Planet Buster vs Continental attack

Started by carver93 pages

Planet Buster vs Continental attack

I'm debating a topic and maybe if KMC, at least the majority answered the question, I would feel better at knowing the truth. Let's use Supergirl and Superman as an example.

Let's say if the Supergirl and Superman was on the surface of Earth, New York City...walking through the mall...normal day and then someone set off an explosion that completely destroys the planet (remember, they are on the surface of the planet) but both of them survives. They are knocked out but they survive the attack. Would you consider Supergirl and Superman surviving a planet busting attack or a Continental level attack. The reason I am saying continental is because they wasn't in the heart of Earth when it exploded, they were on the surface of the planet.

5 answers would suffice. Please share your thoughts.

Hulk wins.

Re: Planet Buster vs Continental attack

Originally posted by carver9
I'm debating a topic and maybe if KMC, at least the majority answered the question, I would feel better at knowing the truth. Let's use Supergirl and Superman as an example.

Let's say if the Supergirl and Superman was on the surface of Earth, New York City...walking through the mall...normal day and then someone set off an explosion that completely destroys the planet (remember, they are on the surface of the planet) but both of them survives. They are knocked out but they survive the attack. Would you consider Supergirl and Superman surviving a planet busting attack or a Continental level attack. The reason I am saying continental is because they wasn't in the heart of Earth when it exploded, they were on the surface of the planet.

5 answers would suffice. Please share your thoughts.

Planet busting. As it destroyed the planet.

If anything, that attack is > than one that originates at the Earth's core, because it would have had to have traveled twice the distance (point A, where it originated, to the centre of the Earth, to point B, on the opposite side of the Earth).

Re: Planet Buster vs Continental attack

Originally posted by carver9
Please share your thoughts.

God, I hate you.

Re: Re: Planet Buster vs Continental attack

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
God, I hate you.

😂

Thanks for the answer and Estacada...I agree, Hulk does stomp.

Galan, where are you?

Depends, if the Planet Buster was unleashed by Hulk, then it's weaker than a Continental attack done by Superman.

Or what Darksaint said ahah

So no one is going to add on to this amazing thread?

Re: Re: Planet Buster vs Continental attack

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
God, I hate you.

Is this trying to compare an explosion that destroys a planet vs an explosion that kills all life on earth and shifts tectonic plates?

There so many variables to compare, can you be a little bit more specific?

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Is this trying to compare an explosion that destroys a planet vs an explosion that kills all life on earth and shifts tectonic plates?

There so many variables to compare, can you be a little bit more specific?

Nothing involving Hulk or a Marvel or DC character. I'm having a debate with someone about Anime characters and I'm trying to see if his theory is correct, that's all. Now answer the question RAO. Switch the character if you want. It doesnt have to be Superman, use Surfer or Hulk...doesnt matter.

Re: Re: Re: Planet Buster vs Continental attack

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe

😂

I love you to Prof (no homo).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Planet Buster vs Continental attack

Originally posted by carver9
😂

I love you to Prof (no homo).

You love him to do what?

Sicko.

Originally posted by carver9
use Surfer or Hulk...doesnt matter.

Rao, he wants you to use Carver.

What happens when your continent explodes in his mouth?

Filthy thread.

Re: Planet Buster vs Continental attack

Originally posted by carver9
I'm debating a topic and maybe if KMC, at least the majority answered the question, I would feel better at knowing the truth. Let's use Supergirl and Superman as an example.

Let's say if the Supergirl and Superman was on the surface of Earth, New York City...walking through the mall...normal day and then someone set off an explosion that completely destroys the planet (remember, they are on the surface of the planet) but both of them survives. They are knocked out but they survive the attack. Would you consider Supergirl and Superman surviving a planet busting attack or a Continental level attack. The reason I am saying continental is because they wasn't in the heart of Earth when it exploded, they were on the surface of the planet.

5 answers would suffice. Please share your thoughts.

Freeza probably has planetary+ durability both because Namek is IIRC a rather large planet and Freeza was very much in a weakened state when he took the blast. There carver. I answered the real question you wanted answered.

Anyway, yes, it is a fact that you aren't subject to near an explosion's full energy if you're not at ground zero. God knows I can't remember the exact formula or name of the principle right now but the total energy a person is subjected to decreases exponentially or maybe more the further you are from Ground Zero.

Not sure why you posted this here...

What carvers asking is if Frieza destroying the core of namek is the same as Thor vs Gorr destroying a planet and a moon.

He also wants to know if tanking a blast pointblank that destroys a planet is the same as a spontaneous planet exploding with you on it.

Originally posted by pym-ftw
Not sure why you posted this here...

What carvers asking is if Frieza destroying the core of namek is the same as Thor vs Gorr destroying a planet and a moon.

He also wants to know if tanking a blast pointblank that destroys a planet is the same as a spontaneous planet exploding with you on it.

Lol. THor/Gorr is way harder core than that.

Originally posted by pym-ftw
[B]
What carvers asking is if Frieza destroying the core of namek is the same as Thor vs Gorr destroying a planet and a moon.

Obviously not because Thor and Gorr were doing that indirectly, and Thor was snuffing out stars by flying.

He also wants to know if tanking a blast pointblank that destroys a planet is the same as a spontaneous planet exploding with you on it.
The former is more impressive and probably by a large amount. This is inarguable.

Originally posted by pym-ftw
Not sure why you posted this here...

What carvers asking is if Frieza destroying the core of namek is the same as Thor vs Gorr destroying a planet and a moon.

He also wants to know if tanking a blast pointblank that destroys a planet is the same as a spontaneous planet exploding with you on it.

Who said anything about the Thor and Gorr fight? It's simple really. Someone said Frieza withstood a Continental level attack when planet Namek exploded on him. I'm asking if this is true. Gorr had NOTHING to do with my thread.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Obviously not because Thor and Gorr were doing that indirectly, and Thor was snuffing out stars by flying.

The former is more impressive and probably by a large amount. This is inarguable.

No one ever said ANYTHING about the comparison between Gorr and the Frieza showing.

This is what was said...

Originally posted by StealthRanger
I think Frieza surviving Namek was at low end continental, and he would have died eventually were it not for King Cold's cybernetics