I'm still in ahh that a pair of foamposite GM were taken apart dissected....found out the foamposite wasn't even the same material and the air unit was off yet people are saying authentic but unauthorized??
Makes no sense
Or people just don't care??
Okay Jyung im going to play your game.
http://kicksoncourt.com/nike-air-foamposite-one-deconstructed/
I looked at the the link where they dissected the fighter jets. and for one thing they called it "REPLICA" not grey market or unauthorized. So pretty much all we know from that link is "we’ve come to find out that
Long-7 have deconstructed a Replica Nike Air Foamposite One.
Hit the jump – if you dare – and check out what
fake Foamposite’s are made of. Its scary because they use the same materials as the real deal… even the cushion and Carbon Fiber. Crazy."
The article ends with the last picture. Everything else after that is just "a sneakerhead's opinion" right? Its just a discussion after that.
I even took it a step further and went through the comments and went to the link that someone posted of the the other dissected foamposite
http://www.long-7.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=3463&extra=page=1 . So, can you point out to me where it says they dont have the same materials and the air bag is different that isnt just a sneakerheads opinion or in a comment? Maybe I missed it because google poorly translated the page. But as far as I can see neither one of these dissections even comes with the conclusions that the original dissector came to. Thats assuming that hes not just some random dude that too the sneakers apart. How do we even if this Long-7 guy has any expertise of the textile industry at all?
Its funny that it takes a mountain of proof and evidence from credible nike sources and articles to prove that GMs are the real deal as far as construction and materials go. But it just takes something Posted by FT on May 24th, 2013, 10:24 or something Posted by mike liu on May 24th, 2013, 10:38 in the COMMENT SECTION of a string of pictures,NOT EVEN AN ARTICLE might I add, to validate your own point? Is mike liu really Michael Jordan? Is FT Mark Parker (Nike CEO)? And I was wrong because I posted a discussion thread? You're just as guilty as what youre accusing people of. Either completely ignoring whatever information provided that you don't agree with or limiting whatever information with a credible source to being specific and solely applicable and relevant to the instance sited in the article.
Or maybe you just dont care??
This shouldnt frustrate you at all because this is exactly what youve been doing this entire thread.