Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Destroyer from Thor is on a rampage in Midtown Manhattan, and Tony ain't having that shit. Tony gets his Mark VI armor

who's winning?

Hmmm.....I dunno.

Iron Man, sadly.

I was really unimpressed with The Destroyer in the Thor movie. What a piece of shit.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Iron Man, sadly.

I was really unimpressed with The Destroyer in the Thor movie. What a piece of shit.

i liked the dread destroyer from thor however tony won't have a problem

Destroyer wins.

Tony can't do a thing to the Destroyer Armor. Not even BFR.

Other than beat its ass?

It has no real durability feats. Thor one-shot it for Bob Saget's sake.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Other than beat its ass?

It has no real durability feats. Thor one-shot it for Bob Saget's sake.

Thor shoved Mjolnir into the Destroyer's visor while it was shooting it's desintergration beam. Resulting in the helmut expanding and overheating. Resulting in an explosion that covered the sky and it all happened inside the Destroyers helmut.

Mjolnir absorbs all energy. It wasn't brute strength.

Ironman has nothing to offer. Nor can he mimic the feat Thor did.

Sif stabed a spear through it...

Really the Destoyer wasn't all that impressive. Iron Man wins.

Originally posted by ares834
Sif stabed a spear through it...

Really the Destoyer wasn't all that impressive. Iron Man wins.

No she didn't.
She shoved her spear between the threads in the armor. Remember how it rotated the threads?
Not through the metal. The Destroyer slid back out.
Loki was controlling the armor most probably.
And he had a sense of humour both with Sif and when it killed human Thor.

Present Ironman armor is prretty weak. the lack of Inertial Dampeners is his biggest draw back.

Tony will desintergrate the second he tries to rescue a girl from death.
And Tony can't hurt the Destroyer or BFR him.

Destroyer, easily.

Destroyer destroys Iron Man.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Present Ironman armor is prretty weak. the lack of Inertial Dampeners is his biggest draw back.

Tony will desintergrate the second he tries to rescue a girl from death.
And Tony can't hurt the Destroyer or BFR him.

I don't believe that the Destroyers blast was a desintergration beam, more like a cyclops beam of concussive force based on how it reacted with what it hit. And if the Iron Man armor didn't have inertial dampeners Stark would have been turned to mush while he was being kicked around by the Monger and when he fell back onto the roof.

The reason why Thor hammer and Sifs sword did damage is because there made of the same metal as the Destroyer so Iron Man should not do much to hurt the Destroyer.

mmm

Fail to the people that are siding with Iron Man.

Destroyer shows Iron Man what a real man of iron is.

Destroyer

Originally posted by NemeBro
Other than beat its ass?

It has no real durability feats. Thor one-shot it for Bob Saget's sake.

Yeah, well, but Thor is Thor....he's thoring around!!!

What kind of retard logic are you people using in here? Of course Iron Man kills the shit out of the Destroyer. What's the Destroyer going to do to a man who can fire on the move with perfect accuracy from 500 feet in the air and moving at 300 miles per hour? Nothing. What's the Destroyer going to do when it gets hit with a barrage of missiles that 1-shotted a tank? Die.

I don't think I have ever seen people in this forum go balls deep on characters from a movie this fast. From people going "omg Thor blew up a city!" in the vs. Hulk thread to this. Geeze.

6rNuP674T0w&NR

LEAVE MAH ALONE YOU DAMN DIRTY APE

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What kind of retard logic are you people using in here? Of course Iron Man kills the shit out of the Destroyer. What's the Destroyer going to do to a man who can fire on the move with perfect accuracy from 500 feet in the air and moving at 300 miles per hour? Nothing. What's the Destroyer going to do when it gets hit with a barrage of missiles that 1-shotted a tank? Die.

I don't think I have ever seen people in this forum go balls deep on characters from a movie this fast. From people going "omg Thor blew up a city!" in the vs. Hulk thread to this. Geeze.

So your saying Stark techology beats the shit out of a suit of armor that was made by a bunch of people from another realm


yeah keep on thinking that

Originally posted by McNasty996
I don't believe that the Destroyers blast was a desintergration beam, more like a cyclops beam of concussive force based on how it reacted with what it hit. And if the Iron Man armor didn't have inertial dampeners Stark would have been turned to mush while he was being kicked around by the Monger and when he fell back onto the roof.

Everybody just ignored this surprisingly.

Originally posted by Kazenji
So your saying Stark techology beats the shit out of a suit of armor that was made by a bunch of people from another realm


yeah keep on thinking that Prove me wrong?

Originally posted by McNasty996
I don't believe that the Destroyers blast was a desintergration beam, more like a cyclops beam of concussive force based on how it reacted with what it hit. And if the Iron Man armor didn't have inertial dampeners Stark would have been turned to mush while he was being kicked around by the Monger and when he fell back onto the roof.

-I've seen Batman fall out of a building and land on a car with sore back.
Tony's durability feats were because of the armor pure and simple. Not once has he displayed having inertial dampeners. Or any kind of force field. He better have em in the Avengers movie.
-The Destroyer's beam disintergrated the Frost Giants in the beginning didnt it?
His beam carving up the street the way it did was because it's such a monstrous blast that it creates devastating force.
It's Odin's death machine. It's designed to take on beings far vaster than a third generation Ironman.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What kind of retard logic are you people using in here? Of course Iron Man kills the shit out of the Destroyer. What's the Destroyer going to do to a man who can fire on the move with perfect accuracy from 500 feet in the air and moving at 300 miles per hour? Nothing. What's the Destroyer going to do when it gets hit with a barrage of missiles that 1-shotted a tank? Die.

I don't think I have ever seen people in this forum go balls deep on characters from a movie this fast. From people going "omg Thor blew up a city!" in the vs. Hulk thread to this. Geeze.

Missiles and lasers won't do crap to the Destoyer.
Thor took the armor down by using Mjolnir to absorb and redirect his beam back into its open visor.
Causing an overload and an explosion that shook the sky. Ironman can't do that.

Originally posted by the ninjak



Missiles and lasers won't do crap to the Destoyer.
Proof?



That is what destroyed the Destroyer. Assuming that that is what it would take to destroy the Destroyer, is illogical.

For all you or I know, an explosion half that size could have destroyed it.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying that because I killed a cat by shooting an RPG at it, you therefore need an RPG sized explosion to kill a cat.

Bring on the pain Blax.

For the record the destroyer didn't desintegrate the frost giants in the beginning. You could still see their corpses when Odin and co. walked in.

Tony is getting no respect what so ever.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican


I don't think I have ever seen people in this forum go balls deep on characters from a movie this fast. From people going "omg Thor blew up a city!" in the vs. Hulk thread to this. Geeze.

It's pretty bad. Hit-Girl phaggotry was about the same though, iirc.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Proof?

That is what destroyed the Destroyer. Assuming that that is what it would take to destroy the Destroyer, is illogical.

For all you or I know, an explosion half that size could have destroyed it.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying that because I killed a cat by shooting an RPG at it, you therefore need an RPG sized explosion to kill a cat.

Proof. Why don't you prove a repulsor beam will hurt the armor.
The size of the explosion had nothing to do with Koing the Destroyer. Mjolnir absorbed and pushed the energy into the visor. Resulting in the helmut expanding with an overload of its OWN energy. The bands in the armor bent then BOOM.

The explosion I just threw in for shits and giggles. Wonderful cat analogy lol. utterly irrelevant to what I wrote.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Bring on the pain Blax.

For the record the destroyer didn't desintegrate the frost giants in the beginning. You could still see their corpses when Odin and co. walked in.

Tony is getting no respect what so ever.

Pain?

Thanks for the beam feat I thought the Frost giants turned into dust.

I love Ironman but this version is weaksauce No force fields, inertial dampeners. Average strength.

We can argue about missiles hurting the Destroyer armor but get real guys.

Thor's takedown of the Destroyer was fast and cheap and something only Mjolnir can do.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's pretty bad. Hit-Girl phaggotry was about the same though, iirc.

Then prove us wrong then, Instead of agreeing with people who are moaning and groaning over about things that folks actually think this or that gonna win.

So at work today I watched the scene twice where the Frost Giants attempted to steal the artifact from Odin's armory.

The Destroyers beam is a Disintegration beam!
The first giant gets turned to dust so does the second. You don't see what happens to the third.

When Odin enters the room you see a frozen body of one of the Asgardian soldiers and what looks like a melted arm of a Frost Giant.

Bring it on!

Originally posted by the ninjak
Proof. Why don't you prove a repulsor beam will hurt the armor.

Because I understand what burden or proof means and you obviously don't?




Why should I care? Are you saying that the Destroyer can only be killed by its own beam? Hitting it with 20 nuclear warheads wouldn't do anything to it? It can survive a planet exploding beneath it? Unless you have some statement from the movie that says the Destroyer can only be killed by its own beam, you are committing a limitless fallacy.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Because I understand what burden or proof means and you obviously don't?
You obviously do. If Ironman can get a chest blast in there.........maybe. but the Destroyer isn't the kind of combatant that will grab Tony by the throat and squeeze while Tony blasts inside his helmut. The Destroyer punches objects out of the way while blasting everything in site with his disintergration beam. So is that proof enough?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why should I care? Are you saying that the Destroyer can only be killed by its own beam? Hitting it with 20 nuclear warheads wouldn't do anything to it? It can survive a planet exploding beneath it? Unless you have some statement from the movie that says the Destroyer can only be killed by its own beam, you are committing a limitless fallacy.

With it's own beam power + Mjolnirs offensive absorbing power. That's right.

So where was it stated in the movies that the Destroyer can only be killed by its own beam?

Originally posted by the ninjak
but the Destroyer isn't the kind of combatant that will grab Tony by the throat and squeeze while Tony blasts inside his helmut. The Destroyer punches objects out of the way while blasting everything in site with his disintergration beam. So is that proof enough?



How is he going to hit a target that F-16's moving at mach 2 firing missiles and Gatling guns couldn't hit? Last time I checked, the Destroyer can't fly, and it was having trouble hitting people running along the ground at normal speeds.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
So where was it stated in the movies that the Destroyer can only be killed by its own beam?
In the movie.
Thor bursts down absorbing the beams stream and when he reaches the Destroyers head. His helmet expands. The metal bindings stretching. Then an explosion happens. Destroyer falls. His form compromised.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
How is he going to hit a target that F-16's moving at mach 2 firing missiles and Gatling guns couldn't hit? Last time I checked, the Destroyer can't fly, and it was having trouble hitting people running along the ground at normal speeds.

The Destroyer is killing people. Blowing up houses. Tony is a man who will protect innocent people to his dying breath he is an Avenger.

The Destroyer doesn't have to move fast he is a juggernaut. Sooner or later Tony is gonna have to challenge the armor, test its abilities. Once he realises that his artillery has no effect either he unleashes his entire arsenal on it and retreats for reload or advice......... its BFR.
If he tries to get creative and tries to send a Unibeam into its visor, I can't see him getting the placement advantage. As stated above.


TAKE IT AS YOU WILL. THE DESTROYER ARMOR WAS COMPROMISED BY EITHER MJOLNIR OR THE DESTROYERS BEAM OR BOTH. THINGS TONY HAS NEITHER OF.

THOR HAD BOTH.

Tony's armor has never been destroyed.

So, the Destroyer can't destroy it.

But Tony's armor has been damaged before. Both in Ironman 1 and 2 it has been shown that he can be damaged.

From the little that we've seen of the destroyer, it wasn't damaged or scratched at all... up until Thor made it explode.

It wasn't ever attacked? The only thing that opposed it was Thor. It sneak attacked the frost giants. ****ed up shield without a fight--duh lol-- and then the warriors 3 and Sif were the only thing that did attack it before Thor, and all they used was a fricking sword.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Then prove us wrong then, Instead of agreeing with people who are moaning and groaning over about things that folks actually think this or that gonna win.

Other people already have. The pro Destroyer argument basically boils down to: "only Thor/Mjolnir can destroy the Destroyer because Thor/Mjolnir destroyed it.' Which is a nonsense argument.

Originally posted by Robtard
Other people already have. The pro Destroyer argument basically boils down to: "only Thor/Mjolnir can destroy the Destroyer because Thor/Mjolnir destroyed it.' Which is a nonsense argument.

I didn't say that just Mjolnir can do the same feat.

Just not Ironman.

Originally posted by the ninjak
I didn't say that just Mjolnir can do the same feat.

Just not Ironman.

Destroyer was taken down by having its own blast turned against it, right? This we all agree on?

Iron Man has attacks that are arguably equal or more powerful than the Destroyer's blast. That mini-rocket that obliterated a tank could likely do it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Destroyer was taken down by having its own blast turned against it, right? This we all agree on?

Iron Man has attacks that are arguably equal or more powerful than the Destroyer's blast. That mini-rocket that obliterated a tank could likely do it.

Same as an IonCannon. But as I wrote above.

- Ironman's little missile ain't gonna get through the beam. It'll melt.
- Ironman's IonCannon won't be able to get a good position to get into the visor. If he floats in front of the Destroyer he'll get melted.

And besides from the scene the Destroyer just kept shooting his beam. Thor used Mjolnir to absorb the blast and keep pouring it in. Overloading and compromising the armor.

Arguably just shooting a bomb at the Destroyers head won't do crap. Especially while the visor is down.

And that's ignoring the fact that this ultimate weapon made by Odin himself to fight insane beings could actually be damaged by such things. But there is no proof of that just logical conclusion. Unfortunately we never see Destroyer received damage other than from what many would think was the perfect item to take it down. So it's really a pointless argument.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Same as an IonCannon. But as I wrote above.

- Ironman's little missile ain't gonna get through the beam. It'll melt.

The Destroyer can't hit full sized humans moving at regular human speed with its beam, yet it's going to hit a missile the size of your dick fired by a guy who is literally flying at the speed of sound?



Even though he can move at the speed of sound?



Or this

Argue what you want about it not being destroyed, her spear went through it like a knife through butter, and the only force she put behind the strike was the force of gravity. And yet, while it didn't destroy the Destroyer it did do enough damage to temporarily shut it down. A single beam from one of his hands will tear right through it. From that point it just comes down to unloading on it from 30,000 feet up.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The Destroyer can't hit full sized humans moving at regular human speed with its beam, yet it's going to hit a missile the size of your dick fired by a guy who is literally flying at the speed of sound?
Even though he can move at the speed of sound?
Argue what you want about it not being destroyed, her spear went through it like a knife through butter, and the only force she put behind the strike was the force of gravity. And yet, while it didn't destroy the Destroyer it did do enough damage to temporarily shut it down. A single beam from one of his hands will tear right through it. From that point it just comes down to unloading on it from 30,000 feet up.


1.The spear of Asgardian design went through the lines between the metal bands in the armor. You know the metal bands that rotated around. He was toying with her obviously. The Destroyer had a sense of humor. He faked out twice in that battle. Maybe because he was passively being controlled by Loki.

2.When did you see my dick? Perv!

3. He ain't using the Ion Cannon while flying at the speed of sound LO fricken L.

4. The Destroyer was fine when the spear was in him. Using beams as a comparable offense is not a good comparison.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Same as an IonCannon. But as I wrote above.

- Ironman's little missile ain't gonna get through the beam. It'll melt.
- Ironman's IonCannon won't be able to get a good position to get into the visor. If he floats in front of the Destroyer he'll get melted.

And besides from the scene the Destroyer just kept shooting his beam. Thor used Mjolnir to absorb the blast and keep pouring it in. Overloading and compromising the armor.

Arguably just shooting a bomb at the Destroyers head won't do crap. Especially while the visor is down.

And that's ignoring the fact that this ultimate weapon made by Odin himself to fight insane beings could actually be damaged by such things. But there is no proof of that just logical conclusion. Unfortunately we never see Destroyer received damage other than from what many would think was the perfect item to take it down. So it's really a pointless argument.

Why does it have to get though the beam. IM's not going to fire it at the beam, he's a genius, not a moron. IM is flying, is loads faster and agile. He can fire it from most angles. Same goes for his hand-beams. Tank-killing rocket likely blow it apart.

IM will get melted? WTF? It's a concussive beam from the looks of it. IM's suit withstood a lot of dmg, it's arguable if the Destroyer's blast will take him out.

Cos Thor charged it head-on, the style of fighting he does, little thinking; lots of bashing. Stark is far more mobile and intelligent.

Why won't shooting the head "do crap", what durability feats did the visor show?

Translation: The Destroyer was fairly unimpressive and it doesn't have many screen-feats, so you're arguing that it wins cos you're still high off the Thor fix.

Concession accepted.

Originally posted by Robtard
Concession accepted.

Yawwwn. When did this happen?

And Thor fought the Destroyer far more intelligently then his comic counterpart. He knew his hammer could absorb the beam.
Tony get torn apart in both of his films.

A someone saying that Tony can shoot Repulsors 30,000 ft in away is pretty phucking funny.

I said 2 or 3 posts back that we covered really everything and lack of feats make this a silly forum fight. But if you guys wanna repeat yourselves over and over help yourselves.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Yawwwn. When did this happen?

And Thor fought the Destroyer far more intelligently then his comic counterpart. He knew his hammer could absorb the beam.
Tony get torn apart in both of his films.

A someone saying that Tony can shoot Repulsors 30,000 ft in away is pretty phucking funny.

I said 2 or 3 posts back that we covered really everything and lack of feats make this a silly forum fight. But if you guys wanna repeat yourselves over and over help yourselves.

Right above when you accepted that the Destroyer in the film wasn't all that.

Not really. In the first film, he was fighting Monger at a very weakened state, he's not weak here. In IM2, when did he get "torn apart", when he was in the briefcase-suit? That's a weaker suit.

Who said "30,000" feet? Don't recall IM having that range. He does have good range though.

Lack of feats means Destroyer is going down, as it wasn't that impressive. You're swinging from its nuts though.

Then this thread is over Destroyer can take destroyed from anything more powerful than a bullet. Nah!

Destroyer faked out the spear attack....obviously.

And the only weapon Tony has shown defying Thor's feat is the Ion Cannon.
Which Tony WILL NOT be able to use on the Destroyer like Thor used Mjolnir.

Thor kept the Destroyer in place in a powerful hurricane. Even aduring the final blast the Destroyer was held in place. Thor had complete control.

Ironman shoots the Destroyer with an Ion Cannon Destroyer falls backwards.
Ironman loses 80% of power and the fight continues. Logic. The hammer fell him. So will an Ion Cannon.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lack of feats means Destroyer is going down, as it wasn't that impressive. You're swinging from its nuts though.

Originally posted by Zack Fair


Your thumb smells like poo!

Did anyone mention that Stark's lasers may be able to cut the Destroyer up in four separate pieces, thus immediately ending the match?

Originally posted by McNasty996
Did anyone mention that Stark's lasers may be able to cut the Destroyer up in four separate pieces, thus immediately ending the match?

Sif's spear arguably just slid through the bands in the armor. The same bands that rotated his form to face backwards.

Thor's Hammer smacking the armor was blunt force trauma and didn't compromise it. It just knocked it down.

Thor's overloading of the armor was Mjolnir absorbing the constant beam and sending it back into the visor + any power output the hammer could dish out. All while holding the armor perfectly in place with the winds.

So the only thing Ironman has in his arsenal that can do that is the Ion Cannon which would simply Blast the Destroyer along the ground like the hammer did. Tony can't hold the armor in place while he pours in the juice.

The cutting beams are arguably no different than the Ion Cannon. Just more focused.

Rematch, but Tony gets his Mark VII armor from The Avengers. Who takes it?

Makes no difference. Tony's "Super Lasers" failed to cut through the hull of the flying beasts in Avengers.

And his mini bomb won't do anything to the Destroyer.

It was nice seeing what people had to offer in regards to Ironman's feats vs Thor's feats in regards to the Destroyer battle.
Thor comes out on top as he should...and the Destroyer disintegrates Ironman the second he tries to fight in melee combat. Which he will considering his energy weapons wont hurt it.
Or in a straight fist fight Tony gets crushed worse than his armor did against Thor.
Movie Ironman has a long ways to go before he can take down movie Destroyer.

In the trailer of Iron Man 3, several of Tony's suits were displayed as being blown up. Tony's exoskeletons are destructible after all.

Destroyer wins.

Tony still wins cos he has the feats to back him up, even more so now with Avengers under his belt.

What's funny, Tony did better against Thor than the Destroyer did.

Thor was toying with Stark and damn near destroyed his armor. He also didn't know his magic lighting would amp Tony's suit.

Thor knocked Iron-man flying with each of his Mjolnir hits and even dented his armor and sent him flying with a headbutt, that and Thor was crushing Tony's armor with his bare hands.

Plus, Tony was amped to 475% power for his fight with Thor, he's not going to have that advantage against the Destroyer.

The Destroyer will destroy tony....

There is by no means any argument for Iron man here.

Iron Man wins. The destroyer's blast wasn't that powerful, it just made minor explosions where it hit. Tony's been hit with worse and was fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOQv_H2W_pU

It didn't even completely destroy the vans, just blew them up. It shot a corner store with Volstagg in it, the store blew up but he was fine. Stane hit Tony with a missile, bigger explosion, he was completely unharmed. The Destroyer shot the ground in one scene, looked like a grenade went off but nothing more. People are saying it will disintegrate Tony? Lol.

So if that's all the firepower it takes to destroy it (reflecting it back at him) then Tony definitely has more than enough.

whoever said it would disintegrate Tony needs to go away and stop posting.

That's irrelevant tho, because Tony can't hurt Destroyer and once he's out of power and can no longer fly around to evade, Destroyer will grab and rip Tony apart.

Well, the Destroyer's beams seem to do more damage than the energy rifles the aliens were using and those rifles were able to knock Iron-man around...though to be fair, the guns didn't appear to do any real damage.

I didn't read the whole thing but when did someone say it would disintegrate him?

Anyways when Tony was at 400% power he still stood as no threat to Thor. In fact he was effortlessly crushing IronMans armor. He threw his hammer at the destroyer and knocked it a little but didn't even make a dent. Thor dented Tony's helm with a headbutt and crushed the armor plating on his arms with his bare hands. The only thing tony really has going for him is he survived in space when he fell back to earth and only barely survived at that.

So yeah, Tony did better against Thor than the Destroyer did, which besides kill a couple of surprised Frost Giants, blow up a gas station and a couple of cars didn't really do much all that much. It's weaksauce compared to Tony's feats.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
I didn't read the whole thing but when did someone say it would disintegrate him?

Anyways when Tony was at 400% power he still stood as no threat to Thor. In fact he was effortlessly crushing IronMans armor. He threw his hammer at the destroyer and knocked it a little but didn't even make a dent. Thor dented Tony's helm with a headbutt and crushed the armor plating on his arms with his bare hands. The only thing tony really has going for him is he survived in space when he fell back to earth and only barely survived at that. He threw Mjolnir at Iron Man and it didn't hurt him either, just knocked him back, so you could argue he's as durable as the Destroyer.

Tony just has to wait until it opens its visor (pauses with its face exposed before attacking) then fire a missile.

I just skimmed the thread but I thought I saw someone saying Tony would be melted or obliterated or something, I may be wrong.

no not at all.

What tony did to thor was hit him at 400% power and anger him at best. Tony did no damage to thor just as the destroyer did no damage to thor. We learned in Thors movie he liked humanity so its quite fair to say he was only trying to disable Ironman not hurt him. Had he fought iron man the way he fought the destroyer tony would be dead.

Thor was obviously toying with Tony. Dunno how that can be argued.

Also, it's not quite fair to say the hammer throw didn't hurt Iron Man at all 'cause his system was definitely shaken by the blow.

Thor only stopped the Destroyer by knocking it's own energy back into it's body... Tony cannot replicate that feat.

Originally posted by marwash22
Thor was obviously toying with Tony. Dunno how that can be argued.

Also, it's not quite fair to say the hammer throw didn't hurt Iron Man at all 'cause his system was definitely shaken by the blow.

Thor only stopped the Destroyer by knocking it's own energy back into it's body... Tony cannot replicate that feat.

Was Thor also toying with Captain America? Cos he hit Cat full force; Capt happened to survive cos of his shields special properties, not cos Thor was holding back.

Yeah, it did some minor rattling of his systems.

Or you know, hit the Destroyer back with an attack that's at least equal to it's own beam.

Even if we agree that Tony's unibeam is equal to or greater than Destroyer's blasts, Tony would have to, 1) shoot the beam directly into it's mask opening and 2) keep the beam going long enough to where the Destroyer is overwhelmed by the energy.

It's not very likely considering that whenever the Destroyer opens it's mask, it does so to fire... so Tony's unibeam would only be met with an opposing beam; and it's established that using the unibeam puts a tremendous drain on Tony's power supply which would be a terrible idea since flight is Tony's biggest advantage.

Originally posted by marwash22
Even if we agree that Tony's unibeam is equal to or greater than Destroyer's blasts, Tony would have to, 1) shoot the beam directly into it's mask opening and 2) keep the beam going long enough to where the Destroyer is overwhelmed by the energy.

It's not very likely considering that whenever the Destroyer opens it's mask, it does so to fire... so Tony's unibeam would only be met with an opposing beam; and it's established that using the unibeam puts a tremendous drain on his power supply which would be a terrible idea since flight is Tony's biggest advantage.

IIRC, the Destroyer's beam is slow to fire, it opens up and takes a couple seconds to build up before it fires, that's Tony's in. If we have to go with the silly "only way to destroy the Destroyer is to shoot it down its throat", it's not the Death Star, last I checked. But fine.

lol.

hey, shooting down it's throat (pause) is the only thing shown to work, physical attacks are completely useless.

btw, Tony's unibeam takes a little bit to charge as well... about the same amount of time it takes the Destroyer.

Tony isn't gonna jump on the Destroyer and aim his chest directly into the Destroyer's visor.

Repulsor tech isn't the same anyways. Tony's beams force targets back. The Destroyers Beam appears to kinetically explode whatever it touches.

Leaning towards the Destroyer

Originally posted by the ninjak
Tony isn't gonna jump on the Destroyer and aim his chest directly into the Destroyer's visor.

Repulsor tech isn't the same anyways. Tony's beams force targets back. The Destroyers Beam appears to kinetically explode whatever it touches. He doesn't need repulsors, he has plenty of rockets and whatnot. What he killed the Leviathan with, would destroy the destroyer with ease. Though hand repulsors would knock it on its ass long enough for Tony to get a second shot in.

Its not a solid piece of armour, plenty of exposed points for Tony to exploit.

Originally posted by marwash22
lol.

hey, shooting down it's throat (pause) is the only thing shown to work, physical attacks are completely useless.

Physical attacks from spears and blunt objects. Tony as concussive beams, lasers, rockets and various other missiles and such.

Originally posted by The Silent Hero
Its not a solid piece of armour, plenty of exposed points for Tony to exploit. You're talking as if the Destroyer has organs or something else that's vulnerable on the inside of it's armor. That's not the case.


Originally posted by Robtard
Physical attacks from spears and blunt objects. Tony as concussive beams, lasers, rockets and various other missiles and such. i didn't get the impression that any physical attacks (of any kind) would hurt the thing. What evidence did you see that suggests otherwise?

Even If the destroyer was unimpressive, can iron man survive even 1 hit by the disintegration beam?

All he has to do is hit him once

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Even If the destroyer was unimpressive, can iron man survive even 1 hit by the disintegration beam?

All he has to do is hit him once

Is Iron Man more durable than Frost Giants, a gas station and some cars?

Yes, yes and yes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Is Iron Man more durable than Frost Giants, a gas station and some cars?

Yes, yes and yes. thor was certain it could kill him

from what is seen on screen, the "disintegration" only works on organic material, which would explain Thor not wanting to get hit by it. Tony's suit isn't organic material... so if anything, the suit will get damaged if hit by them beam, but it won't get disintegrated.

After A Prolong fight, i see the disintergration beam killing tony before tonys Pulse Bolts Kill The Destroyer

Tony Also doesnt have a healing factor where as the armor does

Originally posted by The Silent Hero
He doesn't need repulsors, he has plenty of rockets and whatnot. What he killed the Leviathan with, would destroy the destroyer with ease. Though hand repulsors would knock it on its ass long enough for Tony to get a second shot in.

Its not a solid piece of armour, plenty of exposed points for Tony to exploit.

What are you talking about "with ease"!

Bombs won't do anything and the Repulsor Beams probably won't put him on his ass. Did you see in Thor how the Destroyer swiped a flying car aside with a casual wave of it's arm?

And that bomb Tony destroyed the Chitauri beast with hit its exposed flesh. The D.Armor doesn't have any flesh .

Wow I could see the argument being made for Tony before Avengers(Lack of Feats for the Destroyer/Thor) but after Avengers I don't see how anyone can say Ironman wins.

Just look at the two fights between the Thor/Tony and Thor/Destroyer

Thor/Destroyer fight: Thor fought the Destroyer on a totally different level. He was smart, methodical, and didn't leave anything up to chance.

The Destroyer's beam was powerful enough to injure Asgardians as strong as Volstagg with residuals from it's blast and fists. We know for a fact Asgardians/Frost Giants are extremely durable just look at what Loki withstood in the Avengers movie. Even a thrashing from Hulk only left Loki disabled and not even KOed. The Destroyer's beam was able to seriously mess up Volstagg to where he needed assistance to be moved around. It was also heavily hinted at before Siff attacked it that a direct attack by the destroyer would have killed Volstagg while he was laying on the car.

Also Thor took no chances with that beam, and after what Thor survived in both movies I would take that as a sign of respect to the Beam and what Thor knows it can do. HE decided the best course of action was to not let that beam touch him at all and and he also decided the best course of action was to use it's own beam against itself.

Now once again before Avengers we had no real guideline with how that compared to human elements, but after Avengers we know.

Thor/Ironman Fight: Thor is obviously not trying to seriously hurt Tony cause throughout the fight we see that if Thor wanted to seriously hurt him he could have. He easily breaks IM's armor with his hands. A simple headbutt dents his armor. Everything Tony throws at Thor doesn't even hurt him even at 475% power levels for IM. We easily see Thor rip IM's face mask off at the end without even trying. IMs best attacks couldn't even get through the Leviathan's armor but we see Thor's lightning damage multiple's of the same beasts. You can also see that even though Tony absorbed Thor's lightning that where the lightning did touch it caused burn marks in IM's armor. That means to me that even though the lightning acts as a power up to IM if Thor really wanted to put Tony down with it he could have.

Also a hammer throw from Thor damages Tony and we know from the above examples that if Thor wanted to that Throw could have taken Tony's head off if he threw it as hard as he could have. Compare that to the Thor's throw against Destroyer. The initial impact from his throw only tilts its head, and it takes a surprise attack to knock it off its feat. Just for comparison when Hulk tried to catch Thor's hammer it still had enough force to carry the Hulk backwards and put him on his back same with a hit from Thor. The Destroyer only got it's head knocked backwards.

So what we have a is a none holding back Thor fighting smart and knowing it's opponents full capabilities decides the best way to take out teh Destroyer is to force it's own beam back into it's face and he doesn't even want to get hit the beam at all.

Thor's fight with Tony and Thor doesn't care at all about getting hit or taking Tony out quickly. He is more concerned with not trying to hurt Tony to badly.

Destroyer wins this and pretty easily. Ton'y flight may keep the match going for awhile until he runs out of power.

Originally posted by Newjak
Just for comparison when Hulk tried to catch Thor's hammer it still had enough force to carry the Hulk backwards and put him on his back same with a hit from Thor.
While I agree with most of your argument, I believe that was Odin's enchantment in effect.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
While I agree with most of your argument, I believe that was Odin's enchantment in effect. That's why I also included the instant where Thor simply gives Hulk a hammer uppercut(I knew some people would probably argue it was just the enchantment)

Hulk goes flying backwards into the plane.

Once again Thor throwing his hammer at the Destroyer only managed to knock its head backwards. The only time he manages to knock it over is the behind the back attack to it when his hammer is returning.

Originally posted by Newjak
We know for a fact Asgardians/Frost Giants are extremely durable just look at what Loki withstood in the Avengers movie. Even a thrashing from Hulk only left Loki disabled and not even KOed.

Actually, that only proves glaring inconsistency. Thor (the movie) would be a much better benchmark since it is more likely the writers mess up logic in a film with so many characters. Heck even in individual films, consistency/logic is not very high simply because it is written for entertainment, and not as a foundation of a logical debate. Also, it is quite obvious the scene was done for comedy, I would personally not treat it as serious evidence unless it is congruent with his other feats, which it isn't.

And clearly Thor is a unique Asgardian as his powers were bestowed upon him by Odin (and what becomes of him when it is taken away - a mere human, or arguably marginally stronger). I see no reason to believe other Asgardians have similar stats or are even superhuman as they have never displayed it. Frost Giants seem to have strength and durability proportional to their size and anatomy. Any other Frost Giant being thrashed by Hulk would be dead, it took Thor much less to take them out in Jotunheim.

"Feats" aren't the be-all and end-all, logic must take priority. That's why I don't take many Avengers feats seriously. They were trying to pay respect to every character, clearly they weren't factoring in consistency and logic in every feat. If you ignore this, and reach far enough and do some good ol' ABC logic, then you could draw some ridiculous conclusions for certain characters.

For example, it's just like in the cartoons, people like Batman or Captain America take direct hits from Class 100+, but is it honest or even meaningful to use those feats?

Originally posted by Placidity
Actually, that only proves glaring inconsistency. Thor (the movie) would be a much better benchmark since it is more likely the writers mess up logic in a film with so many characters. Heck even in individual films, consistency/logic is not very high simply because it is written for entertainment, and not as a foundation of a logical debate. Also, it is quite obvious the scene was done for comedy, I would personally not treat it as serious evidence unless it is congruent with his other feats, which it isn't.

And clearly Thor is a unique Asgardian as his powers were bestowed upon him by Odin (and what becomes of him when it is taken away - a mere human, or arguably marginally stronger). I see no reason to believe other Asgardians have similar stats or are even superhuman as they have never displayed it. Frost Giants seem to have strength and durability proportional to their size and anatomy. Any other Frost Giant being thrashed by Hulk would be dead, it took Thor much less to take them out in Jotunheim.

"Feats" aren't the be-all and end-all, logic must take priority. That's why I don't take many Avengers feats seriously. They were trying to pay respect to every character, clearly they weren't factoring in consistency and logic in every feat. If you ignore this, and reach far enough and do some good ol' ABC logic, then you could draw some ridiculous conclusions for certain characters.

For example, it's just like in the cartoons, people like Batman or Captain America take direct hits from Class 100+, but is it honest or even meaningful to use those feats? It's congruent with Loki's other feats.

Loki took machine gun fire and bullet to the face with no harm, Took an exploding arrow to the face no harm, took a shield throw from Cap no harm, took replusor blasts from Iron man no harm.

So Loki being a tough hombre is pretty consistent throughout the entire movie.

You can also look at other things that show Asgardian toughness. For instance Volstagg was only mildly hurt by a Frost Giants touch. But we already saw that a Frost Giants touch and attacks and instantly freeze and break Asgardian Armor. The same armor that is bullet proof and can take attacks from Ironman/Hulk/Cap/Hawkeye without being destroyed.

Also Thor might taken Frost Giant out easier than Hulk but at the same time Thor was holding back against Banner, Ironman, and even Loki in Avengers. So Thor might have had an easier time with the frost giants cause he wasn't pulling his punches. Obviously Hulk would beat on Frost Giants but the logic in stating that somehow makes Frost Giants/Asgardians weaker isn't as sound as you would believe.

I am failing to see what 'logic' you are talking about.

Logically I would think a marquee weapon from the Asgardians built by Odin to serve as a Guardian for the most dangerous weapons in the cosmos would be tougher and more powerful than Ironman, but that's my thinking on it.

Plus, look at the size of the explosion that Thor and Loki tanked when the Bi-Forst was destroyed

Originally posted by Newjak
That's why I also included the instant where Thor simply gives Hulk a hammer uppercut(I knew some people would probably argue it was just the enchantment)
The hammer uppercut seemed more like Thor's own power. Mjolnir flying with Hulk at its helm though appeared more as if the hammer was acting of its own accord, which can only be accounted by Odin's spell.

Edit: For the record I indisputably agree with the rest of your stance(s) in this thread.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
The hammer uppercut seemed more like Thor's own power. Mjolnir flying with Hulk at its helm though appeared more as if the hammer was acting of its own accord, which can only be accounted by Odin's spell.

Edit: For the record I indisputably agree with the rest of your stance(s) in this thread. My main point is that Thor was able to knock Hulk backwards even with his own power yet when he threw the Hammer directly at the Destroyer all it did was knock his head sideways.

I'm still curious to see if anyone can use Ironman replicating the Destroyers takedown that Thor achieved.

Stark simply can't do it.