Troofer Oscar Winner?

Yawn.

But 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.

"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.

Okay, so she's a famed actress who's a nut besides. Sheesh, not like we've never had one of those. Shirley McLaine, anybody? She apparently buys into the notion that the property was a terrible investment:

Miss Cotillard suggested that the towers, planned in the early 1960s, were an outdated "money sucker" which would have cost so much to modernise that it was easier to destroy them.

Yes, it's lots cheaper to cause a trillion-dollar hit on the US economy than it is to tear down a couple buildings.

Bill Maher Is Right

Four words that I've never put together in that order, but he gets our seal of approval for his comments about the kooks:

Another Lefty Joins the Tinfoil Hat Brigade

My Left Nut--errr, My Left Wing:

I still have questions.

11 of the 15 were Saudis, flying those planes.
Bush administration overlooks it.

The only flights allowed were to fly out Bin Laden's family.

15 of the 19 were Saudis, not 11 of 15. Bin Laden's family flew out of the US a few days after the flying ban was lifted.

Before PNAC was outed, and their site, ahem, "cleaned" there were many pre-9/11 references to needing a catastrophe to get the American people behind what they saw as an inevitable need to invade and gain control of the Middle East.

Sigh. Rebuilding America's Defenses you mean? It's still there, uncleaned as ever. There are no references to "needing a catastrophe" merely a recognition that the changes to defense policies they advocate would take time absent a "New Pearl Harbor". They don't talk about the need to invade and gain control of the Middle East; that's just nutty.

More Huffington Post 9-11 Nuttery

I'll say one thing for the Daily Kos; they pretty quickly take care of the 9-11 kook contingent that posts over there. But the Huffington Post seems to wallow in their stupidity.

Riffing off a photo published by the New York Times in a Karl Rove retrospective, Michael Shaw writes:

If Bush's actions confirm his incompetent, pre-formulated, performance-by-rote, what, in addition, might the craft and composition of the photo indicate? In this moment of extreme crisis; 13 minutes before Flight 77 would slam into the Pentagon; with the atmosphere rife with speculation that numerous highjacks (sic) were in progress, can anybody say there wasn't still time for posing?

Only White House photographer Eric Draper could tell us for sure, but with the President centered in the shot, now seemingly down to business (because the kids must be served -- again); the American flag neatly framed under Dan Bartlett's arm; Bartlett, at that very moment, happening to point out the replay of the WTC attack (as if to say, we're on it!); Deborah Loewer, director of the White House Situation Room, doing her situationing perfectly situated behind the boss; and with the two suits to the left standing at attention and ready for action, I'd say this scene is strangely burdened by the sense of what it is supposed to look like.

(Italics in original)

To pick just the obvious, if they were staging their reaction to 9-11, wouldn't they have had Bush immediately jump up when Card told him the second plane had hit? Wouldn't they have had him give a terse speech about how America was under attack, but he was taking charge?

Check out in particular the moronic comments that follow; David Ray Griffin quickly comes up, as does the crockumentary Zeitgeist.

If you happen to run into Michael Shaw, do me a favor? Kick him down the stairs.

Hat Tip: Penraker

Nativism and Anti-Semitism

I remarked just a couple of posts ago that maybe David Ray Griffin cites Christopher Bollyn not despite his clear anti-semitism, but because of it. And as if on cue, another major 9-11 Crackpot, George Washington, aka Alex Floum demonstrates the same in a startlingly jingoistic post:

If a foreign invader tries to seize someone's home, destroy him and his way of life, that person is going to fight hard to repel the invader. History has shown that people fight harder to defend their home and town from foreign invaders than in any other situation.

Well, foreign invaders are trying to destroy my way of life. Some of the invaders - many of whom call themselves "neocons" - have dual citizenship, and their loyalty lies primarily with the foreign nation.

Give us a hint, here, Alex. Are you talking about the Jooooooos?

I was born in the U.S. and I've spent my entire life here. This is my home. I am not willing to let these foreigners, these burglars, these invaders, take my home and my way of life away without a fight.

I'm beginning to think we ought to start looking at who's not an anti-semite in this movement; it would probably take less time.

The Most Insulting CT Yet?

Lord knows, I thought Dylan was insensitive, but this guy makes him look like Richard Simmons. David L. Griscom, a retired research physicist, has come up with his own rather unique theory.

An underlying postulate, or working hypothesis, of my earlier Pentagon model was that the passengers on AA-77 volunteered to feign their deaths in return for cushy “witness protection” programs. This concept is not original to me. It was explored by the CIA in the early 60s as a component of a scheme to fake the shoot-down of an American airliner over international waters as a justification for invading Castro’s Cuba. “The plan [Project Northwoods] was to replace said aircraft with an identical drone, flown by remote control, and land the original plane at an [Air Force] base where passengers, boarded under prepared aliases, would be evacuated. The drone would then fly the route and when over Cuba, emit a distress signal before being destroyed by radio signal.”

I envision a similar 9/11 scheme, but one where the passengers boarded under their true names. Indeed, the seat occupancies on all four aircraft allegedly hijacked on 9/11 were very much lower that industry average (averaging 26% of capacity vis-à-vis 71% for all domestic flights in July 2001). So, here I extend my “all passengers survived” postulate to all four 9/11 “hijacked” flights on the notion that this small number of passengers might have been considered by conspirators as the minimum number for public credulity, while at the same time not exceeding the maximum number of “true believers in the cause” willing to accept long separations from their loved ones (sweetened by handsome Swiss bank accounts).

Yep, that's right, this toad believes that all the passengers were paid off. Todd Beamer and Jeremy Glick are probably sipping Pina Coladas on Tahiti right now. Simply disgusting!

Update: PDoh in the comments: Hey if someone offered me 10 million quid to disappear to some tropical paradise and relax on a beach all day with fit women I would take it.

Perhaps you are missing what they would really have been given the 10 million pounds for; complicity in the murder of thousands of people. Then again, maybe this is why the "Truthers" are so easily convinced? After all they'd take the money if it were offered to them.

He's also a 2004 Election kook, which confirms my already low opinion of Fitrakis, Freeman and their ilk.