary support that they are not worth seriously entertaining."
I agree with this statement entirely (see my previous response about the lawful definition of evidence.) By your own statement, you've shown that the 'official' story behind what happened on 9/11 is false; it lacks evidentiary support. That's why people have changed their minds since it first happened. That, and the fact that our leader has shown himself to be a bold-faced liar on many occasions.
I dont think we went to the moon. We havent been back and theres plenty to study there. all kinds of tests could be done. Its like saying if we had some moon dust here on earth that nothing would be done with it. If we went its only natural we go agian. First its about getting to it. then its about going agian to run more tests agianst the information we supposively got. If they die trying to do it in there next run it will have sure been prooven a fake. I wouldnt be suprised. Im an american and im afraid of americans, they are so damn boastful and competitive I dont put anything past this government.