Truly remarkable for Scientific American. That he didn't take a shot at Global Warming skepticism.
If people are going to hawk conspiracy theories on Free Republic they owe it to all of us to not make their case using evidence or "questions" which have already been debunked or refuted in credible national publications or books.
The persons pushing the no plane crashed into the Pentagon crap, clearly did not bother to read the Popular Mechanics article which debunked their claims, or any other detailed analysis. They read one decpetive dubious report from atotally un-reliable source and are sure they know the "truth"
The only people they argue with are other people who know as little as they do.
EX: How do you explain 5 Navy fighters all dissapperaing on a perfectly clear day off the Bermuda Coast. Seems like a mystery, until you go back and actually check the day in question and it was not a perfectly clear day there was a giant storm.
How do you explain Watergate burgler Howard Hunt being in Dealy Plaza Nov 22,1963. You don't expalin it because he was not there the supposed pictur of him is actually someone else.
There are conspiracys, there is secret information kept from the public, things are not always as they appear; but, before you waste our time with conspiracy claims you need to at least read and respond rationally to published attacks on your theory.