Subject: Re: Atomic bomb explosion in Port Chicago, California Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 01:5
From: email@example.com (Jeff Stephan)
Subject: Re: Atomic bomb explosion in Port Chicago, California
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 01:59:08 GMT
In article <1994Jan18.204031.6814@guvax>, firstname.lastname@example.org
> In article , email@example.com (Michael J. Holden) writes:
> > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Joel Furr) writes:
> >>In article ,
> >>Michael Robinson x6844 wrote:
> >>>What about the atomic bomb that exploded at Port Chicago,
THAT WAS NO ATOMIC BOMB EXPLOSION!
In 194?, 342 mostly black sailors died when 2 ammo ships, one fully loaded
and the other almost full, vaporized in an explosion at pier 1. From pier
2, you can still see the timbers sticking out of the water where pier 1
used to be. It was found that a 250 lb bomb was lobbed into the middle of
Concord, about 10 miles from the explosion. The shells and bombs contained
dynamite and TNT as the explosive changes. Both of these require careful
handling. We were in the middle of a war and Port Chicago was a secure
area for munition loading and care was just not taken because of the need
to re-arm the Pacific theater. The obvious racism aside (people have
attempted to show that the Navy held little regard for these sailors.
After working at Port Chicago for 4 years, I believe that to be true), they
were just working too fast and too long. The explosion was an accident
caused by the mishandling of dangerous materials. The explosives that we
used during the Vietnam War were (still are???) minole (sp) and tritinol
which were reported to be between 10 and 20 times more powerful than TNT
and infinately more stable (remember the explosion in '67?). I dropped a
crate of 6 500 lb bombs from the top of the hatch to bottom of the hold.
None of them even cracked. We were more worried about being run over by a
forklift than the explosives blowing up.
I doubt that anyone pushing the atomic bomb myth will be moved by what I
have just said. So I would like to ask a question. Where were the bombs
destined to be dropped on Japan shipped from? Not Port Chicago. The
Indianapolis shipped from Hawaii. The development of the bomb occurred in
New Mexico. Why would they send the bombs to Port Chicago when Long Beach
was much closer to Hawaii, was much newer, was manned by long shoreman not
sailors? Or another question. Why send them by ship when a plane was more
secure and faster? Even for the military, shipping the bombs to Port
Chicago for transit to Hawaii is dumb. Nuclear weapons were not housed in
Port Chicago until the mid 60's.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank