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

i had to post it into comments as you kept the word count very small.1) This question doesnt make sense please put it in context. She didnt give any reason why she would have decided not to publish it and considering she was one of the worlds experts in nanotechnology it would have been easy for her to debunk the paper or give a reason why she would have not published the paper if it wasnt due to her on incompetence of not being in editorial control. Does it make any sense that an editor would resign and give up her job willingly for her own incompetence then not give any reason why the paper was wrong .What does this imply she wasnt told about the paper and people below her in the company conspired to get it published without her knowing ? Con states that any nano lab could have created the substance."The Naval Surface Warfare Center - Indian Head Division, which prior to 9/11 was described as "the only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States”"(1) So what Con is saying is that the researchers conspired with or broke into the Naval surface warfare center to obtain samples of nanothermite in which they scattered into the dust around lower manhatten in case that survivors would randomly and for sentimental reasons collect some of that dust, then these conspirators waited for years for those survivors to contact them in turn giving them the contaminated samples . "X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared from the four dust samples were performed and representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6 , 7 )."Now con is just making stuff up or misrepresenting the tests done by professional scientists.2- That is why cross sections were made, Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDX) is the best known and most widely-used of the surface analytical techniques. (2)Con fails to notice that almost all scientific studies use XEDS spectroscopy and other methods are less acurate in determining the composition of a material . If you want to check this I suggest you get a degree in Physics , does Con have one to make such wild claims against real scientists?In figure 14 you should notice that all the spectra do slightly vary in their contaminants but all samples remain the same in that they have the thermite signature Fe/Al/SI/O Who would have expected from contamination to have slightly different elements present?Figure 14 is likely due to Gypsum contamination which would explain the Ca present.'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.'No , because further testing was done to show that aluminium was found in its elemental form ! Something you never find in nature.'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.'No doubt iron can be reduced , I never argued that. I argued for you to find a chemical reaction in which Iron oxide could be reduced in the conditions of the wtc .Your example was of a Iron oxide ball being milled !! That is not a naturally ocurring process in a fire or in any circumstance without direct human intervention. In cons second link it provides a manner in which to reduce Iron oxide with Hydrogen gas , this has nothing to do with the conditions at the WTC ! In fact its my suspicion that con is copying and pasting google links of reducing iron to the debate without reading or understanding simple chemistry.