While these images might look like a giant streak of light in the sky above some mountains, they actually show something on the ground - the Solana solar power station in Arizona. It's hazy, so you can't see the ground, but the super-bright reflected sunlight shines through. Images source: https://youtu.be/OqZh-0oayqc?t=191 Solana power station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solana_Generating_Station Location: https://www.google.com/maps/place/32%C2%B055'00.0%22N+112%C2%B058'00.0%22W/@32.9004007,-112.8968457,4883a,35y,280.5h,56.74t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x30b6cabc80e1c05d!8m2!3d32.916667!4d-112.966667?hl=en ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NneoVAGvm1w

This is a follow-up to "Some Problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report" published on Sept 7th 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OClixCTdDw In that video, I noted that Hulsey was using static analysis where he should have been using dynamic analysis and that his dynamic analysis was suspiciously simple. It has since emerged that he has not actually done ANY real global dynamic analysis, despite several figures in the report being labeled as dynamic analysis - they are actually just simply box physics, set up to look like a particular result based on the static analysis. The static analysis is also problematic in that it is linear, and the large deformations seen are non-linear. But perhaps most seriously, there are TWO VERSIONS of the static analysis being presented - one in the report and one in the presentation. These were presented on the same day. The one shown by Hulsey shows a model that will not collapse, and requires the manual removal of columns to force a result. The one in the report is different and has no manual removal. So if they are using two very different models, which one is correct? How do we know EITHER of them is correct? What criteria is used to validate the model? Why is Hulsey using the manually adjusted model in his presentation? Why are there horrific glitches in the geometry in his final result diagram? Simulating a collapsing building requires a dynamic analysis. NIST did one. It's not perfect, but setting up a dynamic analysis is complex, and runs are computationally expensive. NIST spent months running dynamic simulations. You can argue their results don't look perfect. But, based on the report and presentation, Hulsey DID NOT EVEN TRY to do a global dynamic analysis. Instead, he used a dubious linear static model, of which there are multiple versions, he (or his students) pushed it way beyond anything that is linear or static, and then they used the "results" of that analysis to manually create some rotating and falling boxes, extrapolating what they thought might happen, which he then labeled "dynamic analysis". Metabunk discussion: https://www.metabunk.org/sept-3-2019-release-of-hulseys-wtc7-draft-report-analysis.t10890/ ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-DadyW-LR4