I'm sorry, but in all honesty?
Kevin Ryan's response, at best comes across as a lame cop-out.
He's not willing to try and demonstrate his point by providing definitive proof? Gimme a break.
Besides which, I work full time, and have home commitments, I also don't have access to the equipment required, and I'm fairly sure I have neither samples of Harrits dust lying around, nor painted steel from a thirty year old building lying around.
As for not wanting to look into Harrit's calculations, i've already given one reason why they're flawed - he uses the wrong number for the volatile percentage.
Trippy, you are a shill who is most likely employed by the criminals to obfuscate the facts and produce deception.
Your previous responses are a load of NONESENSE.
The BSE images clearly showed distinguished areas of aluminium from oxygen, I quote again the text that folllowed the BSE image profiles: -
"XEDS maps were acquired from the swollen red material
at a beam energy of 10 kV, in order to determine the locations
of various elements following the MEK treatment. The
data shown in Fig. (15) illustrate regions where iron, aluminum
and silicon are concentrated. Furthermore, the data indicate
that wherever silicon or iron is concentrated, oxygen
is also concentrated. On the other hand, there also exist regions
where the aluminum is concentrated but where the oxygen may not accompany
it commensurately. To confirm and to quantify these observations, XEDS spectra (subsequent
plots) were acquired from specific regions of high Si, Al and Fe concentrations."
"The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a
region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using
a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the
aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately
a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account
for all of the aluminum;"
(pages 11-12)
As for your ideas about paint not subjected to fire; what is your point? It was tested by NIST to 800C and remained stable after peeling and cracking and producing blackened scale between paint and steel at temps over 650C. Your idea that paint can become locally THERMITIC under fire conditions on steel is nonsense.
Harrit et al tested this material and it has strong links to the nano-thermitic material that exists in the reference literature that is in the paper. I also ask you to be aware that I also posted a link from professional fire investigation forensics that used X-EDS to identify thermitic material.
Another quote: -
"In contrast to the primer paint, the red/gray chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 °C. The reaction must produce temperatures no less than ca. 1500 °C, since the residues of molten iron are clearly seen in the optical microscope (Figure 9)."
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/
Now don't go obfuscating the molten iron issue either, since your "800C" claim about it existing in the molten state requires very specific conditions.