Conspiracy beliefs come back to haunt Marion Cotillard
Normally, it takes Oscar winners at least a few months or years to land in trouble, but Marion Cotillard could set a new record thanks to some bizarre comments she made last year that are now triggering a hubbub just days after her best-actress victory.
A past interview suggests Cotillard believes that the U.S. government may have fabricated the 9/11 attacks because the World Trade Center towers were outdated "money-sucker" buildings needing major renovation.
She may even embrace more conspiracy theories — one of them truly out of this world. Cotillard says Uncle Sam may have faked that whole Apollo 11 bit back in 1969.
"Did a man really walk on the moon?" she asked on French TV program "Paris Premiere, Paris Derniere" ("Paris First, Paris Last") last year. "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."
She made the comments a year ago on French TV, but they're suddenly popping up all over the Internet, including Drudge Report, which links to this article in the London Daily Mail. There are additional reports by the New York Daily News and Agence France Presse. A transcript of the TV interview is at the website of French magazine Marianne2. Video clips appear on You Tube.
Cotillard is well known for believing in the fantastic. In her Oscar acceptance speech she said that her best-actress victory was proof "there is some angels" in Los Angeles.




Shes entitled to her opinion.
I agree with her more than disagree with her
Posted by: Ken | May 03, 2008 at 09:44 PM
What actors and entertainers must understand is the fact it is the public's approval of their work that make them high profiled individuals. They should know that they, as public figures and "non-politicians", have every right to express their opinions on anything outside their profession. However, the flip side is, the very same public that made them "stars" also have the right to criticize and scrutinize "what" they state in public.
As actors, whatever they believe socially or politically and reveal to the media, has its fruits or ramifications. It's not a one way street.
The sword cuts both ways and high profiled entertainers should know that. Know the rules, know the players, then let her rip. But, the public has a right to free speech too, and condemnation is part of the package.
Posted by: zammy | March 06, 2008 at 08:45 AM
Nice comeback Scott, touche! I guess I misspoke about the cellphone calls but perhaps you should explain your position on in flight cell phone operation to this man:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/faculty/akd/akd.html
He has written a couple of articles on the subject here http://physics911.net/projectachilles
and here
http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93
It has also recently become questionable whether any of the alleged airplanes involved were in fact equipped with passenger seatback airfones so the authenticity of any passenger calls on 9/11 remains in doubt. As for pissing on the testimonies of the victims' families, read what Lorie Van Auken, one of the Jersey Girls, has to say here (note her personal experience with in-flight cell phone usage) :
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14058
Your American Airlines flight manifest is, at minimum, an obviously 'doctored' document and most probably completely bogus. I'm quite certain a 'real' flight manifest would not include 'SUSPECTED TERRORIST IN BOLD TYPE' in the heading. Nice try though. It could possibly be accepted as confirmation of the OCT by the feeble of body and weak of mind. I would think that your inability to link to a 'real' flight manifest does little to bolster your position and nothing to debunk my claim of no Arab names. As for identifying plane wreckage, I was referring to the hundreds of uniquely serial numbered components found on all commercial aircraft as discussed here:
http://physics911.net/georgenelson
Not random parts and debris shown in photographs without any visible identifiers. It's so difficult for me to understand someones fanatical embrace of the official 9/11 fairytale despite the mountain of such obvious, in your face, contradicting evidence but, whatever. You go right on believing whatever you want, it's your right. The only problem I would have with it is, if, because of your unwillingness, denial, stubborness, inability, whatever, to see past the obvious lies and deceptions, the real perpetrators, the criminals, the real terrorists of 9/11, are never investigated and brought to justice. That would be shameful.
Posted by: Lester | March 06, 2008 at 12:05 AM
The woman is an ACTRESS. The Dixie Chicks are/were MUSICIANS...they have a right to free speech, they are NOT politicians. The French actress is just verbalizing what a fraction of America is thinking. True or not true, she is an ACTRESS!
What's worse, her comment, or what the world views of Hollywood and Hollywood reporters?
Posted by: SimpleRep | March 05, 2008 at 07:45 PM
Tom,
so foerigners dont have the right to free speech?
Posted by: John | March 05, 2008 at 09:04 AM
Lester, my camera may be japanese, but the telescope I use it on was manufactured in the good ol' USA. Not sure what that really has to do with anything though. Good to hear that you now accept the reality of Apollo though, I was about to break out the photos taken by private observatories of the Apollo flights, including one that caught the Apollo 13 explosion on film. Apollo happened, end of story.
As for your 9/11 nonsense, you're full of lies and distortions. I don't have time to dispell every single lie you can spew out, but all I need to do is disprove a single lie to prove how untrustworthy you are. You CAN make cell phone calls on airplanes, but thanks for pissing all over the testimony of the victims' families who spoke with their relatives shortly before their deaths. Not to mention the fact that most of the passengers were using the seat back phones, which also work quite well on airplanes. The only reason you're not allowed to use cell phones on airplanes is so that there is no risk of you disrupting the navigation system. The only issue for the cell phone is the speed at which it is moving from cell to cell, which increases the likelyhood of a dropped call at some point. These were not hour long coversations though, and in some cases they were dropped as you might expect. It is, however, entirely possible:
Neil Whitehouse was jailed for a year for texting during a British Airways flight - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1999/07/22/nphon22.html. Passengers with older analogue phones could have easily used them on planes at altitude as well: "Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles"
http://www.slate.com/id/1008297/
Back in 2001 many more people still had those older style phones as well, myself included. Other experts agree that it's entirely possible:
"From high in the sky, a cell phone acts like a sponge, sucking capacity out of the cellular sites that carry calls. For ground users, cell phones communicate by connecting to one cell site at a time, from the air, because of the height and speed of an aircraft, the phones often make contact with several sites at once."
http://www.hindu.com/seta/2003/10/31/stories/2003103100110300.htm
"Although airline passengers are warned against using their mobile phones in flight, it's fairly well-known that private airplane pilots often use regular cellular and PCS phones, even if it is illegal."
http://www.wirelessweek.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleId=CA160201&stt=001
"An FCC study in 2000 found that cell-phone use aboard aircraft increases the number of blocked or dropped calls on the ground. That's because at high altitude, cellular signals are spread across several base stations, preventing other callers within range of those base stations from using the same frequencies. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14290-2003Jun19?language=printer
That puts to rest this outright lie that you can't connect a cell phone call in an airplane.
The rest of your drive-by hits are also complete nonsense. To cover a couple bases quickly, there was plenty of identifying wreckage, even at the pentagon. Would you like me to post a link to a picture of one of the engines? Oh wait, just watch loose change, it's in there, only they claim it's the wrong type of plane. Just one problem, they weren't looking for the correct type of plane to begin with. Nor did they check it with the manufacturer of the correct type of plane, they called a completely unrelated company who said "we don't make that here." No joke. And no "arab names" on the passenger manifest? I call BS on that. Are you suggesting that the hijackers' names aren't Arab? No, you're probably trying to suggest that they simply aren't found of the "passenger manifest." The usual source cited by CT nutjobs for the manifest is this: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html as well as this: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html
There's a clue as to why they're not found on this "manifest" in the URL though; VICTIMS. Hijackers don't count as victims. The names were also compiled from press reports, not from a manifest obtained from the airline. Other sources though DO have the real manifest, not that CT liars would dare use such a source as they would find out that the hijackers WERE onboard: "The Globe said according to the manifest, Mohamed Atta, one of the suspected terrorists, was assigned seat 8D in business class on American Airlines Flight 11, directly across the aisle from Hollywood producer David Angell and his wife, Lynn, who were in seats 8A and 8B, respectively."
http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/aa_flight_11_manifest.gif
Sorry Lester, you're full of lies it seems.
Posted by: Scott | March 05, 2008 at 07:44 AM
Tom O'Neil did himself, the LA TIMES, and Marion Cotillard a real disservice when he chose to editorialize about the efffect her off-the-cuff remarks in a YEAR OLD interview would have on her career. Her remarks were "dangerous," Tom said. No, GW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove are dangerous. Cotillard is a brilliant actress recently on her first visit to the US. The interview Tom helped bring to light was done long before she ever dreamed she would be spending two months in the US at the end of 2007. I am very disappointed to see that the LA TIMES allowed Tom to editorialize in this fashion, and hope the Hollywood community will bash him as some are insulting Mlle. Cotillard due to his "reporting." Don't we have a country to fix? A president to elect? Why drag up a year-old story just to damage someone? Or did Tom ask her while she was here what her views were on the world, so he could get an update?
Posted by: kitvancleave | March 04, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Okay, you win. We DID walk on the moon and the images from LROC will confirm that fact for me and, hopefully, for Marion as well. Canon is a very fine Japanese camera. Now, what about...my pet goat, WTC7, put options, cipro, molten steel, the Mineta testimony, dancing Israelis, pull-it, flight passenger manifests with no Arab names, impossible cell phone calls (yeah, it's impossible to make a cell phone call from a cruising airliner), Controlled Demolition Inc., Ames strain unsolved anthrax attacks, zero identifying parts from any of the aircraft, the Pentagon? The Pentagon, the single most secure building in the world. The very heart of the western military apparatus. It is ringed by surface to air missiles and has a whole air force base dedicated to protect it. Yet more than an hour after the first plane hits the WTC, it gets slammed by a big, lumbering, passenger jet. No warning, no alarms, no evacuation orders, just kerblooey. It gets hit by a big, lumbering, passenger jet right where Rumsfeld's crack accounting team is working to find the missing 2.3 trillion dollars he told the world was lost by the Pentagon the day before. You know Scott, on second thought, I changed my mind. I do not believe we ever walked on the moon and I won't believe it even if I see the LROC photos. I want to see the images from someone else. Japan, China, India, Russia, maybe then I'll believe it. I will never trust any govt., or anyone who works for such, who murders its own people.
Posted by: Lester | March 04, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Never underestimate the stupidity of actors and actresses.
Posted by: Viviana | March 04, 2008 at 07:42 PM
Tom, angels in LA refers to Los Angeles, as well as the fact that she was welcomed with open arms here. Your lead story is skewed to your opinion by your choice of words (bizarre, belief in the fantastic etc.)
In any event she has apologized, she meant no harm to the tragic loss of life.
I had dear friends on the Pentagon flight, and I miss them terribly but I do not grab a torch, incite the crowd and call for her burning.
Posted by: David | March 04, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Paullacques, just for starters, the last camera I bought was Canon XTI, and I'm quite well versed in photographing the moon and other celestial objects. Personally attacking my expertise is foolish since you don't even know me.
Perhaps you don't realize this, but the LM's landing gear span was only 9 meters and the actual base of the craft was 4.27 meters in diameter. The landing gear span isn't relevant as the legs of the craft are far below 10 meters in diameter themselves and have no chance of showing up on any of Selene's camera's. The entire LM, legs and all, is less than a pixel on Selene's camera, and you can't fudge those numbers just because they look "close enough" to you. You should study photography more if you don't realize what the limiting resolution consequently means for being able to see the lander.
You should also realize that, like it or not, NASA is the world's most advanced space bureau, and you should also realize that half of every camera's performance is the lens system. LROC uses a Kodak KLI-5001G CCD, they're some of the best, but it also uses a Ritchey-Chretien telescope for a lens.
I see no reason at all to distrust the science team for LROC, they're an international team too, not just from america (Harald Hiesinger is one of the main science investigators, and he's in germany), so if you're claiming that because it's an american spacecraft it "can't be trusted" you're wrong. Thanks for proving my point though; you can take pictures of the landing site and these conspiracy theorists still won't change their beliefs.
You were either wrong or lying about the resolving capabilities of Selene as it applies to the Apollo LEM, you claim to be disintrested yet you have obviously armed yourself with conspiracy theorist points on the matter, so why should I trust anything else you say? You sir, are not to be trusted. Either you're seriously misinformed about these matters or you're an outright liar.
Posted by: Scott | March 04, 2008 at 12:14 PM
je suis francaise, et suis degoutee de la remarque de mme cotillard. Ce sont les remarques d'un"RED NECK". If she wants success iun the USA she should stay out of politics. No wonder her film is not showing with all the others Oscar winners
Posted by: jacqueline johnson/chene | March 04, 2008 at 11:28 AM
There is a great deal of science based interest in a much larger conspiracy surrounding 9/11, mostly based on the impossibility of three huge buildings collapsing in identical fashion, a collapse pattern matched only in controlled demolitions.
The L.A. Times is hasty to label Cotillard's comments as "wacko." Of course, the Times is usually about 5 years behind in their coverage of what really happens around the world. Check out their coverage of Reagan's covert wars in Central America for a classic asleep at the wheel journalism.
It's sad that hard hitting criticism of our dangerous government is usually done by entertainment figures, but someone's got to do it. Vive Cotillard!
Posted by: paullacques | March 04, 2008 at 09:50 AM
Scott, http://www.selene.jaxa.jp/en/equipment/tc_e.htm
10m/pixel is what the Japanese are copping to on their website for the terrain camera spatial resolution. Ten meters is about what the landing gear span of the Apollo Lunar Module was/is. If they're there, it should see them. I just want confirmation/proof from a disinterested 3rd party. Our govt. hoaxed us with the 9/11 Arab hijacker fairytale, why wouldn't they have hoaxed us with Apollo? The retroreflectors are not proof as they could have been placed by unmanned, robotic, spacecraft. I find it a bit odd that only the American spacecraft will have a camera capable of imaging the lunar surface with enough resolution to see the Apollo remnants. So you're going to trust the American spacecraft (probably using a Japanese camera), but not the Japanese? What was the last camera you bought, a Kodak Instamatic?
Posted by: Lester | March 04, 2008 at 09:14 AM
Lester, none of the probes currently orbiting the moon have the resolution necessary to see the equipment left behind by Apollo. Man really did walk on the moon though, as proven by tons of moon rocks that show no signs of atmospheric heating, and by laser ranging retroreflectors set in place by the astronauts. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which will head to the moon this year, will be the first probe that has enough resolution to detect the Apollo equipment, and indeed, they're planning on doing just that. Lester, what are you going to say later this year when LRO images the apollo landing sites and finds everything in place? I already know what you'll say, you'll claim the LRO team is a bunch of liars and that they somehow faked the pictures. You set a goalpost you have no intent of honoring.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jul/18/spaceexploration.internationalnews
Posted by: Scott | March 04, 2008 at 07:15 AM
Élyse Addams : Awesome! You display such an ignorance of basic facts (superheated jetfuel burning for hours? That could be funny is the issue wasn't so serious)... Your rant is a wonderful advertisement for true skepticism regarding the events of 9/11.
You will make many people think for themselves, thanks for that.
Posted by: S | March 04, 2008 at 03:56 AM
Right now, as I am writing this, there are two (2) robotic spacecraft in lunar orbit. One is from Japan and the other from China. They've both been up there for several months now. They're loaded with state of the art scientific telemetry instruments, including high resolution cameras. They're in low orbit and the moon has no atmosphere. The question has to come to mind, where are the photos? Where are the photos of Tranquility Base?
Posted by: Lester | March 03, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Hello All:
I have heard a lot about 911 and if it was a US govt job or if it wasnt. It definitely was a govt job. I say this as an intellectual because I personally went to NYC myself to look into it---as I thought it was THAT important. There are some people commenting this and that and quite frankly they have never been to NYC, NJ, or any of its environs. They know absolutely nothing about NYC. And as I was born in NJ and grew up there for some time. I want to add that I was in NYC for the 911 remembrance this past year---2007. I was lucky enough to meet with Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas of the Loose Change films (both I and II, please watch films at googlevideo.com) and also Willie Rodriguez who was the head "janitor" of both towers and was supervisor to a staff of over 50. I personally went to the footprint and saw for myself the travesty. I do not claim to know the most on the topic, but I know more than most. All others in writing in this blog do not have the insight I do on this matter. It brings tears to my eyes to hear someone say it was not an inside job. I have never written on a blog before, so this is my first time. I am usually someone who reads and get angry sometimes and then sometimes happy. I am writing this blog because there was AN INDIVIDUAL THAT SAID THAT MRS. COTILLARD'S STATEMENT DOES NOT RESPECT THE FIREFIGHTERS who died. The truth of the matter is the US govt did not and still does not respect the firefighters and other first responders because they now die slowly and agonizingly from inhalation of toxins (including asbestos and other contaminants) that the US govt will not recognize and PAY FOR!! The can not breathe for GOD'S sake. If that person had not blogged that information---I would not have replied tonight. The proof is SO overwhelming that I have forgotten more than I have retained on the subject. The info/video includes testimony from ppl in the building when they first started running out the bldg and were asked questions upon exiting the bldg.--this includes WTC 7. There are also SOOO many other websites with that video---it is suprising. If you need some of those sites please email me and I will send you some. I also have a pic w/ Willie Rodriguez when I was in NYC--he has a website that has video of his staff telling the stories you probably have not heard before---or seen before as the info is in video format. Willie Rodriguez has his own website (he is affectionately known as the "keymaster" because he had the skeleton key that opened doors for many first responders and other bldg occupants and saved many lives that fateful day) www. william911.com. William has become an ambassador to the accounts of 911. The French lady Mrs. Cotillard has a right to her free speech and can believe whatever she wishes even on topics such as alien abductions--if she wishes. Thank You and if you need any websites with regard to this please email me at thirdworldweb@email.com. I am an American and started this website when I was living outside of the U.S, over 7 years ago. Richie, someone who sought the TRUTH and did not just talk about it!!
Posted by: richie | March 03, 2008 at 09:16 PM
I think Cotillard is hot. don't care what she thinks. Someone please tell her that although the Tri-Lateral Commission has done everything in its power to hide the truth, I'm the world's greatest lover.
Posted by: DonCasual | March 03, 2008 at 07:27 PM
I think we'd all be in deep trouble if everyone recorded every flippant remark that came out of our mouths and replayed it for the world to see. So please don't call the kettle black and we're all quite blackened. I'm tired of this holier than thou tone that is used against every up and coming celebrity.
Posted by: Vpon | March 03, 2008 at 06:03 PM
I live in LA surrounded by the culture of idolizing movie stars. Every now and then I need to be reminded why I dislike them so much. Marion Cotillards comments do just that.
Posted by: peter wolf | March 03, 2008 at 05:57 PM
Why does it matter what an actress says about anything?
Just give them their lines, otherwise they don't often say much that's worthwhile to repeat.
Save the whales!
Posted by: Phil | March 03, 2008 at 04:31 PM
Is she calling Osama Bin Laden a liar?
Man, she going to be in more trouble in France, slandering one of their national heroes like that.
Posted by: badteeth | March 03, 2008 at 04:10 PM
How the hell did she win an Oscar? Did we run out of British women to give Oscars too? Aside from that transxual guy Hilary Swank, no American has won best actress in a long time. If Meryl Streep was still alive, she would have turned over in her grave.
Posted by: badteeth | March 03, 2008 at 04:06 PM
I weep for the abuse the English language and dignified debate have suffered in these comments.
Posted by: Mark Kawakami | March 03, 2008 at 03:06 PM