That adds some weight. But it's still not particularly convincing. Even assuming he's not being intentionally deceptive or deceptively cut (which I'm not sure is true), it's not anything close to extraordinary evidence, as a claim like that requires.

Remember that witnesses perceptions and memories will be distorted. Clearly, events were confused (look at his statement at 4:39, where he's confused on whether he's standing on a landing or hanging). He "knows" he heard explosions, apparently based on his experience as "a boiler guy"; even setting aside the possibility of actual explosions from (eg) fuel oil tanks, it's certainly possible that he mistook other sound associated with a massive fire and collapsing building for explosions. The devastation, dead bodies, etc, are likewise consequences of the fires and damage.

There is some evidence supporting the conspiracy theory, but it's not nearly enough to outweigh the low prior and evidence against it.

The ordering algorithm currently works in two steps:

1. Expertise Relevance: If the topic of expertise the expert has matches the topic of the question, the expert quote ranks higher (sub ordering: a rarer topic match gets a higher rank than a common topic match, e.g. a match for "climatology" would outrank a match for "science".)
2. Expertise Depth: An expert quote with more sub-arguments out-ranks an expert quote with fewer sub-arguments.

Like many algorithms (such as collaborative filtering), the algorithm starts working better as the content is filled out, e.g.:
http://www.takeonit.com/question/5.aspx

P.S. I just tagged that question with the topic "War" so now Bin Laden bubbles to the top. Keep the feedback coming. It's incredibly helpful.