First "Popular Mechanics" Now "Scientific American"

takes on 9/11 conspiracies. Jim Hoffman rebuts the essay quite well here.

But really, you only have to read this one line from the Scientific American piece to know it is crap:

Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.

Well, who can argue with brilliant logic like that?