I'm not going to try to persuade anyone of my sincerity, but I do have a question that I think it would be reasonable to ask even if I were a truther. How much research does one have to do before one can take a position on how the WTC collapsed?
Taking a position on any matter takes zero effort. Taking a sensible position takes little effort from the unbiased uninformed. Taking an educated position takes moderate to considerable effort from the unbiased uninformed. Taking a professional position takes great to formidable effort from the unbiased uninformed. Regard the foregoing four levels of 'having a position' as a rough scale. As to the biased and uninformed, no amount of objective research satisfies the bias and hence all research is bound to be biased and subjective. Even if the biased 'investigator' is otherwise willing to put in the research effort, his research selectively explores data that confirms the bias and ignores other data that challenges it.
In the matter of WTC collapse it takes very little effort to take a sensible position after watching the mainstream 9/11 media coverage live. One need not be a scientist, a structural engineer or a metallurgy Ph.D. to do so. The fact that mainstream news outlets across the political spectrum were remarkably unanimous on the analysis of the coverage was a plus. The fact that expert analysis agrees with the viewers' sensible impression is another plus.
And does it matter which position one takes?
It usually helps if the position at least roughly corresponds to reality.