"It seems to me that there is a big difference between an "alternative theory" to explain an event, and a "conspiracy theory"
How do you sort out the difference?
"Thus, to say there was a second shooter working along side Oswald is difficult to believe (Oswald was a notorious loner) but at least plausible, but then to include Johnson, the CIA, the Secret Service, the KGB and maybe Rush Limbaugh as well is just nuts."
I strongly suggest that you read "Ultimate Sacrifice" by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann. They maintain quite credibly that the JFK assassination was a mafia hit job involving the CIA who enlisted mob figures to go after Castro. Read that book first and then we can talk about what's just "nuts".
"Much of what creates conspiracy theories is the modern antipathy to accepting small rogue actors as actually being able to accomplish something."
I think that the real antipathy is about simplistic or "white-washed" answers that need to be more fully investigated. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
" It just bothers us that a single man could shoot and kill the most powerful man in the world, and some would say the most popular US president. Therefore, since in our common knowledge bank, it is impossible for a psycho loner to pull of such a great feat, there must be a "conspiracy" behind it."
In the case of Mahatma Ghandi, the assassin, Godse was brought to justice through eyewitnesses and extensive inquiry. He was a powerful figure brought down by a lone assassin.
" Hence, since it is impossible for a cell of Islamic terrorists to bring down the World Trade Center"
I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the criminals were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. There are questions about their identity, however, that have not been answered fully.
" (despite having video proof of what actually happened)"
We do not have complete video proof of all of the extenuating events.
"we cook up all kinds of nefarious plots of having the buildings wired with explosives and once again the FBI, the CIA, the entire political administration (including leading Democrats) and a few foreign countries all complicit in the plot."
The reason people attempt to supply answers is that not enough legitimate information has been given surrounding this even because there are those with a political agenda such as Guiliani who don't want all the facts shown.
" Oh, and as for those videos, we all know how easy it is to make it look like a 767 actually flew into the buildings, when in reality they were miles away."
The Towers were photographed showing the planes flying into the buildings. The question is how much damage did they do? That has not been fully answered by legitimate inquiries. The 911 Commission report was a white-wash.
"Conspiracy theorists are not condemned by "head in the sand" commentators. They are condemned by their own bizarre and often laughable suggestions."
Conspiracy theorists are condemned by their labels given by people who are complacent with the answers they get from media, the White House and Congress.
One person's conspiracy theory might be another's truth. We will really never know the complete facts behind 911 until time has elapsed and credible studies have been done.