Comic Battle >> View Post
·
Post By
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 9,840
In Reply To
motifian

Member Since: Sat Jun 10, 2017
Posts: 1,291
Subj: Re: Thor in a close one. Multi-directional lightning neutralizes speed.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 at 08:29:43 pm EST (Viewed 62 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Thor in a close one. Multi-directional lightning neutralizes speed.
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 at 10:54:22 pm EST (Viewed 68 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Every response you made to me was bogus. A huge boulder is far more dense than a metal laced tower which is mostly empty space. Thor was up immediately after getting hit by the boulder. Superman was unconscious after the tower fell on him. You're just plain wrong about the Sokovia EXPLOSION, not implosion. "It wasn't a city wide explosion"? Really? LOL! Should we believe you or our lying eyes?
        Uh-huh. Now it's just "you're wrong" now?
      The proof is right here. Does that look like a city-wide explosion to you? Want to deny it still? Still want to call it an implosion?
    You are still trying to pass it as an explosion?


Definitely yes. Everything is blowing outward. Absolutely nothing is going inward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnfmmp_Kjek


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Jotunheim was cracked by the lightning from Thor and its hollow as shown with ice sheets easily cracked.
          Yes, because giants, GIANTS, built a city on top of weak ice. How you love to make stuff up.
        Yes, Giants who were only around Thor and Loki's height but somewhat bigger are so heavy.
      Wrong again. The giants are about 10 feet tall in this picture. But your bogus rationalization about Jotunheim ice just goes to show you'll say anything, no matter how ridiculous.
    Yeah 10 feet giants are so heavy. Ice really can't handle 10 feet unless it's super duper hard.


You know weight grows geometrically to height, right? Being twice as tall doesn't make you twice as heavy but much more. Speculating "easily cracked" ice sheets as something giants would build a city on top of is simply your brazen and ridiculous attempt to lowball a Thor feat.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:

                Quote:
                Fury straight up says that the nuke would kill everyone in the city. That's what the plan was, kill everything and avengers were casualties of war.
              Actually, I just reviewed the movie which I own on Blu-ray and Fury states no such thing. Fury's closest statement to that is, "The payload will wipe out Midtown." Since I live in Manhattan, I can tell you that Midtown makes up about one seventh of Manhattan, and Manhattan in turn makes up about one ninth of the land mass of New York City. So no, Fury says nothing about killing everyone in the city. Wiping out Midtown says nothing about how the missile would affect Hulk or Thor.
            Midtown was where Avengers were along with Chitauri. Did Fury said that it will wipe out midtown except for the Avengers or you're just injecting your own views again.
          First you make up that Fury said the missile would kill everyone in the city, and now you're just grasping at straws.
        So you don't have any proof in the movie and are just making it out of thin air.
      The burden of proof isn't on me to prove something doesn't happen. The burden of proof is on you to prove what you stated would happen. All you're basing it on is some nebulous statement Fury makes about the missile destroying Midtown.
    The proof is already posted.


You posted absolutely no proof. You merely asserted very incorrectly that "Fury straight up says that the nuke would kill everyone in the city." It's right there on the page for everyone to see.


    Quote:
    Your insistence that Fury said everyone except Avengers would be dead is simply that, fanfiction.


I never stated that. I guess it's obvious by now that you don't understand logical reasoning, but the burden of proof isn't on me to prove a negative.


    Quote:
    Try to post proof from movies, not making it out of air.


The burden of proof is on you and you proved nothing, only made an incorrect assertion.




Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software