Doomsday vs Thor

Originally posted by Silent Master
Now you're just lying as neither one of us has said that.

That probably correlates to missiles that appeared on 3 pages total in comics, Hank Henshaw, Cap's shield, and a human skeleton.

As for how it means that... it does somehow. Hank Henshaw who has taken attacks more powerful than the missiles took, is just a human skeleton, while the 3 page missiles...

I don't know how that means we said that. But I'm sure we'll figure it out if we work together. Somehow taking an attack twice as powerful as the missiles took without getting vaporized means that Hank Henshaw was a human skeleton compared to Cap's shield in durability, I'm sure of that. Maybe because Hank Henshaw took an extended beating after taking the Omega Beams, and took another blast to take him out?

I'll work up the rest later.

Proof that henshaw experienced a weaker attack than the missiles.

Proof by contradiction

Assume henshaw experienced an equal or stronger attack than the missiles.
He didn't get destroyed but the missiles did.
So henshaw is far more durable than the missiles.
Superman failed to damaged the missiles with a punch and hv.
Superman managed to damage henshaw with a punch (chip damage).
Superman managed to damage henshaw with hv.
Thus the missiles are more durable than henshaw.

But this contradicts that henshaw is more durable than the missiles. Thus the assumption is wrong and hence henshaw experienced less than what the missiles experienced.

Bran's entire argument is depended on that assumption. If the assumption is false then Bran's entire argument fails.

THUS-TIN BIEBER!!!

Originally posted by psycho gundam
THUS-TACULAR!!!

Originally posted by h1a8
Proof that henshaw experienced a weaker attack than the missiles.

Proof by contradiction

Assume henshaw experienced an equal or stronger attack than the missiles.
He didn't get destroyed but the missiles did.
So henshaw is far more durable than the missiles.
Superman failed to damaged the missiles with a punch and hv.
Superman managed to damage henshaw with a punch (chip damage).
Superman managed to damage henshaw with hv.
Thus the missiles are more durable than henshaw.

But this contradicts that henshaw is more durable than the missiles. Thus the assumption is wrong and hence henshaw experienced less than what the missiles experienced.

Bran's entire argument is depended on that assumption. If the assumption is false then Bran's entire argument fails.

Last chance, post where either bran or I said that Cap's shield is less durable than a human shield.

Originally posted by h1a8
I love the thus. Isn't it marvelous? Yes it is, THUS it is marvelous.

HAHAHAAHAHAHA

Originally posted by Silent Master
Last chance, post where either bran or I said that Cap's shield is less durable than a human shield.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Last chance, post where either bran or I said that Cap's shield is less durable than a human shield.

Of course it doesn't mean you said it literally. You don't have to say something literally to say something.

If I say that Thor can lift 50tons then I'm also saying that he can lift 25 tons.

If you said that the shield >>>>>>>>>>> missiles then you are saying that
The shield >>>>>>>>>>>>>> superman power. Am I right?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Last chance, post where either bran or I said that Cap's shield is less durable than a human shield.

And he took double the OB attack, so that defeats it right there

These are all things that have already been explained to him. I don't get why he can keep spouting off this bs in every thread just to cause problems.

Also, please stop quoting him. It's way too tempting.

Originally posted by psycho gundam
THUS DEEZ NUTZ!!!

HAHAHAAHAHAHA

You happy now?

Originally posted by h1a8
you are saying it by accepting his argument.

Of course it doesn't mean you said it literally. You don't have to say something literally to say something.

If I say that Thor can lift 50tons then I'm also saying that he can lift 25 tons.

If you said that the shield >>>>>>>>>>> missiles then you are saying that
The shield >>>>>>>>>>>>>> superman power. Am I right?

Per feats the shield is more durable than the missiles

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Also, Superman "chip damaging" Henshaw was a full on flying haymaker. And it also was from a completely different comic, which means h1 accepts Darkseid's OBs being completely no sold in different comics
And he damaged him with with a full HV blast after Henshaw took the OBs

And he took double the OB attack, so that defeats it right there

These are all things that have already been explained to him. I don't get why he can keep spouting off this bs in every thread just to cause problems.

Also, please stop quoting him. It's way too tempting.

Originally posted by h1a8
Proof that henshaw experienced a weaker attack than the missiles.

Proof by contradiction

Assume henshaw experienced an equal or stronger attack than the missiles.
He didn't get destroyed but the missiles did.
So henshaw is far more durable than the missiles.
Superman failed to damaged the missiles with a punch and hv.
Superman managed to damage henshaw with a punch (chip damage).
Superman managed to damage henshaw with hv.
Thus the missiles are more durable than henshaw.

But this contradicts that henshaw is more durable than the missiles. Thus the assumption is wrong and hence henshaw experienced less than what the missiles experienced.

Bran's entire argument is depended on that assumption. If the assumption is false then Bran's entire argument fails.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Per feats the shield is more durable than the skeleton

Also the shield has to be many times more durable than the missiles to prove the eyeblasts can even damage dd in the slightest. So the shield is more durable by feats but not many times more durable.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Per feats the shield is more durable than the missiles

Originally posted by h1a8
and thus Bran's argument is fail. I agree with you.

Good

Originally posted by Silent Master
Good

Originally posted by h1a8

Also the shield has to be many times more durable than the missiles to prove the eyeblasts can even damage dd in the slightest. So the shield cab be more durable by feats but not many times more durable.

Originally posted by h1a8
and thus Bran's argument is fail. I agree with you.

Also the shield has to be many times more durable than the missiles to prove the eyeblasts can even damage dd in the slightest. So the shield is more durable by feats but not many times more durable.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Per feats the shield is more durable than the missiles

Originally posted by h1a8
and thus Bran's argument is fail. I agree with you.

Good

Originally posted by Silent Master
Good

The shield, by feats, is not many times more powerful than Superman.
But the OB, by feats in the arc, is many times more powerful than Superman.
Thus the OB in that arc >>>>> KT eyeblast and hence dd will tank both.

As even you admit, the shield is more durable than the missiles Superman failed to destroy

Originally posted by Silent Master
Per feats the shield is more durable than the missiles

Originally posted by h1a8
and thus Bran's argument is fail. I agree with you.

Good

I LOVE YOU THUS THE WAY YOU ARE!!!

Originally posted by Silent Master
As even you admit, the shield is more durable than the missiles Superman failed to destroy

Good