Originally posted by FrothByte
Please explain how a piece of steel can store electricity or amp it. Steel is not an amplifier. It is a conductor. It is also not a battery.
Please explain how a hammer can defy the laws of gravity or how a man can turn intro a green monster merely by becoming angry...
It's a superhero movie. We see the lightning coursing around the skyscraper.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Like I've already said, his lightning was already powerful enough to kill the aliens, the longer blast just let him kill more of them.
Kill aliens, sure. Leviathans, eh... Been awhile since I saw the movie but it looked like they were getting struck by several bolts not one.
Originally posted by ares834
Please explain how a hammer can defy the laws of gravity or how a man can turn intro a green monster merely by becoming angry...It's a superhero movie. We see the lightning coursing around the skyscraper.
Kill aliens, sure. Leviathans, eh... Been awhile since I saw the movie but it looked like they were getting struck by several bolts not one.
Mjolnir is a magical weapon. The building is not. Bruce Banner is a scientific experiment gone wrong, allowing him to become the Hulk. That building hasn't had any gamma radiation experiments done on it, at least not that we know.
You're reaching here, and you don't want to admit it. You can't simply say "This is true because I said so and this is a comic book movie so anything is possible". That's basically how your reasoning sounds like.
The building had lightning coursing through it because it's a conductor. You still have zero proof that it amped or stored electricity.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Mjolnir is a magical weapon. The building is not. Bruce Banner is a scientific experiment gone wrong, allowing him to become the Hulk. That building hasn't had any gamma radiation experiments done on it, at least not that we know.You're reaching here, and you don't want to admit it. You can't simply say "This is true because I said so and this is a comic book movie so anything is possible". That's basically how your reasoning sounds like.
Lol.
We see the lightning crackle around the building. If you want some explanation, go with Mjolnir "holding" the lightning there or something.
Originally posted by ares834
Lol.We see the lightning crackle around the building. If you want some explanation, go with Mjolnir "holding" the lightning there or something.
Crackling around building = building is an electrical conductor. So... still no proof from your side I see. Steel (and I find myself repeating myself here) is not capable of holding an electric charge on it's own.
I don't even know why we're arguing about this. Thor's lightning is strong enough to hurt Faora with or without the building. Probably not strong enough to KO her but definitely enough to hurt her. Trick is if he can hit her.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Crackling around building = building is an electrical conductor. So... still no proof from your side I see. Steel (and I find myself repeating myself here) is not capable of holding an electric charge on it's own.
So the fact that Thor's lightning is noticeably different this time is just coincidence... Lol
Yes, in real life Skyscrapers can't hold a charge. However, the movie wasn't real and all signs point to it being used by Thor to "amplify" his lightning attack.
Why do people keep insisting the skyscrapper aided Thor with his attack? The only thing I took away from the scene was that Thor was simply channeling more energy for the attack and since he was in contact with the skyscrapper it got all lightning as well as a side effect. I do not think he needed the skyscrapper for any part of that feat.
Originally posted by ares834
So the fact that Thor's lightning is noticeably different this time is just coincidence... LolYes, in real life Skyscrapers can't hold a charge. However, the movie wasn't real and all signs point to it being used by Thor to "amplify" his lightning attack.
Throughout both Thor the movie and Avengers, Thor's lightning differed greatly depending on how he used it. The lightning he struck IM with was different from the one he struck Loki with. The Jotunheim blast was different from what he used against the Chitauri ground troupes. Asking him to make the same exact lightning everytime is like asking a boxer to deliver the exact same punch everytime.
He uses his lightning as he sees fit. In this instance since he's fighting stronger and multiple opponents then he adjusts his lightning to deal with it.
In real life skyscrapers don't hold a charge. In this movie, all sky scrapers look like they're normal and similar to real life counterparts. The only different skyscraper here is Stark's tower. Unless (again) you have proof that this skyscraper is different?
Originally posted by Newjak
Why do people keep insisting the skyscrapper aided Thor with his attack? The only thing I took away from the scene was that Thor was simply channeling more energy for the attack and since he was in contact with the skyscrapper it got all lightning as well as a side effect. I do not think he needed the skyscrapper for any part of that feat.
And yet, there is no evidence that he can as the only time his lightning was so powerful was when he was on the Skyscraper.
It's not a debatable point at all. It's trolling the thread really.
It's common sense Thor channel more electric current through the entire structure in order to use it to create a stronger and more prolonged blast.
That scene contained more electricity than any other scene. A humongous ass amount.
WTF would be the purpose of even using the top of the skycraper if it did jack shit?
Thor already had the ability to use multidirectional blasts (target multiple enemies) without it.
Even Silent Master knows this. Yet he isn't going to correct you all since he's supporting Thor here.
Movies are simple. LMAO at people trying to twist the writer's intentions and make the shit far more complicated than the writer intended.
LoL, some people. Anyhow, if anyone actually thinks Thor didn't specifically pick that building cos it served as a lighting rod and that he used it to channel more lightning than normal, then you're purposely being a obtuse.
There were several flat roof buildings nearby where he didn't have to hold on like a monkey and it would have been easier, if the tall narrow metallic build didn't matter to him.
Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, some people. Anyhow, if anyone actually thinks Thor didn't specifically pick that building cos it served as a lighting rod and that he used it to channel more lightning, then you're purposely being obtuse.There were several flat roof buildings nearby where he didn't have to hold on like a monkey and it would have been easier, if the tall narrow metallic build didn't matter to him.
👆
Originally posted by h1a8Trolling the thread, really? Disagreement =/= trolling
It's not a debatable point at all. It's trolling the thread really.
It's common sense Thor channel more electric current through the entire structure in order to use it to create a stronger and more prolonged blast.That scene contained more electricity than any other scene. A humongous ass amount.
WTF would be the purpose of even using the top of the skycraper if it did jack shit?
Thor already had the ability to use multidirectional blasts (target multiple enemies) without it.Even Silent Master knows this. Yet he isn't going to correct you all since he's supporting Thor here.
Movies are simple. LMAO at people trying to twist the writer's intentions and make the shit far more complicated than the writer intended.