Is Obama planning to attack Saudi Arabia?

The clouds should have become totally evaporated before they would even become torn apart! I repeat: the scenario shown in the video is not plausible.

This is actually a good point. Since clouds and the ocean are both made of the same thing, the ocean would have been destroyed too. Yet the ocean is clearly visible after the explosion.
 
The clouds should have become totally evaporated before they would even become torn apart! I repeat: the scenario shown in the video is not plausible.

Why should they evaporate? You will note that the effect of the pressure wave is not to cause evaporation, but quite the opposite - moisture condenses out of the air even where there were previously no clouds. As the wave passes, the air soon returns to approximately the same pressure, temperature and humidity it had before. So the new condensation evaporates again and in areas which previously had no cloud there is again no cloud. In areas where there was the conditions to form cloud, there is still cloud. Very simple.

If you want to claim this is "not plausible" I'm afraid you're going to have to do better, and explain exactly why not.
 
If Saudi Arabia descends into turmoil then it might happen. But, believe me, Obama really doesn't want to have to do that. I'm sure he is praying every night that there isn't a revolution in Saudi Arabia. If there is then his options range from bad to terrible. All will entail massive costs and will certainly send the economy into a tailspin.

And...come 2013 we get to watch the inauguration of President Palin.

Don't ever, ever say that...please.
 
This is actually a good point. Since clouds and the ocean are both made of the same thing, the ocean would have been destroyed too. Yet the ocean is clearly visible after the explosion.

Shock wave in the ocean, like a tsunami you know, not parting the ocean. ;)
 
Why should they evaporate? You will note that the effect of the pressure wave is not to cause evaporation, but quite the opposite - moisture condenses out of the air even where there were previously no clouds. As the wave passes, the air soon returns to approximately the same pressure, temperature and humidity it had before. So the new condensation evaporates again and in areas which previously had no cloud there is again no cloud. In areas where there was the conditions to form cloud, there is still cloud. Very simple.

If you want to claim this is "not plausible" I'm afraid you're going to have to do better, and explain exactly why not.

Heat radiation would hardly LOWER the temperature allowing for new condensation to take place.
 
Shock wave in the ocean, like a tsunami you know, not parting the ocean. ;)

No... the shockwave would have been so powerful it would have torn apart the water molecules, turning them into elemental hydrogen and oxygen which are both gasses at sea level in earths atmosphere. Which would have then floated away. The explosion would have literally blown up the ocean.
 
No... the shockwave would have been so powerful it would have torn apart the water molecules, turning them into elemental hydrogen and oxygen which are both gasses at sea level in earths atmosphere. Which would have then floated away. The explosion would have literally blown up the ocean.

lol. The ocean water at the detonation area would have turned into water fuel! Imagine billions of tons of hydrogen and oxygen being ignited. :eek::D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Fc8kIyMCo
 
Obama will attack Saudi Arabia with his atomic penis in November of this year. I have spoken.
 
No, you really don't.

The atom bomb hoax theory is pretty extreme. I don't remember how that topic came up. The prediction about invasion of Saudi Arabia is also pretty extreme. At the moment! But just wait a few days and mainstream media may begin to slowly seep in some indoctrination propaganda making the public think of invading Saudi Arabia as the most obvious thing in the world!
 
No... the hydrogen and oxygen would have been dispersed by the same shockwave that tore apart the molecules. They wouldn't be close enough together to sustain combustion.

Ok, that may be true, I don't know. I will try to get back to the original topic. This atom bomb stuff is too far out.
 
The atom bomb hoax theory is pretty extreme. I don't remember how that topic came up.
.
Yeah, it's not like a step back through the thread would show the first mention was this post.

Help me out here, my vision may be a little blurry: who was the author of that post?

Obvious troll is ... obvious.
.
 
The west wants to secure oil resources long-term. That means military invasion in the Middle East, Africa etc. Otherwise China will constitute a constant potential future threat, plus the oil producing countries themselves can become a threat if their oil production becomes disturbed. So the western leaders want to put military forces permanently in places where oil resources need to be guarded, both physically and politically.

Again, if it was just a question of securing oil, why go stir up all that unnecessary hubris by messing around in the current version of the wild wild west - the Middle East. Why not just take over Mexico and its petroleum production? Surely if we're able to stage street riots and political movements in countries that pretty much HATE us, how hard to destabilize an already unstable Mexico? A few weeks of drug czars vs federalistas shootouts and we could bring in the troops and be hailed as heroes. And Chavez? That commie! We'd be doing the world a service (or that's how the NY Post would report it) and get all that crude, too.

China and India can have all the M.E. oil. We've got that NAFTA Superhighway and can just take all the oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. A couple of battalions, a weekend or two with some pretty senoritas and curling queens (them Canadian girls are wicked hot!) and we'd be set for the next half-century.

I'll donate that one to you, Anders. You could probably make it work a lot better than the one you're espousing.
 

Back
Top Bottom