Taking a second look at it, I don't think that the phrase "express reservations regarding conclusions reached in the 9/11 Commission Report" is accurate.  That seems pretty watered down considering that they come right out and say they think it was a controlled demolition.  From their own About page:

"The World Trade Center building... were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives"  

I checked the first 15 or so references in the article and the one cited appears to be the only way that phrases it this way.  The other ones seem to be much more direct in what this organization is advocating.

For example, BBC News says: 

"However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.

"The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives

" 'Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11. A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.' "

I suggest the following:

"Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, founded in 2006, is a non-profit organization representing architects and engineers which advocates that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition, a 9/11 conspiracy theory."

Or if you really want the 9/11 Commission report in the lead sentence:

"Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, founded in 2006, is a non-profit organization representing architects and engineers which rejects the conclusions reached in the 9/11 Commission Report about the September 11 attacks. Instead, it advocates that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition, a 9/11 conspiracy theory."