Cotillard Has Regret About 9/11 Remarks
In this Thursday, May 31, 2012, job seekers gather for employment opportunities at the 11th annual Skid Row Career Fair at the Los Angeles Mission in Los Angeles. U.S. employers created 69,000 jobs in May, the fewest in a year, and the unemployment rate ticked up. The dismal jobs figures could fan fears that the economy is sputtering. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File) / Damian Dovarganes
She just won a best actress Oscar for playing Edith Piaf in "La Vie En Rose," but unlike the famous singer's signature tune, "Non, Je Regrette Rien," Marion Cotillard is singing a song of the opposite sentiment.
Cotillard found herself in hot water recently over comments she made in an interview last year accusing the U.S. of a 9/11 cover-up.
"Marion never intended to contest nor question the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and regrets the way old remarks have been taken out of context," her Paris-based lawyer Vincent Tolesano told the Agence France Presse.
The actress made her comments on a French television program in February 2007, saying "I think we're lied to about a number of things," including who brought down the World Trade Center.
"It was a money-sucker because they were finished, it seems to me, by 1973, and to recable all that, to bring up-to-date all the technology and everything, it was a lot more expensive, that work, than destroying them," she said.
The interview surfaced on a French magazine Web site and has made the rounds over the Internet.
Cotillard is due in Chicago next week to begin filming "Public Enemies" opposite Johnny Depp.
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. Cotillard found herself in hot water recently over comments she made in an interview last year accusing the U.S. of a 9/11 cover-up.
"Marion never intended to contest nor question the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and regrets the way old remarks have been taken out of context," her Paris-based lawyer Vincent Tolesano told the Agence France Presse.
The actress made her comments on a French television program in February 2007, saying "I think we're lied to about a number of things," including who brought down the World Trade Center.
Cotillard argued that it was an inside job, prompted by the towers becoming obsolete.
"It was a money-sucker because they were finished, it seems to me, by 1973, and to recable all that, to bring up-to-date all the technology and everything, it was a lot more expensive, that work, than destroying them," she said.
She also added that she's not convinced the U.S. really landed a man on the moon in 1969. "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."
Photos: Marion Cotillard
The interview surfaced on a French magazine Web site and has made the rounds over the Internet.
Cotillard is due in Chicago next week to begin filming "Public Enemies" opposite Johnny Depp.
Popular in Entertainment
- Streisand slams treatment of women in Israel 239 Comments
- Police looking into Nigella Lawson throat-grab photos
- Miss USA 2013 24 Photos
- Kris Jenner: Kim Kardashian is "thrilled" about baby
- New Miss USA is an accountant
- "Mad Men" recap: 10 best moments
- Weekend box office: "Man of Steel" smashes June record
- "True Blood" returns for sixth season
The United States Department of Commerce - National Institute of Standards and Technology changed their explanation of what happened to all 3 buildings in September 2007."
No. It did not.
"They never tested for explosives residue.WHY?"
Because it did.
"They can not prove the fire melted the steel columns, they can not really explain why the towers collapsed!"
Because the steel did not melt. No one who actually investigated has ever made that claim. It softend as does all metal when heat is applied. And they explained in detail why they collapsed.
"They admit to not using computer simulations and other methods of investigation..."
Uh, they did use simulations, as well as actual experiments on mock-ups using the same type of material as that in the towers.
"They were not very thorough for such a catastrophic and world consuming event."
They were extremely thorough.
"You need to do some research."
You need to do any research. Other than unsupported rants by ignorant people that is.
//Try looking at different sources and Government documents. Do not rely on a TV show. //
Taking your own advice would be tremendously helpful.
//scabee
P.S. Why did the Air Force stand down? Ha, Ha!//
Because it didn''t. It responded just as the protocols of that time required.
The United States Department of Commerce - National Institute of Standards and Technology changed their explanation of what happened to all 3 buildings in September 2007.
They never tested for explosives residue.WHY?
They can not prove the fire melted the steel columns, they can not really explain why the towers collapsed!
They admit to not using computer simulations and other methods of investigation...
They were not very thorough for such a catastrophic and world consuming event.
You need to do some research.
Try looking at different sources and Government documents. Do not rely on a TV show.
scabee
P.S. Why did the Air Force stand down? Ha, Ha!
Well certainly some of us are. Want to guess who?
"don''''t you know that before 9/11, Bush''''s popularity was going down, and after the WTC his popularity went up enormously??"
Don''t you know he had been in office 9 months? I doubt that his popularity had gone down very far in the few months before such a huge conspiracy would have been started.
"Yeah, we say "oh, it''''s because she''''s french" or "It''''s because she''''s stupid"... We''''re so blind and proud that we don''''t even take into account the fact that the investigation was delayed,"
The 9/11 Commission doesn''t seem to have been all that concerned. They think they got what they wanted and when they wanted it.
"that the full report of the CIA was censored"
Really? So you know the content of what was censored and can tell us the "truth"? Excellent. Please do so.
"and that we invaded Irak for nothing"
Which has just what to do with 9/11? The administration rejected claims that Iraq had anything to do with it.
"(oh yeah, I forgot, we invaded it for oil)..."
Posted by lakergirl241 at 08:51 AM : Mar 05, 2008
Let''s see now. Invade at very high expense to get what we were buying on the open market. Sure.
Yes, really.
"I could''''ve sworn some planes were hi-jacked that day"
Which has nothing to do with any fabricated ''stand down'' claim.
"-we''''ll if you and the government says so."
Neither of "us" has to prove a thing. You are making the claim. Prove that there was a stand down.
"I must''''ve been mistaken about pnac''''s reference to a "new pearl harbor" silly me, you regressives are sooooo smart."
Smart enough to actually read the document in question. Why not actually try it for a change?
//Your swipe about me believing every conspiracy is untrue, but a great way to water down and distract form this one.//
Excellent. Please list the ones you don''t believe in.
//and finally, my apologies I assumed you were intelligent enough to understand metaphors, but since you''''re not, I may have a democracy in china you may be interested in....//
I understand well enough. You know nothing of what you speak, and have nothing to back it up.
See how simple that is?
We don''t know if that theory that Cotillard has is true, but what we know (from the CIA) is that Bush was told about a terrorist threat over the US and he did NOTHING about it. So, I think Cotillard''s version is not so wrong after all.
Because it did not do so.
"Why did pnac cite the strategy for whipping jingo brainswashed media zombies into a war-frenzy years before?"
Because it did not do so. Try actually reading the document.
"Do you regressives believe everything your govenrment tells you?"
Do you believe every bone-headed conspiracy you hear? Obviously the answer must be ''Yes".
//If so, I''''ve got a ski resort in Iraq you may be interested in......//
Really? Why did you buy it in the first place? Talk about gullible.