Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yeah something like that would prove the Star Feat was inconsistent BS.But I dont recall that happening to Thor hmm
Heck, Thor rarely gets KO'd. The two times I recall him getting KO'd was after the Sokovia explosion and after Hulk hit him with a flying/dropping fist after he had already been dropped by the Grandmaster.
In comparison, Aquaman gets KO'd by a grenade launcher and gets fried by Manta's eye beams.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Heck, Thor rarely gets KO'd. The two times I recall him getting KO'd was after the Sokovia explosion and after Hulk hit him with a flying/dropping fist after he had already been dropped by the Grandmaster.In comparison, Aquaman gets KO'd by a grenade launcher and gets fried by Manta's eye beams.
The power of mantas beams is unknown. Therefore it's not a good nor bad showing by AM.
The grenade launcher showing is a low showing, but at least it caused no damage. The submarine feat contradicts that showing.
Originally posted by h1a8
The power of mantas beams is unknown. Therefore it's not a good nor bad showing by AM.
The grenade launcher showing is a low showing, but at least it caused no damage. The submarine feat contradicts that showing.
Well it certainly wasn't strong enough to destroy a city like Sokovia, which means Aquaman is nowhere near as durable as Thor.
Originally posted by h1a8
The power of mantas beams is unknown. Therefore it's not a good nor bad showing by AM.
The grenade launcher showing is a low showing, but at least it caused no damage. The submarine feat contradicts that showing.
The submarine feat via his underwater propulsion proves nothing about his durability. So no contradiction at all.
I mean you really think the writers contradicted themselves within 5 minutes ?
Get a life and quit being a worthless internet troll.
Originally posted by FrothByteThe beam is thin.
Well it certainly wasn't strong enough to destroy a city like Sokovia, which means Aquaman is nowhere near as durable as Thor.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
The submarine feat via his underwater propulsion proves nothing about his durability. So no contradiction at all.I mean you really think the writers contradicted themselves within 5 minutes ?
Get a life and quit being a worthless internet troll.
Newton's 3rd law. AM body experienced the same amount of force it exerted. I push your head into a steel door with 5 tons of force. I'm the propulsion and you are AM and the door is the sub.
Originally posted by h1a8
Newton's 3rd law. AM body experienced the same amount of force it exerted. I push your head into a steel door with 5 tons of force. I'm the propulsion and you are AM and the door is the sub.
Your fake science means squat here. AM was KOd by a grenade launcher in the same damn scene.
You are either too dense to debate, or the biggest Dc troll on the interwebs.
Originally posted by h1a8
The beam is thin.
Thor didn't resist any attack that was capable of destroying a city. He was subjected to less than 1 millionth of the energy that destroyed the city.
AM resist over 560,000 tons. Therefore he's more durable than Thor against pressure.
Ill go with biggest troll.
Get a damn life.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Your fake science means squat here. AM was KOd by a grenade launcher in the same damn scene.You are either too dense to debate, or the biggest Dc troll on the interwebs.
Ill go with biggest troll.
Get a damn life.
Still doesn't negate the fact that AM resisted more than 560,000 tons of force on his body. You can argue fiction inconsistency but you can't argue against that fact. Now go troll somewhere else.
As for the rest of you, you are terrible debaters. You resort to flaming attacks because you are too stupid to attack the actual argument.
That's how I know when I win.
Originally posted by h1a8
Still doesn't negate the fact that AM resisted more than 560,000 tons of force on his body. You can argue fiction inconsistency but you can't argue against that fact.
Just like your opinion doesn't negate the fact that Thor withstood the full force of a neutron star, You can argue fiction inconsistency but you can't argue against that fact.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Just like your opinion doesn't negate the fact that Thor withstood the full force of a neutron star, You can argue fiction inconsistency but you can't argue against that fact.
The full figurative force which is less than 1 ton of force. Unless force means temperature.
Originally posted by h1a8
The full figurative force which is less than 1 ton of force. Unless force means temperature.
Not according to the science guy that has been posted numerous times, after all. if your youtuber counts, so does ours. likewise, if our youtuber doesn't count, then neither does yours.
So which is it. do both youtubers count or do neither of them count?