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

Ok, I am going to get straight to it. Con is accusing me of not understanding the science. Con has also made multiple ad-hominem attacks. In a previous round, I decided not to attack Cons faulty knowledge. However, no more. I am a published chemist in the fields of nanochemistry, physical chemistry and organometallics. I got my doctorate for on of the top 50 universities in the world. Here is link to my citation reports and publications list.(1) So when Con said in round 2 "Because Hematite consists of mainly Fe203 and iron oxide that is why it is similar ." He is ignorant of the fact that hematite is Fe2O3 and not Fe2O3 and iron oxide. Iron oxide occurs in multiple forms, hematite is one of these forms. When Con said in round 3 ""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”"" He is ignorant of the fact that I can produce aluminum nanopowders in my laboratory, and has also been done by multiple other groups that have either produced nano thermite or used commercially available nano aluminum. (2-6)Con rightfully says "Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDX) is the best known and most widely-used of the surface analytical techniques." The reasons I pointed out in the previous round still hold as to why it is inaccurate. This is why when you publish a manuscript you have to give either XRD, elemental analysis, XPS as additional corroborating elemental analysis information. The manuscript will not get accepted if this is not the case, so why did the authors fail to do this. Again I ask the simple question. Con has now changed his question regarding iron spheres in the WTC and claimed I do not understand the chemistry. Actually, what I showed was and replied to was your question regarding iron spheres. Now, you have shifted the goal posts asking for evidence that it must form in the conditions at the WTC. Iron can be reduced by CO (and C) which could have been present in the WTC as excess carbon source fuel can lead to incomplete combustion and CO, beside the obviously present CO2.(7) Also as pointed out before, the spectra was analyzed and not isolated speheres so to claim its pure iron when oxygen is present means it could easily be magnetite (Fe304) which can also form on combustion of Fe2O3.(8) Maybe, my opponent should meet his burden of proof and show these spheres can only form in thermite reactions. Also, show me they are pure Fe. Con has said "No , because further testing was done to show that aluminium was found in its elemental form ! Something you never find in nature." This is based on the images 15-18 which is based on mapping and not extraction to show that this is elemental Al. Let me elaborate on these EDX images. Figure 15-18 show spectra and maps of the elements. If we look at the maps and spectra the first question is we see that all the Al regions are overlayed over other regions so we have no way to say this is elemental Al. Secondly, why did the authors not show which region the spectra come from. This is an important question, as it leads to the fact that Fig 16 is doubtful as where Si is abundant, we also see that Fe and O are similarly abundant. Hence the Fe peak is missing in the spectra, this is a very important point that needs to be addressed. I ask Con to respond to the previous questions again and also answer the dropped questions. (1) http://scholar.google.com... (2) http://www.nanoparticles-microspheres.com... (3) http://www.us-nano.com...(4) http://www.singhalnanotech.com... (5) http://link.springer.com...(6) http://www.sciencedirect.com...(7) http://link.springer.com...(8) http://www.tnmsc.cn...