GenZedong

Niels Harrit research was peer reviewed. See this.

1. its peer reviewed by fellow peers, that is to say, its reviewed by people who already agree with the initial conclusion, this is bias.

2. they do not use a null hypothesis, this is basic scientific investigation and without one its complete garbage. A null hypothesis is basically asking 'is this studies initial observation even correct or could it be other things', without even considering this its bad science as you dont account for the bias of the researcher, which is basic research methods

3. the study doesnt even definatively say anything, just that it might have been thermite but they dont actually know, you can try and hide this behind academic language but nothing in that paper is definitive.

t’s not only engineers, firefighters and pilots. People from geopolitics also talked about this. Pepe Escobar hinted more than once (to portuguese-speaking audiences) about the official history of 911 being wrong (he avoided entering in details).

Again none of these peoples opinons actually mean anything, I could make up anything I want about it, there is still video evidence of the planes flying into the towers and video evidence of the burn that happened for hours afterwards, as i've demonstrated previously there IS examples of steel buildings falling over as a result of uncontrolled burns.

When you thrust the government reports without actually knowing if the physical model and simulations they made for the collapse are right, you are thrusting them for their authority.

I dont need to trust government reports or bunk studies by grifters trying to capitalize on a tragedy, I can see it with my own eyes.