Hmmmm.
Although I concur to a certain extent regarding some of the more wacky CT's that plague us as a whole; the author of this post is not being entirely fair taking the piss in such a manner and is also being somewhat disingenuous, as he/she appears to amalgamate both CT's and IT's as one.
What about putting up 20 excuses to enable you to blatantly dismiss IT's (Institutional Theories) author?
Many IT's are portrayed as CT's to enable some folk to ignore real and genuine concerns re: the normal operations of some institutions, which generate the behaviors and motivations leading to specific events. IT's are a completely different kettle of fish and would you not agree that both past/current US administrations (using the US as an example, the same can be directed at many/most governments/institutions) definitely have rather grubby finger nails in this respect.
If one looks back through history, those in power have been exposed again and again as using their power for their own ends.
Politicians exposed for fraud, false flag operations; company executives plundering pension funds; unions infiltrated by corruption and special interests.
Over and over again, the old saying that power corrupts has been shown to be absolutely true; and this has made many of us utterly cynical about those in positions of authority.
From Watergate to Enron, public trust in leading the populace has been betrayed again and again; and it makes everyone suspicious of the motives and behaviour of anyone who has a position of power or influence.
So although CT's can be horrendously inaccurate, it is not at all surprising people are more willing to believe in a more vivid hypothesis.
Bear in mind also author, that conspiracies have in the past and do now exist.
