Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research?

Feel free to share that development, im curious.
Read my post to DougW - It outlines the main areas of activity. Then ask any questions......but have regard to my comment - Oystein is far more familiar with the topic than I am.
the "Environmental anomalies..." paper (03/2009) did NOT, as you said, study the red-gray paont chips at all.

SE Jones, crawling under the name of Niels Harrit as lead author, published their study "Active thermitic material found..." of red-gray chips in 04/2009 in a pay-to-publish "paper" of Bentham publishers. Within days, debunkers had noticed that the hexagonal platelets in some of the chips is almost certainly kaolin clay, an aluminium silicate, which is essentially inert, of no use in any thermite preparation, and an ingredient of many paints. Also, it was clear almost immediately that the rhomic particles of hematite are simply red pigments - the very thing that makes steel primer paint red.

In 2010 or 11, Sunstealer at the JREF forum found an SE Jones presentation with XEDS analysis of actual paint from the external columns of the twin towers - it was a very good match with the red-gray chip from the Bentham paper that they soaked in MEK solvent to, purportedly, show that the aluminium is separate from the silicon - figur 14 in the Bentham paper. That paint ("Tnemec Red") has no aluminium silicate (such as kaolin) in its recipe - and that chip also was no match at all for the chips (figures 6 to 11) that contained the kaolin plates.

In summer 2011, the late Czech chemist Ivan Kminek discovered a second, different paint recipe used in the twins: The shop primer of LaClede steel manufacturer, who made the floor trusses.
This recipe does contain aluminium silicate, and simulated XEDS charts of that recipe are an excellent match for Harrit's and Jones's figures 6-11!

In early 2012, James Millette sent his analysis report of red-gray chips from another batch of WTC dust samples to Chris Mohr of the then JREF/today ISF forum. Clearly, the chips that best matched the Harrit/Jones main chips contain kaolin, hematite pigment, and epoxy binder - just like the LaClede primer.

That is the last achievement in this issue so far. Current status: Chips are primer paint - very little doubt.

There are small problems with Millette's report:
1. The chips I mentioned do not show a trace of strontium in Millette's analysis, as they ought to, if they are LaCLede primer - the recipe calls for a small amount of strontium chromate primer. However, we know from two of Jones' co-authors, Niels Harrit and Jeff Farrer, that THEY found strontium and chromium!
2. Millette didn't try to identify any of the other of various different "kinds" of chips, that quite certainly represent different paint recipes

Since 2013, about 5000 $US dollars have been donated to Mark Basile, some via Rick Shaddock, who for a while volunteered for AE911Truth, some via Simon Falkner (from Iceland, who has written for AE911Truth; at least Simon - aka Ziggi - claims he was involved) and John-Michael Talbot, a truther blogger.
In August 2014, Mark Basile had a project update published via Rick Shaddock, claiming he was in the process of wrapping up specimen extraction from his dust samples and that he would, shortly (few months), select the best specimens and send them off to independent labs for analysis.
Since then: Essentially NOTHING.
Shaddock and Falkner have fallen out with each other, and AE911T stays away from the desaster. According to Shaddock, a couple of months ago or so, Basile is "still working on it" and that we can expect some progress sometime this year.
I have no hope that this will happen. Chip selection ought to be easy and straightforward, and since Basile collected the money under the pretense that all analysis would be done by independent labs, he has no fucking business to be working on the chips at all. So does he have lab result and is working on a paper? Hardly! For if that were the case, of course he would say so and safe face!
Thanks Oystein.
One correction/clarification:

I wrote "Since 2013, about 5000 $US dollars have been donated to Mark Basile". The wording is awkward and misleads.
What I meant to say: They started collecting donations well before 2013 - in early 2012, or perhaps even earlier, and since sometime in 2013, Basile has had access to close to US$ 5000 already donated then.
Oy, it's been a while since i've done this, i got the papers mixed up with other titles. But do you happen to know the reason of the rise in VOC's?