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

Which hero if they went Rogue and turned on Planet Earths population would be a bigger threat? Who has more potential to cause massive damage to cities, armies, and kill people with their power set?

*Thor as of Infinity War with Stormbreaker
*Superman as of Justice League

They are basically the same strength durability etc right now. Superman is a lot faster but Thor has more AOE damage output so id probably say Thor for efficiency in killing the Earth squisihes

Originally posted by relentless1
They are basically the same strength durability etc right now. Superman is a lot faster but Thor has more AOE damage output so id probably say Thor for efficiency in killing the Earth squisihes

Pfft, DCU Superman hands down; not even a contest.

Look at what he did to Smallville and he was trying to save people. Unleashed/bloodlusted, he would destroy the planet as Wayne warned.

Originally posted by Robtard
Pfft, DCU Superman hands down; not even a contest.

Look at what he did to Smallville and he was trying to save people. Unleashed/bloodlusted, he would destroy the planet as Wayne warned.

If I remember correctly Thor wiped a much bigger city in less time and with a less powerful weapon back in AoU.

Thor. Why? Because kryptonite.

With kryptonite even an old lady can render Superman helpless whereas there's no other way to beat Thor than an all-out fight. There's also the fact that Thor is king of a whole other world and can probably instigate an invasion.

Thor also doesn't have any real ties to Earth, not as strongly as Superman does anyway. You could always just threaten Martha Kent to keep Superman in line.

And as fast as Superman is, he doesn't have Thor's teleportation powers. When you combine that with Thor's city-busting attacks then he can literally destroy multiple cities in only a few seconds.

Thor with Stormbreaker wins...

Thor currently has no real weakness, can generate a continuous AoE attack that moves with him, and has one of the most powerful weapons ever seen in a comic book movie...ever.

Thor, based on feats, is arguably the most durable being we've yet seen...

Superman only has a speed advantage here, and IMHO, its not enough to offset what Thor brings to the table...

Thor wins...

Originally posted by FrothByte
Thor. Why? Because kryptonite.

With kryptonite even an old lady can render Superman helpless whereas there's no other way to beat Thor than an all-out fight. There's also the fact that Thor is king of a whole other world and can probably instigate an invasion.

Thor also doesn't have any real ties to Earth, not as strongly as Superman does anyway. You could always just threaten Martha Kent to keep Superman in line.

And as fast as Superman is, he doesn't have Thor's teleportation powers. When you combine that with Thor's city-busting attacks then he can literally destroy multiple cities in only a few seconds. Kryptonite isn't standard knowledge though, and given this is a bloodlusted Superman looking to slaughter the innocents of the world ala the Plutonian he will go for the ones who know of it and could use it to threaten him first, aka Bruce Wayne (Clark knows Bruce is Batman right? I honestly don't remember...), Lex Luthor, and their affiliates. Even with kryptonite, as Superman said, if he wanted it Bruce would have been dead already.

As far as Thor being the king of a whole world, the Asgardians are essentially decimated as of Infinity War, and all of them combined are still frankly irrelevant compared to the lethality Thor and Superman can bring.

Also, Thor didn't destroy Sokovia by just hulking out and smashing the city, and I don't know how anyone thinks as much.

FRIDAY: The anti-gravs are rigged to flip. Touch them, they'll go full reverse thrust. The city's not coming down slow.

STARK : Spire is vibranium. If I get Thor to hit it...

FRIDAY : It will crack. That's not enough. The impact would still be devastating.

STARK: Maybe if we can cap the other end. Keep the atomic action doubling back.

FRIDAY: That could vaporize the city & everyone on it..

STARK : I got it. Create a heat seal. I could supercharge the spire from below.

FRIDAY Running numbers

FRIDAY : A heat seal could work with enough power.

STARK: Thor, I got a plan.

We literally see earlier in the film that Thor uses Mjolnir strikes on Cap's shield to amplify his attacks.

It is a shared feat relying a reaction with the vibranium Thor struck.

If Thor could have just destroyed the section of Sokovia outright he would have.

But anyway, neither would really be stoppable. Both can go from one end of the globe to the other before any response could be made, so the Earth is doomed in either case.

Thor now has access to the bifrost which can destroy a planet.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Thor now has access to the bifrost which can destroy a planet.

Okay that's just a hyperbole right there!

We literally saw it beginning to destroy jotunheim, it being able to destroy a planet was a major plot point of Thor's first movie.

Originally posted by Silent Master
We literally saw it beginning to destroy jotunheim, it being able to destroy a planet was a major plot point of Thor's first movie.

I know what you are talking about. And yet it's an Ice world and the bifrost seems to be energy.

Also, we saw Thor using the Bifrost to teleport Jane Foster without her melting.

But in the end we agree. Thor's distructive capabilities > Superman's.

At no point during Thor's first movie did it say that the Bifrost can only destroy jotunheim because it's an ice planet.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Thor now has access to the bifrost which can destroy a planet. The bifrost bridge gun in Heimdall's observatory could direct the bifrost to raze a planet over time, sure. Said observatory with the gun was exploded by Surtur.

Can you show me a showing or quote that implies Thor's Stormbreaker can do the same? I suppose it is within the realm of possibility that it could, but so far IIRC its only showings are teleporting Thor, Groot, and Rocket Raccoon to Wakanda.

Originally posted by Silent Master
At no point during Thor's first movie did it say that the Bifrost can only destroy jotunheim because it's an ice planet.

No, that's why you have eyes.

Yes, our eyes which tell us that after an extended period of time the beam does actually start to destroy the target planet.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Yes, our eyes which tell us that after an extended period of time the beam does actually start to destroy the target planet.

The targeted ice planet, not a rocky planet like earth.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Kryptonite isn't standard knowledge though, and given this is a bloodlusted Superman looking to slaughter the innocents of the world ala the Plutonian he will go for the ones who know of it and could use it to threaten him first, aka Bruce Wayne (Clark knows Bruce is Batman right? I honestly don't remember...), Lex Luthor, and their affiliates. Even with kryptonite, as Superman said, if he wanted it Bruce would have been dead already.

As far as Thor being the king of a whole world, the Asgardians are essentially decimated as of Infinity War, and all of them combined are still frankly irrelevant compared to the lethality Thor and Superman can bring.

Also, Thor didn't destroy Sokovia by just hulking out and smashing the city, and I don't know how anyone thinks as much.

FRIDAY: The anti-gravs are rigged to flip. Touch them, they'll go full reverse thrust. The city's not coming down slow.

STARK : Spire is vibranium. If I get Thor to hit it...

FRIDAY : It will crack. That's not enough. The impact would still be devastating.

STARK: Maybe if we can cap the other end. Keep the atomic action doubling back.

FRIDAY: That could vaporize the city & everyone on it..

STARK : I got it. Create a heat seal. I could supercharge the spire from below.

FRIDAY Running numbers

FRIDAY : A heat seal could work with enough power.

STARK: Thor, I got a plan.

We literally see earlier in the film that Thor uses Mjolnir strikes on Cap's shield to amplify his attacks.

It is a shared feat relying a reaction with the vibranium Thor struck.

If Thor could have just destroyed the section of Sokovia outright he would have.

But anyway, neither would really be stoppable. Both can go from one end of the globe to the other before any response could be made, so the Earth is doomed in either case.

There was nothing in the OP that stated that Thor was fighting MCU Earth after the events of Infinity War and that Superman was fighting Earth as of JL. That wouldn't be a fair comparison, as MCU earth has far more superhuman defenders than DCEU earth. I was assuming this was simply Earth as we know it currently vs. a rogue Superman and rogue Thor.

As for the kryptonite, the fact is that it exists and is a means to defeat Superman. If not kryptonite then we know nuclear weapons and radiation also hurt Superman and can render him helpless... whereas I can't think of any current human weapon that can take out Thor for long.

And as fast as Superman is, he still cannot compete with Thor's combined bifrost teleportation and AOE's.

Theoretically speaking, both Superman and Thor should be able to completely destroy Earth and the human population. Just so happens that Thor can do it faster and easier.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
The targeted ice planet, not a rocky planet like earth.

Because the Frost Giants were on the ice planet, that's not proof that it only works on Ice planets.

What would you rather wrestle with, a grizzly bear, or a tiger?

Superman's speed means he can kill anyone easily. Stormbreaker is a one-shot kill weapon for everything. Thor can now quickly teleport across even galactic distances, and has the most powerful AOE attacks/durability in the two cinematic Universes. Superman has the greatest combination of purely physical powers (Strength/Speed/Flight) in either Universes.

Maybe the only difference is that Kryptonite can end Superman while Thor has gotten only more durable but Superman can heat vision you to death from a distance.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Because the Frost Giants were on the ice planet, that's not proof that it only works on Ice planets.

That's not prove it can work on Earth either.

Also, human tissue is weaker than Ice and yet we don't see Jane Foster melting when teleported to Asgard.

I don't know what to make of that scene tbh. It could very well be PIS. Whatever the case, i think the bifrost shouldn't be seen as a miniature Death Star.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
That's not prove it can work on Earth either.

Also, human tissue is weaker than Ice and yet we don't see Jane Foster melting when teleported to Asgard.

I don't know what to make of that scene tbh. It could very well be PIS. Whatever the case, i think the bifrost shouldn't be seen as a miniature Death Star.



The bifrost was stated in the movie to be able to destroy a planet if left on, if you want to claim it only works on Ice planets. Have fun proving it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The bifrost was stated in the movie to be able to destroy a planet if left on, if you want to claim it only works on Ice planets. Have fun proving it.

A hint: Not all planets are the same.

A hint, the movie didn't say it only worked on certain planets.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
A hint: Not all planets are the same.

Oh come on Josh! If Earths bigger it might take more time, but the result would be the same.


The better counter argument is what NemeBro pointed out- that we dont know if Mjolnir can direct the BiFrost the way bi-frost gun on Asgard could do.

Originally posted by relentless1
They are basically the same strength durability etc right now. Superman is a lot faster but Thor has more AOE damage output so id probably say Thor for efficiency in killing the Earth squisihes

Superman is significantly stronger and more durable. Thor is very resistant against heat and radiation, but not so much piercing and blunt forces.

It would be harder to hit Superman with weapons because of his speed and mobility and senses. Thor will be bombarded with projectiles moving far faster than what he can perceive. Jet fighters can easily avoid his attacks and light him up. Missiles would be launched and travel towards Thor at incredible speeds.
Thor would be toast in a matter of moments.

Originally posted by h1a8
Superman is significantly stronger and more durable. Thor is very resistant against heat and radiation, but not so much piercing and blunt forces.

It would be harder to hit Superman with weapons because of his speed and mobility and senses. Thor will be bombarded with projectiles moving far faster than what he can perceive. Jet fighters can easily avoid his attacks and light him up. Missiles would be launched and travel towards Thor at incredible speeds.
Thor would be toast in a matter of moments.

You really love showing off your ignorance, don't you?

Originally posted by Silent Master
You really love showing off your ignorance, don't you? What things am I ignorant to?

For one, you claim that fighter jets would be able to easily dodge Thor's attacks, so go ahead and provide proof that jets can dodge lightning.

Originally posted by Silent Master
A hint, the movie didn't say it only worked on certain planets.

A hint: The movie didnt say it worked on all planets

The butthurt over IW Thors power level is hilarious.

You didnt see the other side b**** and whine and lowball (except Quan), after Superman got his power up in JL.

Earth is just as f***** either way. IMO they would probably destroy things at much the same pace. Thor has much better AOE, but Superman is MUCH faster, so I think those two things would probably even out the rate at which they could destroy things. Nobody could stop either of them and k-nite wouldn't matter to a blood lusted Supes. He'd just kill you whoever had it at range or superspeed. Not to mention k-nite is rare as hell, so the odds of anyone having it aside from Lex or Bruce is nill. As for other things mentioned Supes has the strength, speed, agility and range (against a single target) advantages. Thor has AOE and overall destructive potential in a single hit advantages due to Stormbreaker. Durability I would say is debatable. Thor has his sun feat, but Superman has IMO looked to be much harder to actually injure in a fight in his movies. I know that the underlining issue here is who people think would win an actual fight between the characters and I believe that would be Superman due to his massive speed advantage that would make Thor look like a statue and make him defenseless. Just look at what happened to Thor in Thor 3 when hulk hit him when he was defenseless. Supes's combination of stats is just too much. However, take away Superman's speed and then Thor wins. Stormbreaker is just too strong if he can actually land some hits.

Anyway, in this situation, at the end of the day, I'd have to say Thor's teleportation and AOE would let him wreck earth faster overall, but not by much due to Supes's superspeed. The earth is still screwed either way though. Both would be unstoppable.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
A hint: The movie didnt say it worked on all planets

Hint: It didn't say that it only worked on Ice planets.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Hint: It didn't say that it only worked on Ice planets.

Well unless there is evidence that it can work on earth then it doesn't. Granting feats based on speculation doesn't work here.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Oh come on Josh! If Earths bigger it might take more time, but the result would be the same.


The better counter argument is what NemeBro pointed out- that we dont know if Mjolnir can direct the BiFrost the way bi-frost gun on Asgard could do.

Earth is a rocky planet way more durable than Ice. If it's true that some buildings would be destroyed, the impact it would have on earth wouldn't be as exaggerated as the one it had on Jotunheim.

It's pretty much common sense.

^ I'd like to see humans block laser blasts with a hammer.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Well unless there is evidence that it can work on earth then it doesn't. Granting feats based on speculation doesn't work here.

The bifrost was explicitly stated to be able to destroy a planet and we later see it start to destroy a planet. If you want to claim that it only worked because jotunheim was an ice planet. Have fun proving it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The bifrost was explicitly stated to be able to destroy a planet and we later see it start to destroy a planet. If you want to claim that it only worked because jotunheim was an ice planet. Have fun proving it.

I am not saying it wouldn't have distructive capabilities on Earth. What I meant was that the damage output wouldn't be as massive as the one we saw on Jotunheim.

So you're backing away from the stance that it can only destroy ice planets?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
If I remember correctly Thor wiped a much bigger city in less time and with a less powerful weapon back in AoU.

You didn't understand that scene, even with Tony carefully explaining what was going on.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I am not saying it wouldn't have distructive capabilities on Earth. What I meant was that the damage output wouldn't be as massive as the one we saw on Jotunheim.

Why not?

Thor's bifrost looks the same as the one on Asgard(or was on Asgard), the question is whether Thor has the capability to turn it all the way up to eleven and direct it like a cannon and keep it going until a planet is destroyed.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Why not?

Because not all planets are the same. A rocky planet like Earth would present to be much tougher than an Ice planet like Jotunheim.

But surely it would be enough to destroy buildings and cause massive damage on the surface.

But destroying an entire planet like Earth... It sounds too much Star Wars to me.

Originally posted by Robtard
You didn't understand that scene, even with Tony carefully explaining what was going on.

Perhaps I didn't. Where is that scene?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Because not all planets are the same. A rocky planet like Earth would present to be much tougher than an Ice planet like Jotunheim.

But surely it would be enough to destroy buildings and cause massive damage on the surface.

But destroying an entire planet like Earth... It sounds too much Star Wars to me.

You do know that ice planets are rocky planets right?

Originally posted by Inhuman
You do know that ice planets are rocky planets right?

I was refering literaly made of rock/minerals etc, not the scientific classification. Yes, an ice planet would fall under the telluric/terrestrial/rocky planet category.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I was refering literaly made of rock/minerals etc, not the scientific classification. Yes, an ice planet would fall under the telluric/terrestrial/rocky planet category.

There are no planets in the universe made of just ice. The Ice Giants planet seen in the Thor movie was a rocky planet like Earth, just with a colder global climate.

Originally posted by Inhuman
There are no planets in the universe made of just ice. The Ice Giants planet seen in the Thor movie was a rocky planet like Earth, just with a colder global climate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrz-NL6MOyw

The planet seems made of Ice. I personally agree though, the core or mantle of the planet would likely be made of rock, however the surface is clearly Ice.

Furthermore, we only see the surface's distruction caused by the bifrost, so whether the core/mantle or lower layers were also afected remains unknown.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Because not all planets are the same. A rocky planet like Earth would present to be much tougher than an Ice planet like Jotunheim.

But surely it would be enough to destroy buildings and cause massive damage on the surface.

But destroying an entire planet like Earth... It sounds too much Star Wars to me.

First of all, you don't know whether Jotunheim is made purely of ice or is simply covered in ice.

Because if it's simply covered in ice, I'm pretty sure soil is easier to destroy than solid ice.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Perhaps I didn't. Where is that scene?

Towards the end of Avengers:AoU. When Tony is going over on how to destroy the city. Listen to what he says.

Originally posted by FrothByte
First of all, you don't know whether Jotunheim is made purely of ice or is simply covered in ice.

Because if it's simply covered in ice, I'm pretty sure soil is easier to destroy than solid ice.

The point was made that the Bifrost has the ability to destroy a world if used in such a manner. Don't fall for Josh's silly games.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrz-NL6MOyw

The planet seems made of Ice. I personally agree though, the core or mantle of the planet would likely be made of rock, however the surface is clearly Ice.

Furthermore, we only see the surface's distruction caused by the bifrost, so whether the core/mantle or lower layers were also afected remains unknown.

OMG, the Earth looks to be made of ice.


https://expeditions365.com/south-pole-expeditions/

Originally posted by Robtard
The point was made that the Bifrost has the ability to destroy a world if used in such a manner. Don't fall for Josh's silly games.

The movie said it would destroy Jutonheim, not any world. Perhaps you investigate should the meaning of a no-limit fallacy.

Originally posted by Silent Master
OMG, the Earth looks to be made of ice.


https://expeditions365.com/south-pole-expeditions/

OMG, you don't know what the poles are!!!

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
OMG, you don't know what the poles are!!!

Irony overload.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Irony overload.

........................okay......................................

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
The movie said it would destroy Jutonheim, not any world. Perhaps you investigate should the meaning of a no-limit fallacy.

Heimdall said leaving the Bifrost open would unleash its full power and destroy Jotenheim, because that was the world they (Thor and crew) were currently going to. Not that the Bifrost can only destroy Jotenheim if used at full power. #logic

Originally posted by Robtard
Heimdall said leaving the Bifrost open would unleash its full power and destroy Jotenheim, because that was the world they (Thor and crew) were currently going to. Not that the Bifrost can only destroy Jotenheim if used at full power. #logic

No limit fallacy on google or yahoo, as you please.

If you could prove that Jotenheim is somehow special when it comes to the Bifrost, you'd have a point, as it stands, anyone with a brain can understand the conversation between Volstagg and Heimdall:

Heimdall: Be warned, I shall uphold my sacred oath to protect this realm as its gatekeeper. If your return threatens the safety of Asgard, my gate will remain shut and you will be left to perish on the cold waste of Jotunheim.

Volstagg: Couldn't you just keep the bridge open for us?

Heimdall: Keeping the bridge open would unleash the full power of the Bifrost and destroy Jotunheim, with you on it.

Moving on.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you could prove that Jotenheim is somehow special when it comes to the Bifrost, you'd have a point, as it stands, anyone with a brain can understand the conversation between Volstagg and Heimdall:

Heimdall: Be warned, I shall uphold my sacred oath to protect this realm as its gatekeeper. If your return threatens the safety of Asgard, my gate will remain shut and you will be left to perish on the cold waste of Jotunheim.

Volstagg: Couldn't you just keep the bridge open for us?

Heimdall: Keeping the bridge open would unleash the full power of the Bifrost and destroy Jotunheim, with you on it.

Moving on.

Jotunheim =/= all worlds.

And again, Earth's composition is visually different from Jotuheim's. Should Earth be covered entirely on Ice or made of Ice (whatever the case maybe) then YOU would have a point.

Otherwise, you are implementing a no limit fallacy.

.

Come on H1, don't lowball Thor. People do it enough to Supes and I know you hate it, it is a bs tactic, so don't do it to another character. The army is NOT taking down Thor. Especially not when he would be calling down storms, lighting, tornados, etc.

Well we know Thor has a weakness against tasers

Originally posted by WolvesofBabylon
Well we know Thor has a weakness against tasers

Since when?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Since when?

Ragnarok. Taser Net...Shot in the neck with a taser.

Originally posted by WolvesofBabylon
Ragnarok. Taser Net...Shot in the neck with a taser.

Those weren't tasers

yeah, it was a shock mechanism, like a taser... its a moot point either way though as Thor had a power upgrade by the end of the film so its unclear wether or not the electric shock weaponry would even work on a guy who's basically electricity incarnate by the end of that film

It turned Thor's veins blue, plus Thor had no problem channeling electricity through his body in that or any movie.

Originally posted by relentless1
yeah, it was a shock mechanism, like a taser... its a moot point either way though as Thor had a power upgrade by the end of the film so its unclear wether or not the electric shock weaponry would even work on a guy who's basically electricity incarnate by the end of that film

Obedience discs weren't using electric shock.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove it.

Prove what? Be specific.

Originally posted by h1a8
Prove what? Be specific.

Your claims.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your claims.

Restate the ones you want me to prove.

Since h1 can't back up his claims, his posts can be ignored as trolling.

Originally posted by h1a8
Restate the ones you want me to prove.

That military arsenal can take out Thor or that Thor can't react to jet fighters.

Originally posted by FrothByte
That military arsenal can take out Thor or that Thor can't react to jet fighters.

The post where I asked for proof included his claims, so he knows exactly what claims I'm talking about. he's just trolling.

The US military can't take out the Hulk, but now they're taking out King Thor? Lolz.

Edit: As far as 'Thor can't handle jets', two F22 Raptors had trouble with the Mark III Ironman suit and a still new to the hero business Tony and he wasn't trying to destroy them. Thor would casually obliterate a squadron.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Obedience discs weren' t using electric shock.

Was the net same as obedience disk? Honest question

Originally posted by WolvesofBabylon
Was the net same as obedience disk? Honest question

Seeing as it also turned his veins blue, probably.

Originally posted by WolvesofBabylon
Was the net same as obedience disk? Honest question

IIRC, it made Thor's veins bulge out and turn blue, which is similar to what the obedience discs did and is not something you see with electric shock weaponry.

Originally posted by Robtard
The US military can't take out the Hulk, but now they're taking out King Thor? Lolz.

Edit: As far as 'Thor can't handle jets', two F22 Raptors had trouble with the Mark III Ironman suit and a still new to the hero business Tony and he wasn't trying to destroy them. Thor would casually obliterate a squadron.

Aircraft bullets will penetrate him.
Aircraft bullets easily put holes in I'm.

Originally posted by FrothByte
That military arsenal can take out Thor or that Thor can't react to jet fighters. Both. He can't react to their weapons.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Since h1 can't back up his claims, his posts can be ignored as trolling. Concession accepted.

Originally posted by h1a8
Aircraft bullets will penetrate him.
Aircraft bullets easily put holes in I'm.

Both. He can't react to their weapons.

Concession accepted.

Prove that aircraft bullets can easily penetrate him.

Originally posted by h1a8
Aircraft bullets will penetrate him.


Both. He can't react to their weapons.



Prove it.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Prove that aircraft bullets can easily penetrate him.

Thor has been stabbed.
Thor has no feats that provides evidence that an aircraft bullet won't penetrate him.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor has been stabbed.
Thor has no feats that provides evidence that an aircraft bullet won't penetrate him.

By someone with superstrength who was using a magical knife. How is that proof?

Originally posted by Silent Master
By someone with superstrength who was using a magical knife. How is that proof?
Prove that the knife was magical

Originally posted by h1a8
Prove that the knife was magical

We have seen Loki's daggers glow blue before, try watching the movies at some point. it'll stop you from sounding so ignorant.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor has been stabbed.
Thor has no feats that provides evidence that an aircraft bullet won't penetrate him.

Stabbed by a superhuman using a non-human made dagger. Again, prove that bullets can easily penetrate Thor.

Originally posted by Robtard
The US military can't take out the Hulk, but now they're taking out King Thor? Lolz.

Edit: As far as 'Thor can't handle jets', two F22 Raptors had trouble with the Mark III Ironman suit and a still new to the hero business Tony and he wasn't trying to destroy them. Thor would casually obliterate a squadron.

Has Thor done anything to show he is the same level of an aerial fighter as Iron Man? I dont recall him doing much other than straight forward flight. Could be wrong about that.

Originally posted by WolvesofBabylon
Has Thor done anything to show he is the same level of an aerial fighter as Iron Man? I dont recall him doing much other than straight forward flight. Could be wrong about that.

I wouldn't try that hard with Rob. He doesn't seem to comprenhend what a fallacy is.

Originally posted by h1a8
Aircraft bullets will penetrate him.
Aircraft bullets easily put holes in I'm.

Both. He can't react to their weapons.

Concession accepted.


Confirmed troll.

Even if bullets could pierce Thor, it doesn't matter, Hela stabbed him to shit and he walked it off. His damage soak can take it.

Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
Even if bullets could pierce Thor, it doesn't matter, Hela stabbed him to shit and he walked it off. His damage soak can take it.

That is actually a good argument

Also, even if aircraft ammo can harm Thor, the real matter would be whether they will even had the chance of.

Thor is very agile and fast. Also, he can spam lightning with no trouble.

I fail to see how jets are doing anything to Thor when the mofo can just spam tornados and lighting.

Originally posted by emporerpants
I fail to see how jets are doing anything to Thor when the mofo can just spam tornados and lighting.

Isnt like Thor will stay still waiting to get striked.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Isnt like Thor will stay still waiting to get striked.

I'llTechnically, if we go off the movies then Thor wouldn't be moving faster than they can track. You got seeking missiles that will knock him for a loop (stun him momentarily), etc. And I'm not even considering the nuke arsenal. Nukes wouldn't be necessary.

Originally posted by emporerpants
I fail to see how jets are doing anything to Thor when the mofo can just spam tornados and lighting.
Jets don't have to get close and they move faster than the speed of sound.
Thor will be shot from a good distance away. Thor only created a tornado from a close vicinity to him.
Plus that would be arguing out of character. Thor wouldn't think of tornados if jets are coming and shooting the shit out of him.
His lightning would be no good as they are moving faster than he can perceive (with evasive actions).

Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
Even if bullets could pierce Thor, it doesn't matter, Hela stabbed him to shit and he walked it off. His damage soak can take it.

There are millions of bullets coming his way.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Stabbed by a superhuman using a non-human made dagger. Again, prove that bullets can easily penetrate Thor.

You have to prove the dagger was SIGNIFICANTLY stronger than steel.
Wasn't you a proponent of the WW cut DD with a normal sword?

Originally posted by Silent Master
We have seen Loki's daggers glow blue before, try watching the movies at some point. it'll stop you from sounding so ignorant.

Post the scene where his dagger glows blue.

9z3xhWKBhIk

Now, prove your claims.

Asgardians weapons magical or not, are superior to human bullets. Bullets have bounced off Asgardians and Loki (some sort of Frost Giant changed by Odin's magic), while Asgardian blades can harm them.

It was also explicitly noted in Ragnarok that Asgardians have exceptionally durable skin.

^ Its Also been noted a few timed in Agents of Shield.

Originally posted by h1a8
I'llTechnically, if we go off the movies then Thor wouldn't be moving faster than they can track. You got seeking missiles that will knock him for a loop (stun him momentarily), etc. And I'm not even considering the nuke arsenal. Nukes wouldn't be necessary.


Jets don't have to get close and they move faster than the speed of sound.
Thor will be shot from a good distance away. Thor only created a tornado from a close vicinity to him.
Plus that would be arguing out of character. Thor wouldn't think of tornados if jets are coming and shooting the shit out of him.
His lightning would be no good as they are moving faster than he can perceive (with evasive actions).



There are millions of bullets coming his way.



You have to prove the dagger was SIGNIFICANTLY stronger than steel.
Wasn't you a proponent of the WW cut DD with a normal sword?



Post the scene where his dagger glows blue.

Can't he just use the bifrost to teleport away from them? Also, lightning would prove enought to bring down missiles and jets.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Because not all planets are the same. A rocky planet like Earth would present to be much tougher than an Ice planet like Jotunheim.

But surely it would be enough to destroy buildings and cause massive damage on the surface.

But destroying an entire planet like Earth... It sounds too much Star Wars to me.

*Sigh*

What is an ice planet?

Jotunheim is a planet with a colder climate. If you time-traveled to an earlier period of Earth, it would look like the home of the Frost Giants throughout multiple points in its history.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
*Sigh*

What is an ice planet?

Jotunheim is a planet with a colder climate. If you time-traveled to an earlier period of Earth, it would look like the home of the Frost Giants throughout multiple points in its history.

Okay first of all, the surface is covered with ice!

We saw it in the first scene of Thor. When Thor summoned a lightning all the surface began to crumble.

Also, when the Bifrost was active we saw the surface's distruction (which I already pointed to be covered in ice). We didn't saw the entire planet bursting or the mantle/core getting damaged (these would be made of rock like Earth's crust should you be right).

So saying that the Bifrost could destroy Earth would be a speculation. Can it destroy buildings, cars and kill humans? I would think so.

It glowed blue at least 4 separate times, so either you're blind or a troll. which is it?

Because your blind.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Because your blind.

Ok I see him throwing something (an energy dagger?).
It could be a glowing dagger or just energy object.

The dagger Loki stabbed Thor with didnt glow.
And neither did the other asgardian weapons.

And how do explain the Asgardians getting stabbed by ice?

TIL: Asgardians are less durable than bullet proof vest
TIL: Ice insta-created by the Frost Giants is just regular ice


H1 does to Thor what Quanchi does to Superman. Kek

Originally posted by Robtard


H1 does to Thor what Quanchi does to Superman. Kek


Yeah theyre basically the same.

Originally posted by h1a8
Ok I see him throwing something (an energy dagger?).
It could be a glowing dagger or just energy object.

The dagger Loki stabbed Thor with didnt glow.
And neither did the other asgardian weapons.

And how do explain the Asgardians getting stabbed by ice?

At this point its' clear that your just trolling.

Originally posted by Silent Master
At this point its' clear that your just trolling.

Prove it. Counter my points.

Originally posted by h1a8
Prove it. Counter my points.


If you want to play this game, ok. you essentially claimed it was as an energy dagger/object rather than a magical dagger.

Prove it.

H1, did...you just argue that Thor wouldn't do a certain tactic I mentioned because it is out of character...in a thread about Thor and Superman essentially competing in who could f*** up the earth the most/be the biggest threat?

@ H1

That means: "Today I Learned"

No, I don't have to prove that Asgardians are durable enough to withstand a regular human man knife, logic dictates that they are as we've seen then handle greater.

Also of note and you've been told this before, an Asgardian nigh-midget scrub casually crumbled a tactical knife in his hand without a single scratch.

The Frost Giant ice-weapons do have feats, they're strong enough to damage Asgardian armor and skin

Any other ridiculous low-ballings?

@h1, multiple times in these threads, it was already pointed out that an Asgardian farmer casually crumpled a tactical knife in his hand without injury. That's proof that a human knife was unable to cut Asgardian skin.

@h1, in other words, you have zero proof that human-made weapons can actually injure Thor.

That's like saying that a cave man made spear with a bone spearhead can pierce Superman because DD killed him with a bone spear.

@ H1 your arguments are foolishly clownish and yes, you resort to low-balling and nonsense tactics as a means to debate-troll. eg You comparing a bullet proof vest as being comparable to Thor.

ps The F-22 20mm cannon only did superficial damage to the Mark III armor, as did an A1M1 Abrams tank shelling. Yes, Thor is far more durable than the Mark III armor as fact, as we've seen him take greater. Do your thing now.

@h1 - first of all fix your damn posts so we can quote you.

Second, of that's your reasoning then Superman isn't stabproof either.

Dr Strange uses magic, so that would by magical objects and not energy objects. nor did you show proof that Loki could conjure magical projectiles.

Try again.

Originally posted by FrothByte
@h1 - first of all fix your damn posts so we can quote you.

Second, of that's your reasoning then Superman isn't stabproof either.

He is purposely using the wrong apostrophe so we can't quote, it's one of his more subtle forms of trolling.

Originally posted by FrothByte
@h1 - first of all fix your damn posts so we can quote you.

Second, of that's your reasoning then Superman isn't stabproof either. How do I fix it?

Originally posted by h1a8
How do I fix it?

You've been told before, stop using the crappy apostrophe.

h1 couldn't prove his claim, thus it will be ignored. Loki's daggers are thus confirmed as magical.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You've been told before, stop using the crappy apostrophe.

You just used it here though in this post.

Originally posted by h1a8
You just used it here though in this post.

No, I used a normal apostrophe, take a good like at mine ' and compare it to the one you're using.

Its possible for Cap to be able to use magic.
Its possible for Loki to have access to magical energy objects.

I can go on and on. Only an idiot would think you have to prove such things in a fictional universe.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, I used a normal apostrophe, take a good like at mine ' and compare it to the one you're using.

Its the keyboard on my phone then. Im using iPhone keyboard with word prediction.. I'll long press on it to change it.

If H1 can't figure out how to fix his crappy phone, you can quote his low-balling nonsense posts via the quick quote function still.

Originally posted by h1a8
Its possible for Cap to be able to use magic.
Its possible for Loki to have access to magical energy objects.

I can go on and on. Only an idiot would think you have to prove such things in a fictional universe.

In that case, It's also possible that Loki used magic to weaken Thor enough to make him vulnerable to being stabbed by his dagger. thus being stabbed by Loki isn't proof that Thor can be hurt by bullets.


So, prove your claims in regards to Thor being injured by bullets.

Originally posted by Silent Master
In that case, It's also possible that Loki used magic to weaken Thor enough to make him vulnerable to being stabbed by his dagger. thus being stabbed by Loki isn't proof that Thor can be hurt by bullets.


So, prove your claims in regards to Thor being injured by bullets.
I don't think anyone here would believe that.

Thor doesn't get aircraft bulletproof ability without evidence supporting it.

Originally posted by Robtard
If H1 can't figure out how to fix his crappy phone, you can quote his low-balling nonsense posts via the quick quote function still.

The definition of lowballing is using low end feats as evidence when contradictory higher than end feats exist.

You are using the word out of context.

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't think anyone here would believe that.

Thor doesn't get aircraft bulletproof ability without evidence supporting .

Evidence like having the durability so survive the full force of a neutron star for a few minutes without dying?

eg Thor was virtually undamaged in his fight with Hulk.

But bullets will now harm him :0

Originally posted by FrothByte
Evidence like having the durability so survive the full force of a neutron star for a few minutes without dying?

Heat resistant (possibly radiation too) feat. Doesnt apply here.

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't think anyone here would believe that.

Thor doesn't get aircraft bulletproof ability without evidence supporting it.


Just like nobody believes your claim that Loki created glowing objects during that scene and then never used them again.


Thor has plenty of durability feats that are greater aircraft bullets.

Originally posted by h1a8
Heat resistant (possibly radiation too) feat. Doesnt apply here.

The movie stated full force, not "heat only". but even without that feat, Thor has plenty of others that are far greater than an aircraft bullet.

Originally posted by h1a8
Heat resistant (possibly radiation too) feat. Doesnt apply here.

Proof that Thor is probably resistant to aircraft bullets:
1. Loki was shown to be bulletproof, even got shot in the face without injury
2. Sif took a shotgun blast to the hip without injury
3. Thor took a repulsor blast point blank to the face and completely shrugged it off
4. Thor is shown to be more durable than IM's armor, an armor that have withstood tank shells
5. Thor tanked the bifrost explosion
6. Thor survived the Sokovia explosion without injury
7. An Asgardian farmer easily crumpled a tactical knife in his hand without injury
8. Thor was able to withstand the full force of a neutron star for a few minutes



Proof that Thor can be penetrated by human made artillery:
1......

Originally posted by Robtard
eg Thor was virtually undamaged in his fight with Hulk.

But bullets will now harm him :0

Hulk bust his nose with a single punch and caused Thor to bleed.
There are different levels of bullets.
Watch demolition range against the 1in steel plate or the homemade armor. Some bullets won't make a scratch, others will, and other will go through.

I accept that Thor is resistant to some bullets, not all though.

Guess how much pressure a hypodermic needle tip gives if someone uses just 10lb of force?

Over 1200 tons per square inch.

Hulk doesnt even punch with 1200 tons of force on average (which would be lower than 600 tons per square inch).