What is wrong in debunking myths about clustered indexes?
That script has a fairly wide, varchar clustered index. And it needs an index rebuild after populating it with random data too: you'll have massive fragmentation.

A good clustered index is narrow, numeric and strictly monotonically increasing: which is why folk use surrogate keys...

A table without a clustered index is called a "heap" because it exactly that: a pile of data lying on disk. And it will stay that way no matter how much you rebuild your NC indexes. Outside of something like staging tables (with a load/truncate usage pattern) there is no reason not to have a clustered primary key. 

Edit:  The link does not debunk a clustered index myth, but rather shows how to create an unsuitable clustered index and why index maintenance is important. Parts 1 and 2 mentions bookmark lookups (now key lookups in SQL Server 2005+): a good NC index will be covering so they don't happen.

To learmn about indexes, I suggest Simple Talk's many articles. Like this one