I finally figured out where you're heading with this. You're misunderstanding the "twenty-year rule": this is something that is enforced on this subreddit to avoid debates about current events on a sub dedicated with historical questions. By convention, studies and analyses of recent events have typically been the domain of journalism and political science. Historians have usually maintained that one cannot get historical perspective until twenty years have passed, and that historical perspective is key to applying historical methodology.

Analysis and studying of 9/11 has occurred and should occur. It won't be debated here for another 16 months: as soon as the calendar turns to 2001, I'm sure there will be many questions and discussions about 9/11.

Just as there have been many books published on 9/11 and a great deal of research has occurred, so, too, were there many books published on WWII well before the 1959-1965 period. Historians tended to stay away until that period had passed, but the twenty-year-rule was not something that was enforced by anyone. It was a rule that was respected and understood by most historians (but not others!)

The difference now is that we have the internet and a sub like this where rules are enforced, and they are enforced for a very good reason. If we did not have that rule, there would be questions about emotionally-charged recent events: one can only imagine the ranting and emotionally-driven debates that would occur with the many questions we would receive on the 2016 election. By 2036, that election will be discussed with less emotion and more objectivity - key to the historical process.