" I found it bizarre that a magazine about tools, machines and how to make stuff became a Conspiracy theory news magazine." Generally speaking, I agree wholeheartedly with you. At the same time, I personally would not rely on the folks behind Loose Change as the debunker of choice for things 911. Anyway, back to the folks at Popular Mechanics, they probably should stick to topics within their range of expertise.....like how to make the mostest fastest entrant in the Pine Car Derby.....or perhaps explaining the fundamentals of how to build a basic lever systems such as a playground see-saw.... that kind of physics stuff......oh, and while we're on this topic, here is a note to any institution purporting to genuinely research and or corroborate the USG's official explanation for anything, to include any thing that even remotely touches the topic of homeland security; probably should not have anyone named Chertoff among their crack team of "senior analysts". At face value, to do so has the appearance equivalent to somebody named Fred Bundy being the lead analyst cooroborating Ted Bundy's official explanation of things that went bump in the night.