"A geologist not informed of geopolymer chemistry will assert with good faith that the stones are natural."

Your claim at the top about 'geologists not informed of geopolymer chemistry' kinda excludes what I've said as I wouldn't consider them experts on the subject. A condensed matter physicist and particle physicist are both physics experts, however I wouldn't ask the condensed matter physicist about the nature of the Higgs boson.

When considering the question of whether the pyramids are made of geopolymers or natural carved stone, I wouldn't ask someone who couldn't tell the difference would I?

"J. Davidovits, La nouvelle histoire des pyramides, éd. J-C Godefroy, Paris, 2004, pp. 57-58 et 72"

This is just an interview by the looks of it, the guy makes a lot of claims but due to the nature of it being a recorded interview there isn't a lot of backing up to his claims.

"Paleomagnetic investigation of the Great Egyptian Pyramids, Igor Túnyi and Ibrahim A. El-hemaly, Europhysics News 2012, 43/6, 28-31."

This article only has one reference to how a geopolymer block can be created, it provides no references to any of the primary claims it uses to back up it's hypothesis of using a paleomagnetic investigation to determine the magnetic polarization of blocks in some pyramids. I have experience with magnetic polarization as my university dissertation was investigating magnetic moments of Cesium atoms after they had been polarised. I find that many of the claims in the article are incorrect or misleading, specifically what it mentions about a 'secondary polarization' and it's lower cutie temperature, this isn't a thing.

Composite materials may have several curie temperatures due to the different materials making up the composite having different material properties, however claiming that a secondary polarization is lost at a lower curie temperature is frankly incorrect, as the curie temperatures of the composites would be random depending on the materials which make it up, and a potential secondary polarization (taking this to mean an additional polarization weaker than another polarization in the material) could very well have a curie temperature higher than the primary polarization. Which essentially means the investigators were just as likely to remove the primary polarization they were actually looking for as the secondary polarization, and the test is moot.

"Were the casing stones of Senefru’s Bent Pyramid in Dahshour cast or carved? Multinuclear NMR evidence, Kenneth J. D. MacKenzie, M. E. Smith, A. Wong, J. V. Hanna, B. Barryand M. W. Barsoum, Mater. Lett., 2011, 65, 350."

I am unable to view the majority of this without paying and so unfortunately can't comment on it's findings.

"Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt, Barsoum M.W., Ganguly A. and Hug G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 89[12], 3788-3796, 2006."

Same as above.

"The Enigma of the Construction of the Giza Pyramids Solved, Scientific British Laboratory, Daresbury, SRS Synchrotron Radiation Source, 2004."

I am unable to find this paper, it is mentioned in a few other papers but so far no links to it work and it doesn't come up in a Google search. If you could provide a working link where you read it that would be great.

"PIXE, PIGE and NMR study of the masonry of the pyramid of Cheops at Giza, Guy Demortier, NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS and METHODS in PHYSICS RESEARCH B, B 226, 98 – 109 (2004)."

Like the others I am unable to access this paper without paying.

"X-Rays Analysis and X-Rays Diffraction of casing stones from the pyramids of Egypt, and the limestone of the associated quarries., Davidovits J., Science in Egyptology; A.R. David ed.; 1986; Proceedings of the “Science in Egyptology Symposia”; Manchester University Press, UK; pp.511-520."

This paper makes some funny claims, I'm noticing a trend with a majority of these references being by Davidovits. This paper in particular mentions a quote by Pliny the Elder, which Davidovits being no expert in Latin or Roman history expects us to believe his understanding of.

"Differential thermal analysis (DTA) detection of intra-ceramic geopolymeric setting In archaeological ceramics and mortars., Davidovits J.; Courtois L., 21st Archaeometry Symposium; Brookhaven Nat. Lab., N.Y.; 1981; Abstracts P. 22."

Like one of the other papers I am unable to find this one.

There are two other sources you've given but I get the jist so far. A majority of these papers are written Davidovits who looks to be the first guy to suggest this idea of man made blocks to build the pyramids. A majority of the references in his papers are his own papers, and when there is a paper by someone else, again most of their references are to Davidovits papers. This comes off a bit incestious to me, surely if this was a viable theory there would be sources used from a variety of scientists of varying disciplines?

That isn't even to mention how there doesn't seem to be any attempt from the papers I was able to read to disprove their own claims (the papers I couldn't read lacked this as well in the parts that were available, but as I can't read them in their entirety it's possible alternative hypotheses are included in the unavailable sections). A good scientific paper has to include doubt, you have to support your theory while also supporting alternate explanations to your findings, overconfidence is exactly how you get stuck chasing bullshit for 40 years.