Two editors of Popular Mechanics, building upon an article published in the March 2005 issue of their magazine, take on the myriad claims of the 9-11 conspiracy theorists, seeking to show that the claims do not rest upon a sound factual basis. Claims are discussed on an individual basis, with each claim followed by the editors' countervailing facts. The focus is on the sort of scientific and technical matters one would expect Popular Mechanics to specialize in, such as whether the World Trade Center towers were truly capable of "pancaking" due to the structural damage from the planes and the jet fuel fire or whether it should have been simple for the Air Force to intercept the hijacked passenger airplanes. An afterword by James B. Meigs, editor-in-chief of the magazine, examines the "conspiracy industry" itself, attacking the style of argument they typically engage in. Annotation ©2007 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)