It was trying to distinguish unworthy conspiracy theory (Sandy Hook) from more worthy (JFK, 9/11). While the article is fully flawed, the two big logic bombs are these:
- "“Conspiracy” theories develop, first and foremost, because the official version is obviously bogus."
- That they develop and are relatively credible when there are people out there who can gain from the event--the defense contractors after 9/11 for example.
Same goes for 9/11. This is about people not wanting it to be true that government failed to protect us, that Arabs/Muslims could be so clever to pull this off, and all the rest.
The second hunk of illogic is arguing that if someone benefited by something, they wanted it to happen. Americans wanted World War II to happen since it made the US a world power with no equals? Yes, Haliburton and the rest of the Bush Administration gained heaps of influence and such in the aftermath of 9/11, but that does not mean that they caused it.
I know I am wasting my time with this, as most of my readers are reasonable folks who see conspiracy theories for what they are: distraction sauce. The folks who buy into them tend to be reality-averse so logic, facts, etc. will not persuade.
* I am sure there is a heap of psychology and sociology on this but I only have time to rant, not read.