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

Thanks to my opponent.My opponent has cited a comment to an article as proof that the editor in chief resigned from the journal due to the fact that she was not critical of the manuscript been published, but that her career was put in jeopardy. Firstly, this is not true she is a highly regards chemist and a list of her achievements can be easily seen, she resigned because the manuscript should never have been published as I have pointed out in the first round.(1) Secondly my opponent asserts this comment as proof, yet the person who wrote the comment states that "Rather, she said that she could not read and evaluate it, because, she claimed, it lies outside the areas of her expertise." This is a bold faced lie, as Professor Pileni is very well published in the nano material field, and like I said is a well respected chemist.(2, 3) This comment needs to be corroborated by a statement from Professor Pileni from a reputable source and not some comment attached to a news story. Comments are not news, they are personal opinions. I would ask that my opponent does not use dishonest sources to promote his claim when the evidence runs counter to this. My opponent criticizes me for, wondering about the chain of custody. Yet to not admit that non scientists were involved in the chain of custody is a dishonest statement. This means immediately that the chain of custody should be questioned as they were non scientists with no formal training in sample handling. However, let the chain of custody not detract from the dropped point that the authors made no attempt to verify the material came from the WTC using chemical signatures. Hence, my opponent drops the critical point that we cannot be certain that the samples come from the WTC. Next I would like to discuss the following new contentions. The presence of the Thermite in the WTC according to the authors is thought to be normal thermite composition. This means it has 2 part Aluminum to 1 part Iron Oxide, and importantly they have to be intimately mixed.(4,5) If these materials are not intimately mixed the do not work, so why then are there two layers in the sample? See the reaction below for the thermite reaction.Fe2O3 + 2 Al → 2 Fe + Al2O3 From this reaction, we can learn about the composition of the material, however in the EDX spectra in Figure 7 there are two points of contention. 1) Why are the aluminum and Iron peaks not the same intensity as they should be? and 2) Why does the spectrum look exactly like and EDX spectrum of iron oxide commonly found in nature.(6,7) From contention 2, we can say that this material could come from any natural source and does not have to be manufactured thermite. From contention 1, we can say that this is not thermite as the chemical composition is not accurate. So how are we sure that this is thermite when it could come from another source. The correct thing to do would have been to use a more reliable analysis like elemental analysis and not EDX. Why did the authors not do this? The data as currently shown is not proof of thermite as the compositions are not correct and could be any commonly found iron oxide.Lastly, why are Figure 14 and 7 different if they are from the same sample? The authors did not say they were removing signals for clarity, so this is a dubious result. This casts huge doubt on the validity of the manuscript, as all the spectra in figure 7 are the same, yet in figure 14 the spectra from the same samples has changed. Note the inaccuracies in C, O, S, Ca and Zn content.(8) Over to my opponent.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://www.sri.jussieu.fr...(3) http://www.sri.jussieu.fr... (4) http://cldfacility.rutgers.edu...(5) http://www.rsc.org...(6) http://cameo.mfa.org...(7) http://cameo.mfa.org...(8) http://www.benthamscience.com...