What's wrong with PRESSURE in PLO?

I got into an interesting argument, er discussion, yesterday on a very interesting PLO hand. She said the hero played too agressive with a non-nut hand in low stakes PLO. I totally disagreed. But, she had a very good viewpoint and is more experienced in PLO than I am. But I still dont see it...

Omaha Pot Limit ($0.10/$0.25) [low stakes CASH game]
Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: ($28.20 in chips)
Seat 2: HERO ($23.90 in chips)
Seat 3: deabter #1 ($21.65 in chips)
Seat 4: ($9.50 in chips)
Seat 5: Columbo777 (debater #2) ($19.50 in chips)
Seat 6: ($4.25 in chips)
Seat 7: ($19.45 in chips)
Seat 8: ($30 in chips)
Seat 9: ($26 in chips)
HERO: posts big blind $0.25
seat 3: calls $0.25
seat4 $0.25
seat 5 calls $0.25
Seat 6: folds
seat 7: calls $0.25
seat 8: folds
seat 9: folds
SB: calls $0.15
HERO in BB: checks
So far, pretty typical.

*** FLOP *** [Tc 7c 9c]
SB: checks
HERO: bets $1.45
debater #1: folds
Columbo777 said, "hmmm". I actually typed this (which is bad form in the middle of the hand unless its my turn to act. I was NEXT to act, and hit ENTER to soon. oops) Our HERO is building a pot on a flush board. There is no way he does this with a set, he OBVIOUSLY has a made flush. In Omaha, the tight play Ace high flushes, the aggresive will play K high flushes.

seat 4: raises $1.45 to $2.90 <= but look at this. What does HE have then? It SHOULD be yet another flush. But only one can be a nut flush.

Columbo777: folds
seat 7: folds
Columbo777 said, "oh" <= I know on the re-raise that this hand was going to war.
SB: folds
HERO: raises $7.25 to $10.15 <= this is heads up now, and looks like a battle of flushes. But what if our caller just is out of his league? Maybe he flopped a straight and thought he could get a lame flush to fold?

Seat 4: calls $6.35 and is all-in

Now, let suppose our Hero has the Ace flush. Then this is just a plain old PLO hand where someone called off their stack without understanding the game. Right? Or is it that simple?
IF Seat 4 is willing to call off his stack with a non-but hand, then isnt our HERO justified in making this play with a NON-nut KING flush? The other play would have to have to only hand that can beat this one, or he is CHASING and we are getting his money in before he realizes how far behind he is. This is my FAVORITE part of Omaha, catching a playing think they have outs, when they really dont. I mean, what could be seat 4's redraw here? He would have to have trips or 2 pair, in which case, he is a dog.

*** TURN *** [Tc 7c 9c] [5d]
*** RIVER *** [Tc 7c 9c 5d] [Ah]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
HERO: shows [8c Kc 5s Ad] (a flush, King high)
Seat 4: mucks hand (WE CAN ONLY GUESS)
Columbo777 said, "nh"
HERO collected $19.05 from pot
Debater #1 said, "EIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAH"

Now debater #1 states that our Hero made a mistake building a big pot with a K flush. So my point is this: Why assume that there is a AcXc out there? So our hero has his real decision on the post flop re-raise. It is at this point that he must decide if he is going to see the showdown or not. He decides yes (there is no real folding equity here, he is way ahead or way behind). Calling would be pointless as you are not going to call down a hand in PLO. Its all about pot building. If you call, what are you going to do on the turn? Check? And if he bets, you are going to call again?

I certainly believe that you give yourself additional chances to get away from the hand if you call and then see what he does on the turn. But you are out of position and this has to be cause for concern. So, he makes the read that he is ahead and crushes the chaser.

What would debater #1 won with the hand? Or might they have folded if seat 4 made a pot size bet on the turn? Who knows. But I think pushing with a K flush in PLO is right, if the situation presents itself. And I saw this as one of those moments. What do you think?