This site's purpose is to provide a reasonably neutral and expertise-based Q&A platform for questions about Politics. There is very little patience for rants or soapboxing. In other words: it's not reddit, Facebook, YouTube comments, or your uncle's birthday party.
Now, could a "Will Donald Trump open a new investigation in to 9/11?"-question survive on this site? Most certainly! But such a question would not include phrases such as:
It is well known world wide that the 9/11 attacks were a false flag operation most likely perpetrated by Mossad-CIA
Anybody with high school physics knowledge can prove it but the media keep calling it "Conspiracy Theory"
American people are not ready to accept this reality
And so forth.
A good question would state that Donald Trump has hinted at various alternative explanations for 9/11 in the past, and then simply ask a neutral question. No assumptions, no soapboxing, no loaded question. Just an open question.
Even on a less controversial topic, a question with the loaded phrasing you used would be poorly received. Doubly so for conspiracy theories.
And like it or not, the 9/11 Truth Movement is widely see as a conspiracy theory, and is rejected as such. If you want to change that then I encourage you to do your best. But ... not here. It's not this site's purpose.
Your question on meta also suffers from a extraordinarily poor choice of wording. Not only is not a constructive question but more of a rant, it's also accusing the community of malicious intent, which is a pretty darn rude thing to do.
If you had instead asked "How can I improve this question so it will fit on this site?" I would have upvoted it. Now, I've downvoted it.