Did we blow up Port Chicago with a nuke?

The oriiginal thread :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[Edited on 3-12-2003 by mad scientist]

reply to post by Fury


In June of 2008, the US Navy announced plans to bring in 9000 truckloads of dirt to cover up something at Port Chicago (Concord Naval Weapons Station). They also claim that the dirt from elsewhere on the base is contaminated and can't be used.
www.mercurynews.com...
The plan for the site is to sell the land to developers for housing development.

one of the things that back up this story is the mutiny afterwards, none of the black sailors would go back to work once they realised what had been done to their work mates by the white officers, they realised they were considered expendable.

reply to post by dragonrider


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.

I lived in port chicago from 1958 to 1968 . Evryone in my family has been sick with mysterious ilness. My brother died as a toddler in 1956 from no known cause! My mother has never recovered from the loss and blames herself. I BLAME THE NAVY!!! We were also given inoculations at bay point school many times!Th navy has covered up many secrets at bay point. I have pieces of the hull of the ship that landed in my grandmothers bed. David bramblett # 530 885 2014

Originally posted by necro99

THE FILM
The Navy has a film record of the disaster at its Concord Naval Weapons Station. After being challenged, the Navy claimed this was a Hollywood simulation of a miniature explosion. The film shows a typical nuclear explosion, which would have been hard to simulate. According the the Navy, the film was created to support their argument to the US Congress sometime in the 1960s that the remains of the the town of Port Chicago be purchased by the Navy and incorporated into the Concord Naval Weapons Station as a buffer zone in the event of another large explosion.

Significantly, the Navy did not claim the film was a re-creation until after it was suggested that the film could be the record of a nuclear detonation. However, Dan Tikalsky, public affairs chief at Concord, told Peter Vogel, writing for The Black Scholar magazine, that the film was a nitrate-base film, which would require the film to have been produced prior to 1950 when nitrate-base film was replaced with non-explosive cellulose-base film.

Peter Vogel wrote in the Spring 1982 edition of The Black Scholar:

"Based on viewing an edited video copy of that film which was made available to me, I have concluded that the film records, in every detail, the progression of the actual explosion of July 17, 1944 at Port Chicago. For example, early frames of the film suggest a record of the expansion of the Wilson condensation cloud during which the formation of the ball of fire is obscured. Furthermore, the movements exhibited by several large, independent fragments of the explosion over time compared to the speed of the explosion itself are evidence of the very large distances those fragments travelled during the course of the film sequence.

"It is obvious, of course, that only an intentional film record of the blast could have been made since the probability of having, by chance, a motion picture camera rolling and pointed in the right direction at the right time at night is exceedingly remote.

Could anyone care to dig it up?

And did anyone see the video (i'd be glad if anyone has it) of the explosion of a rocket fuel factory in the US?
It looks very much like a nuke.

Here is the explosion of the PEPCON rocket fuel factory in GIF.

Dosen't that look like a nuke?
www.reviewjournal.com...


Another explosion.

www.lrb.co.uk...

Why was the entire post pulled? Shapes of things to come?

Obviously not, because I didn't see anything about it on ATS.

A 6.8 kiloton blast is a 6.8 kiloton blast. That's why they actually go to the trouble to measure these things.

There was NOT 100,000 killed initially in the blast at Okinawa. In fact, there were more killed on Okinawa during the 81 days of fighting there than both atomic bombs killed.

And it doesn't have to be a nuclear bomb to have a mushroom.

Our BLU's used to create LZ's produced quite a mushroom cloud. In Desert Storm, one was detonated, and uninformed in advance, or Brit friends, seeing the mushroom cloud from the detonation thought that the US had resorted to small tactical nukes.

In fact I've seen mushroom clouds from the larger iron bombs dropped by US planes. First hand.

It does us no good to exaggerate things to make a point. If the facts don't bear out the hypothesis, then discard the hypothesis, but for God's sake, don't twist the facts to fit the hypothesis.