Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view demands both stories side by side
That means both the terror terror story and that what actually happened. This also means there is no need to continue the debate about terror, as it is much more important to get the whole secondary explanation on the page.

Wikipedia:Cite_sources
Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor. So we don't need a poll, all we need is to remove a lot of things from the page. It needs to be rewritten having both published versions, the scientific one and the warmongering story.

Here are some references:

[]
Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away makes it clear there are 2 mainstream views that should be displayed side by side attributing as much hardcoded quotations as possible. 

[]
We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone," says Jones. "We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this.

[]
Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.

Unless anyone has a good reason not to add those to the page and not to mention this documented information?

William Rodríguez RICO lawsuit
In October 2004, Rodríguez filed a civil RICO lawsuit directed against George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld and others, including a total of 100 defendants, together with Ellen Mariani and lawyer Phil Berg. The government filed a motion to dismiss, or at least transfer, the case on grounds of national security. is worthy of it's own paragraph.

no Osama means no Muslims
[FBI says]: The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 thus the word Muslim may only be quoted at best.

The use of the word terrorist
Similarities between the Reichstag fire and The September 11 Attacks are as striking as those between the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Patriot act there is no need to use the word terrorist to explain the event, I do think a separate paragraph dedicated to the media calling it a Muslim terrorist attack would be appropriate. Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms Let the facts speak for themselves..

Wikipedia:No original research

As long as it's not in a peer review journal kerosene cant melt reinforced steel. 
Structural failure
In a well-designed system, a localized failure should not cause immediate or even progressive collapse of the entire structure.

Which makes this pseudoscience: September_11_attacks#The_attacks: Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack. Because that is not what the structural failure of well designed systems works like in any previous historical event. Here the standards of wikipedia go far beyond those of the mainstream media. The buildings where blown up.

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
Avoid phrases such as "some people say" without sources.. 
Hiding all the evidence incriminates the Bush administration. Further evidence of anything is just weasel wording. Hijackers, fires, explosions, demolition all perfectly good to describe the story.
( )