Port Chicago... accidental nuclear blast?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

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


No, you gave everyone a link to another topic about the Port of Chicago.



#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


And guess where the Super was first theorized, when and by whom? Los Alamos circa 1944 by Edward Teller who lost a theoritical postion to Hans Bethe. Even so, why did you refute what I said about the Super initial if you are now stating this.

Now attempt to disprove the evidence surrounding the lack of a proper implosion design and device circa July 1944 and why they would not attempt to build more successful bombs?




posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty


No, you gave everyone a link to another topic about the Port of Chicago.


Sigh...Yes and I said in that thread most of the questions people were asking like yourself had been answered. Simple as that.




Now attempt to disprove the evidence surrounding the lack of a proper implosion design and device circa July 1944 and why they would not attempt to build more successful bombs?


Read the links I provided in the last post, do you understand english. I feel like I'm talking to a deaf person
. Read the links to the pdf's I provided in my last post, as I said, therein lie your answers. I'm not going to sit here and write out page after page because you are too lazy too look at them



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Frosty


No, you gave everyone a link to another topic about the Port of Chicago.


Sigh...Yes and I said in that thread most of the questions people were asking like yourself had been answered. Simple as that.




Now attempt to disprove the evidence surrounding the lack of a proper implosion design and device circa July 1944 and why they would not attempt to build more successful bombs?


Read the links I provided in the last post, do you understand english. I feel like I'm talking to a deaf person
. Read the links to the pdf's I provided in my last post, as I said, therein lie your answers. I'm not going to sit here and write out page after page because you are too lazy too look at them


Skimming through the pdf's which are like 30 pages long, which I do not have time to read, I found nothing on developed implosion devices. It would be best if you pinpointed them out. I can't find any information on implosion from the other thread either.

You seem to predecate the notion of an atomic blast simply on the fact that Oak Ridge had uranium sufficient to create a bomb, but there were no implosion devices suitable at the time to complete the rest of the bomb. The uranium for Little Boy was ready in advance of April 1945 when implosion was given the go ahead.

Scientist at Los Alamos would surley have recognized that a bomb they built had been detonated. Many were very adament about not using the bomb, including Leo Szilard. They would have recognized this immediatly. Trinity was the first atomic bomb test...ever.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Skimming through the pdf's which are like 30 pages long, which I do not have time to read, I found nothing on developed implosion devices. It would be best if you pinpointed them out. I can't find any information on implosion from the other thread either.


You want to know about it you read it. I'm not ging to paraphrase it for you. You don;t seem to be able to skim very well, because the basic workings of the Mark II device are there in black and white. They also tested 2 of the same devices in 1953 during the Upshot-Knothole test series.

1939 - J. Robert Oppenheimer (5 February) first proposed theuranium deuterium nuclear fission bomb concept subsequentlydeveloped as the Mark II.

1942 - Edward Teller first proposed use of the B10 isotope to achieve an autocatalytic assembly of the uranium deuterium nuclear fission bomb concept proposed by Oppenheimer.

4 July 1943 -Seth Neddermeyer, with Captain William S.Parsons, USN present, conducted the first experimental implosion of a cylinder at Los Alamos, which would be developed as the autocatalytic uranium hydride lateral implosion design of the Mark II.

21 August 1943 - In report to Vice President Wallace, Secretary of War Stimson and Chief of Staff General Marshall the Atomic Bomb Military Policy Committee accurately forecast the fair chance that the first atomic bomb, the (uranium) hydride bomb, would be available in the fall of 1944.

1944—4 July: James Conant informed General Groves, Atomic Bomb Military Policy Committee, and the Top Policy Committee by the memorandum, “Findings of Trip to L. A. [Los Alamos] July 4, 1944,” that the Mark II was certain enough to be used by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the purposes of operational planning, but the Mark II would necessarily be proof fired once before the design could be ready for use against the enemy.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Frosty

Skimming through the pdf's which are like 30 pages long, which I do not have time to read, I found nothing on developed implosion devices. It would be best if you pinpointed them out. I can't find any information on implosion from the other thread either.


You want to know about it you read it. I'm not ging to paraphrase it for you. You don;t seem to be able to skim very well, because the basic workings of the Mark II device are there in black and white. They also tested 2 of the same devices in 1953 during the Upshot-Knothole test series.

1939 - J. Robert Oppenheimer (5 February) first proposed theuranium deuterium nuclear fission bomb concept subsequentlydeveloped as the Mark II.

1942 - Edward Teller first proposed use of the B10 isotope to achieve an autocatalytic assembly of the uranium deuterium nuclear fission bomb concept proposed by Oppenheimer.

4 July 1943 -Seth Neddermeyer, with Captain William S.Parsons, USN present, conducted the first experimental implosion of a cylinder at Los Alamos, which would be developed as the autocatalytic uranium hydride lateral implosion design of the Mark II.

21 August 1943 - In report to Vice President Wallace, Secretary of War Stimson and Chief of Staff General Marshall the Atomic Bomb Military Policy Committee accurately forecast the fair chance that the first atomic bomb, the (uranium) hydride bomb, would be available in the fall of 1944.

1944—4 July: James Conant informed General Groves, Atomic Bomb Military Policy Committee, and the Top Policy Committee by the memorandum, “Findings of Trip to L. A. [Los Alamos] July 4, 1944,” that the Mark II was certain enough to be used by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the purposes of operational planning, but the Mark II would necessarily be proof fired once before the design could be ready for use against the enemy.



Please, these are all theoritical facts. I am looking for experimental facts. We know that Szilard developed the theory of nuclear fission before Chadwick discovered the neutron. But so what? That does not mean that there were possible manmade nuclear explosion in the 1930's

You still have yet to explain why a nuclear device was in Chicago of all places, why there are no signs of radiation fallout from a nuclear device, why there are no signs of vaporization and why the Los Alamos scientist were so completly unaware that a bomb they had built had been tested. Many of the scientist did not want to use the bomb because it would reveal too much.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Umm, during the development of the atomic bomb in WWII, Los Alamos was part of the Manhattan Project


And England is in the UK, but that doesn't make the people north of Hadrian's Wall English.

The simple proof required can be found in leuikemia cases. How many has Chicago had since 1943? How many when campared with the years prior to 1943? How many over and above the US average for a metropolis? How many as a percentage of teh nation's total? How many over and above the next largest percentage of the nation's total in a nearly equivalent sized city?



How many has Hiroshima had? How many has Nagasaki had?

Just look at the health problems villagers in the Balkans are having now from DU rounds having been used used.

That's before you even go to the Ukraine and examine Chernobyl.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
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

And I can produce hundreds of links detailing how 9-11 was a conspiracy and the jews all left the day off, but that doesn't make it true or reliable information. Repeat: the critical mass of uranium is around 15 kg for 100% uranium 235 and with a beryllium reflector of 4 cm, for 30% or so enriched uranium this would be much, much more.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Just to nitpick a little here guys, it's PORT Chicago, not Chicago. Port Chicago is in California at Seal Beach.


"At 10:18 p.m., a hollow ring and the sound of splintering wood erupted from the pier, followed by an explosion that ripped apart the night sky. Witnesses said that a brilliant white flash shot into the air, accompanied by a loud, sharp report. A column of smoke billowed from the pier, and fire glowed orange and yellow. Flashing like fireworks, smaller explosions went off in the cloud as it rose. Within six seconds, a deeper explosion erupted as the contents of the E.A. Bryan detonated in one massive explosion. The seismic shock wave was felt as far away as Boulder City, Nevada. The E.A. Bryan and the structures around the pier were completely disintegrated. A pillar of fire and smoke stretched over two miles into the sky above Port Chicago. The largest remaining pieces of the 7,200-ton ship were the size of a suitcase. A plane flying at 9,000 feet reported seeing chunks of white hot metal "as big as a house" flying past. The shattered Quinault Victory was spun into the air. Witnesses reported seeing a 200-foot column on which rode the bow of the ship, its mast still attached. Its remains crashed back into the bay 500 feet away.

All 320 men on duty that night were killed instantly. The blast smashed buildings and rail cars near the pier and damaged every building in Port Chicago. People on the base and in town were sent flying or were sprayed with splinters of glass and other debris. The air filled with the sharp cracks and dull thuds of smouldering metal and unexploded shells as they showered back to earth as far as two miles away. The blast caused damage 48 miles across the Bay in San Francisco."
www.history.navy.mil...

Now you're gonna tell me that it's going to cause that much damage to the town around the port, and throw debris 9,000 feet into the air, and leave NONE of the telltale signs of a nuclear blast.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
"At 10:18 p.m., a hollow ring and the sound of splintering wood erupted from the pier, followed by an explosion that ripped apart the night sky. Witnesses said that a brilliant white flash shot into the air, accompanied by a loud, sharp report.


High Explosive doesn't detonate with a white flash
A white flash is akin to a nuclear detonation.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Then where are the REST of the effects of a nuclear blast? There should be radiation, there should have been mutations, there should have been a lot of sick people. Where were all those?



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by rogue1
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

And I can produce hundreds of links detailing how 9-11 was a conspiracy and the jews all left the day off, but that doesn't make it true or reliable information. Repeat: the critical mass of uranium is around 15 kg for 100% uranium 235 and with a beryllium reflector of 4 cm, for 30% or so enriched uranium this would be much, much more.


OK well then I guess the reports and history of Los Alamos is BS according to you. What a weak argument. You obvioulsy didn't read any of the information - what an ignoramus.

LOL and you know very little about critical masses and design of nuclear weapons.

Well pointless arguing with an idiot



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Then where are the REST of the effects of a nuclear blast? There should be radiation, there should have been mutations, there should have been a lot of sick people. Where were all those?


I though you were pretending to be stupid, but now I have my doubts. You really don't know what you're talking about. You don't even bother to read any of the links I posted. You ask the same friggin questions, I respond with the inforamtion ( which you don't read ) and then ask the same questions again. If that isn't a sign of stupidity I don't know what is.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Because the CRAP you are spewing doesn't make any sense. Nuclear bombs have radioactive effects, you pointed that out yourself, with the higher cancer rates in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Where is that in Port Chicago? I've BEEN to Seal Beach, and I haven't heard ANYTHING about higher cancer rates, or higher illness rates there than anywhere ELSE in the country. Now if there was a nuclear blast there you should have higher rates of cancer, AS YOU YOURSELF SAID. You don't get it both ways. If there is higher cancer rates from the bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then there should be higher cancer rates from a device set off in Seal Beach, and THERE ISN'T.

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Because the CRAP you are spewing doesn't make any sense. Nuclear bombs have radioactive effects, you pointed that out yourself, with the higher cancer rates in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Where is that in Port Chicago?


Are you a moron ? The weapons used on Japan were of a completely different type and were far more powerful than the Mark II weapon. If you had read the links I had posted you'd realise why there isn't any radiation. DO YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ THEM ?


Now if there was a nuclear blast there you should have higher rates of cancer, AS YOU YOURSELF SAID. You don't get it both ways. If there is higher cancer rates from the bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then there should be higher cancer rates from a device set off in Seal Beach, and THERE ISN'T.


As above moron, READ FFS. It may be hard for you as there are no pictures but try. You may learn something instead of asking the same inane questions which I have already answered.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   
ROGUE :

your " explainations " and " answers " unfortunatly come across as increasingly desperate hand waving to refit the evidence to your entrenched conclusion that port chicago HAD to be a nuclear weapon

one example is :

your claim that the " white flash " was a unique signiture of an atomic munition thats strange because MANY chemical detonations produce a white flash , you seem determined to ignore this fact

later you claim that " there was no radiation " because the weapon was " smaller " and a " different type " and further " shielded " by the combination of the hull . water and the pier

ionizing radiation does not simply " dissapear " in such a convenient manner , nor does the EMP effect or the massive thermal energy release - all of which are VERY noticably absent in the aftermath of port chicago

thats just sticking to the evidence of the event , the " reasoning " for why the US authorities would conduct such a test at port chicago are even siller

alternatly if it was an " accident " , where was the bomb bound for - etc the US had no credible plan to use an atomic weapon at the time of port chicago - no delivery system , not target - if it was a atomic weapon in transit where was the security / back up / technical tail that followed fat man and little boy , etc etc etc

stop reading kookgasm sites and start with the evidence , it analysed rationaly - it quicklty becomes obvious that there was no atomic weapon at port chicago - and all forensic evidence / witness testimony etc bears this out

as does any attempt to analyse the logic of why the us ould do something so silly

only the WOO2 mix of innuendo , lies and misrepresentation which ommits any evidence that runs contrary to thier pre cast " conclusions " of US wrong doing can reach the conclusion that " port chicago was an atomic blast "

YRS - APE



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
ROGUE :

your " explainations " and " answers " unfortunatly come across as increasingly desperate hand waving to refit the evidence to your entrenched conclusion that port chicago HAD to be a nuclear weapon


Nah, just annoyed that nobody reads any of the pdf's which give comprehensive answers to the questions that hvae been asked. They don;t bother reading them and ask the same questions again. Obviously some bright people LOL.




your claim that the " white flash " was a unique signiture of an atomic munition thats strange because MANY chemical detonations produce a white flash , you seem determined to ignore this fact


LMAO, HE and smokelss powder does not detonate with a white flash. What else was loaded onto the ship which caused a white flash ? Nothing duh.



later you claim that " there was no radiation " because the weapon was " smaller " and a " different type " and further " shielded " by the combination of the hull . water and the pier


I never claimed there was no radiation. READ the pdf's.



ionizing radiation does not simply " dissapear " in such a convenient manner , nor does the EMP effect or the massive thermal energy release - all of which are VERY noticably absent in the aftermath of port chicago


DUH, EMP wouldn't have been noticed at all, There was no transistor tehnology everything was vacuum tube based.


alternatly if it was an " accident " , where was the bomb bound for - etc the US had no credible plan to use an atomic weapon at the time of port chicago - no delivery system , not target - if it was a atomic weapon in transit where was the security / back up / technical tail that followed fat man and little boy , etc etc etc


READ THE PDF's - FFS



stop reading kookgasm sites and start with the evidence , it analysed rationaly - it quicklty becomes obvious that there was no atomic weapon at port chicago - and all forensic evidence / witness testimony etc bears this out


Analysed by you ? It seems you are incapable of analysing this. You don;t even bother to READ the links.

Ignorant Ape - seems by your screen name you know yourself very well.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   
QUOTE : “LMAO, HE and smokelss powder does not detonate with a white flash. What else was loaded onto the ship which caused a white flash ? Nothing duh.
HE does give a white flash in many situations – have you actually seen a real HE blast ??????? Lets look at what really happened

Begin quotation : At 10:18 p.m., a hollow ring and the sound of splintering wood erupted from the pier, followed by an explosion that ripped apart the night sky. Witnesses said that a brilliant white flash shot into the air, accompanied by a loud, sharp report. A column of smoke billowed from the pier, and fire glowed orange and yellow. Flashing like fireworks, smaller explosions went off in the cloud as it rose. Within six seconds, a deeper explosion erupted as the contents of the E.A. Bryan detonated in one massive explosion. The seismic shock wave was felt as far away as Boulder City, Nevada. The E.A. Bryan and the structures around the pier were completely disintegrated. A pillar of fire and smoke stretched over two miles into the sky above Port Chicago. The largest remaining pieces of the 7,200-ton ship were the size of a suitcase. A plane flying at 9,000 feet reported seeing chunks of white hot metal "as big as a house" flying past. The shattered Quinault Victory was spun into the air. Witnesses reported seeing a 200-foot column on which rode the bow of the ship, its mast still attached. Its remains crashed back into the bay 500 feet away.
Text taken from : www.history.navy.mil...
QUOTE : “I never claimed there was no radiation. READ the pdf's.
Read your earlier post , you specificly claim “ no radiation”

QUOTE : “DUH, EMP wouldn't have been noticed at all, There was no transistor tehnology everything was vacuum tube based.
ROFLMAO , you really think that is effect on radio communications , tepephiny systems , electrical motors , dynomoes and switch gear , electicity distribution equipment etc would go un noticed ??????
There is FAR more to EMP than its effects on semi conductors , try researching what EMP really is , not the simplified strawman you are using now
Noted that You ignored the issue of thermal energy

QUOTE : “Analysed by you ? It seems you are incapable of analysing this. You don;t even bother to READ the links. “

yes I did – and having found such serious errors of fact and downright dishonesty on every single page , I elect no to take their

QUOTE : “ Ignorant Ape - seems by your screen name you know yourself very well.”

Wow , ad-hom in your first rely , that was easy , its just a screen name – it’s a bonus that it acts as a honey pot for people like you

If you whish to continue , attempt to develop an honest and civilized debating style

YRS – APE



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   
^^^^ Look IGNORANT APE, this is really a secondary thread on Port Chicago, why don't you read the primary one. It is a waste of my time to have to post on both all the time.


QUOTE : “Analysed by you ? It seems you are incapable of analysing this. You don;t even bother to READ the links. “

yes I did – and having found such serious errors of fact and downright dishonesty on every single page

LMAO of course you did, you read what 300 pages in 20 minutes. Ummm yeah right. I notice you don't point out any of these lies. PLease enough of your empty bluster and flat out lying.

And yes you are ignorant, you don't bother reading.

PS. As for EMP, the size of the blast and the type of equipment used back them would have had bugger all effect. Simple as that.

Wait, I never said there wasn't any radiation from the blast. Stop lying, please.




[edit on 30-8-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 08:01 AM
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.


No, as usual, some people continue to assume that some do little research when making informed comments.

Having linked that thread already, which meant that I had viewed it and read your links and such, be aware that neither you nor your sources give explanation for the lack of residual effect or detectable radiation that would undoubtedly have been released, thus being detectable, when that low-yield Mark II device would have gone off.
We are talking uranium here, be it depleted or not, it is all detectable.
As such, how come none of the "little research" you have done or are pulling from has not explained satisfactorily that if such a device would have been used, why it was not detected, in other words, why the device did not leave a residual effect that normally accompanies such device, be they low-yield or high-yield?

All you respond to when people ask you this is to read the .pdf's. Enlighten those who may have chosen to not read those .pdf's or can not, as to the explanation for why residual effect or raditation was not detected, rogue1. Be a nice little researcher and give explantion for such, instead of continuing to blow them off by saying "read the .pdf," or "did you read the .pdf?"
Do you care to explains such now? Oh wait, you explained such here:

as posted by rogue1
The Mark II weapon was far different from the U235 and Plutonium therefore the radiation effects would be far different.

Port Chicago - America's First Atomic Test
Highly doubtful and quite dubious on your part, rogue1, but please, by all means provide the sourcing to back your assertion as cited/quoted above, k, cause I think that just maybe, you will find that you are in error. Detection would have been measurable, as well as being detectable, despite how your trying to spin this. But don't mind me, please, source your assertion above.

as for the further explanation that you give here:


There were 2 tests conducted in 1953 within the Upshot-Knothole series. They used the same design as the Mark II weapon detonated at Port Chicago.

Port Chicago - America's First Atomic Test
That is a baldface decieving mistake or lie, as you have so accused another member of supposedly doing in your above post [the one above this one] on your part. Again, provide the source documentation that such a device was in the Port of Chicago on a ship or on the docks surrounding where the the explosion took place. If you had bothered to carefully read the link that you had linked when making such a ludicrous assertion you would not have missed this mention contained within it:


This operation exposed exercise personnel to nuclear tests, and thus radiation, more aggressively than previous ones.

Operation Upshot-Knothole
Again, rogue1, please give adequate and satisfactory explantion as to why radiation was not detected after the Port Chicago explosion?

Perhaps, it is you that needs to deny ignorance, as you have been telling others to do such?
Interesting, no?





seekerof

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Because the CRAP you are spewing doesn't make any sense. Nuclear bombs have radioactive effects, you pointed that out yourself, with the higher cancer rates in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Where is that in Port Chicago?


Are you a moron ? The weapons used on Japan were of a completely different type and were far more powerful than the Mark II weapon. If you had read the links I had posted you'd realise why there isn't any radiation. DO YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ THEM ?


Now if there was a nuclear blast there you should have higher rates of cancer, AS YOU YOURSELF SAID. You don't get it both ways. If there is higher cancer rates from the bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then there should be higher cancer rates from a device set off in Seal Beach, and THERE ISN'T.


As above moron, READ FFS. It may be hard for you as there are no pictures but try. You may learn something instead of asking the same inane questions which I have already answered.


rogue1, Mark II is a nuclear device! The only difference in this design from Little Boy or Fat Man is that this is a hydride bomb. You seem to not know what this means, it simply means that the design of the bomb was to use heavy water (deuterium as stated before) rather than cadium and graphite as a neutron moderator.

It's alright, you can admit mistakes, no one is going to demonize you, but if you go any further in calling people morons, I will have to put on my thinking cap and attempt to destroy you.





new topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join