Planet Buster vs Continental attack

And this was what was said:

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
God, I hate you.

Originally posted by carver9
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.

Well, I am still not sure what are you trying to compare, but here is what I think:

I will think that an explosion that pierces the mantle of a planet somehow will have to be more powerful that one that does not pierces the mantle but is dispersed on the surface.

To give an analogy I imagine a shield that with stands an explosion but anything on the surface of the shield gets destroyed vs a concentrated explosion that actually pierces the shield vs a explosion that completely destroys the shield.

I imagine that completely destroying the shield will require more effort.

So I think destroying a planet will require more energy, than piercing it's mantle or cooking it's surface

You made this thread because of how poorly your doing in the Broly vs Thor thread.

Your trying to equate Frieza to Thor level and then powerscale Broly past Thor... not gonna work. You must despise context.

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Well, I am still not sure what are you trying to compare, but here is what I think:

I will think that an explosion that pierces the mantle of a planet somehow will have to be more powerful that one that does not pierces the mantle but is dispersed on the surface.

To give an analogy I imagine a shield that with stands an explosion but anything on the surface of the shield gets destroyed vs a concentrated explosion that actually pierces the shield vs a explosion that completely destroys the shield.

I imagine that completely destroying the shield will require more effort.

So I think destroying a planet will require more energy, than piercing it's mantle or cooking it's surface

Originally posted by carver9
😂

I love you to Prof (no homo).

I love you too (full homo) but don't tell anyone!
hug

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
I love you too (full homo) but don't tell anyone!
hug

Sleeping with the enemy?

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Well, I am still not sure what are you trying to compare, but here is what I think:

I will think that an explosion that pierces the mantle of a planet somehow will have to be more powerful that one that does not pierces the mantle but is dispersed on the surface.

To give an analogy I imagine a shield that with stands an explosion but anything on the surface of the shield gets destroyed vs a concentrated explosion that actually pierces the shield vs a explosion that completely destroys the shield.

I imagine that completely destroying the shield will require more effort.

So I think destroying a planet will require more energy, than piercing it's mantle or cooking it's surface

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Well, I am still not sure what are you trying to compare, but here is what I think:

I will think that an explosion that pierces the mantle of a planet somehow will have to be more powerful that one that does not pierces the mantle but is dispersed on the surface.

To give an analogy I imagine a shield that with stands an explosion but anything on the surface of the shield gets destroyed vs a concentrated explosion that actually pierces the shield vs a explosion that completely destroys the shield.

I imagine that completely destroying the shield will require more effort.

So I think destroying a planet will require more energy, than piercing it's mantle or cooking it's surface

So would it be planetary if someone withstood the explosion?

Originally posted by pym-ftw
You made this thread because of how poorly your doing in the Broly vs Thor thread.

Your trying to equate Frieza to Thor level and then powerscale Broly past Thor... not gonna work. You must despise context.

Pym, again, you don't know what you are talking about. Someone said it's continental, I created this thread to see if this is true. If you want to discuss Thor vs DBZ, meet me in the proper thread. Keep it up out of here though.

Originally posted by carver9
So would it be planetary if someone withstood the explosion?

Did a planet get destroyed? If yes, than its a planetary explosion. If not, then no.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Did a planet get destroyed? If yes, than its a planetary explosion. If not, then no.

👆

Thanks.

Originally posted by carver9
So would it be planetary if someone withstood the explosion?

If the planet gets shred into pieces, yes it will be a planet buster, if wipes out life on the planet only but not destroys is not a planet buster imo

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Sleeping with the enemy?

He is not the enemy, he is a Superman fan like all KMC members. ^^

Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
I love you too (full homo) but don't tell anyone!
hug

😂

Originally posted by pym-ftw
You made this thread because of how poorly your doing in the Broly vs Thor thread.

Your trying to equate Frieza to Thor level and then powerscale Broly past Thor... not gonna work. You must despise context.

I sense great fear in you boy. You have hate. You have anger.

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.

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Well, I am still not sure what are you trying to compare, but here is what I think:

I will think that an explosion that pierces the mantle of a planet somehow will have to be more powerful that one that does not pierces the mantle but is dispersed on the surface.

To give an analogy I imagine a shield that with stands an explosion but anything on the surface of the shield gets destroyed vs a concentrated explosion that actually pierces the shield vs a explosion that completely destroys the shield.

I imagine that completely destroying the shield will require more effort.

So I think destroying a planet will require more energy, than piercing it's mantle or cooking it's surface

You guys are dumb.

Of course an attack that destroys a planet is going to be more powerful than one that can just get into the mantle or glass the surface. No ****ing shit.

But if the point of origin of the planet-busting attack, "ground zero", is very far away from someone who survives the blast then they didn't necessarily tank "planet busting" attack. Or maybe the character did, because the blast was that powerful or the planet was unusually huge.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Where is the point of origin of the planet's destruction?

Starting from the core. The core of the planet is unstable which leads to the planet exploding as a result.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You guys are dumb.

Of course an attack that destroys a planet is going to be more powerful than one that can just get into the mantle or glass the surface. No ****ing shit.

But if the point of origin of the planet-busting attack, "ground zero", is very far away from someone who survives the blast then they didn't necessarily tank "planet busting" attack. Or maybe the character did, because the blast was that powerful or the planet was unusually huge.

So if the planet explodes and the person that is on the planet survives, then they did not withstand a planet busting attack?