The burden of proof is on those who claim that the Harrit paper fails to confirm the presence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust.You made claim, I asked you rather specifically for evidence that backs up your claim.
Your attempt to reverse the burden of evidence, and your falling back on personal attacks, both shed a negative light on your confidence in the veracity of your claims.
I must thus reject your claims ("The iron spheres produced by the non-thermitic reactions you're talking about is iron oxide, which is quite different from the iron spheres found in the WTC dust and produced by the thermitic reactions of the red/gray chips by Harrit et al.") out of hand - what you asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
I stand ready to have an adult discussion with you about the Harrit paper, and how it refutes itself (the data presented actually contradicts its conclusions), once you resolve to drop the insults, and to present evidence for your assertions, or to retract your assertion when you find you can't support them with evidence.
I think you already found you can't support them with evidence. So please retract your claims now.
All I find anywhere are discussion boards and YouTube videos that claim to do this. A prime example are your assertions above. I'm sorry, but individuals don't get to just say it ain't so, absent a published study, and expect someone to take his word for it.
When you supply me with a published study that refutes the findings of the Harrit et al. paper, I will be happy to have a discussion with you.
Good day, Mr. Oystein