Cool! With that out of the way, let me address your tangential comments real quick.

If you haven't found any reason to question his work, you haven't looked very hard.

I admit, chemistry is not my forte. Just pretend I know nothing about chemistry at all. However, contrary to your allegation, I'm quite familiar with the criticism of Harrit's work.

Most of the authors have no specialization in the appropriate field.

Harrit has. He says. I dunno. As a skeptic I forgot how to give f... for people's degrees a long time ago.

The paper was submitted to a journal that will literally post anything if you pay their fee.

Some call it "Open Journal", some call it "Vanity Publisher". I know what you mean. I'm not the guy to wave around "logical fallacy!" arrows, but objectively, that criticism does not really address the contents and conclusions of the paper itself (so I'll not go into that whole "somebody sent them pseudo-scientific gobbledeegook and they agreed to publish it as soon as the fee was paid" because they never published it and allegedly only wanted to find out who was behind it).

Even considering the previous point, Harrit's paper was withdrawn

Was it? That's new to me. Or do you mean the review process, which resulted in some criticism, which in turn resulted in more tests to address the issues the first draft had? It's still dl-able on the official webpage.

and the editor resigned.

Yes, that's a sad thing. But again, that does not invalidate the paper or its conclusions. The editor is highly trained in the field and could easily have pointed out blatant flaws, but did not, and gave political reasons instead, as the story goes.

Harrit's paper contains numerous errors with regards to the chemistry involved.

As I said, I am not qualified to make a judgement about the chemistry involved, especially since I don't have dust samples or access to a calorimeter (I would love to throw some of the particles in there that I collected with a magnet and heat em up to 430°C just to watch what happens), but so far there has been no serious scientific rebuttal that I'm aware of, be it on the interwebs or in the form of a peer-reviewed, published paper. The few criticisms there are have either been adressed by the authors or been taken into consideration for the requested double-blind tests Mark Basil is doing right now.

According to Steven Jone's (one of Harrit's co-authors) own words speaking at a conference, the best sample used in the paper was collected 2 years after the attacks from the garage of a women who cleaned dirt off dirt from a monument that incorporated debris from the attacks and then kept that dirt in a bucket for months.

That would explain contamination, I agree, but would that be in the form of active thermitic material?

I'll be off work in an hour and watch the videos you linked.