Niels Harrit research was peer reviewed. See this.
debunk unevidenced claims
Are you assuming the points are "unevidenced" without actually analysing them? Or did you really analyse them? E.g., did you have an explanation for the molten steel coming out of the windows here, or for the other claims of the specialists in the documentary? (I'm citing the documentary because it puts togheter a lot of the points and has the footages, but of course my sources are not just the documentary; I actually only saw this documentary recently).
I recognize there is some points hard to explain in the demolition theory, like how they managed to put the charges in the building. But it's harder to explain how that three huge, robust buildings, with footprints about the size of soccer fields, fell by fire with temperature lower than the fusion point of steel, symmetrically and reaching free fall or near free fall acceleration.
It'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).
There was also a recent tweet from someone that works for Chinese government (at the time I didn't see which was his position, and I don't have the tweet anymore) that explicitly tells USA did 911. It was a joke about what each country thinks USA does. For each country USA invaded, the answer was a photo of the invasion. For USA, the answer was superman saving the world. Then, there was "What you really do", and it was an image of WTC collapsing. This was just a joke, but the joke does tell that USA did 911. Of course, this does not prove anything, since it is just someone claiming something, even if this person works for Chinese government; but it's at least interesting.
Do not make appeals to authority
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.
Niels Harrit research was peer reviewed. See this.
its peer reviewed by fellow peers, that is to say, its reviewed by people who already agree with the initial conclusion, this is bias.
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
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.
Niels Harrit research was peer reviewed. See this.
Are you assuming the points are "unevidenced" without actually analysing them? Or did you really analyse them? E.g., did you have an explanation for the molten steel coming out of the windows here, or for the other claims of the specialists in the documentary? (I'm citing the documentary because it puts togheter a lot of the points and has the footages, but of course my sources are not just the documentary; I actually only saw this documentary recently).
I recognize there is some points hard to explain in the demolition theory, like how they managed to put the charges in the building. But it's harder to explain how that three huge, robust buildings, with footprints about the size of soccer fields, fell by fire with temperature lower than the fusion point of steel, symmetrically and reaching free fall or near free fall acceleration.
It'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).
There was also a recent tweet from someone that works for Chinese government (at the time I didn't see which was his position, and I don't have the tweet anymore) that explicitly tells USA did 911. It was a joke about what each country thinks USA does. For each country USA invaded, the answer was a photo of the invasion. For USA, the answer was superman saving the world. Then, there was "What you really do", and it was an image of WTC collapsing. This was just a joke, but the joke does tell that USA did 911. Of course, this does not prove anything, since it is just someone claiming something, even if this person works for Chinese government; but it's at least interesting.
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.
The appeal to authority is you saying that you're an engineer, implying that you know better and that non-engineers don't have a say.
its peer reviewed by fellow peers, that is to say, its reviewed by people who already agree with the initial conclusion, this is bias.
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
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.
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.
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.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: