C'mon we all read primary, secondary and tertiary source material, we simply interpret their significance differently. And Bensky has openly admitted not having read much if any 9-11 research, since he considers it all to be 'recreational speculation'.
..and its good to know that you can conspiracize with the best of them. Obviously the issue is not 'conspiracy theory' but a question of determining which discourses are 'permissive' and which ones are not. In other words, all you are saying is that some conspiracy theories are more equal than others.
Joe W.
>From: Michael Pugliese <michael098762001 at earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Pacifica 9-11 coverage
>Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:22:53 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
>
> I helped top organize a forum for the Christic Instutute on the "Secret
>Team, " ( that Jesuit priest Bill Davis spoke at.) and the CIA-Drugs,
>Contras angle to Iran-Contra in the late 80's, if memory serves in Oakland.
>Bensky showed up. Unlike folks like you he actually reads alot of direct
>source material and items like memoirs by Robert Gates. Heh, to quote VP
>Cheney, "Get off his back." The Pacifica radio I grew up w/ has been
>steadily ruined by this conspiranoid rubbish. Any reasonable discussion of
>MKULTRA, COINTELPRO and all the rest much less documented and investigated
>far and wide by folks who can actually distinguish between unfortunate
>truth and speculative paranoia, like say Jack Blum who you call a CIA dupe.
>Jeesh. He blurbed the book on Deep Politics and the Death of JFK by Pter
>dale Scott, one of the few books in that vein worth respecting.
>
>
>
>Michael Pugliese
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk