The notion of conspiracy theories (CT) itself is pretty interesting. People will go to great lengths to prove or disprove CT. Others will go to great lengths to get ideas about a set of events labeled as CT.
A good example of a CT would be the following: Let’s say it’s 40 years ago. A couple nutjob reporters are writing that numerous boys have been sexually molested by Catholic Priests, and that the upper echelons in the Church, like Bishops, have been actively covering it up. And that this has been happening throughout the US and indeed much of the world. Remember this is 40 years ago.
You can imagine what you’d hear: the reporters must be atheists and hate the church, must be scumbags to impune or even suggest moral failings of Priests, servants of God. And to suggest all these boys, priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. throughout America, or the world, are keeping quiet! Utterly ridiculous and anyone who buys into this crap has to be deranged.
And yet the reporters, as we now know, would have been completely correct.
Of course we could also come up with something that turned out to be false. The point is, just because something is labeled as CT doesn’t mean it’s true OR false. I do think the character and history of the people or institutions involved do matter though. In the case of Catholic Priests, I think they really did have a very positive image prior to all the revelations, so it was particularly hard to believe the truth. In the case of 911, in my opinion at least, the reputation of the US government prior to the event (Dem and Repub alike) lead me to seriously consider that it was an inside job. Buts that just my opinion.
My point is, CTs in themselves make up an interesting topic for discussion WITHOUT getting into particulars.