It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Did a nuclear blast devastate Port Chicago on July 17, 1944?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:10 PM
a reply to: rickymouse

The story said it was a 3 mile wide mushroom cloud. That is a huge explosion and windows 20 miles away were blown out.

If this was an atomic test, there would be no mention of radiation. Remember this was basically the time they were doing the syphilis tests on unsuspecting people. Civil rights were not even secondary, they were hell bent for info. And at the time it may have made some sense.

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:17 PM
a reply to: seasonal

Erh ... you forget to mention the 9 million pounds of explosives and 250.000 gallons of fuel that was stored there.

It is sort of relevant..

edit on 26-2-2017 by DupontDeux because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:23 PM
a reply to: DupontDeux

Yep, it is very relevant. The story said that munition rained down a mile away causing additional injuries.

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:30 PM
a reply to: seasonal

oh FFS - not this crap again


there was a conspriacy though - try making a thread about that

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:35 PM
a reply to: seasonal

Back then they were creating some kick ass explosive technology too. Like big percussion bomb technology incorporating magnesium particles igniting the air. They have perfected those technologies now quite a bit.

There was quite a bit of explosives on one of those ships. Here is an article about it.

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 01:18 PM
go down there with a gigercounter if there was a nuk there even now it would be clicking like crazy .
heck it would be clicking 5000 years from now .
I will add this even though i can give no links and have no way to prove anything .
back in the 1970ds they used trucks to move nuks around the country .
So if attacked alest some couldn't just be destroyed anyway one did go off in Wyoming in teh middile of now ware on a interstate hw
BUT that nuk HAD NO CORE .so bacisly it was just one heck of a regular bang that took out a couple miles of hw
of corse they covered that up every way they could lol .
edit on 26-2-2017 by midnightstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 01:24 PM
a reply to: midnightstar

That may be a good point too. Does Japan still have issues? I know they dropped them well above ground so the radioactivity was different.

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 05:29 PM
a reply to: seasonal

The damage that standard munitions if there is enough tonnage of them is quite massive, in fact remember that A bomb's are rated by how many ton's of TNT they are equivalent too.

So this was probably exactly as it was explained, a standard munition ship accident.

Here is one that if it goes off will be like a small atom bomb, this sunk during WW2 and was deemed far too dangerous to salvage so it was left but they monitor it carefully even today and indeed it is just as dangerous today as it was then.

You may find this thread interesting though, not related to this incident but how close did the NAZI's get to having an A bomb before the Allies?.

edit on 26-2-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 05:33 PM
I thought this blast was an ammunition ship?

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 09:43 PM
I cant imagine that a Nuke went off at a harbour on the US mainland, no radiation, its all just to out there

On a side note, great thread, great conspiracy, everything I come to ats for

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:34 AM
Sorry but i have been to the site of the port Chicago blast and there is no Trinitite,

With a ground level nuclear blast you would have found Trinitite.

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:49 AM
You can get a mushroom cloud formation from a lot of different sources. It's not indicative of a nuclear weapon. Technically it's a Rayleigh-Taylor instability.

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:41 AM
a reply to: seasonal

When nuclear weapons are designed and tested, their tonnage, their power rating, is established. It is measured in kilotonnes or megatonnes depending on its power range. This measurement, as you likely know, is a measure of how many tonnes of mundane munitions, TNT to be precise, would be required to produce the same explosive power, as the nuclear weapon concerned.

There is a reason for this. Previous to the advent of nuclear weapons development, the largest man made explosions were created with TNT in the main. Storage of this explosive was fraught with danger, especially storage of the stuff in large quantities. In Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 1917, an ammunition ship exploded, causing one thousand, eight hundred deaths, nine thousand injuries, and totally ruined an eight square mile portion of the city, with twelve thousand buildings destroyed. The blast scattered debris as far as four miles away.

It is for this reason that military personnel used "Halifaxes" as an unofficial measure of explosive power after the event, such an enormous calamity etching itself into common parlance with understandable ease. The Hiroshima bomb, for example, would have been rated at "seven Halifaxes" in strength. The explosion at Halifax, would have been rated as a 2.9KT explosion in the post nuclear age, because it was a detonation of two thousand, nine hundred tonnes of TNT.

It is not at all unfeasible therefore, that the Port Chicago explosion was a result of poor storage protocols and accidental detonation of a large quantity of mundane explosives, rather than as a result of a clandestine nuclear test on civilian occupied territory.
edit on 27-2-2017 by TrueBrit because: grammatical error corrected.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in