This guy needs to learn the difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories.
Conspiracies like Watergate and the 9/11 attacks a) have evidence for them, and b) aren't used to explain away lack of evidence.
Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are proffered as a substitute for evidence. Why are all of these peer-reviewed scientific examinations saying that planes took down the WTC towers? They're part of the conspiracy. Why do all of these scientific examinations from experts in building demolishing show that it was in no way consistent with a building implosion? They're part of the conspiracy. Where are all the peer-reviewed scientific examinations from metallurgists, engineers, building demolishers, etc. showing that they were taken down by an implosion? Covered up and silenced by the conspiracy.
And gosh-darn it, if it weren't such a PERFECT conspiracy, we'd actually have evidence for it!