It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
#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
Originally posted by Frosty
No, you gave everyone a link to another topic about the Port of Chicago.
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?
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
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.
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.
Originally posted by rogue1
Umm, during the development of the atomic bomb in WWII, Los Alamos was part of the Manhattan Project
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
as posted by rogue1
The Mark II weapon was far different from the U235 and Plutonium therefore the radiation effects would be far different.
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.
This operation exposed exercise personnel to nuclear tests, and thus radiation, more aggressively than previous ones.
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.