Supergirl vs. MCU Thor

Started by h1a839 pages

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Lol yeah it was the building that summoned the lightning.
Without the building Thor wouldn't have achieved that feat.

True or False?

lol 27 pages. This is on its way to becoming the new WS vs Ozy thread. I.E. a complete shitshow. I'm out.

Originally posted by h1a8
Without the building Thor wouldn't have achieved that feat.

True or False?

Are you claiming that the building made the blast more powerful?

Originally posted by h1a8
Without the building Thor wouldn't have achieved that feat.

True or False?

Lol is this a joke?

Originally posted by h1a8
Without the building Thor wouldn't have achieved that feat.

True or False?

False. Metal conducts electricity, it doesn't amplify it. And that building isn't even built with pure metal.

Originally posted by FrothByte
False. Metal conducts electricity, it doesn't amplify it. And that building isn't even built with pure metal.

So Thor could have did the exact feat as it was without using the building?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Lol is this a joke?
It must be to you, you didn't answer the question.

Originally posted by h1a8
So Thor could have did the exact feat as it was without using the building?

It must be to you, you didn't answer the question.

Why don't you answer the question.

Are you claiming that the building amped the lightnings power?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why don't you answer the question.

Are you claiming that the building amped the lightnings power?

I'm claiming Thor couldn't achieve the feat without the building.
In this fight there are no buildings around.

Originally posted by h1a8
I'm claiming Thor couldn't achieve the feat without the building.
In this fight there are no buildings around.

Explain, are you saying that without the building the lightning wouldn't have been powerful enough?

Originally posted by h1a8

It must be to you, you didn't answer the question.

Because it's a ridiculous question. I mean could Spider-Man achieve half his feats without buildings? Could Batman fight without the ground?

H1 has at times had some 'WTF are you thinking' arguments, but this isn't one of those times.

The scene really does imply that Thor used the Chrysler building as a conduit to amplify his lightning-attack in that scene. Look how the camera specifically pans around/down showing the lighting surrounding the building.

YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXt-PSu94nA

Buildings don't amp lightning, at best he can argue that Thor used the building for extra storage.

I honestly don't think he used the building for anything except a vantage point.

To me personally it seemed the Lightning surrounding the building just shows the ridiculous amount of Lightning Thor was summoning.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Because it's a ridiculous question. I mean could Spider-Man achieve half his feats without buildings? Could Batman fight without the ground?

No to the first, yes to the second. Zero G fighting with Val Armorr. 😉

reading these threads with H1 always makes me laugh

Originally posted by h1a8
So Thor could have did the exact feat as it was without using the building?

It must be to you, you didn't answer the question.

Sure. As long as he charges just as long.

Originally posted by Robtard
H1 has at times had some 'WTF are you thinking' arguments, but this isn't one of those times.

The scene really does imply that Thor used the Chrysler building as a conduit to amplify his lightning-attack in that scene. Look how the camera specifically pans around/down showing the lighting surrounding the building.

YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXt-PSu94nA

Electricity running up and down a building doesn't imply that it is getting amplified. If I get a coil of copper wire and run an electric current through it, does that mean it gets amplified?

The building can be considered a conduit but it is not an amplifier.

Sure it's open to interpretation as it wasn't specifically stated by Thor saying "I'm going to use the Chrysler building as a conduit to amplify my lighting", but I do believe that was the point of the scene when you factor in the other times he's attacked with lighting.

I can't recall another scene where Thor attacks and that much (or more) electricity is seen and maintained for such lengths, even in the Jutunheim blast it was more like a single board bolt being called down to charge his hammer for the smash that created a blast and then ensuing shockwave. Did I forget a scene?

Originally posted by Robtard
Sure it's open to interpretation as it wasn't specifically stated by Thor saying "I'm going to use the Chrysler building as a conduit to amplify my lighting", but I do believe that was the point of the scene when you factor in the other times he's attacked with lighting.

I can't recall another scene where Thor attacks and that much (or more) electricity is seen and maintained for such lengths, even in the Jutunheim blast it was more like a single board bolt being called down to charge his hammer for the smash that created a blast and then ensuing shockwave. Did I forget a scene?

You also don't see any other scene where Thor charges up his strike for that long. My point being, the strength of that lightning bolt probably had nothing to do with the building and was simply a result of him charging his strike longer, like someone winding up for a big hit.

And there is no "open to interpretation" here. Steel/metal does not amplify electricity but merely conducts it. If you want to claim that it did then you'll have to prove it, because my proof is already everyday reality.

That would sort of play into the building/metal having something to do with it.

We're not talking about reality, we're talking about a fictional alien and his techno-magic hammer which can summon and do stuff with lighting.

But if we want to get all sciency and realistic, metal can hold an electrical charge. eg have you ever been shocked by static electricity with say a metal door knob?

Edit: Exhibit (A