Agent of Kharma

[quote]So kharma is asking why this would happen if it didn't happen by the planes?[/quote] Let's turn this around. I guess you are saying that thousands of tons of concrete suddenly pulverized into fine dust because of the planes? In one case, roughly 45 minutes after a tower was hit, and in another case, roughly 1.3 hours? And in a 3rd case (Building 7), a plane never hit it, so... ??? Fine, you've got my attention. So explain this please? I'm w

[quote]But it seems to have pulverized all the way down.[/quote] Yes. By the way, I think you posted at the same time I did, so read my post directly above yours, if that is the case. [quote]Once the initial impact of the upper floors pulverized the first few below, would the force be great enough to cause the chain reaction all the way down?[/quote] The first problem is that a floor falling 20-30 feet onto another would not pulverize either floor into fine

[quote]Because according to many people the pancaking theory or at least the idea that the upper floors impacted the lower ones and thus pulverized concrete is a reasonable explanation for that massive cloud of concrete dust[/quote] The government already abandoned pancaking, but if you want to attempt it, I'm all ears. Let's hear it. Tell me how upper floors impacting the lower ones pulverizes all the concrete in the building. And by the way, I'm now congratulating

[quote]So now that the steel theory has been put into question you resort to the pulverization argument which is of course not possible because the steel is too strong to allow for pancaking...? (its like a circle )[/quote] I "resort to the pulverization argument?" Pulverization is the only topic of my post! Thus, how can I be "resorting" by discussing it? Others brought up steel, not me. Did you even read my post? As far as pancaking goes, pulverizatio

[quote]so tell us, you fucking retard. what relevance is the "dustification" of the WTCs?[/quote] As evidenced by your many responses like this, I don't see any reason whatsoever to have a dialogue with you. So I won't dignify anything you have to say with a response. I'll leave it to the interested reader to figure out why "dustification" is relevant. If it isn't amazingly obvious to that r

[quote]if you wish to make a comparison, you must complete the following task:[/quote] No. I don't need to do any of those things, because none of it has any bearing on how hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete pulverized to fine dust in mid-air. Not tube-in-tube vs. traditional construction, not the amount or nature of the structural damage, not the duration or intensity of the fires, not the collision or lack of collision from airplanes - none of it. If you c

Regarding the Popular Mechanics link: [quote]And just who is debunking it and what methods are they using? Why don't you think critically rather than believing everything you read on the internet without considering who is saying it and what qualifies them to say it.[/quote] Sure, it just comes down to a pissing contest, doesn't it? Someone posts a link to some article, I say the link has been debunked, and that I have my own links as well, you ask who debunk

[quote]I don't recognize these pictures. What are they(Wanna say trade center pics but I don't recognize these angles)[/quote] Trade Center pics. [quote]Karma, get real. We've seen enough of this goofy stuff already.[/quote] Where? Here on the forums? If I knew that, I wouldn't have posted, but I haven't seen anything. [quote]Link[/quote] LOL. The infamous Popular Mechanics article debunked nothing, and in fact has itself been debunk

Does this really look like a "collapse" to you? The buildings simply disintegrated into fine dust from the top down. We are talking the mid-air pulverization of thousands of tons of concrete (each floor slab several feet thick, approximately 110 stories/floors). Do you see those massive dust clouds? That's concrete dust! All that shit that blew all over Manhattan and all the way to New Jersey, covering streets and cars several inches thick? That's concrete

Smurfing never affected my decision to play or not play online. Twilight, for what it's worth, I am also available for pointers and what not. I don't consider myself a pro, but I'm definitely not a newb. Just PM me if you want to set something up. DesConnor and I had a few rounds back and forth a while back. I hope to do more starting in May, when I get my good online connection back again.

There aren't really clans - the "community" is too small to support a clan system. There are a couple of groups who call themselves clans, but the system doesn't function like a real clan system does. Basically, clans in this game are people with tags in front of their names, and not much more.

[quote]Agent: Honestly, I'd ignore him. He keeps harrassing you like this and the moderetors get wind of it, he's likely to get banned. Don't play into it. You've broken his entire story(Not that there was much to break from what you've said from the thread itself) and now he's just repeating himself. [/quote] Good advice, thanks.

[quote]So yes I doubt your 1 marza against a skirantra and a starbase without a replay which you refuse to show because some "assholes" on the net might see what really happened.[/quote] I could really give a flying fuck what you doubt, fuckface. But to anyone else reading this, I already said I would release the replay to DesConnor (he never asked for it though). I also said I would play test this with him online (he never accepted). He probably has better things

Hey Volt, you should make support cruisers counter heavy cruisers as well.

[quote]How could it not have simply been that he was playing the game, and decided to test the skirantra while he was there?[/quote] I hate to further play into this piece of shit's harassment game (which is exactly what he wants). I'd rather us just go ahead and do an all out flame war, get banned, and get this the hell over with. But having said that, he wins I guess, because I will now respond and defend myself against accusations from some asshole over a post that's Go

[quote]the problem with protoss balance was more in late game, a sentry + colossus (or to a lesser extend) sentry + high templar was nearly unbeatable with zerg due to forcefield spam.[/quote] I think there just needs to be an ability to counter. For instance, ghost emp shockwave could pop the force shields. And maybe allow zerg units to tunnel under a force shield. Thing is, if anything, blizzard will just be lazy and either nerf the hell out of it so it is never u

[quote]i dont think any other ship in the game can effectivly heal itself while simultaneosly repairing ships around it.[/quote] The mothership. (Sure, I know, it repairs shields instead of hull, but to me that makes little difference.)

[quote]Some proof of Agent's bullshit in regards to the Sova incident.[/quote] Why do you feel the need to repost forum posts that are common knowledge that everyone has already read before? What... do you think I'm trying to "hide" a public forum post I made? Do you think it's a big secret or something? Boy, I guess you really feel like you "got me" with that, huh? Congrats! The post doesn't even prove the point that you are trying to make, but I can see

[quote]I suspect incoming toss nerfs, though. Mainly Immortal damage decreased and sentry force field energy cost increased.[/quote] Protoss has been continuously nerfed every single patch. So I also expect incoming nerfs - warranted or not. Why? That's simply the way of things. Once devs start nerfing a faction, they just go "nerf happy" and tend to keep doing it until that faction is UP. I do suspect some adjustment needs to be made to the force fiel

[quote]The argument could be made that Agent was being stupid since he was putting the Skirantra in a position it was not made for. But! He was putting it in the position that many believe it to be powerful.[/quote] Bingo. I couldn't have said most of what you said any better myself.

[quote]@Agent: Would it be possible to repeat your tests with the Skirantra kiting so RB's DoT doesn't hit it? If so, thank you. I believe that doing so would help validate your results.[/quote] Hi Volt. We already agree that if I kited the skirantra in this situation, it wouldn't die. However, it also wouldn't be able to support the sb with repair cloud. You see, all the naysayers who say "revert the buff" claim the skirantra was already some awe-inspiring ship

Marauders seemed a little much to me, as I said in the original post.

[quote who="Greyfox2" reply="31" id="2585909"]If you have a replay, why don't you post it instead of talking about it?[/quote] The reason I would never post a replay of anything publicly here is because of assholes. I will make the replay available to someone like DesConnor, if people find the story I told to be unusual or surprising (for all I know, they don't). Alternatively, I have offered to test this out with someone like DesConnor in an actual game. But hell

Awesome epic game between 2 pros at a tournament (4 parts): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGP1-R9rugo&feature=related

[quote]I'm slightly perplexed by Agent's example, as it's not clear why the Skirantra would be destroyed, without anything apparently firing at it? [/quote] I believe it was the splash damage from the radiation bomb. The carrier was sitting next to the starbase, the marza was firing at the starbase and continuously rad-bombing, and the skirantra just went down. This was even with continuous repair cloud. I will check the replay to see at what point my skirantra ent