So we have established that the destruction of 2km of landmass (again, not the effect radius to buildings, people, etc., but outright destroying landmass) is higher than a nuke. This is progress.
On-screen feats top on-screen statements. This is still better than a completely unverifiable, unquantifiable... guesstimate of what could just maybe, possibly be the yield of an explosion that destroys absolutely nothing to show us how much force it had.What we are saying is that Thor didn't tank that level of force, or anywhere near it. I strongly disagree with you; to me it seemed obvious that the film writers were downplaying the explosions force upon Thor and Iron Man (they were both caught up in the main blast of light just fine). The reason I believe this is because it was a specific plot point that Tony created a "heat shield" to "cap the explosion and keep the atomic reaction contained within the landmass". These are not my words, they are the movies.
And again, still better than a totally unquantifiable, unverifiable guesstimate of an explosion where we can extrapolate absolutely nothing of the force from.You slow the video down, and buildings rooftops less than 200 feet from Thor are essentially intact. Iron Man tank a the blast as well. The dialogue suggests its heavily contained etc etc
Even if it WASNT contained (it is) it would still be a tiny fraction of the total power Thor tanked because it exploded 360 degrees over a huge area, not right upon him totally concentrated. It's basically a nebulous hard to quantify therefore sort of useless feat for rumbles