Port Chicago... accidental nuclear blast?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   
dont know if this has been posted before, but its very interesting!


www.sonic.net...

[edit on 26-8-2005 by RickinVa]




posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Very possible, we all know that a nuclear bomb must be tested befor putting in use! It's not good enough if you know how it shold work in theory, so maybe this has something to do with that...



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
What really happened at Port Chicago in 1944, a nuclear explosion?

Nice read...



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
similar links have been posted before , and this " rehash" offers nothing new ,

the same sad mix of lies inuendo and ignorance of fact

YRS - APE



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
These might add more conversation and commentary to this particular topic.
Enjoy.

Port Chicago -America's First Atomic Test
Port Chicago Disaster
Did we blow up Port Chicago with a nuke?

Personally, there was no atomic bomb detonation, and I'm surprised that this conspiracy theory still continues to float around though it has been historically debunked extensively.

With the Port Chicago incident, you had approx. 4600 tons of munitions in addition to 1780 tons of High Explosives on one ship or combined between the two. Then you had approx. 430 tons of bombs, in railcars, along the piers, waiting to be loaded.

Thats roughly 6800+ tons of pure exploding Hell.

When this stuff went off the discription say "12000 (?)" feet into the air.........I'm am quite sure that someone or everyone thought the world was coming to an end if not a nuke going off.

I have read other info on this that 'some' thought it was a cover up of a actual atomic explosion but I personally think that 6800 +TONS would siffice enough for one to speculate that indeed a atomic bomb went off.....6800 +TONS is one hell of a, sorry for the pun, Big Bang, despite no radiation levels being detected. As such, some who think an atomic bomb was detonated might want to recheck their math and facts concerning an atomic bomb and the residual effects of one detonating.

Btw, this site [linked below] has pictures of ammunition laden merchants ships exploding. Looks like mini atomic bomb blasts, eh?


THE LOST AMERICAN AMMUNITION SHIPS




seekerof

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Interestingly, there has been an even bigger non nuclear explosion than that as early as 1917. Caused a tsunami which at some places was 18 meters high.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Simon666]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
Interestingly, there has been an even bigger non nuclear explosion than that as early as 1917. Caused a tsunami which at some places was 18 meters high.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Simon666]


Damn, I was just going to bring up Halifax.


amunition is touchy stuff.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
The History Channel also has a documentary about this incident. They interview several of the African-American soldiers who lived through the incident and the mutiny that took place afterwards.

The conditions were atrocious, more and more was expected from the soldiers loading the ammo, and it kept getting more and more dangerous. Many of the higher ranking African-American soldiers working there (no Caucasians had to work under those conditions at that port, it was a black unit, back in the days of military segregation) warned their COs that something like this would happen, but they were ignored.

Eventually the bomb dropped (pun intended), and there was a major accident. The axe came down on the individual soldiers, and they mutinied.

Sorry if I got any of the details wrong, I watched the documentary in February. That's the general gist of what went down, though.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
A very good read about Port Chicago at :

Port Chicago



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Munition explosions can be massive, observe this:

users.rcn.com...

Quite large for just ammo and shells eh?
Most of these sources are obviously bias to a theory, and one would have to get some facts and cross reference them to insure you have a few airtight facts.

Btw, harbors are usually screened by camera, simply for security. Many other facts that stack up to the Atomic bomb conclusion can be dismissed.

Dont jump to conclusions, but if one thing has created more spies, more conspiracies, or political overhead, its the bomb.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I don't buy the theory. It took too long to develop both the gun ignition and implosion methods for this thing to have gone off in 1944 and in of all places a port, which makes no sense at all. A 9000 pound bomb? Really, Little Boy was 9700 pounds and gave a yield of over 12 kilotons easily.


Documents from Los Alamos show that at the time of the Port Chicago explosion it was believed that the only way to deliver an atomic bomb to the enemy was by ship, detonating in the harbor. It was called the Hydrodynamic Theory of Surface Explosions.


Beyond misleading and a lie. Los Alamos was a nuclear research facility not an aircraft test pad. By early as March 1944, test A-Bombs were being dropped from B-29's with converted bombbays. And modifications on the B-29 itself began on November 29, 1943. The work was commisioned by Groves, not Oppenhiemer.

Anyone who claims to have seen the blast and its bright light would immediatly be blinded temporarily or possibly permanantly without the use of welders goggles or a windshield (a la Feynman).

And there was no Captain Parsons who was head of Port Authority in Chicago and flew the Enola Gay.

This entire conspiracy is based in fabrications.

[edit on 27-8-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   
As ususal it most people don't seem to bother to do a little research, to actually make an informed comment.

And for everyone's information there was a 3rd type of nuclear weapon being developed in Los Alamos. A low efficiency weapon which only needed U-235 enriched to 30% and could of been produced in 1944. Records also show that the Manhattan Project would have had enough unranium to prodeuce this type of weapon as well the 3 devices other devices built.
Interestingly enough 23 railcars were loased onto the ship at port Chicago before it blew.

For anybody who actualy wants to learn a few things about the Port Chicago test read this thread and the links. Mnay questions have already been asked and answered there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
As ususal it most people don't seem to bother to do a little research, to actually make an informed comment.

And for everyone's information there was a 3rd type of nuclear weapon being developed in Los Alamos. A low efficiency weapon which only needed U-235 enriched to 30% and could of been produced in 1944. Records also show that the Manhattan Project would have had enough unranium to prodeuce this type of weapon as well the 3 devices other devices built.
Interestingly enough 23 railcars were loased onto the ship at port Chicago before it blew.

For anybody who actualy wants to learn a few things about the Port Chicago test read this thread and the links. Mnay questions have already been asked and answered there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


There were many nuclear devices that Los Alamos had in mind, including the Super (a la Teller). How would such a device ignite? A link or some information about this type of bomb would be beneficial.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

There were many nuclear devices that Los Alamos had in mind, including the Super (a la Teller). How would such a device ignite? A link or some information about this type of bomb would be beneficial.


The Sper was the name for the thermonuclear weapon which had nothing to do with the Manhattan Project DUH. ou wanted a link, I gave you one to a comprehensive thread, FFS. Why don't you read it



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
And for everyone's information there was a 3rd type of nuclear weapon being developed in Los Alamos. A low efficiency weapon which only needed U-235 enriched to 30% and could of been produced in 1944. Records also show that the Manhattan Project would have had enough unranium to prodeuce this type of weapon as well the 3 devices other devices built.

This makes little sense. With decreasing enrichment, the critical mass increases rapidly and the amount of U-235 in the critical mass also increases. It is dubious that there would have been enough uranium for such a crude weapon, let alone they'd be able to get it done by 1944. I'd like to see your sources.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by rogue1
And for everyone's information there was a 3rd type of nuclear weapon being developed in Los Alamos. A low efficiency weapon which only needed U-235 enriched to 30% and could of been produced in 1944. Records also show that the Manhattan Project would have had enough unranium to prodeuce this type of weapon as well the 3 devices other devices built.

This makes little sense. With decreasing enrichment, the critical mass increases rapidly and the amount of U-235 in the critical mass also increases. It is dubious that there would have been enough uranium for such a crude weapon, let alone they'd be able to get it done by 1944. I'd like to see your sources.


I've posted a link previously on this thread to another more comprehensive one in here. Seems people are too damn lazy to bother reading it, or maybe there aren't enough pretty pictures


www.abovetopsecret.com...

And in refrence to the Mk II weapon Simon666, here are some pdf's sone of many linked on the other thread which gives you some background to what the Mark II weapon was. If you don't understand what your reading then just say so.

www.portchicago.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Mark II: February 5, 1939 - August 24, 1943
www.portchicago.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Mark II: July 4 - August 17, 1944
www.portchicago.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Development of the Mark II,
a brief chronology
David Hawkins'
Manhattan District History:
Development of the Mark II


Any other questions go to this site www.portchicago.org... and read the pdf documentation

[edit on 29-8-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Great Read!


Personally I'd have to go with the munition theory.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Frosty

There were many nuclear devices that Los Alamos had in mind, including the Super (a la Teller). How would such a device ignite? A link or some information about this type of bomb would be beneficial.


The Sper was the name for the thermonuclear weapon which had nothing to do with the Manhattan Project DUH. ou wanted a link, I gave you one to a comprehensive thread, FFS. Why don't you read it


Ok, #1: You didn't give a link to the weapon's info or explain anything anout how it would ignite, so stop acting like a prick. #2 I said Los Alamos not Manhattan Project, duh.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

January 31, 1945 - Robert Bacher reports to Oppenheimer that a Po-210/Be-9 implosion initiator (still to be designed) is possible.


You say this is an implosion bomb? No way. Kistiakowsky and Neddermeyer hadn't given their reports of a satisfactory implosion device until 1945 and this bomb went off 1944?


Mid-March, 1945 - The first evidence of solid compression from implosion is observed (5%).

April 11, 1945 - Oppenheimer reports that Kistiakowsky has achieved optimal performance with implosion compression in sub-scale tests.


www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org...

This bomb sounds like an early design based on the heavy water concept and if so is nothing more than a tossed aside theory by Los Alamos. They stopped work on heavy water concepts in the '43 when they found graphite more suitable than deuterium as moderator. Actually it might have been much earlier as CP-1 was not a heavy water concept.

Playing the what if game: What if it was a nuclear explosion, why did they not start devoloping more of these bombs?

This information on Chicago is mentioned no where in Richard Rhodes' book.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Ok, #1: You didn't give a link to the weapon's info or explain anything anout how it would ignite, so stop acting like a prick.


Well I gave a link in the post above your original one to a thread which contained the information, I posted in my last post. Obviously you didn't bother reading it



#2 I said Los Alamos not Manhattan Project, duh.


Umm, during the development of the atomic bomb in WWII, Los Alamos was part of the Manhattan Project





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join