I can't see how anyone can doubt that conspiracies do happen, I would class events such as Watergate as proof of this.
(ETA) And I suppose even events such as the "Roswell incident" - there was a conspiracy after that to prevent military secrets being exposed.
And that’s where the CT'ers get us. We all believe in one form of conspiracy or another about the WTC, it's just that most of us believe the much more likely explanation that it was a conspiracy of a small number of Islamic fundamentalists who used planes as weapons, which is the conspiracy theory supported by the evidence.
However, we are discussing the difference between a "theory about a conspiracy" and "paranoid conspiracy theory" (PCT). The main differences tend to be of scope and scale, and the standard of evidence used to support the "theory".
The scale of the conspiracy needed to plan execute and cover up the WTC "demolition" would be far greater than any other conspiracy we know about from history. And this leads me onto the point about proof, in a PCT as opposed to a theory about a conspiracy, lack of evidence is evidence for the conspiracy!
As DR A pointed out in his fabulous song about "god of the gaps"
"It’s so absolutely simple --- any man with half a brain
Can find the explanation for the things he can’t explain;
When I have no information, then I really know what’s what,
'Cos the fact that something’s unexplained is proof that it is not.
Whenever you’re puzzled the truth will appear;
What’s doubtful removes every doubt;
When something’s obscure then it’s perfectly clear
You’ve finally figured it out."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1537773&postcount=1
