== Neutral Point of View on Articles on Fringe Topics == 
 I don't know if this is a problem with this article specifically, but I posted this on some other articles relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories and thought it might be helpful here. 

 In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing.  Instead, we're supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources.  If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well.  In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim the WTC was destroyed via controlled demolition.  Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. 

 As a result, there might be a WP:NPOV issue with this article.  This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do.  Thus, if NIST, Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, etc. regard the controlled demolition conspiracy theory as outlandish bunk unsupported by factual evidence, that that's how this article should be written.  To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV. 

 In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality.