I don't like analyzing claims that aren't actually being made. It's so easy to create strawmen.
Also, article often use very careful language to avoid actually having a claim be pinned down to them. There's a difference between an article saying "our sources say that...." and "we can confirm that..." The former is only making a claim about what they've heard. The latter is making a claim about the state of the world.
I've only found that in the case of an unsourced statement in a Wikipedia article, that is later repeated word-for-word in a news article, which is then cited in Wikipedia as the source of the statement.
I don't remember right now... I guess I could also be mis-remembering :P
A lot of people believe these conspiracy theories. I guess there's no way though to really convince a true believer in one of them that a mundane explanation is more likely, I think good answers would lay out the evidence behind the well-supported explanation for a phenomenon or event.