Every time a celebrity opens his or her mouth, my desire to slam my head on my keyboard is quite strong.
The latest uninformed fool is recent Oscar winner Marion Cotillard. Because her English sucked much ass, her acceptance speech involved saying “Thank you” about 400 times.
I’m a publicity whore. My last name ends with “lard.”
The actress faces a potential backlash in the US over comments she made in an interview in France. Footage which surfaced on the internet showed her questioning the New York terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the 1969 moon landing.
A “backlash” is bit too nice.
“I think we’re lied to about a number of things,” she said, singling out September 11.
Referring to the two passenger jets flown into the World Trade Centre, Miss Cotillard said: “We see other towers of the same kind being hit by planes, are they burned? 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 [New York], in a few minutes, the whole thing collapsed.”
*sigh* Actually, mon cherie, Spain’s Windsor Towers was build quite differently from the World Trade Center so your comparison doesn’t hold.
No plane flew into the Madrid Windsor Tower, for instance. It didn’t sustain any structural damage prior to the fire beginning.
I think when a plane filled with people and cargo slams into a building, and when it doesn’t, in the case of the Windsor Tower, it’s worth noting, don’t ya think?
Secondly, part of the Windsor Tower DID collapse:
“[The] landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire.
* Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building’s concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
* The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.
* The building was in the process of refurbishment and fireproofing to modern standards when the fire occurred; some fireproofing was being provided on the steel perimeter columns.
* NIST’s interim report on the World Trade Center disaster recommends the inclusion of ’strong points’ within the building frame design – the Madrid Windsor Building’s strong points were its two concrete ‘technical’ floors and the concrete core system enabling the building to survive complete burnout.
* This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction.
The Twin Towers did not collapse after “a few minutes.”
8:45 A.M. – American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the north World Trade Center tower (1 Tower).
9:03 A.M. – United Airlines Flight 175 crashes into the south World Trade Center tower (2 Tower).
9:40 A.M. – American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the west side of the Pentagon.
10:05 A.M. – The south World Trade Center tower (2 Tower) collapses.
@10:07 A.M. – United Airlines Flight 93 crashes near Shanksville, Pennsylvania
10:29 A.M. – The north World Trade Center tower (1 Tower) collapses.
Tower 1 collapses over one and a half hours after impact.
Tower 2 collapses an hour after impact.
More on the Windsor Tower here and here.
Miss Cotillard suggested that the towers, planned in the early 1960s, were an outdated “money sucker” which would have cost so much to modernise that it was easier to destroy them.
There’s a sucker here, but it wasn’t the Twin Towers.
For the sake of argument, lets accept Cotillard’s assumption: the Twin Towers were an “outdated money sucker.” In order to avoid this loss, someone (the U.S. government?), who was totally unfamiliar with cost/benefit analysis, concocted an elaborate scheme involving 4 planes (with people on those planes) which were to fly like missiles into the “money sucking” buildings (which also had people in them) as well as the Pentagon and the White House (were those also money suckers?) for the purposes of not losing money.
You’d have to ignore the (very predictable) fact that the U.S. economy went into a tailspin afterward.
All of this because the World Trade Center was costing someone money.
Turning to America’s space programme, she said: “Did a man really walk on the moon? I saw plenty of documentaries on it, and I really wondered. And in any case I don’t believe all they tell me, that’s for sure.”
Ah, documentaries. They’re always so accurate and honest, and they never have an agenda behind them. I used to respect documentaries, until Communist/charlatan Michael Moore defecated on the entire genre. Now I avoid them. Thanks Michael.
Regarding the moon landings, I don’t know what Cotillard is asserting here. Does she not believe the documentaries? What exactly do those documentaries claim? That the moon landing is legit or that it’s bogus? Ugh, who cares.
Miss Cotillard, who was born and brought up in Paris, made the comments on Paris Première – Paris Dernière, a programme first broadcast a year ago.
Is it part of French culture to back stab America at every opportunity?
UPDATE: Cotillard’s rep released the following statement / damage control to TMZ:
“On February 16, 2007, I appeared on a late night French television program,’Paris Dernière.’ In the last 48 hours, my statements on that program have been taken completely out of context and been crafted into a story that has no merit. The conversation on the talk show included a dialogue about conspiracy theories. At no point did I intend to contest the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, one of the most tragic days in all of history. Nonetheless, I sincerely regret if my comments offended or hurt anyone.”
“Taken completely out of context” = “You caught me saying stupid shit.”
Filed under: Burn Hollywood Burn , 9/11 myths, Burn Hollywood Burn, stupid celebrities
Stumble It!