Is the scientific manuscript "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11WTC" valid

Thanks to my opponent, I would ask you to keep your response to the debate and not the comments and rather address only the most important. It makes it difficult for voters and goes beyond the rules of the debate.Arguments not answered1) Was the sample from the WTC chemical signature analysis?I am not lying, regarding the resignation of Prof Pileni. The resignation was due to the fact that the manuscript was published without permission. (1) This is the same newspaper source cited in the first round and my opponent keeps denying. Here is a translation to help the voters and my opponent. “"I resign as the editor in chief," was the succinct answer in an email to videnskab.dk. Printed without permission A phone call reveals that the chief Marie-Paule Pileni never been informed that the article would be published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is published by journal juggernaut Bentham Science Publishers. "They have printed the article without my authorization else, so when you wrote to me, I had no idea that the article was published. I can not accept, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them, "says Marie-Paule Pileni.”My opponent has conceded the chain of custody point. The fact that it is extreme circumstances is not a reason to doubt the validity of the chain of custody argument.Pro also states nano thermite can only be made in one or two laboratories in the world. This is false as any nano-lab anywhere in the world can produce nano thermite as can be seen in the publication history of nano-thermite manuscripts. Please do a simple Google scholar search for nano thermite.Con rightfully points out the difference between the grey and red layers. However, this casts in doubt as to what was been analyzed in the studies and whether the compositions of iron and aluminum calculated using EDS are correct. The correct method would have been to separate the layers, then purify them and then analyze them independent of each other. This is a failure of the experimentalists and casts massive doubt on the results. Regarding the use of EDS, EDS is a surface measurement and as such does not measure the total content of the sample. As such it is usually used only for preliminary analysis, structural analysis and not complete elemental analysis. This is due to analysis peaks overlapping, scattering of electrons and adsorption of electrons by the sample.(2,3)These two reasons are why I doubt the ratios found as stated in my round 2 argument.Pro has said Figure 14s extra peaks are due to surface contamination. This does not explain why this similar contamination was not found on the other samples in figure 7. Please elaborate further as this is from the same sample set and again casts huge doubt on the analysis employed.The fact that Al and Si are inherent in minerals on earth and not thermite manufactured in the lab proves that this material could be natural and not manufactured in a lab. To counter this Pro cam up with the following argument.“Con must come up with a reaction that reduces iron(III) oxide forming iron spheres that does not include a thermitic reaction.” Pro maybe does not understand that iron oxide can be easily reduced to multiple forms in multiple ways, even spheres.(4-6) The fact that spheres formed is irrelevant as this does not prove thermite, this only proves the reduction of iron. If Con insists this is the case, then Con needs to provide evidence from accredited scientific journals that this is the case.(1) http://videnskab.dk...(2) http://www.materialinterface.com...(3) http://www.xos.com...(4) http://www.ntu.edu.sg...(5) http://pubs.acs.org...(6) http://www.rsc.org...