I'm not aware of any reports of magnetically attracted WTC paint chips. I'm not denying they exist necessarily; I just don't know who is making this claim.
First of all, you have to go to the Bentham paper and read about what criteria they used to gather the chips they wanted for testing. Here is a quote from the paper stating their two criteria. This is taken from page 9, under the heading
2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination.
For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, or the Delassio/Breidenbach sample, will be sample 2; the sample collected by Mr. Jody Intermont will be sample 3; and the sample collected by Mr. Stephen White will be sample 4. The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray). Samples of WTC dust from these and other collectors have been sent directly from collectors to various scientists (including some not on this research team) who have also found such red/gray chips in the dust from the World Trade Center
destruction.
So that's it. Two criteria.
1. Distinctive red/gray layers
2. Attracted to a magnet
According to the Bentham paper, they extracted the chips using the two criteria above and then proceeded to test them with various tests throughout the remainder of the paper and published the results. Not once does the paper ever show that ANY of the red/gray chips in the dust are anything BUT thermitic in nature. They even state that the red/gray chips tested in the paper were NOT paint. This quote is taken from page 7 of the Bentham paper under the heading
INTRODUCTION
In order to better understand these features of the destruction, the authors initiated an examination of this dust. In June 2007, Dr. Steven Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips, with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust. Initially, it was suspected these might be dried paint chips, but after closer inspection and testing, it was shown that this was not the case.
This next quote from the paper further solidifies that Harrit and his group found that all the red/gray, magnetically attracted chips they extracted were ALL thermitic in nature. This is taken from page 29 at the end of the
CONCLUSIONS section.
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
Then, after Millette's paper comes out, Steven Jones, co-author of the Bentham paper, decides to make this comment taken from this link
http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses
Also, we checked the electrical resistivity of several paints – consistently orders of magnitude higher than that of the red material. We reported the resistivity of the red material in our paper, page 27 in the Journal. Millette did not report any electrical resistivity measurements. This measurement is rather easy to do so I was surprised when he failed to do this straightforward test. There is a lot of red material of various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is the same as what we studied, and not some other material.
Also, Frank Legge, another co-author of the Bentham paper, makes this statement in regards to a question posed to him at
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1VABIZJ14CZ8F?cdPage=27. The question is quoted first and Frank's answer second.
Do I understand you correctly when I construe your words to imply
1. that there are different kinds of red-gray chips, i.e. different materials? Such that some may represent thermitic incendiaries/explosives, some may perhaps represent paint, and some may perhaps represent other mundane or not so mundane things?"
So now you have two co-authors stating that there are MANY kinds of red/gray chips, INCLUDING paint chips. This directly contradicts the Bentham paper's findings that there WEREN'T any paint chips and that there were ONLY thermitic chips. BIG mistake.
Let's take the statements of Jones and Legge as being the truth, there there were many different types of red/gray, magnetically attracted chips in their extraction pile, including paint. I have many questions.
1. How did they figure out that there were many types of red/gray, magnetically attracted chips for Legge and Jones to make such a statement? Obviously the two criteria used in the isolation section of the Bentham paper wasn't enough. Jones says that the did resisitivity tests to show that they weren't paint. Problem is, they only tested one chip for resisitivity in the Bentham paper. The quote below is taken from page 27, under the heading
7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint? . So which chip in the Bentham paper did they perform this test on, A, B, C, or D?
We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the
formula:
Specific resistivity = RA / L where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L= thickness (m).
Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5
mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude
less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 1010 ohm-m [31].
2. Since according to Legge and Jones, they were aware of many different types of red/gray, magnetically attracted chips, why weren't the tests and their results showing this published?
3. Since they had found red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips (among other types) in the dust long with red/gray, magnetically attracted thermitic chips, why did they need to get paint samples from OTHER sources and use tabulated findings from OTHER sources with they had the damn paint chips in their hands and could have tested them right then and there instead of using outside sources?
4. Why won't they share their chips with anyone else for testing?
5. Why haven't they published results for the gray layer?
6. They say the energy released by some of the chips was HIGHER than that of conventional thermite. Seriously? Doesn't that prove it's not thermite?
7. Why have they not published any FTIR data?
8. If the DSC results are so important in determining what the chips are and aren't, why were't the chips extracted from the Delassio sample (one of the four) not tested in a DSC? Take a look at page 20,
Fig. (19) of the Bentham paper which shows a graphic for the DSC traces. They tested the "White" sample, The "Intermont" sample, and the "Mackinlay" sample twice. Why no test results for the Delassio sample? Strange that this test was SO important, but they missed testing that sample.
9. If these other tests were so important in determining which are the thermitic chips, then why in his Toronto video does he pass around a bag with a magnet and tell the audience that if they drag the magnet across the bag, they will collect the thermitic chips in question? Further proof that they believe, as the Bentham paper states, that ALL red/gray, magnetically attracted chips were thermitic and nothing else.
All of this, along with all the other points made by people in this thread with WAY more knowledge than I regarding chemical composition and material analysis and you STILL defend Harrit and his findings.
One final question.
What test or tests did Harrit and his group do in the Bentham paper, over and above the magnet and visual red/gray layer criteria (which Millette followed), that would prove that Milllete had the right chips? Keep in mind that you have to prove, using the Bentham paper, that the same definitive tests you put forth had to have been performed, without question, on all chips tested in the Bentham paper in order to be sure THEY also did what you expect Millette to do.
How in/convenient for you that you will never, at this point, be able to prove your theory. 
"
You can even win some top position in the thread What are the finest examples of 9/ll Truther stupidity that you've ever encountered?
