I've looked closely at the evidence for a lot of conspiracy theories. Not as much today, but between 2000-2010 roughly I spent loads of time considering various theories. All came up lacking. One of the basic problems with any conspiracy theory, let alone the grand conspiracy theories many people attest to, is that it never really would make sense from a risk-benefit standpoint to undertake the conspiracy. It's not that people are incapable of engaging in grand deception (Trump!) or doing terribly violent things (9/11), it's that there's too much risk of being caught, particularly given that the larger the conspiracy, the more people must be involved and must keep quiet about it forever.
I mean, does anyone really think that Bush would plan 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq? All they had to do was lie about WMD's. They didn't need 9/11. But even if they did, any supposed benefit of such an invasion could never have been worth the risk.
Once an alleged conspiracy must necessarily involve people outside a small, core group of conspirators, like journalists, police or bystander eyewitnesses, the theory becomes markedly less plausible. That in fact is why these are extraordinary claims which require more than ordinary proof. Yet I've never seen one which offered even that.