I don’t think more than an hour or two can go by without someone sending me a note about a friend, relative, or coworker who thinks the Moon landings were faked. I still think the overall percentage of people who think the hoax is real is still really low, but there are enough people in the world that the total numbers can still be high.
Skepticism, it seems, is still something of a precious commodity.
Which is why I am not surprised when some celebrity buys into some dumb conspiracy theory. The latest is Marion Cotillard, who just won an Oscar for a movie I didn’t see. Evidently, a year or so ago she did an interview with a French mag, and said
“I think we’re lied to about a number of things,” she said, singling out September 11.
[…]
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.”
As far as being lied to, well sure. A lot of conspiracy proponents lie, all the time.
Oh, she means by the government. Well, sure, they lie too. But it’s generally best to look at the evidence. In this case, I doubt strongly that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush Administration. For one thing, it would involve intelligence, planning, and an ability to actually think things through. Trying to pin that on this Administration is ridiculous. C’mon! We have a President who has a hard time eating pretzels here.
And as far as the Moon Hoax goes, well… feh. Just, feh.
At least she said that she doesn’t believe everything she hears, which is a start. Unfortunately, a line like that is usually used by people poised to believe in conspiracy theories, not those who really are weighing the evidence rationally.
What’s funny is how the comments of this actress are causing a minor stir; I expect skeptical blogs and such to comment — that’s red meat to us — but why does it get a story in the MSM? Sure, they get a lot of press coverage and such, but honestly, do we expect actors to be any different than the general public when it comes to critical thinking?
I don’t. A lot of them are smart, thoughtful, and good folks. And a lot, well, aren’t. Just like the rest of us.
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Ah, but don’t you see, America isn’t run by the Bush Administration, it’s run by the Illuminati/Jews/Reptiloids….
Or something.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
You didn’t mention the best bit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7273651.stm
“In the interview, given to French TV show Paris Premiere, Cotillard appears to suggest the attacks on the World Trade Center were staged to avoid the expense of refurbishing them.”
Uh, yeah, righto. So in order to avoid the expense of sending in the painters and decorators, the US government decide to kill thousands of people and waste untold millions of dollars in flying two highly complex machines into the buildings, and then millions more in the post-collapse clear-up operation…
I don’t believe in the 9/11 government conspiracy, but surely the idea that they staged the attacks in order to give themselves an excuse to invade the Middle East for their oil reserves is a *little bit* more credible?
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
It really is a shame that we can let people who are more than z-list say theses things. Instantly thousands of people suddenly think they have a little bit more reason to believe it’s true
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
You can go much farther than “doubt strongly”, all the way to “patently impossible” if you’d like. The garbage arguments 9/11 truth proponents like to shotgun around fall quickly in the face of a high school physics textbook.
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
attention cher monsieur, vous êtes en train de faire la pire des choses: amalgames et mensonges….
and YES, 911 was a Bad word deleted inside job… WAKE UP… you are lost in your stars… and THIS stars tell the truth…
Don’t be so stoopid… just read… inform…
Les français savent depuis longtemps ce que le mot “inside job” veut dire… Hitler did it… the Russian did it… and no it is your GOV.. BUSH and is buddies… WAKE UP
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6utwfaXQfA
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I wonder how theBaboon can bear to live in a world with so much “stoopidity”. The rest of us can certainly relate. But seriously, perhaps this is much ado about nothing. I don’t know if actor’s opinions are really taken that seriously, and I think there are a lot more people who believe their government never lies to them– indeed to me the worst aspect of absurd conspiracy theories is how they tend to foster a helplessness response. If anything could be a conspiracy, where do you even start?
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
BadAstronomy.com rocks. Debunking conspiracy theories, slamming Hollywood, celestial photos, and Cthulu kitty, all in the same post. I *love* this blog.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
text with bad words in it deleted.
Hear Hear, Sarcasto.
A lot of my friends are 9-11 truthers, but I always argue that the conspiracy theories are far more complicated than they need to be.
Why would the government go through all the trouble of setting up 9-11 as an inside job when there are thousands of militants and terrorists around the world who are happy to do it for you?
I see two possibilities as far more probable than what the 9-11 truthers believe.
Either the Bush administration is completely incompetent (there’s plenty of evidence since 2001 to support this one), or the Bush administration is completely criminally negligent. As far as the second one goes, I still think it might be possible that they had opportunities to prevent the attacks but provided greater service to the neo-con agenda to allow them to happen.
However, as time goes by I’m leaning more and more toward the first possibility.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Lost of celebrities don’t become celebs because they have a brain. It’s just because they can fake whatever character they are required to be on screen or because they can play music or whatever.
What I find sad though is that a lot of people look up to them and want to know their opinions… And the celebs often think that their opinion is overly important. Take Bono for instance. Face it, besides the cash, they are not that great. Is there a bigger hypocrite out there than Bono?
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Phil,
I am not here to defend the artist as I am not very connected to the arts scene, but you really you seem to take here words a large step farther than what I read from them.
When she singles out 9/11 for being lied to, I have to agree with her and disagree with you that she is stating, right there, it was an inside job.
Look at it this way: do you think the American people know EVERYTHING about 9/11? I’m sure the government covered up a few embarassing things and lied about it. Come to mind are possible hints they ignored of the impending attack (as yet unrevealed) and the reason Building 7 would crumble when no plane hit it and suffered only a few office fires (it MUST have been a controlled demolition).
These would be instances the people were lied too, without thinking the whole thing would be an inside job from the start. I have to disagree with the government for doing it this way, but I do understand the possible reasons the would.
Secondly, she is not flat-out saying she is a hoax-believer. She merely states “she really wondered” about it. You can’t say from that she picked a side, come on!
Geesh, why declare here “Most Gullible Actress” when
a) she’s keeping a cold head about the facts she is presented; and
b) she’s willing to examine alternative views?
As far as I know, she could be a person with very good sckeptical skills, much opposite to your blog’s point of view today!
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
@TheBaboon: Looks like you lack a little bit of brain and decency, my lad. Plus, speaking french does not make you sound smarter. It just makes you sound arrogant. I’m pretty sure the BA cannot read french. Well, I think not. Why do you use french in half of your text? Are you too scared to write everything in english so everyone can understand your disturbed paranoiac mind? Or are you thinking that makes you sound smarter? It doesn’t. It makes you looks stupid, to be frank. Is it because your english is so sub-par that you can only write half of your dementia in english?
For the record, translation of the coward’s blabber:
“attention cher monsieur, vous êtes en train de faire la pire des choses: amalgames et mensonges….”
-Careful dear sir, you are doing the worst thing ever: amalgams and lies…
“Les français savent depuis longtemps ce que le mot “inside job” veut dire…”
-The french knows since a long time what the word “Inside job” means.
Of course, I disagree with everything he said. I hope the french do know what inside job is and I hope the french do know that this was not an inside job. Otherwise, I’ll have to call them all by some bad names.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I watched the fantastic movie IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON last week ( http://journals.aol.com/stuartatk/Cumbrian-Sky/entries/2008/02/25/kendal-enjoys-evening-in-the-shadow-of-the-moon/3418 ), here in Kendal, and one of the astronauts interviewed had the best comeback EVER for people who claim the Moon landings were faked. He pointed out that if they were faked, then they were faked, perfectly, without any leaks or mistakes, SIX TIMES..! That’s both a) impossible, and b) stoopid when it would have been easier, and cheaper, and safer, to fake one landing then give up and say “Ok, done it, don’t need to do it again.”
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
First off, I’d like to say that I am very much a skeptic, who prides himself on examining and recognizing his own biases, and one who always remains open to new evidence and a change of mind. I am an atheist (who feels that religion overall is a detriment to society) who works as a science educator. That said, of all the evidence I have seen re: the events on 9/11, I cannot accept the official story as being a valid description of what caused those events. The evidence seems pretty clearly to suggest that a lot more was going on. I won’t attempt to present that evidence here because it can be readily found elsewhere. But it seems to me that many self-proclaimed skeptics immediately write off all “conspiracy theories” as bunk (as that truly is the default position) but then stick to that position regardless of the evidence because of the very fact they seem to think that is what good skeptics do. Obviously, that’s a misunderstanding of what it means to be a skeptic. The fact is, -some- conspiracy theories really are true. Just for example, every coup d’etat in history has required some conspiracy to accomplish, so please don’t treat “conspiracy theory” as a dirty or silly word. Indeed, as has been pointed out before, if you believe the official story for 9/11, you are believing in a conspiracy theory. Were the moon landings faked? Hell no. It is blatantly obvious they were real, as delving into the claims of those who say they weren’t reveals rather quickly that those claims can all be refuted, and often the “claims” are revealed as intentional lies. I have found this not to be true at all of the 9/11 conspiracy claims. As many of them truly seem to have no valid rebuttals. It’s frustrating and discouraging to me to see fellow skeptics lumping moon hoaxers in with 9/11 “truthers.” The only categorizations that should be made in these regards is between those who don’t look at the evidence, choosing to trust their own preconceptions, and those who do look at the evidence who are willing to give up those preconceptions if reality contradicts them.
As for the idea that this administration is too stupid to accomplish something like this, you have to remember this administration was clever enough to dupe (a large percentage of) the population into electing it, clever enough to create a facade that allowed it to start an illegal war for it’s own benefit, and clever enough to remain in power despite all of this. Perhaps much of the blame for these things lies with the uninformed public, but so too can the fact that no truly independent and competent investigation has been allowed to be conducted on the events of 9/11. I’d have to agree that Bush is quite the moron, but don’t judge the entirety of the administration and those who support/influence it by the idiot they have intentionally chosen to represent it.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Hi Travis,
Thanks for the measured response, it certainly stands apart from the more commonly heard “WAK UP U SHEEPLE!!1!” retort.
I don’t believe there are any alternate 9/11 arguments that cannot be easily countered with a more realistic explanation. Care to try an experiment? Select one single argument that you feel is most compelling, and lay out the case for it here. I’ll follow with a rebuttal. We’ll stick with the one issue alone, and examine it in as much detail as we can. Up for that?
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Even disregarding the actual evidence (which overwhelmingly supports the broad outlines of the official version) the idea the 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government fails because there would be much simpler ways to fabricate a catastrophic terrorist attack of equal proportions.
If it is “so obvious” 9/11 was staged (according to those who claim the planes didn’t bring down the buildings, or were remote controlled, or missiles etc.) why would the real plotters have done it that way ? Why not use truck bombs like Oklahoma city or even Sarin gas like the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan ? Or any of hundreds of other attacks that would have resulted in a similar level of death and destruction ?
How is it they could pull off this massive hoax involving thousands of people, yet at the same time miss all the alleged glaring defects ?
How is it of all the people who would have to be involved, not a single one blew the whistle on a plot to kill thousands of American citizens ?
This is truly as ridiculous as the moon hoax.
FWIW An excellent book on the history of the actual 9/11 conspiracy http://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/037541486X
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I chatted with a clerk in a store a while ago. I said something about the moon, I forget what. She wondered if the moon landings really happened. I was stunned because I’d never heard anyone speak that folly out loud. I asked her if the Soviets, who were no doubt watching the US efforts with telescopes, RADAR and satellites, would have let the US get away with faking on such a huge scale. Neither she nor I could come up with any scenario where the Soviets would have kept their mouths shut while seeing that no US spacecraft left Earth orbit or passed through the dread Van Allen belts. To the overwhelming evidence against the “Moon Hoax” I would like to add that no damning surveillance by the determined USSR has ever been shown to the world, as it certainly would have been if anything untoward had been discovered by the Soviets.
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Every time I come here, it absolutely blows my mind that your #1 tag is “fake moon landing.” Are there really that many ignorant $#!+heads out there?
“La Vie en Rose” has gotten rave reviews all over the place. I’d like to see it now that I’ve read about it. Some people are upset over Cotillard lip synching Piaf’s recordings, but I can understand why she did it. No one sings like Piaf (though many have tried - the best I’ve ever heard was one in Quebec 20 years ago, and even she didn’t cut it).
Maybe I’ll get lucky and the local theater that occasionally shows foreign and “art” flicks will bring it in for a day or two. We’ll see.
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
themadlolscientist:
“Every time I come here, it absolutely blows my mind that your #1 tag is “fake moon landing.” Are there really that many ignorant $#!+heads out there?”
Yes. Yes, there are that many ignorant $#!+heads out there. For every such person who is able to use a computer to post shocking nonsense, there are hundreds who can’t operate a computer but who work hard to spread folly far and wide by other means. The audience reached by the intertoobs is still only a fraction of humanity.
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I have to second the vote for the new doco “In the Shadow Of The Moon”.
Here’s a very positive review:
http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/txt/s2170069.htm
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Even though a hundred million people watched those planes fly into the World Trade Center on live TV, we’re still supposed to believe they were brought down by explosives? And never mind that Osama bin Laden has repeatedly claimed credit for the attacks, we’re still supposed to believe Bush was behind it? The Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated mind boggling levels of incompetence, and President Bush himself has the IQ of a ball of yarn, yet we’re supposed to believe that these people successfully pulled off the biggest government orchestrated deception in the history of human civilization?!?!?!
I don’t know what these conspiracy theorists are smoking, but I could sure use a hit.
By the way, the moon landings by Apollos 11, 12, and 14-17 were faked. Apollo 13 was the only one that successfully landed on the moon. NASA covered it up, however, after the astronauts were eaten by giant sandworms living in the lunar dust.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Whenever I come across Moon landing deniers (and I do, even in England), I’m always tempted to try Buzz Aldrin’s counter-argument.
Difficult to do in an email though…
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
I think what many fail to differentiate between is (a) the Bush administration orchestrated 9-11, and (b) the Bush administration allowed 9-11 to happen. The former is highly unlikely for the reasons the BA notes. The latter, OTOH, is supported by a great deal more circumstantial evidence and aligns better with the dual incompetence/cynicism of the people involved.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Well, to be fair, it really doesn’t matter how incompetent or intellectually deficient the shrub is, since after all he is just the “coathanger” that they put the nice suit on to present to the public while the real power behind the throne and true criminal mastermind is Cheney. And everyone knows that he is perfectly capable of any orchestrating a dastardly conspiracy. . . .
Oh wait, he’s the guy who shot his buddy by accident while hunting. . . .
Um, let me get back to on that one. . . .
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I agree with Daniel, I have not heard a single 9/11 conspiracy point that can’t be debunked, and easily. Do I think the shrub is without responsibility? No. I think (at least in hindsight) it could easily have been stopped. We caught a terrorist suspect taking flight lessons. He was arrested and no one seemed to put the pieces together, but, that means that we were shortsighted, not responsible. I think the CIA, Shrub and his bosses were all shocked by the events. I also agree that they have capitalized on it for all that it was worth. We do not know everything that happened, but that is no reason to ignore that planes hit the building, not explosives. The physics back up the reason the buildings failed. You simply cannot fake physics. Sure conspiracies do happen, the terrorists did conspire to commit suicide in a very damaging way. You also have to remember that the USA could not even keep the design of atomic weapons a secret. That was a very important secret to say the least.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Gee, maybe Dubya is just a really great actor??? As in, “I don’t know. I just read what’s on that tele, thing-a-ma-jigger,,,”.
I note that the Dead were very apolitical during their 30 year tour, probably because Jerry( a man a great deal smarter than me) realized no matter what position one takes in politics, you’re gonna piss off someone.
HAving said that, now I’ll try to irritate all conspiracy nuts every where,,,
How could Nixon(with a reputed I.Q. of 140) be caught out by a couple of reporters, but Dubya(I.Q. maybe 110) could pull off a massive conspiracy like 911?
How could the moon landing be a hoax when I watched it in action, along with every scientist at NASA(some of whom were well known SciFi writers who are well known blabber mouths), as well as every nation on earth?
Such conspirators would have to be mutant smart(I.Q. 1000 or so).
In the X-files, the bad guys always seemed to know what the good guys were up to, but the good guys were totally clueless. Are good guys all native to SAn Fernando Vally?
There may have been one or two successful conspiracies in history, (How would we know?) but the old saying holds true.
Any secret shared between two people will only remain a secret if one of them is dead,,,
GAry 7
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
zzzzzz wake me up when the astro stuff comes back
BORING !
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I’ve been a professional actor for about thirty years now, and the great majority of actors I’ve worked with are bright, savvy, skeptical types.
Admittedly, I work with blue collar actors, not movie stars.
I don’t really know Ms. Cotillard’s work, and it’s hard to judge an actor when you don’t speak their language, but my impression has always been that her career is based more on her willingness to get naked than on her skills as a thespian.
But please don’t dismiss an actor’s political opinions just because he’s an actor. I can’t count the number of days I’ve spent 7 and a half hours reading a book while waiting to shoot thirty minutes of footage. I learned a lot of cool things on the clock.
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Gary Ansorge:
“…but Dubya(I.Q. maybe 110) could pull off a massive conspiracy like 911?”
Who is this above-average-intelligence Dubya of whom you speak? I thought we were talking about the mentally ill boy whose handlers stole the presidential election twice to set the sad, broken child on the throne against the will of the people.
IQ 100 is average. Are you suggesting that the savage, psychotic Shrub has intelligence even approaching average? You do him far too much honor.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Why do you care about oscars and ‘earthly’ stars anyway? I thought serious individuals don’t bother much with that.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Egads. I swear, I have to make my “humor” tag much bigger.
I was joking about the pretzels. Joking. Obviously, the Bush Administration is many things, but I think we do have some people there who can function well enough to feed themselves.
See? That there was more humor. Just a tad.
Second, please don’t use bad words in these comments, and don’t quote those who did. I wound up deleting that whole comment by accident, actually, and I apologize for that, sarcasto. I only meant to delete the bad stuff, but I made a mistake.
Third, I do read some French. Not a lot, but some. Just saying.
Fourth, I didn’t really make fun of the actress that much, besides the clearly over-the-top picture. Still, she deserves it; there are most likely true secrets about 9/11 we’ll never know, as there are any big government action, but the problem is the ones getting traction are ridiculous, and those are the ones she chose to parrot. Read Rebecca’s blog about this (I linked to it in my post) for more about that.
And finally, fifth, please note that I don’t denigrate actors as a whole here at all, and go out of my way to say that they reflect the general population (well, to a point, there will certainly be selection effects, but education and intelligence need not be one of them).
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
The cool thing about being famous is traveling. I have always wanted to travel across seas, like to Canada and stuff.
— Britney Spears
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Well, what have we here.
AAAAAAAA! 9/11 CONSPIRACY TALK!
RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY NOW!!!!!
Must get thread back on track!
Quick! Throw movie quotes at it!
Game over, man! We’re gonna need a bigger boat! They call me MISTER Tibbs! Rosebud! We don’t need no badges! Plastics! Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape! Attica! Attica! No wire hangers, ever! I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 am
“In the X-files, the bad guys always seemed to know what the good guys were up to, but the good guys were totally clueless.”
That’s because the bad guys have an agenda while the good guys are just collecting a paycheck.
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:31 am
Well,
From what you quoted, I disagree with you. Marion Cotillard actually behaves skeptically. Not believing everything we’re said [before looking at evidence] is key.
Now maybe she said more. Is there any *detailed* record of what she said on the net, preferably, the original French version? Here too, I would rather make up my own opinion from the facts.
And even then, she may have been misquoted too. So perhaps she deserves a little bit of slack?
Please note also that among the French [press, media, culture, people] there is no significant belief in this moon conspiracy theory. Actually, its share of voice here in France is about zero (and so is creationism’s).
So maybe, just maybe, Mrs Cotillard did not allude to that, but was only picking up one example to support her stance about not believing everything we’re said. She could all the same have picked up another example, say about Middle East or something.
Greeting from France, where this winter has been one of the warmest and sunniest ever (to allude to another one of your recent stories).
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:49 am
Ok, I dig it out, and here is what I found. It seems Phil was right after all:
Marion Cotillard : J’ai tendance à être plutôt souvent de l’avis de la théorie du complot.
Xavier de Moulins : Un peu parano ?
M. C. : Pas parano, non c’est pas parano parce que je pense qu’on nous ment sur énormément de choses : Coluche, le 11 septembre. On peut voir sur internet tous les films du 11 septembre sur la théorie du complot. C’est passionnant, c’est addictif, même.
X. de M. : Sur le 11 septembre par exemple, toi, qu’est-ce qui t’a le plus troublée, concrètement ?
M. C. : On te montre d’autres tours du même genre ayant pris des avions, ayant brûlé… il y a une tour, je crois que c’est en Espagne, qui a brûlé pendant 24 heures.
X. de M. : Avant de s’effondrer ?
M. C. : Elle ne s’est jamais effondrée ! Aucune de ces tours ne s’effondre. Et là, en quelques minutes, le truc s’effondre. Et puis après, on peut en parler longuement… Parce que c’était bourré d’or les tours du 11 septembre. Et puis c’était un gouffre à thunes parce qu’elles ont été terminées, il me semble, en 1973 et pour recâbler tout ça, pour le mettre à l’heure de toute la technologie et tout, c’était beaucoup plus cher de faire des travaux etc. que de les détruire…
[A ce stade, il semble que le reste de sa tirade ait été coupé au montage, pour en arriver à la conclusion :]
Est-ce que l’homme a vraiment marché sur la lune ? J’ai vu pas mal de documentaires là-dessus et ça, vraiment je m’interroge. Et en tout cas je ne crois pas tout ce qu’on me dit, ça c’est sûr.
Here is my translation (almost litteral, on purpose):
Marion Cotillard : I tend to often agree with the conspiracy theory.
Xavier de Moulins : Aren’t you a little paranoid ?
M. C. : Not paranoid, it’s not being paranoid to think we’re lied to about many things. Coluche, 9/11. You can watch on the internet all the videos on the 9/11 conspiracy theory. It’s enthralling, even addictive.
X. de M. : About 9/11 for example, what made *you* specifically the most suspicious?
M. C. : We’re shown other similar towers hit by planes and being burnt… There is one, I think it’s in Spain, which burnt for 24 hours.
X. de M. : Before collapsing ?
M. C. : It never collapsed ! None of those towers ever collapse. While on 9/11 these things collapse in just a few minutes. Then you can talk about it for a long time. Because they were stuffed with gold, the 9/11 towers. And also they were immensely expensive to keep running, because they were built in 1973 I think and to bring them up to date, rewire them, add all the required technology and so on, it was a lot more expensive to refurbish them than to destroy them…
[some cut at the editing stage, up to her a concluding remark]
Did man ever walk on the moon? I watched a number of documentaries about that, and really, I wonder. In any case, I don’t believe everything we’re told, that’s for sure.
So all being considered, I agree: she’d better shut up!
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:57 am
Direct from the “horse’s” mouth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6JltVP7fYI
Unfortunately, it’s in French, and the sound is not very good. I had to listen to it very carefully to confirm the transcript I posted above is correct.
And my translation is quite close to what she said really.
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 am
What horse puckey. Those of you - and those elsewhere - who need “proof”, really need to learn something about the construction of the WTC buildings, as do those who need to jabber before turning on their brains. It’s ironic to see conspiracy fans complain about the intelligence of the only American in politics they know by name when they demonstrate none of it themselves.
In short, you can argue about how Atta & Co. came to act, and what happened afterwards, but there is no doubt - NONE - that the planes brought the towers down.
Congress, not the President (no matter who is in office), has the Constitutional duty to provide and control 99% of what the President is blamed for. They get away with not doing their duty because Joe and Susie Sixpack do not know who they are and get off on hating someone for things they cannot control.
Just watch. Something about Eta Carinae’s next eruption will be the fault of “the Bush Administration”. It’s a symptom of mental illness.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 am
I am reminded of the brilliant BBC documentary “The Human Face with John Cleese.” While the documentary focused upon the human face, it did touch upon the question of why do people care about celebrities. Curiously, Hollywood celebritydom didn’t really take off until the close-up was developed. But as to why their opinions are valued is rooted in the fact celebrities–namely, kings, political figures, etc.–used to earn their power and prestige, and so when they were spotted walking in a village, people knew they had important things to say. But now… not so.
(It can be argued the human species needs a sense of community and with the rise of large cities that people now feel isolated, being in a swarm of strangers. By people watching movies, television, interviews, celebrities tap into a sense of community, pseudo-intimacy, and therefore whose opinions are valued.)
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:14 am
Who cares what she thinks…the question is “what can she prove?”
…and the answer to that is…nothing.
Why anyone would rely on a french actress for information regarding scientific matters is beyond me.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 am
Marion who?
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:37 am
Who is this above-average-intelligence Dubya of whom you speak? I thought we were talking about the mentally ill boy whose handlers stole the presidential election twice to set the sad, broken child on the throne against the will of the people.
Not that I take any pleasure in defending the W but…
IQ notwithstanding, the Shrub is the president, and nobody here has achieved that level of success, unless Queen Elizabeth or perhaps Vladimir Putin reads (and comments on) this blog. That kind of says something about the value of IQ. Yeah, I think he’s dumb as a stump, but I’m pretty sure he’s a brighter bulb than Ronald Reagan.
Say what you want about the clown, he’s still president, and that’s got to be worth something.
The “stole the election” mantra is stale, sour grapes. He won, get over it. Best of all, his time is almost up. Maybe next time, the people whose will has been the victim of this alleged affront, will get off their lazy butts and vote instead of sitting back and whining about the results of the election.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 am
Squid:
My point exactly.
IQ(Read: talent associated with success in an academic environment) seems to have little direct relationship with success in life. I’ve known people who could not read, yet successfully ran a business(a small business, to be sure). I’ve known Mensa members who were barely able to keep food on the table. I’ve also known really bright people who chose to appear dumb as bricks because, as one(Donny Boldman) told me, “When people think you’re too dumb to comprehend them, they’ll say things in your presence they think you won’t understand. I learn a lot about what people really think that way,,,”.
I guesstimated Dubyas’ IQ based on his public utterances but that is hardly more than a very rough indicator. He did manage to obtain a business degree, was gov. of Texas and a businessman. Granted, he had the advantage of family wealth to draw upon but, one definition of intelligence is the ability to take the circumstances you’ve been born into and run with it. He has definitely run far with those attributes.
Still, I seriously doubt he would be a fun guy to sit with and have a beer. My conversations tend to the esoteric. His probably run to sports, which is of little interest to me. That doesn’t mean he’s dumb, just not in a league I would consider interesting.
Gary 7
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 am
I just have to wonder if the definition of skeptic is really know to many of you who claim the tag.
I myself am a creative thinker with delusions of realist-sanity
there is more to reality than can be encopassed by the meager wit of man
Peace,
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:16 am
encompassed
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 am
Marion Cotillard ACTED the part of Edith Piaf magnificently; she WAS Piaf in that film. The film was also a downer, in the sense that it was one long sob-fest of the misery that was Piaf’s life. Does acting take any higher level intelligence skills? Probably not. Are some actors blessed with above-average intelligence? Yes, of course. Are some creative people also confounded by whacko ideas? Yep, again: A.C. Doyle believed in the “spirit world,” for example, and Tom Cruise… (I’m not going to provide a lengthier list; you can Google it yourselves).
I don’t believe that Bush is stupid. He isn’t blessed with an inquisitive mind, however. I have read some interesting essays by a father and son Psychologist team (one teaches, the other practices) on Huffington Post on why his behavior is so bizarre. And I’ve read enough data about the Florida and Ohio election irregularities to convince me that the R’s did in fact steal the first, if not the second, election. And I do believe that the American public, for the most part, is NOT a well read group, and they don’t respond to intelligence in a candidate so much as his personality, charisma, or image. All the negative data on R. Reagan - his huge budget deficit he left as governor in CA, his pandering to the Christian conservatives, his divorce - was available before he ran for president. All the deliberate lies to cover the mistakes his administration made during his terms as president, the enormous tolerance those who adore him stlll show for his truly awful presidency (he is the original “Teflon Don”) says volumes about why conspiracy theories find fertile ground with some folks.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
The articles about the Bush brain were on TruthOut; the authors are John P. Briggs, M.D. and his son J.P. Briggs II, PH.D.
Will. M
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
The Bad Astronomer. Come on man.
Sure it is under humor. Sure this actress said some stuff that you don’t agree with, (I don’t agree with her either) but this post comes across as if you are ridiculing her. (due mainly to the words and the picture ;p) Ridicule is akin to desperation, and sure, you and many others want desperately to debunk this whole moon landing issue to the whole world.
A post like this is actually a ‘double edged sword’. Sure you got your point across to many, mainly those that already agree with you, but second, you block out many viewers of this post by the ‘apparent’ ridicule of their non-critical thinking abilities, which is not really fair at all, and will only result in the people you are trying to reach becoming less responsive to your coherent arguments.
If you aren’t ridiculing her, my sincere apologies, but it sure looks like it.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Hello
Daniel, you asked for one question which would be hard to answer. Here it is:
35 minutes is the time between the second impact into the towers shown life on TV and the impact at the Pentagon, where Mr. Rumsfield was, the leader of the biggest military power of the world.
How could it be that a missing jet had 35 minutes time after the worldwide TV tansmission of the second impact to finally crash into the heart of the defense of the USA?
Can you imagine how far a military fighter flies in 30 minutes time even without the afterburner?
Do you think there are no suface to air missile defenses for the Pentagon?
Do you think they would have left Mr. Rumsfield sitting in his office waiting for his death?
Was nobody responsible for the protection of Mr. Rumsfield and the Pentagon?
Who was in charge, has he been questioned on why he so terribly failed his job?
Did anybody even try to do something, like getting Mr. Rumsfield out of the Pentagon?
Okay, this is more than one question, but it all boils down to one argument: 35 minutes of doing nothing to procted the Pentagon.
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
“How could it be that a missing jet had 35 minutes time after the worldwide TV tansmission of the second impact to finally crash into the heart of the defense of the USA?”
Possibly because the plane was believed to have crash by one of the control centers. There was less then 20 minutes between the time that people bang to second guess the crash and the actual impact at the Pentagon. Then, you have to take into account that it takes time to scramble planes. Plus, planes had already been scrambled, but had to be ordered back to D.C. (I’m assuming that they originally were ordered elsewhere). That was only 5 minutes before impact.
“Can you imagine how far a military fighter flies in 30 minutes time even without the afterburner?”
F-16s are not incredibly fast. Max speed is dependent partly on the variant, but usually falls around Mach 2ish. Whether or not the airborne fights should have been able to intercept would be depenant on where they where when they were order to D.C.
“Do you think there are no suface to air missile defenses for the Pentagon?”
I don’t know. The US capital is situated in a location where most military attacks against would not come as a surprise. You either have to come across miles of ocean via carrier, or launch a long range mission from abroad. Both would surely be noticed and intercepted. Or at least, I’m sure whoever is deciding whether the budget should be spent on AA at the Pentagon or some air superiority fighter might conclude that. Can you tell me that you know that their are such defenses?
“Do you think they would have left Mr. Rumsfield sitting in his office waiting for his death?”
There are several places in D.C. that could have been targeted (oh, and to all the spooks now reading these post, Hi!). Of all of them, the Pentagon is probably the safest, and, let’s face it, with the Capital and White House in the area, those would be my concerns in a terrorist attack.
“Do you think they would have left Mr. Rumsfield sitting in his office waiting for his death?
Was nobody responsible for the protection of Mr. Rumsfield and the Pentagon?
…
Did anybody even try to do something, like getting Mr. Rumsfield out of the Pentagon?”
I’m sure that there were probably people around him thinking that they should leave. “We’ve analyzed their attack, sir, and there is a danger. Should I have your ship standing by?” “Evacuate? … I think you overestimate their chances.” I’m sure that there was some decision to stay for some reason, but to suggest that it was because of conspiracy? “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
“Who was in charge, has he been questioned on why he so terribly failed his job?”
Given that this question came in the middle of three other discussing Rumsfield being at the Pentagon, I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking. If you’re asking why did someone fail so miserably at protecting the Secretary who refused (?) to leave the Pentagon, then I don’t know whether that could be considered a terrible failure, since Rumsfield lives.
But if you mean who was suppose to take care of the whole events of the day and why did they fail to stop the attacks, well, that’s a valid question, and a terrible complex one. That that merited a commission, several months of media coverage, hundreds of books, interviews, press release, etc. Their are probably hundreds of people who are accountable, ranging from small fries who to this day probably hold themselves accountable for not doing something, all the way to top brass and politicians whose policies and failure to recognize a growing problem were a significant factor. As for the chaos day itself, keep in mind, an attack like this is not what our military has spent the last 6 decades preparing for. I’m sure that there was a lot of protocols in place that people failed to follow that day. And I’m sure that there are several protocols that were not in place because we did not see this coming, or at least, give it serious merit.
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Ok, let’s go down to the point:
You are resposible for the protection of the Pentagon and all of the people inside, including Mr. Rumsfield.
You are informed of one tower burning. Then the second tower is hit by an airliner. What do you do within the next five minutes?
a) Order protection measures of the Pentagon
b) Evacuate the Pentagon, possibly to under the earth bunkers
c) a + b
d) nothing of the above
Fact is, a part of the pentagon has been destroyed due to the complete lack of any protection and Mr. Rumsfield could have been killed.
Fact is, no evacuation has been made.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Some of you guys REALLY know how to get ‘off topic’.
March 4th, 2008 at 5:37 am
Does anyone else feel dumber for reading this thread?
Seriously, I’ve lost all ability to function in society now. Thank you, I appreciate that.
Anyway, just discovered this site today and I love it.
Some of the commentariat might be dumb as bricks, but I never usually read blog threads anyway.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:04 am
@MisterChris:
FYI, chances are I won’t be checking responses to this, since the post has moved off the main page and I generally stop keeping track of conversations at that point.
Was there mistakes made in the handling of the Pentagon before AA77 hit the building? Apparently! But then, you know what they say about hindsight.
My point is that if this were a military strike against the US, then I’m sure that those responsible for the security of the Pentagon would have approached the situation differently. But terrorist attacks generally target the civilian population, because that causes the most hysteria. Even so, D.C. is a virtual gallery of potential targets. To evacuate the Pentagon when all you know is that a plane is coming to D.C., where there are so many targets, would indeed save several lives, but it would also add greatly to the confusion both withing the military and to the observing civilian population. And that in itself could be more detrimental should the plane actual come down somewhere else.
Yeah, if they KNEW that the plane was targeting the pentagon specifically and did nothing, then yeah, I’d agree that that was poor management and just reckless behavior. But as it is, given the information that they knew at the time, I think it was very unfortunate.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:47 am
i absolutely love the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. those loose change guys have been an endless source of entertainment for me. the movies aren’t so great, but their interviews are absolutely hilarious! within the first minute of their debate with popular mechanics on democracy now, jason berams called them yellow journalists. essentially, all of their arguments boil down to “you’re a liar!”
anyhow, i had heard about “in the shadow of the moon” but it made its way out of the theaters in a flash. it’s gotten great reviews and i was really excited to see it but missed the chance. is out out on dvd yet?
March 6th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Dounk writes:
[[Come to mind are possible hints they ignored of the impending attack (as yet unrevealed) and the reason Building 7 would crumble when no plane hit it and suffered only a few office fires (it MUST have been a controlled demolition).]]
Building 7 was not hit by the planes, true. It was, however, hit with debris from buildings 1 and 2. So no, there’s no way it MUST have been a controlled demolition. From the films, it clearly is not, since in any controlled demolition, they blow out the first floor and let gravity collapse the rest. Have you looked into how controlled building demolitions are done?
March 6th, 2008 at 10:04 am
MisterChrist writes:
[[How could it be that a missing jet had 35 minutes time after the worldwide TV tansmission of the second impact to finally crash into the heart of the defense of the USA?]]
Well, if you multiply the jet’s speed by the time involved (35′), you get a maximum value for the linear distance it had to travel to hit the Pentagon. The area is then that distance, called it R, squared and multiplied by pi. Compare the area of a jetliner to the area involved, note that most of the country is not under radar surveillance most of the time, and you’ll begin to understand why it’s a much harder problem than you might think.
The CIA headquarters at Langley, VA has huge plate glass windows in front. They don’t expect a domestic attack (though in fact they did have some crazy guy take a shot at them a couple of years ago). Neither did the Pentagon planners. There hasn’t been an internal war in the United States since 1865.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Sorry, I meant Chris above, not Christ.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:10 am
MisterChris writes:
[[You are resposible for the protection of the Pentagon and all of the people inside, including Mr. Rumsfield.
You are informed of one tower burning. Then the second tower is hit by an airliner. What do you do within the next five minutes?
a) Order protection measures of the Pentagon
b) Evacuate the Pentagon, possibly to under the earth bunkers
c) a + b
d) nothing of the above]]
Probably d, since I would have no reason to think an attack on commercial buildings in New York would portend an attack on government buildings in Virginia.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Hi folks
Thanks for answering.
For those who are really interested in theses things, please google MASCAL to get a maybe different point of view.
Short summary from Wikipedia:
“The Pentagon Mass Casualty project (codenamed Pentagon Mascal) was a mock terrorist contingency exercise that was held in the Office of the Secretary of Defense conference room from October 24 to October 26, 2000. The exercise required emergency response teams, members of the defense protective services, and U.S. government officials to conduct emergency simulations in preparation for a possible plane crash into the Pentagon.”
Maybe someone should have told Mrs. Rice about it.
In case anyone reads Tom Clancy, for example “Debt of Honor” written in 1994, you will read about a jetliner killing the president.
Ok, Tom Clancy is not the government.
To round it up, I don’t believe in most things some others do, like “missle in the Pentagon” (where is the plane? - burned, as aluminium burns), or controlled demolition (does not affect anything).
But I strongly doubt the official conspiracy theory about 19 (comparably dumb) people killing 3000. This has been done by some very intelligent people.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:17 am
At the risk of extending this already long thread, I’ll just point out that whatever the 9/11 hijackers where they were not, even comparatively, “dumb”. Atta for example, was, IIRC, a trained engineer and apparently a star student. MisterChris, please don’t make the mistakee of assuming that because a person’s motives or worldview is incomprehensible to you, they are lacking in intelligence.