The Atomic Bomber p.5(5)

Planes That Never Flew.

An account of world-beating aircraft projects that were scrapped before their time. Each aircraft is recreated and shown using computer graphics. Includes archive footage and interviews.

In the grip of a rapidly escalating Cold War America poured billions into developing a giant nuclear powered bomber, a plane so fantastic that it could stay aloft for months at a time. The Convair WS 125 was the ultimate doomsday machine...

Recently declassified Russian Cold War era documents disclose they actually flew a prototype Atomic engined bomber.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Discovery
• Channel

[Sprinterdrift]

right technology. wrong time.

[nocturaix]

thank you! I was looking just for this material! thanks again!

[cheerdiver]

@sushanalone A NASA thermal image showing the blast radius: loc(dot)gov/exhibits/911/image­s/lg-map-therm1.jpg

U know NOTHING about nuclear devices, look at Hiroshima TODAY. A Plutonium device using 2% of it's potential energy. The B-25 bomber that struck the empire st bld FELL TO THE STREET. Radiation was detected, chalked up as "medical equip" by MSM. No one can hear an underground discharge, freq produced is <10Hz. NOT POSSIBLE 4 AN AC TO DISAPPEAR, NO BLACK BOXES WERE FOUND.!.

[sushanalone]

@cheerdiver once that aluminum impact shearing the steel columns was debunked, now you come up with the theory that it requires fission reaction to bring down a superstructure.The smallest nuclear weapon would have blown half of newyork and left radiation enough to be detected on the other side of the country.You seek explanations thats match what you want to believe, thats why you are wrong most of the time.I know you will come up with another goofy theory, to keep me entertained.

[sushanalone]

@cheerdiver i doubt you have any knowledge of structural engineering,civil engg or material properties.It does not require fissile materials to bring down a superstructure,it is made within factors of safety way less than dams or other important structures,which do not need fission to destroy.I think you are pretty unqualified to have this discussion & i wont waste my time arguing with your childish conspiracy theories when you think the impact of the plane's aluminum caused the collapse of WTC.

[cheerdiver]

@sushanalone How niave r u kid? No civil engineer will stand behind the "pancake theory", NONE. These are called super structures for a reason, it took the release of fission energy to bring them down. Find Dimitri Khalezov to understand what happened. This BS "phenomenon" promonted will not conform to the LAWS OF PHYSICS! Understand Newton's third law, if these were solid object the AC would have slowed down on impact. The smoke wasn't even jet black as jet fuel fires are.

[sushanalone]

@cheerdiver i was studying civil engineering and we had an entire 1 hour lecture by some of the more experienced and qualified engineers explaining this phenomenon , along with the other possibilities for the failure of columns.Its the best solution available, though there might be certain factors we will never know.But truth wont be very different from this.

[sushanalone]

@cheerdiver the aluminum didnt shear the colums .The building stood for a while as the aeroplane fuel burned and reached temperatures where the concrete protecting the beams cracked and fell off, exposing the steel to high temperatures.At high temperatures steel exponentially loses its bearing capacity and tensile strength causing it to buckle and fall.The floors arent designed to take impact of 10 stories above falling simultaneously, causing the pancake stack effect .

[cheerdiver]

@sushanalone More like US propaganda, ppl here still believe commercial airliners hit the towers. That was a war promo from hell. As an engineer, u should understand 4mm of sheet aluminum can not shear 20mm of structural steel box column, esp from the side.

Many more details give away the "magic trix".

[sushanalone]

@puncheex The dangers of such an event were known at that time.So it wasnt a 20-20 hindsight issue, just that fear of the USSR and war propoganda were enough to overwhelm common sense in the land of the "brave" as it is today.

[puncheex]

@sushanalone: Yes, it is, in 20-20 hindsight.

[puncheex]

@rudejoni: There's a vast difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb. Though, if it had worked, the cold war would have been a whole lot tenser than it was.