Furthermore, many names shown here are those of mythomaniac liars (like the infamous Steven Jones), whose laughable scientific mistakes made the headlines of Nature in the past, long before the 9/11 occured.
Some of the people shown here don't even have a real PhD (William Rice, for instance, who was revealed as a fraud), and some others were included into that list without being asked (For instance Bachmann and Schneider, because they would in fact disagree with the so-called 9/11 conspiracy scenario).
Why do you choose to believe four clown-like elderly engineers, when thousands others would immediately disagree (let's say 99% of them)?
Why do you intentionally pick the most unlikely hypothesis of the two?
I work in the largest architecture school of France. And none of our structural engineers would disagree with what happened during the 9/11. I can even testimony than the one who was a specialist of steel structures predicted that the buildings were about to collapse, and how, about twenty minutes before they did.
Why fighting for such a lost cause?
There have to be something deeply irrational under your motives, and I think nobody will be able to correct this bias. Just as Victor pointed, conspiracy theorists are like religious zealots: they are impervious to common sense, and blind to what is in fact obvious. What they want to believe is more important than the real world.