PLAYGUIDE © 2015 American Blues Theater
by Steven Dietz Stories are bigger at the bar. There is something about the inherent camaraderie of tippling strangers that renders even the simple story a little bigger, a little more rigorously outlandish. The fits and starts that comprise our daily lives can – with a bottle of beer and an attentive bartender – attain in the telling a certain rough-hewn majesty. Taverns are home to the tallest of Tall Tales, where one can be nightly rewarded with some terrific lie, boast, promise, or story. The air is thick with invention. A man, for example, can go into a bar and order a Rolling Rock beer – in its traditional green bottle. And as this man sips his beer, another man might note the odd and enduring number “33” that has appeared on bottles of Rolling Rock since the brewery’s founding in 1939. This man might say the “33” signifies the year that Prohibition ended – a worthy date for a brewer to immortalize. Another man might (rightly) say the number represents the 33 words that comprise the beer’s original slogan. Still another man will say, with absolute certainty: “The number on that beer bottle represents the 33 degrees of the Scottish Rite – the holy order of Freemasons. It’s a sacred and mysterious number – part of their plan to control government and control the world.” And then the guy at the very end of the bar will say: “Those are the same guys who were behind 9/11.” And some will nod. And some will laugh. And all will drink their beer. The biggest story wins. A “conspiracy theory” is simply a Tall Tale without end. It contains all the marvelous speculative reach of a great myth – with just enough factual ballast to get the attention of the Doubting Guy across the room. And the bigger the event – The Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 attacks – the bigger the potential landscape; the more malleable the coincidences. 1
What’s more: a conspiracy theory significantly raises the status of the teller. Whereas the teller of a Tall Tale is a person sharing a story, the teller of a conspiracy is sharing a secret. He is “letting you in on something only a few people know about” – and thus your status as a Listener, too, is ennobled. You are special. And you are now complicit. Stories bind us to one another in insidious ways. The surprise, terror, and inexplicable complexity of the 9/11 attacks have launched a lifetime’s worth of speculation. And with avid speculation – and a little canny imagining – any number of Tall Tales can be spun about “what really happened” and who was really behind it. And most all of them are patently absurd. Except for the ones that maybe…aren’t. The ones that, despite our rational firewall, tend to hold our attention for a minute or two. The niggling curiosity, the odd question that takes up residence in our mind. Continued on page 2
Continued from page 1
And what do we do with this curiosity? (We can’t “put it out of our mind” – despite how often that comical phrase is uttered.) So we await context. We await someone who will give these questions a home – spin them into a shape we recognize – for no reason, perhaps, other than our own amusement. We wish to manage the unknown, and the only way to manage these dark and mysterious imaginings is to make them into a story. And there is always someone ready to tell your fears back to you. There is always a Teller at the bar. There is
always a bigger story hiding in the room than the one you brought through the door. So, welcome to the Yankee Tavern. Take off your coat. Pull up a stool. What’ll it be tonight? May 5, 2009 Austin
Rolling Rock “33” Theories -There were exactly 33 steps from the brewmaster’s office to the brewing floor. -The reservoir that was used by the brewery for its main water source was fed by 33 streams. -The list of ingredients on the label – water, malt, rice, hops, corn, brewer’s yeast – totals 33 letters (not counting the commas or the apostrophe). -The brewery workers were members of the Local #33 union. -The highest level that can be attained by a Freemason is 33rd degree (maybe the Latrobe’s were Freemasons?).
-Legend has it that the Rolling Rock brewery was started with money won at the horse track. The winning bet was placed on #33, "Old Latrobe," and that is why there is a horse and the "33" on the bottle. -It was the 33rd version of the recipe that became what is now Rolling Rock. This one may have come about because of the Jack Daniels label. It states "Old Number 7" on the label in reference to the 7th attempt at its recipe. -The "33" represents the fabulous day that prohibition was repealed – December 5, 1933.
And the most popular and most likely version… The "33" represents the number of words in the slogan on the bottle: Now even this version has some controversy and multiple versions itself. From what we have been able to gather, it may have happened like this…. Our main source here is Latrobe Brewing’s past CEO, James Tito. Apparently Mr. Tito became very interested in this legend as well and began reviewing notes and speaking to members of the Latrobe family about it. After all of his research, Mr. Tito has been quoted as believing the 33 was left on the label by accident during the printing process. There was apparently some disagreement on what the label should look like and what it should say, including an argument on how long the slogan should be. Eventually the family settled on the 33 word slogan that remains today (see above), and during the discussions of its length someone wrote "33" on the copy. This label was then sent to the printer and was mistakenly thought to be part of the copy itself. Before the error could be discovered, a very large number of bottles were printed. Since this was the Depression (1939) and Rolling Rock paints their label directly on the bottles, it would have be extremely expensive to discard this batch of bottles and reprint them all. It is also important to note that bottles back then were cleaned and reused multiple times, which may explain why future runs of the bottles kept the "33". From: beer-faq.com 2
When I was in my early-adulthood, I had an eight-year relationship with someone who I lived with, promised to marry, and who I thought would be with me forever. No one could have convinced me otherwise. It was how I looked at the world. It was my truth. A few years in, there started to be incidents that challenged my worldview. For example: he left when we got in a fight and I discovered voicemails from a sexy sounding female voice; he would stay out all night with the boys without phoning to tell me; and I found packages that once held cocaine in his pockets next to phone numbers of girls. I confronted him with each of these things (and more) over the years and each time he had reasons and excuses. And I accepted them. I’m not an unintelligent person. I’m also not gullible, too trusting, or unworldly. But I do have a strong will. I wanted my truth to be true. And with each excuse he gave me for his bad behavior, he supported my worldview. When the veil was lifted, I was surprised at myself. Surprised at the falsehoods I gratefully swallowed, the intuition I ignored, the authentic self that I pushed aside to support the narrative that I had created. Mostly, I was surprised how easy it was to ignore the lies and halftruths in order to stay secure in what I believed. My guess is that many of you, reading this, wish for me that I’d figured it out sooner, seen outside of that narrative and realized the truth. But as long as I held on so hard to my worldview—I wouldn’t see I was being lied to straight to my face. Maybe the government isn’t my lying, cheating, drugusing ex, but once I started doing some serious reading around this play I found some things in their pockets that are still unexplained. I don’t really know what any of it means. But being open to the truth, and not locked into a worldview is all I ask you to consider. It could lead to seeing some things more clearly… by Joanie Schultz
3
Joanie Schultz is a Chicago-based freelance director who most recently directed The Hundred Flowers Project by Christopher Chen (Silk Road Rising) and Rest by Samuel D. Hunter (Victory Gardens), where she previously directed The Whale. In 2013/14 she also directed Venus in Fur (Goodman Theatre), Northanger Abbey (Remy Bumppo Theatre), and A Small Fire at Steep Theatre. Upcoming she is directing the US premiere of Martyr (Steep Theatre). Other recent work includes fml: How Carson McCullers Saved My Life (Steppenwolf for Young Adults), The Girl in the Yellow Dress (Next Theatre), The Kid Thing (About Face Theatre & Chicago Dramatists), Neighborhood 3 (Strawdog Theatre), and Luther (Steep Theatre). She has also directed operas including Bluebeard’s Castle, Der Kaiser von Atlantis, Acis and Galatea, and Carmen. Joanie holds an MFA in directing from Northwestern University; was a Drama League Fellow; The Goodman Theatre’s Michael Maggio Directing Fellow; the SDCF Denham Fellow; a Lincoln Center Theater Directors Lab participant; and was 2013 Co-Artistic Curator for Theater on the Lake. Her work has garnered 14 Joseph Jefferson Award nominations, including six wins. She is an artistic associate at Steep Theatre and Victory Gardens Theater and is on the theater faculty of Columbia College and University of Chicago. Joanie also currently serves as Associate Artistic Producer at Victory Gardens Theater, as part of the Leadership U One-on-One Fellowship funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and administered by TCG.
by Tom Jacobs Have you heard what’s really behind the shift to compact fluorescent lights? It turns out the government has mandated their use because its research (unpublished, of course) has found such bulbs make people more obedient and easier to control.
“For many Americans, complicated or nuanced explanations for political events are both cognitively taxing and have limited appeal. A conspiracy narrative may provide a more accessible and convincing account of political events.”
If this is your first exposure to that particular conspiracy theory, don’t fret that you’re out of the loop: It’s the invention of University of Chicago researchers Eric Oliver and Thomas J. Wood. In an attempt to discover just how prone Americans are to believe in unseen plots and schemes, they included it in a list of more familiar conspiracy theories as part of a 2011 survey.
Filling a surprising gap in the research, Oliver and Wood measured belief in various conspiracy theories via statements inserted into surveys conducted in 2006, 2010, and 2011. The online surveys, conducted by the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, were designed to be representative of a random sample of Americans.
Astonishingly, 17 percent of respondents reported they had heard of this fictional hypothesis, and 10 percent believed it was true. Responding to conspiracy theories that are actually circulating, 19 percent expressed the belief that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, while 24 percent agreed that President Obama was not born in the United States. “Using four nationally representative surveys, sampled between 2006 and 2011, we find that half the American public consistently endorses at least one conspiracy theory,” Oliver and Wood write in the American Journal of Political Science. “Far from being an aberrant expression of some political extreme, or a product of gross misinformation, a conspiratorial view of politics is a widespread tendency across the entire ideological spectrum.”
Participants were told of seven conspiracy theories (including the made-up one about light bulbs) and asked (a) whether they had heard it before, and (b) their level of agreement with it, on a scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Besides the 9/11 and Obama birth certificate rumors, they were asked about theories that the Iraq War “was driven by oil companies and Jews;” that the 2008 financial crisis “was secretly orchestrated” by the Federal Reserve and “a small group of Wall Street bankers;” and that “Vapor trails left by aircraft are actually chemical agents” intentionally sprayed by the government.
“Almost the entire sample in 2011 said they had heard of at least one of the conspiratorial narratives they were asked about,” the researchers report, “and over 55 percent agreed with at least one of them.” Continued on page 5 4
Continued from page 4
The researchers found “relatively little overlap in agreement amongst the conspiracy theories.” Among participants in the 2011 survey who expressed agreement with least one theory, “about half endorsed just one,” they write, “and about 27 percent endorsed only two.” Unsurprisingly, since it has adherents on both the right and left, the most widely endorsed conspiracy theory was the one that said bankers intentionally created the financial crash. It was endorsed by 25 percent of participants, and only rejected by 37 percent. Another 38 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed. That last figure represented one of the most startling of Oliver and Wood’s findings: Just how many people were unwilling to commit when asked if they agreed with these theories. Twenty-two percent of people remained neutral regarding the 9/11 conspiracy theory, while 24 percent were agnostics on the question of President Obama’s birth certificate. It’s easy to assume this represents widespread ignorance, but these findings suggest otherwise. Oliver and Wood report that, except for the Obama “birthers” and the 9/11 “truthers,” “respondents who endorse conspiracy theories are not less-informed about basic political facts than average citizens.” So what does drive belief in these contrived explanations? The researchers argue the tendency to accept them is “derived from two innate psychological predispositions.” The first, which has an evolutionary explanation, is an “unconscious cognitive bias to draw causal connections
between seemingly related phenomena.” Jumping to conclusions based on weak evidence allows us to “project feelings of control in uncertain situations,” the researchers note. The second is our “natural attraction towards melodramatic narratives as explanations for prominent events—particularly those that interpret history (in terms of) universal struggles between good and evil.” Stories that fit that pattern “provide compelling explanations for otherwise confusing or ambiguous events, they write, noting that “many predominant beliefs systems…draw heavily upon the idea of unseen, intentional forces shaping contemporary events.” “For many Americans, complicated or nuanced explanations for political events are both cognitively taxing and have limited appeal,” write Oliver and Wood. “A conspiracy narrative may provide a more accessible and convincing account of political events.” That said, they add, “Even highly engaged or ideological segments of the population can be swayed by the power of these narratives, particularly when they coincide with their other political views.” So to sum up: The instinctual belief that we are savvy enough to piece things together, along with the primal storytelling appeal of broad-stroke, good-vs.-evil narratives, makes many (if not most) of us susceptible to conspiracy theories—especially ones that fit our political beliefs. Clearly, finding the light of truth—and staying in it—is more of a struggle than we realized. Especially given those suspicious new bulbs. From: psmag.com
Mark Ruffalo, Actor “I’m baffled by the way all three buildings came down. My first reaction was that buildings don’t fall down like that. I’ve done quite a bit of my own research …The fact that the 9/11 investigation went from the moment the planes hit to the moment the buildings fell, and nothing before or after, I think, makes that investigation completely illegitimate. If you’re going to do a crime investigation, you have to find motive. We didn’t follow that. It was quickly pushed away, obviously. There was no evidence at the biggest crime scene. None of us know what happened but I’m totally and completely behind reopening that investigation. Where is the money? Follow the money, guys!” 5
Throughout Yankee Tavern, Adam and Ray debate the merits and dangers of conspiracy theories. Here are what some experts are saying on both sides of the issue
Excerpts from
The Plots to Destroy America Conspiracy Theories are a Clear and Present Danger by Kurt Eichenwald Conspiracy theories have been woven into the fabric of American society since before the signing of the Constitution. But what was once dismissed as the amusing ravings of the tin-foil-hat crowd has in recent years crossed a threshold, experts say, with delusions, fictions and lunacy now strangling government policies and creating national health risks. “These kinds of theories have the effect of completely distorting any rational discussion we can have in this country,’’ says Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center who recently wrote a report on the impact of what is known as the Agenda 21 conspiracy. “They are having a real impact now.” Experts say the number and significance of conspiracy theories are reaching levels unheard-of in recent times, in part because of ubiquitous and faster communications offered by Internet chat rooms, Twitter and other social media. “Conspiracy narratives are more common in public discourse than they were previously,’’ says Eric Oliver, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago who has published research on the phenomenon. “We seem to have crossed a threshold.” Indeed, the prominence of some of the conspiracy theorists attacking the Bush administration is a reflection of a more disturbing trend: national political leaders who advance tales of secret schemes and treachery without a scintilla of evidence. Many politicians lent support to the idea that Obama was hiding his birth certificate, a central tenet of the claim that he was born in Kenya. Among those quoted in news articles making those statements are Senator Richard Shelby, then-congressman Roy Blunt, then -representative Nathan Deal and others. Former representative Cynthia McKinney was a proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Senator Ted Cruz has said Agenda 21 involves attempts to abolish golf courses and paved roads. Continued on page 7
It’s been called “the most dangerous threat to American sovereignty”; “An anti-human document, which takes aim at Western culture, and the JudeoChristian and Islamic religions,” that will bring “new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind,” and “abolish golf courses, grazing pastures and paved roads,” in the name of creating a “oneworld order.” Not sure what it is? You’re not alone. While the name might sound a bit ominous, Agenda 21 is a voluntary action plan that offers suggestions for sustainable ways local, state and national governments can combat poverty and pollution and conserve natural resources in the 21st century. (That’s where the '21’ comes from. Get it?) 178 governments— including the U.S. led by then-President George H.W. Bush—voted to adopt the program which is, again, not legally binding in any way, at the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. From: thedailybeast.com 6
Major General Albert Stubblebine, US Military “I believe that what is being—what certainly the—the stories that were told—all about 9/11 were false. I mean, you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God's sake. It didn't fall down to its side. It didn't fall to this direction or that direction; just like the two Towers “
Continued from page 6
Prominent business executives and pundits also push unsupported claims about conspiracies. Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric, proclaimed that declining unemployment figures released by the government before the 2012 election were fraudulent. Dick Morris and other political commentators advanced the idea that polls showing Obama winning the 2012 election were the result of a conspiracy among polling firms. Jesse Watters, an interviewer and producer at Fox News, said that when numbers from the White House showed high sign-ups for health insurance under Obamacare, the administration was “straight-up lying.” Experts who study conspiracy theories are uncertain as to why so many national figures are now openly advancing suspicions of sinister plots. “There are certainly people who will take things further than they honestly believe,’’ says Dr. Michael Wood, a lecturer at Britain’s University of Winchester who teaches the psychology of conspiracy theories. “But it is also quite possible that these ideas about conspiracy theories have taken hold in top levels of politics. It would be strange if politicians were completely immune to this.” But accusing political opponents of serious wrongdoing based on unsubstantiated nonsense plays havoc with social discourse. When each side attacks the other based on wild theories—calling them terrorists, anti-American, murderers, racists and the like—the tribal divisions cripple basic governance. Where does a conspiracy theory come from? Often, it is generated by fringe groups whose information is picked up by more credible sources, until it eventually reaches the mass media. While the growth in the number of news outlets has helped spread conspiracy theories, it doesn’t compare to the impact of social media and the Internet, experts say. With these technological advances, people who believe in a conspiracy can seal themselves off with like-minded people online, creating a situation in which no corrective
information is heard but the theories can still spread. “If you have social networks of people who are talking with one another, you can have a conspiracy theory spread in a hurry,’’ says Cass Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law School who wrote the book Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas. “It literally is as if it was contagious.” While some may dismiss conspiracy theorists as ignorant or unstable, research has shown that to be false. Researchers agree; conspiracy theories are espoused by people at every level of society seeking ways of calming the chaos of life, sometimes by simply reinforcing convictions. “The world around us can feel more disordered and chaotic for various reasons,’’ Nyhan explains. “Conspiracy theories provide a way to restore feelings of control and order.’’ The research on those who buy in to conspiracy theories can be perplexing. For example, one study showed that a person who believes Britain’s Princess Diana was murdered in 1997 is also more likely to think she is still alive. Those who think that Osama bin Laden was dead before an American SEAL team raided his compound in 2011 are also more likely to be convinced he escaped. This ability to hold two contradictory thoughts goes to the nature of conspiracy theories and their believers. Psychological research has shown that the only trait that consistently indicates the probability someone will believe in a conspiracy theory is if that person believes in other conspiracy theories. “The reason we should worry about conspiracy theories and misinformation is that they distort the debate that is crucial to democracy,’’ says Brendan Nyhan, an assistant professor in Dartmouth’s government department who has conducted research on conspiracy theories. “They divert attention from the real issue and issues of concern that public officials should be debating.”
From: Newsweek 7
In Defense of the Conspiracy Theory by Yvette Carnell From the 9/11 Truthers to the grassy knoll theorists, proponents of alternative explanations of causation, otherwise known as conspiracy theories, are openly ridiculed and sidelined by the collective red, white, and blue colony. In a country which thumps its chest and proudly proclaims its adherence to the principles of liberty and freedom, this is a curious defect. Proving that although freedom may exist in theory or in meaningless choices such as Nike vs Adidas or Starbucks vs Dunkin Donuts, it is thoroughly lacking in the area of thought. In our modern lives we only have access to tiny slivers of information. Where the government is concerned, that sliver becomes increasingly narrower as information is usually redacted for "security" reasons. All this prompts the question; why do we follow the government's or the corporation's conclusions in lockstep given the massive amount of information that we just don't know? Even worse, we all fall in love and in line with the narrative we create using our ideas, and—inevitably—our actions follow our most dominant narratives. Many of us never challenge the narratives that we write to fit our own perspective. If we did, we'd find that one narrative is not necessarily any more or less true than any other. But where conspiracy theories are concerned, most people are eager to mock those who adopt an outlook which drastically diverges from the prevailing meaning ascribed by the national mob. It follows that the marginalization of conspiracy theorists is the marginalization of ideas. Somewhere along the way in America we began to discount ideas which were out of line with the majority's thinking. The same Republicans who don't believe in hate crimes because they regulate and punish people for the thoughts behind their actions condescendingly lord themselves over the domain of relevant thought when they dismiss conspiracy theorists as loons and crazies. But again, how can you know what's true if you don't know what's false? Rightly or wrongly, many conspiracy theorists are among a narrowing group of critical thinkers. Where conspiracy theorists diverge from ordinary thinkers is in their cognitive process; they look closely at what they don't know and build a theory around that vast emptiness while more mainstream minds build theories around the little they do know. Conspiracy thinkers
understand that what they don't know can be more relevant, and more impactful, than what they do know. They listen to the silence. They hear what's not being said. They are, in a word—skeptics. And in this era of imaginary WMD's, where handouts to the insurance companies masquerade as health care reform, skeptics are essential to the functioning of our democracy. I would go even further to suggest that it would be a net positive if schools offered classes in conspiratorial thinking where students would be required to create as many scenarios as possible to explain how a particular event could've unfolded. The more flexible and nimble a mind, the better. Followers don't grow up to become investigative reporters or creatives. To teach people to cling to sameness in the depth and variety of their ideas encourages complacency and recycles drone-like behavior. Take for example Peter Schiff who, in the days, months, and years leading up to the current mortgage crisis and recession that followed, was sounding the alarm bell for anyone who'd listen. Schiff, President of Euro Pacific Capital, was ridiculed by market cheerleaders on Fox and CNBC as—you guessed it—a conspirator and a dangerously pessimistic thinker. They mocked him, asking him such inconsequential and condescending questions as "are you fun at parties?" or "do you carry blades to cut your own wrist?" Schiff turned out to be right. The peanut gallery was wrong. Knowing that most people are wrong most of the time creates mental space for alternative theories. Going along to get along, or worse, shouting down those who do not share your sense that a dynamic universe produces a set of human events which are utterly predictable, shrinks human thought. And as evidenced by Peter Schiff, sometimes a small, quiet prediction grows into a big and dangerous truth. You'll never notice the tipping point though if you've spent the vast majority of your time and intellectual energy jeering those whose charge it is to warn you. From: The Huffington Post
8
From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
1) The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. It is commonly known that the Twin Towers fell on 9/11, but did you know that a third World Trade Center high-rise building also fell that day? WTC Building 7, a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper located one block from the Twin Towers was not hit by any plane, but collapsed at 5:20 that evening, imploding in the exact manner of a professionally engineered demolition. It fell suddenly, straight down, at near freefall speed, and landed in a compact pile of rubble, barely damaging any of the surrounding buildings. These are but a few of eleven characteristics of Building 7's collapse that are consistent only with controlled demolitions. Further, the leaseholder of the three buildings, Larry Silverstein, said in 2002 on PBS that on the afternoon of 9/11 he suggested to the NYC fire department commander that they "pull" WTC 7. "Pull" is an industry term that means "demolish," but it normally takes a team of skilled people many weeks to design and implement large demolitions. Astonishingly, there is no mention of WTC Building 7's remarkable collapse in the 571-page 9/11 Commission Report. 2) Fire has never — prior to or after 9/11 — caused any steel frame building to collapse. The sudden, vertical, explosive, and total collapse of the Twin Towers at near freefall speed can only be explained by controlled demolition. 9
3) The WTC steel, which if fully examined could have revealed the effects of explosives, was quickly shipped overseas and melted down. This was an unprecedented violation of federal crime scene laws. 4) Whenever contact is lost with any airplane, fighter jets routinely take to the air to investigate. This commonly occurs about 100 times per year in well under 20 minutes. But on 9/11 nearly two hours passed without any interception. 5) The Secret Service broke established protocols by allowing President Bush to remain in a well-publicized classroom "photo op" long after it was known that the U.S. was under attack and he might well have been a target. Continued on page 10
Dan Rather, News Anchor “Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”
Continued from page 9
6) Unidentified insiders made millions on the stocks of American and United Airlines and those of other corporations that were likewise impacted by the attacks. These "put option" bets were made just prior to 9/11. 7) There were warnings of the impending attacks from at least eleven other countries. Also prior to 9/11, insiders such as John Ashcroft, top military officers, and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown were warned not to fly. 8) In September of 2000, a group of neocon hawks, many of whom would become key officials in the Bush administration, wrote that their proposed massive military buildup would proceed slowly "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."
such as those for Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the space shuttle disasters, all started in about one week. 11) "The Jersey Girls" — four courageous 9/11 widows — finally forced the 9/11 Commission into existence and presented many questions, most of which were ignored. Under the leadership of Bush administration insider Philip Zelikow, the final report failed to address any of the evidence pointing to official complicity.
9) Some of the alleged 9/11 "suicide hijackers" are still alive and well, according to the BBC and The Guardian. At least five of the alleged hijackers may have trained at U.S. military bases, as reported in Newsweek and other sources. 10) The Bush administration resisted the formation of the 9/11 Commission for 441 days. Similar investigations, 10
Performances February 20 – March 22, 2015 at the Greenhouse Theater Center 2257 N. Lincoln Ave, Chicago AmericanBluesTheater.com Box Office—(773) 404-7336
Featuring
Ian Paul Custer
Steve Key
Richard Cotovsky
Darci Nalepa