US plane in 1961 'nuclear bomb near-miss'

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 

easily not nuked? i understand its not your true belief but how would one covertly set up 15,000 tons of explosives in the middle of hiroshima and nagasaki?..lol..no plane carrys 15,000 tons either




posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
this has been public knowledge for a long time.

several "broken arrow" events led to no (official) recovery of the warhead



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Conventional explosives wouldn't burn shadows into the ground.

www.greatdreams.com...

www.ih2000.net...

www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp...



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Curious question....what caused the plane to break apart in the first place?
I wonder if all of these various crashes are really due to "malfunctions" and what not or if perhaps there was some ufo involvement....



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Yeah, I was going to post this story too. But then I followed the constant urgings of moderators, and did an ATS search first. There are at least two other links on ATS dating back to 2006 about this, so I didn't post it. Those darn mods robbed me of a good story... Sheesh!




posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


The majority of them were either on takeoff, or the result of a midair collision. A few were mechanical problems that developed in flight. I'll type this one up later.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


What would the ratio of planes carrying nukes crashing be to other military or commercial airlines crashes? If the number of "broken arrows" is around 60 as once person claimed then wouldn't that put it at one a year (roughly) since the 50's?
edit on 21-9-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Cobaltic1978
The fact that the bombs dropped has been common knowledge. The fact that one of the bombs was one step away from wiping that part of the world off the face of the Earth, has only just been released.
That's been known for some time, though somewhat inaccurately.

Here's an old wiki that says all but one of 6 safety mechanisms triggered:

en.wikipedia.org...

The latest revelation is the same that only one safety device remained, but that was out of a total of four, not six, and the latest wiki article reflects that change.

en.wikipedia.org...

The OP story even mentions this discrepancy between 4 and 6 total:


In it, he comments on and corrects Lapp's narrative of the accident, including listing that three out of the four fail safe mechanisms failed, not five out of six as originally thought by Lapp.


In either version, only one safety mechanism remained, so that fact has not changed and it's not really a major revelation from that perspective.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 

for instance the plane in 50s that dropped..or not off the coast of b.c. had an iceing problem and couldnt hold altitude, another major incident was due to a midair refueling gone wrong, there have been crashes during takeoff..etc, planes sometimes crash.
im not sure the # of crashes is disproportionate to civillian #s



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by vonclod
 


It is if the planes are carrying nukes...i suppose the point i am trying to get across is how many more of these have to go down before the end result is much worse.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


No, they were almost all in the 50s and 60s. SAC used to fly "Chrome Dome" missions up around the Arctic where the planes were airborne for 24 hours at a time. Up until the late 60s or early 70s airborne alerts were common. That puts a lot of wear and tear on a plane, and leads to accidents.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


They only time they've flown with nuclear weapons since the 70s is the Minot screw up. The alert mission went away a long time ago.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Thorneblood
Curious question....what caused the plane to break apart in the first place?


They were on a 24 hour alert flight over the East Coast, known as "Coverall". When they went to refuel, the tanker noticed a fuel leak from one of the tanks. They went off the coast to burn fuel off, but the leak got worse, and they weren't able to keep the aircraft trimmed, due to all the weight coming off the right wing. They lost control, and bailed out over North Carolina. Five bailed out and survived, one died in the landing, two died on the aircraft. Interestingly the third pilot on board (24 hour missions carried an augmented crew), was the only man known to have gotten out of a B-52 through the top hatch, without a seat under him.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
I read that report yesterday and didn't even bat an eyelid, it was like 'nothing surprises me anymore about the governments of the world'. ''you're in safe hands''....''yeah right!''.
edit on 22-9-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I certainly wouldn't be living in sunny Dunn, NC.
It's hard to imagine even if war didn't break out, what this part of the country would be like.
How are things in Hiroshima these days?



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000


Good Lord! I thought the American quacks and sadists in Uniform were bad about the 40's and 50's testing of atomic technology in every way possible. What you describe isn't quite as barbaric as the Soviet testing ..but not that far off? Wow.

I guess this is why America didn't do similar things. Ours were more the open blast exposure and a real focus (no pun intended) on visual impact and damage done. Crawling through the dirt, known to be irradiated? What was the point? Write them all off as dead men and just record how much they could do before becoming totally ineffective? ....the scary thing is, the mindset that did that is still running things today of course.


We are talking the same british Goverment that tested sarin on servive men at porton down because....well I dunno? Giggles and laughs I guess. Either way its hardly surpriseing.

Source
edit on 22-9-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I must admit, I'm just not familiar with the British end of human testing. It's naive and hopelessly dates me, but I've always had the culturally supported impression that British were polite sorts with some sense of fair play and not getting too downright evil about things. Again, I can see it for the naive sentiment it is...but failing examples to see the opposite? Well.....

That's why this comes as a bit of a surprise. My focus has generally been America based and it's a little surprising at times to see how far other nations went too. I figure your data saved us the trouble of repeating it....just as our data from things like injecting people with radioactive garbage at Oak Ridge in the beginning, saved England from likely having to repeat that horror. What a world, eh?



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


We may be a polite gentle sort but when it comes to our militray and we can be hardcore


I think you basicaly right with the partership. We did so the USA didnt have to and we most likley got something return like human high altitude endurance testing from the USA. It was the UK that sold its Data to the USA on VX gas and from I heard it got some inoffical help on our H-Bomb in return.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   
This incident has been known at least for a while, I thought it would have been reported around when it happened, but maybe it was sometime afterwards. None the less, the only bit of new info is just how close the situation was to a full blown catastrophe.


semperfortis
1958 Tybee Island mid-air collision


Crazy, the US airforce has lost a nuclear missile! I suppose this puts losing the NASA tapes into perspective. Lucky that its unlikely that the bomb actually contained a nuclear capsule.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   

crazyewok
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


We may be a polite gentle sort but when it comes to our militray and we can be hardcore


I think you basicaly right with the partership. We did so the USA didnt have to and we most likley got something return like human high altitude endurance testing from the USA. It was the UK that sold its Data to the USA on VX gas and from I heard it got some inoffical help on our H-Bomb in return.
we bluffed the h-bomb i remember hearing they strapped 2 nukes together and the data showed it to be a h-bomb





top topics
 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum