So let's see what the options are. Either NIST finds the same contents as the Harrit et al paper, in which case you claim that your case is proven and the dust contains nanothermite (even though Harrit et al's results more or less prove that it doesn't contain nanothermite), or NIST doesn't find any nanothermite, in which case you claim that NIST falsified their results because the samples don't match. And if you were just intelligent enough and well enough educated to understand Harrit et al's results (which is not intended particularly as an insult; after all, Harrit himself doesn't understand his results), then none of this would be necessary anyway, because Harrit's results demonstrate that the samples don't contain nanothermite.
And this, basically, is the problem. You've been shown a picture of a fish, and you've claimed that it's a cat. When someone tells you "But look, it's got scales and fins," you say, "Yes, it's got scales and fins, so that proves it's a cat." When we point out that cats don't have scales and fins, you say, "Well, let's send it to NIST and see if they think it's got scales and fins, so we can clear up the question of whether it's a cat."
In fact, talking to most truthers is a bit like that.
Dave
