http://vimeo.com/6382632 An old video.
The Burnelli “lifting body with wings” style transport and passenger planes might have been good. Too bad it’s pretty hard to pressurize compared to tube hulls that were just introduced when Burnelli aircraft were proposed.
I think the report has a problem typical of such short “documentaries”. They assert a lot that is not very well based. A very biased view. Where did they get their experts? Did they quote their most salient points?
There are other open questions left there. For example landing at slower speeds would probably mean more drag in cruise (because of large lifting surfaces). I’m not terribly impressed with the video report. If a lot of their other reporting is of similar quality, it’s no wonder that so many people have so weird opinions on a number of things, if they really believe what is said on TV…
Gravity Loss (now moved to gravityloss.com) 
The opinion by gravityloss looks to be only the opinion of the writer with no technical data to support this opinion. Please read the results of the NACA report of 1939. http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/xbab3.htm Highlighted in this report is this finding: “The coefficient of drag is the ‘lowest known’ for any useful airplane today.” This is not opinion but fact based on findings by (NASA) experts.
Not only did this design already have the lowest drag of any useful design of the day, the NACA experts recommended 3 specific, minor changes in the hatch, a duct and the lower fuselage surface that would decrease its drag even more. These redesigns would take its speed from 376 mph to 440 mph. The fastest fighter plane of the day was the Me 209 with a speed of 470 mph. The Burnelli plane tested was a bomber!
This was true of all Burnelli designs. To the armchair engineer and even some experienced engineers, who’s opinions are mostly based on assumptions and opinions of others, this design screams high drag at high speeds. Yet, every professional test that was done on a Burnelli design showed its superiority “in every phase.” Again, from the 1939 report.
If you wish to base an opinion on fact and not the opinion of others, please read the report. Also, to find out some of the reasons this design stands apart from the tube, the pure wind and even the blended wing design, please read this report: http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Aeronautics/Burnelli.htm .
There are many professionals who agree that Burnelli was absolutely on the right track. Compare Burnelli’s GB-888A, supersonic airliner to the X-43B hypersonic plane in Google, Images. The NASA engineer who wrote the above report used the work “Striking.” Please put asided the conspiracy tone on the Burnelli history, sort out the facts and you will find the reason NASA is now using designs of “striking” similarity. There are designs in the works that may reintroduce affordable, supersonic flight. I’m workin’ on it. You can too.