The first thing that's wrong with it is that you should always begin with an explanation/theory that has many precedents instead of trying to imagine or simulate miraculous events and so forth. If I write something on lunch break or cite a website or Youtube video that you've already seen it's not going to be as good as the time it would take to meditate on the knowledge and make a satire out of it. Just kidding. I mean quote the NIST report and go through the parts where they apparently simulated/imagined expanding beams while neglecting to imagine expanding floor slabs and so forth..
Ah yes, I remember looking into that a while ago, and I believe it was simply conflating two separate parts of the report. Perhaps you could (later) quote the bit you mean though?
Given that I can't go through the NIST report now (maybe later) here's an interesting question in the meantime. Is there anything in the "official report" and "official story" that you find questionable? Because it seems like the overall tone of Metabunk is generally that every time the best official report that the bankster's paper ponzi* can buy is made, the assumption is that it's not bunk. But every time a conspiracy theorist says something, it is bunk.
Bunk is bunk regardless of the source. I don't discriminate.
I don't remember seeing anything in the NIST report that was questionable. That does not mean there's nothing questionable there. But maybe you could point out some examples?