8chan/8kun QResearch Posts (1)
#1466631 at 2018-05-19 07:58:05 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #1841: "Cry KEK, and Let Slip the FROGS OF WAR!!!" Edition
>>1466583
(part2) The bomb would not have to be dropped from 30,000 feet, a technology which was not available in the summer of 1944. (The Enola Gay, by Thomas and Witts documents the timetable of the development of high altitude bombing techniques). As far back as 1943, the High Military Policy Committee, the board of directors of the Manhattan Project, had chosen the Japanese fleet concentrations in the harbor at Truk in Micronesia, as the first target for the atomic bomb. Declassified documents from the Manhattan District History, Project Y, from the U.S. Department of Commerce, have been uncovered. The National Technical Information Service, LAMS-2532, Vol. I, December 1961, page 8:13, refers to the "…results of certain underwater tests (performed in 1944)…which had been directed toward achieving the goal of using a nuclear weapon against the Japanese fleet concentration at Truk, in Micronesia." Port Chicago would have been a perfect "blast gauge" for a port-buster type atomic bomb. The height of the fireball, the Wilson condensation ring, and the damage to 14 counties of California, all point to something more insidious than incompetence causing 1.5 kilotons of ammunition to go off all at once. The possibility that the explosion was nuclear but accidentally detonated while being transshipped through Port Chicago on one of the cargo vessels has also been put forward. What classified memos said By David Caul and Susan Todd (Part Two of a Four Part Series) Copyright, Napa Sentinel July 15, 1994 Through the Freedom of Information process, dozens of suspicious letters surrounding the Port Chicago explosion have surfaced. There is yet another letter in the paper trail leading back to a suspected nuclear explosion at Port Chicago. This letter was first made public in the Napa Sentinel magazine in February 1994. James Conant, who was a member of the board of directors of the Manhattan Project referred to a full-scale test of the weapon in a letter to General Groves. In the letter he indicated that the secret test occurred shortly before August 1944. The Port Chicago explosion took place on July 17, 1944. The explosion Conant refers to was a year before the Trinity test, which has officially been documented as the first atomic test. The interesting part of Conant's report is that the results of the first atomic test shortly before August 1944 exactly match the damage report Captain Parsons wrote on Port Chicago. The letter states that dwelling houses were damaged in the test. The letter is dated August 17, 1944, one month after the Port Chicago explosion. It is one of the most heavily sanitized, declassified documents on the subject. It is entitled "Report on Visit to Los Alamos." In the name of national security, 50 years later, the censor left only a few sentences intact: "It is agreed that the Mark II should be put on the shelf for the present. If all other implosion methods fail, it could be taken off the shelf and developed for combat use in three to four months time." Conant's letter continues: "It was agreed that for dwelling houses the area of Class B damage was about as follows for 1000 tons of TNT. 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 Navy, the film was created to support their argument to the US Congress sometime in the 1960s that the remains of 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.
http://www.PeterVogel.us/