No time to defend an awful argument, but plenty of time to drop by and leave an insult or two. That's nice.
Here. I'll add an addendum to the thread, more nicely explaining why it was closed.
http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=38205&page=42&p=3286016&viewfull=1#post3286016
Just refute these things with real answers, and I'll reopen the thread.
The basic idea of that theory was… blow up the red line. To... make the world one piece?
This would
-require somehow destroying a landmass the size of a world-spanning continent (And given that even at the time the thread was started we knew the power of the ancient weapons is equivalent to giant sea monsters, and not... island destroying atomic bombs? these seems extremely unlikely.)
-flood all the small islands, killing millions of innocents, and likely everyone we met in east blue. Think the scale of destruction Whitebeard's fruit caused shaking just one tiny island a little, and magnify that by an entire continent falling into the earth.
-crush fishman island with rubble and destoy marijoa
-destroy the adventurer's paradise that is the grandline
-do nothing to help commerce or the world infrastructure, and would not in any significant way unify the world
-ignore the promise of the Shandorans, and the civilization that was on the moon
-be a complete act of terrorism, rather than underdog rebels
-do nothing to fix the problem of the corrupt world government that has been in place for hundreds of years.
It just... doesn't add anything or make any sense as an actual solution or resolution to anything set up in the story thus far? This isn't a nihilistic apocalyptic series where the proper resolution is "end mankind as we know it." like Berserk, Evangelion, or Nausicaa. Its a "overthrow the corrupt government" story.
But despite the many many problems with the theory, it sat around in a thread long enough, with a good enough looking opening statement with research that it was starting to be referred to as a good, even "likely" theory, in other threads. Despite... being utterly picked apart and full of holes for a year and a half. It was a thread that had no reason to gain such momentum beyond its well worded and researched (but with faulty conclusions) opening statement, and was in some ways toxic to the long term discussion of the forum to remain prominent. Meanwhile other, much more likely and better researched and defended analysis, started to fall to the wayside.