Port Chicago - America's First Atomic Test

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2003 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Some pictures and descriptions of damage of ammunition ships during World War 2 !!




'THE USS MOUNT HOOD EXPLOSION - November 10, 1944:

On the morning of November 10, 1944 the USS MOUNT HOOD stood at duty in Steeadler Harbor on Manus Island, which is North East of New Guinea in the South Pacific.

The ship was delivering and receiving ammunition for the 200 ships that lay in the harbor at that moment. Sailors were working in all 5 holds at the time. The ship was full of 13,910 tons of ammunition which included bombs, projectiles, fixed ammunition, rockets mortars and depth charges.

Suddenly there appeared a small explosion near the middle of the ship that was quickly followed by an enormous explosion. The radius of the smoke was 1,000 feet and the smoke quickly rose to a heigth of 7,000 feet.

The explosion caused damage to ships as far away as 2,000 yards and at least 30 of the nearby ships were damaged by the blast and flying ammunition. Major ships that were damaged were the USS ARGONNE, USS YMS-340, USS MINDANAO, USS ALHENA AND USS OBERRENDER.

Nothing remained of the ship. It was later determined that the blast tore a hole in the sea bottom 85 feet deep, 1,000 feet long and 200 feet wide.

382 sailors were killed and 371 injured on all effected ships. Needless to say no one survived aboard the USS MOUNT HOOD.
'


Damge to the USS Mindanao from the Mt Hood explosion


MORE AMMO SHIP EXPLSIONS



[Edited on 2-1-2003 by mad scientist]




posted on May, 16 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Just read entire thread, and looked at the website, I'm going to have to go with it was a nuclear blast!

I just don't buy the ammo explosion story.


apc

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Lets see, 35 five miles

DOS Operating System?


Was it a nuke? I dunno... maybe... maybe not. If it was, there is no reason to think it domestically intentional. What would there be to gain? Who would benefit? What could possibly be learned by testing a never before used weapon on our own populated soil? Against our own military? Although the real minds in the field knew how much devastation the Bomb would create, and that it would not expand and engulph the planet, there is simply no logical cause to test the first prototype on a Naval base, with an official desert test just months away.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I don't see any possible way that this could have been a nuclear blast. From John Bull's observations, the post above that displays precedent ammunition explosions, and my clever employment of logical and rational thought in the face of tantalizing clues, I can only conclude that this was a conventional weapons explosion.

Zip



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
there is simply no logical cause to test the first prototype on a Naval base, with an official desert test just months away.



Not just any naval base, but a major amunition shipping point also. A valuable link in the supply chain across the Pacific.

There were numerous survivors within a few hundred yard of the explosion. I've yet to hear of anyone that close to a nke and living to tell about it.

www.bherc.org...



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I've got some issues with that fiction on the web site.


The incredible blast wrecked the naval base and heavily damaged the small town of Port Chicago, located 1.5 miles away.


If we look here: www.stardestroyer.net... , you will see that even something as small as the "Tall Boy" (15 Kilotons or .15 Megatons) would create a thermal radiation radius out to ~ 3.2 miles, an air blast radius out to ~2.3 miles, and a fireball 330 meters.

This means the town of Port Chicago, only 1.5 miles away, would be totally wiped out along with the entire population.

There would be nothing left of anything within a 1 mile radius, yet there are pictures of damaged cars on the pier. These cars would have been vaporized.

Additionally he states:

According to the declassified Oak Ridge documents, 15.5 kilograms of U-235 is needed for a gun-bomb.


Not true in 1944. You see, they hadn't yet learned about 'neutron reflectors'. A U-235 nuclear bomb in 1944 required 110 lbs (50 kgs) of pure Uranium. (source: www.nti.org... )

Also, in reference to the film the Navy made, he states:

The film shows a typical nuclear explosion, which would have been hard to simulate.


This also is not true. The US Army has in it's inventory something called a "nuclear-blast simulator". I was unable to find a valid reference to it, however while search for it I came across a comment by a pyro-technician who stated :

You take a 55-gallon drum and an M-142 and fill the drum with 105 pounds of smoke powder," he says. "The resulting chimney effect looks just like a nuclear bomb. It's better than stuff that would do real damage--it's just the looks. (source: www.metroactive.com...)


One other thing that he stated which is puzzling:


The seismic records show a very rapid detonation not characteristic of conventional explosions but the signature of atomic explosions


How could this have been determined on 17 July 1944 if the very first atomic explosion occured less than 48 hours before? (Trinity test - 16 July 1944 @ 5:29:45 A.M. (Mountain War Time))

Also, a ground burst nuclear detonation will cause a huge amount of debris (mostly sand) to be sucked up into the nuclear cloud and become radioactive. This radioactive debris will continue to fall for some distance beyond the site of the explosion. This was demonstrated several times when the winds changed just after a nucler test in the Nevada test range.

It looks like he's mixing half truths with a lot of fiction.

-Traveler



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
OK folks, I'm not accusing, I just think that you all might be digging a little tooooo deep. Google up Texas City, Texas 1947, and see what you come up with. There was alot of devastation from that blast, also. Here is justy one of many links:

Texas City, Texas 1947

*lathered in fire retardant*



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   
(1) the US would NOT intentionally blow up its own ship, carrying vitally important ammunition, in its own shipyard, during a war!! I mean WTF? People actually took the working for victory thing seriously because it was not at all clear then the US would win.

(2) would it somehow pack the only nuclear weapon ever in existence, made in a project so secret that few even in the military knew about its existence, into an ordinary freighter being loaded by hundreds of ordinary enlisted grunts, most of whom were black?

(3) they barely got enough fissile material in time in mid-late 1945.

(4) now known facts about the capacities and capabilities of the enrichment plants make it impossible for a weapon to be developed in 1944.

(5) the description of the nuclear weapons effects in that document? Note T-7. The "T" means theoretical division. At that time, it meant a whole lot of extremely smart people figuring out things all on their own from the laws of physics.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Well it seems that it could have been a nuke blast, especially considering it was a much lower yield weapon employed using different principles to the subsequent ones.
They refer to a Mark II device which wasn't a true fission weapon.


Study of the many published books of the Manhattan Project historical literature yields no attestation that any quantity of U235 had been separated during 1943. The author's task has been to satisfactorily confute that universally accepted precept of the Manhattan Project historical literature. Information published in this chapter will show that Philip H. Abelson, working at the United States Naval Research Laboratory with the liquid thermal diffusion uranium isotope separation method, did separate the U235 isotope during 1943 in quantity sufficient to permit the detonation of at least one Mark II bomb utilizing 9 kg U235 by 17 July 1944

www.portchicago.org...



The dense mass of the highly compressed cylinder walls and cylinder ends confined the active material for the brief fraction of a second necessary for the initiation of a nuclear fission chain reaction by means of a neutron source placed within the active, and thenceforth propagation of an explosive fission chain reaction.

The high explosive which encased the Mark II cylinder was itself confined by a casing of depleted uranium or lead beneath an outer cylinder of tensile steel, which collectively acted as a tamper. In total the Mark II weighed approximately 1,120 pounds (510 kg). Navy Captain William S. Parsons said the process of imploding a cylinder capable of momentarily containing an evolving fission chain reaction would be "like trying to squash a full can of beer without ejecting any of the beer." The Mark II was that theoretical can of beer. No illustration of the actual construction of the Mark II is available in the declassified literature. The Mark II was essentially a nuclear fission pipe bomb."


www.portchicago.org...

[edit on 8-8-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
An accident nothing more. A bad one but, why would the US destory a major arms depot as a test? And one in close proximity to several major metropolitan areas.

Where are the reports of radiation or cancer clusters in the area? The background radiation at the Trinity site is still the equivilent of 3 chest xrays.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

James Conant's 17 August 1944 report to General Groves that the Mark II could be developed for combat use in 3 or 4 months time was made specifically in consequence of the Port Chicago explosion.


Previous chapters have shown that the fireball and column of flame that did result from the Port Chicago explosion were typical of a nuclear fission explosion and could not have been generated by the explosion of the 1,750 tons TNT and torpex charge weight of munitions emplaced upon the Port Chicago Naval Magazine pier and loaded as cargo aboard the Liberty ship E. A. Bryan, which was moored to the Port Chicago Naval Magazine ship loading pier."

www.portchicago.org...

I think people who summarily dismiss this should at least read the pdf's on the website www.portchicago.org.... Many of the questions people have asked are answered there. It seems that almost everyone who disagrees hasn't even bothered going to this website.

DENY IGNORANCE my friends

[edit on 8-8-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Thanks, Rogue 1 for the perceptive comment.

After 20 years answering the same questions about the Port Chicago explosion, the same questions as those posted over the years in this thread, I did put the answers to all those familiar questions in the book, at www.portchicago.org....

As my editor said a few days ago, "I am always amazed at people who discount things without doing a little reading."

The book on the Web was written primarily for readers sophisticated in science and technology. I've now begun a re-write of the book that will be much simplified, to access a popular readership -- a "page-turner," as requested by Time Warner Books and several other trade publishers

Perhaps the re-write as a page-turner will induce assessments of the historial materials that will be based on informed analysis rather than uninformed opinion.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peter Vogel
The book on the Web was written primarily for readers sophisticated in science and technology. I've now begun a re-write of the book that will be much simplified, to access a popular readership -- a "page-turner," as requested by Time Warner Books and several other trade publishers

Perhaps the re-write as a page-turner will induce assessments of the historial materials that will be based on informed analysis rather than uninformed opinion.


Great to here, that you can bring your information to the layman. I think many people who have posted here either, haven't read the pdf's and if so are incapable of interpretting the information.

As we have both said previously, all the questions they ask are explained, they just don't bother reading anything.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Many black naval personnel complained about how bad and dangerous the conditions were for unloading the ammunition at that port. I don't see how it could have even been a SMALL nuclear blast, and people surivive it from less than 200 yards away from where it occured. I've seen and read many interviews with survivors that were on the dock less than 200 yards away from where the ship was, that were hurt badly, but survived.

As far as the decontamination, what nuclear tests involving ships? This was 1944, less than 24 hours after the first nuclear test. The nuclear tests didn't start involving ships until AFTER the war. Someone should have noticed SOMETHING dealing with the radiation between 44 and the start of the tests involving ships, or there should have been an increase in cancer rates, or SOME evidence of increased radiation.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Many black naval personnel complained about how bad and dangerous the conditions were for unloading the ammunition at that port. I don't see how it could have even been a SMALL nuclear blast, and people surivive it from less than 200 yards away from where it occured. I've seen and read many interviews with survivors that were on the dock less than 200 yards away from where the ship was, that were hurt badly, but survived.


Hmmm, that just doesn't ring true. Even if it was a conventional blast of several hundred tonnes of HE ( thesips had 1750 tonnes ), no one would have survived within 3-400 meters. I have heard of no survivors anywhere near that close. Where did you get your information JAG or something .



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

Originally posted by Zaphod58

As far as the decontamination, what nuclear tests involving ships? This was 1944, less than 24 hours after the first nuclear test. The nuclear tests didn't start involving ships until AFTER the war. Someone should have noticed SOMETHING dealing with the radiation between 44 and the start of the tests involving ships, or there should have been an increase in cancer rates, or SOME evidence of increased radiation.


Well, you have to understand the bomb being used, just read the pdf FFS.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   
I got my information from an interview with a survivor actually. He was in a building 2-300 yards away, and when the building collapsed he was trapped in a pocket.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Study of the many published books of the Manhattan Project historical literature yields no attestation that any quantity of U235 had been separated during 1943. The author's task has been to satisfactorily confute that universally accepted precept of the Manhattan Project historical literature. Information published in this chapter will show that Philip H. Abelson, working at the United States Naval Research Laboratory with the liquid thermal diffusion uranium isotope separation method, did separate the U235 isotope during 1943 in quantity sufficient to permit the detonation of at least one Mark II bomb utilizing 9 kg U235 by 17 July 1944

www.portchicago.org...

That's pretty neat, especially considering that the critical mass of U-235 enriched to 100% (so purely theoretical) and with a beryllium reflector of 4cm is 15 kg. So allow me to doubt the 9 kg figure.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:23 AM
link   
What is to understand about the bomb being used? If you have a nuclear bomb, you have radiation. Period. Radiation has a half life. Period. If you set of a nuclear bomb, you WILL have mutations, and you WILL have health effects, such as higher cancer rates, and radiation sickness. There is NO WAY you would have a nuclear bomb, and NOT have people dying from radiation sickness that were IN THE PORT right near the explosion. If you don't have the radiation, you don't have a nuclear bomb. Period.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Indeed, the whole thing just doesn't make any sense.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join