Which peers have reviewed the process and accepted it, Bill? And how about the peers who have reviewed it an have not accepted it? You don't seem to think that those peers need to be listened to (no doubt because their conclusions don't agree with your own analysis).
You haven't watched the videos in the opening post of this thread, have you, Bill? The guy in this video here...
...is a firefighter. In this video, he reads from the manual with the national standards for conducting investigations into events like this that involve fire. He shows in what ways the government violated the guidelines. He also says that it is considered the national standard to test for exotic accelerants, especially in the presence of melted steel or concrete.
You seem to endorse the "because I told you so" school of scientific inquiry, Bill. I wonder if you would be so quick to accept what the Bush administration would have to say if the subject being considered was global warming or creationism. And if you wouldn't, that shows that you are applying a different set of standards to the 9/11 issue than you are to other issues. Which shows that the only factors that determine which government explanations you are willing to accept and which ones you aren't is whether or not they agree with your own analysis.
The fact is, however, that the process the government has employed to provide their conclusions has not withstood a vigorous peer review process. The main critique of many scientists, investigators, engineers, and architects is that the government's investigation is far too incomplete to be able to form any conclusions about what happened on 9/11. Some of these experts even served on the 9/11 commission. But these people are of no consequence to you because what they're saying doesn't agree with your own analysis. When peers raise these kinds of questions about an investigation, the way to put them to rest is to conduct whatever investigations and tests are needed to answer the questions they raise. In the absence of such further inquiry, the results continue to be inconclusive, and no one can reasonably draw any conclusions about what happened. In the absence of this further investigation, all you have to go on is faith and belief. Which is all you have to go on, Bill. You are going entirely on belief, because you simply don't have enough facts to form a conclusion. Which means that it is you who are representing the tin foil hat brigade in this particular discussion.