Talk:LZ 129 Hindenburg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
LZ 129 Hindenburg is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal
Peer review LZ 129 Hindenburg has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This Hydrogen-related article is part of the Hydrogen WikiProject .

We would be very grateful to have your input to our discussions and polls there. Please consider adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Hydrogen to your Watchlist [1] and signing in as a participant there.

--Mion 20:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management.

Contents

[edit] Cost to manufacture

The cost to manufacture is not currently given in 1930s USD or inflation-adjusted USD. Someone knowledgable please add at least one of these to the appropriate section. 74.132.209.231 02:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does hydrogen really burn invisibly?

Maybe it's true that pure hydrogen burns invisibly and its flames shine in UV, but consider the fact that there are some quite abundant substances, that even in trace quantities can change the colour of flame. E.g. sodium changes the light to yellow. To observe this, you may simply lit the kitchen gas burner (which normally burns in blue) and spray it gently with salted water (try not to extinguish the fire - don't use too much water); for a while the flames turn yellow.

The effect is even more spectacular if you use spirit burner; ethanol burns almost invisibly, but in presence of sodium the flame is well visible yellow.

There are many other substances which affect a color of a flame; e.g. copper makes it green and strontium makes it red. This phenomenon has found an obvious application in colourful fireworks.

I guess similar effect could make Hindenburg's hydrogen burn visibly, as the hydrogen was surely impure.

--Grzes 00:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It'd be whatever colour comes off the garlic atom =)
But there was a lot of other crud burning at the same time—and we should remember film tends to be a bit more sensitive in the UV than our eyes. I've never seen any point in this branch of the arguments. Kwantus 18:37, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

WTF does "combustible but nonflammable" mean? Kwantus 18:37, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Perhaps written by someone used to the term "inflammable" rather than "flammable?" "Combustible" and "flammable" aren't exactly the same, though I do think this terminology is rather awkward and should probably be changed. —chris.lawson (talk) 05:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I guess it means that the oxidization process takes place, or it explodes, but it doesn't cause fire. 65.29.167.251 02:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Non-technical, but still useful definitions:
  • Flammable: Can be set on fire at normal room temperature and pressure, ie a spark can set it off. Think of a pool of gasoline.
  • Combustible: Cannot be set on fire at normal room temperature and pressure. Will catch on fire/explode due to a spark only if the pressure/temperature have been changed.
I'm not sure exactly what's meant by that phrase, but my best guess is "can explode but won't catch on fire." Ladlergo 21:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
From what I have read I think it's the other way around, flammable but non-combustable, meaning that it has a high combustion temperature so it is more likely to just burn instead of exploding. --Jaycorrales 22:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess combustible means it CAN burn, whereas flammable means it WILL burn. Think of the difference between a wood table and a pool of petrol. Putting a lit match on a wood table might cause scorching but isn't likely to cause it to burst into flames - unlike with the pool of petrol. --80.41.52.63 12:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

An event mentioned in this article is a May 6 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

"completed a record double-crossing in five days, 19 hours, 51 minutes in July."

A double crossing of what? Deane

Other text in the article clearly suggests the Atlantic, though I'll leave the page edit to someone who can actually confirm this. ,,,Trainspotter,,, 13:14, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

New Herbert Morrison article added. Ortolan88

In German, the word zeppelin is male, but the ships' names are usually female, so in a sentence mentioning "die Hindenburg" the reference would be "she".

Pluslucis

Actually, in German, airships are male while ocean ships are female. This is a legacy of the extremely close linkage between the old Count and his creation. I'm guessing that in German it would be "der Hindenberg".

Blimpguy 17:12, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, I speak German and I learned about the disaster in German and I *never* heard or read something different from "die Hindenburg". While it is still possible that something else is more correct, it is simply not used among ordinary people now (e.g. in schoolbooks).

Pluslucis

Fascinating. It appears that the "he" has become "she" over the decades.

There has been much written about the gender of airships 100 years ago. For instance, in "Zeppelin! - Germany and the Airship, 1900-1939" by Guillaume de Syon, (published 2002, ISBN 0-8018-6734-7,) the author talks about how crowds spotting an early airship always yelled "Here he comes." with it never being quite clear if "he" was the ship or the Count himself.

In addition, there was much comment in the press about the fact that when the Zeppelin built war reparations airship was re-christened "Los Angeles" it underwent a sex change from "he" (German) to "she" (English).

But clearly the usage has changed over time. Perhaps some footnote-style mention should be made in the article of the sex change in order to avoid continuous rehashing this issue in the future.

Blimpguy 16:51, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

One last word to the 'sex change'. People now would say or write "der Zeppelin" (the zeppelin, male), "das Luftschiff" (the 'airship', neutrum), but "die Hindenburg" (the Hindenburg, female), 'she' would be used if the pronoun referred to 'die Hindenburg' and 'it' would be used if it referred to 'das Luftschiff'. So a crowd of people waiting for a Zeppelin would still say "Here he comes.", but the way it's used in the article, I would most likely expect an 'it', but this is more a matter of English language. If you want to keep it mostly as it is, I propose to change 'airship' to 'zeppelin'.

Pluslucis 11:50, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree this article is in English and therefore should refer to the ship as she or it. I'm leaning towards it. Gbleem 05:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I saw a documentary on this, can't recall if it was on Discovery or History Channel. Someone had found old letters from people within the Zeppelin company warning of the high flammability of the paint and he'd also obtained a piece of a chunk of the covering that survived the fire. The documentary showed a piece of the original covering being set on fire and burning almost like flash paper.

The big deal is that of any hydrogen filled airship that caught fire, only the Hindenburg burned so fast, and only the Hindenburg had paint high in aluminum and iron oxide, along with other flammable chemicals.

It seems highly similar to the Apollo 1 fire where NASA was warned of the flammability of the Velcro and other materials when exposed to a 100% oxygen atmosphere. The people in charge didn't bother to heed the warnings and an electrical spark that wouldn't have been a disaster in a mixed gas atmosphere caused an extremely fast fire that caused many materials in the capsule to flash into combustion.

Take a look at the papers linked in the article that refute the "flammable fabric" theory and you will see that the points you cite are distinctly open to question. In fact, I think it is fair to say that most people who have studied the issue first hand (i.e. not basing their information on other people's work) generally reject the "flammable fabric" theory. Blimpguy 17:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Admittedly, I'm no expert, but I don't think the flammability of the fabric is the issue, it's the flammability of the doping. Recall, WW1 aircraft were covered in fabric doped with laquer for stiffness & they burned rather merrily. As I understand it, Hindenberg's skin was doped with a hi-Al mix to increase reflectivity for appearances' sake, which led to increased flammability. (The mix has been compared to SRB fuel.) Obviously, it's N a settled Q (& it seems I saw the same TV doc...tho, as I recall, it originated on "Nova".) Trekphiler 01:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Some people call it the the "paint" theory. Others the "fabric" since there was "paint" on lots of places on the ship and it is the doping of the fabric that is at issue. No, it is not really an open question any more. Yes, Bain et al were (for a couple of years) pretty successful at getting producers of documentaries to play up their ideas. However, the idea has now been rejected by every serious person in the field that I know of. And, thank goodness, the documentary folks are at last rejecting the theory completely. For instance, the most recent National Geograpic documentary that aired in November of 2005 makes a big show of considering and rejecting the fabric/paint theory. There are still some hold-outs, but then there are still some folks who think cigarettes don't cause cancer. If anything, the article gives the Bain theory more play than it deserves. Read the rejection paper for lots more details. Blimpguy 14:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What caused the explosion?

I feel that the last paragraph on the cause of the explosion a bit too 'fuzzy'. It seems to be made up of several explanations rolled together into one theory. On top of that, there is a reference made to helium without many qualifiers. Helium is very inert, but prohibitively expensive to use in a zepplin program, such as the one Germany was running.

The last paragraph perhaps should outline some of the major theories and who supports them.

SME

Please, it's N an explosion, it's a fire. Only media outlets (who don't know any better) call it an explosion. Also, I del "revisionist" as POV. It may N be commonly accepted, but revisionist has gained a perjorative connotation. A third point: I saw a TV doc that suggested the skin was doped with something resembling SRB fuel (see links below), & the Germans had known it was the proximate cause of the fire since their own investigation in 1937... Trekphiler 01:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newsreel copyright

Does anyone know what the copyright status of the newsreel footage and associated stills is? I can provide three higher resolution scans of the disaster but I am not sure whether it is allowed. Geoff/Gsl 06:26, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Apparently a UCLA study done in 1998 "Hydrogen and the Hindenburg" by a former NASA employee confirms that the material used on the skin caused the fire.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:aUmny7CIPqwJ:www.engineer.ucla.edu/releases/blimp.htm+nasa+skin+hindenburg&hl=en http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Hydrogen+and+the+Hindenburg%22

[edit] Spelling

Are we supposed to use British or American spelling? Gbleem 23:08, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually that should be International or American spelling. It doesn't matter which you use but you should try to be consistent within a single article. The tendency is to use American spelling for articles on American subjects but it's not a hard and fast rule. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of death

Does anyone have a good reference for cause of death for the victims? The original article text didn't even have the correct total, and my research shows numbers between 27 and 33 for the number for people who fell by jumping. I've also found reference to death by smoke inhalation but no numbers. --Pascal666 04:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alas, the Wikipedia article forgot one aspect: the mounting bolts for the canvas covering were made of steel, which allowed a static discharge to move through the canvas covering VERY quickly. Because the Hindenberg had flown near a thunderstorm just before the explosion, there was a buildup of static electricity on the entire airship and when it discharged the mounting bolts transmitted the static discharge, causing a large portion of the canvas covering to literally explode on the initial explosion.

That's why on the short-lived airship Graf Zeppelin II (LZ 130), the Zeppelin engineers switched to bronze mounting bolts for the canvas covering, so the static discharge would not be transmitted through the mounting bolts.

By the way, the Zeppelin company actually produced an internal report about the Hindenberg explosion and that report cited issues with the potential flammability of the canvas covering doping compound. Alas, that report was quickly surpressed by the Nazi government for various reasons.


I found this on the Rocky Mountain Institute website titled "The Hindenburg Myth" when speaking of the safety of hydrogen as a fuel source, I cannot personally vouch for the accuracy but thought it might be good to post here --Jaycorrales 22:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Most hydrogen concerns stem from the Hindenburg disaster of 1937. The hydrogen gas that once filled the Hindenburg zeppelin did burn, but it did so quickly, upwardly, and away from the people below. When the airship was docking, an unexpected electrical discharge ignited the airship's canvas (which was unknowingly treated with two major components of rocket fuel!) The clean hydrogen flames swirled above the occupants of the passenger compartment, and all those who rode the airship down to the ground survived. 35 of the 37 casualties perished from jumping to the ground, and most other injuries resulted from diesel burns."

[edit] Video?

Can we get a link to the video somewhere? - Alterego Yeah, the Hindenburg was destroyed on 1937, 68 years ago, i think it doesn't have copyright. --Neo139 07:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily so. Due to the wonderful revisions of patent law by the US congress, only works published prior to 1923 are certain to be in the public domain today. Blimpguy 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] film footage

In the paragraph below, I would change the words "video footage" to "film footage". No video was shot of the disaster because video did not exist at the time. Film was shot of the disaster. It would be appropriate to speak of the footage in the present tense as video footage, but if discribed in the past tense, it should be film footage to reflect the actual process used at the time.


under Causes of Ignition

Another popular theory put forward referred to the video footage taken during the disaster, in which the Hindenburg can be seen taking a rather sharp turn prior to bursting into flames. Some experts speculate that one of the many wire frames supporting the blimp may have snapped and punctured the skin of the dirigible. This would have allowed hydrogen out of the Hindenburg, which could have been ignited by the static discharge mentioned previously. This, however, remains theory, because no concrete evidence has shown that the Hindenburg was punctured, and no eyewitness accounts back up this theory.

[edit] Rate of burn is the clincher for the fabric theory

The Hindenburg fabric burned so fast that it had to rocket fuel. The distance from tail to nose is very long. So rate of burn can be measured in the film reel to exceed the rate of burn for leaked hydrogen. But apparently it matches the rate of burn for this type of rocket fuel. This information should be researched and properly included on the webpage. Also the report of the Graf Zepplin company on its own fabric should be included. The report concluded that the fabric "rocket fuel" doping agent was a significant factor in the destruction of the airship. Although the report was buried, because it was bad for business to suggest that they were that negligent in their design. The report was rediscovered during a documentary on the accident.

[edit] A comment on Slashdot

[2] — Matt 16:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edit: potential difference between ship and ground

Someone has posted this as a recent edit:

The airship's skin was not constructed in a way that allowed its charge to be evenly distributed, and the skin was separated from the aluminium frame by nonconductive ramie cords.A potential difference between the wet zeppelin and the ground was thus created.

I don't buy the cause-effect link this person is trying to establish at all. Simply creating a capacitor does not cause it to be charged; something must act to create the potential difference across the capacitor. In this case, it seems to have been friction with the water droplets in the front mentioned in the next paragraph.

Also, the little outline box around the paragraph talking about the weather is guilty of page-widening. Not sure what the problem is, so I didn't try to fix it (yet). --Chris Lawson 08:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forty hour burn time seems totally bogus

Extrapolating the burn time of a 300 meter long airship from the rate of burning of a 10cm square piece of fabric has no validity and almost certainly yields an incorrect calculation. Consider that wood burns even slower than this varnished fabric does. But if you lit a house on fire, would it take three weeks to burn down? Of course not.

Given this enormous basic flaw, I don't know how much value these articles really have.

A house typically burns faster because the reflected radiant heat "cooks" the materials at a distance to the point of ignition. In general, solids don't have a fast rate of flame propogation, only gases. That's why the "it's the fabric" idea is deeply broken. But, for NPOV, it is given fair play in the article. Blimpguy 13:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

why does the article seem to favor the idea that hydrogen was the problem, and claim that blaming the skin' composition and the frame's structure are just theories put forth by modern revisionists? And wasn't it the company who blamed it on hydrogen, not the government? Instead of having the controversy section, all explanations for the explosion should be placed in the cause of ignition section and fully explain each theory and state who supported it. 24.13.78.4 20:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've heard the comparable complaint that the article is in favor of the flammable fabric theory. I take the balance of such complaints as a sign that we have reasonable NPOV. Blimpguy 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hindenberg documentaries

Any idea how many documentaries have been done on this? One I saw on The History Channel had a bit on the flammable covering. Original internal memos from the Zeppelin company were found, warning of the flammable nature of the fabric and an unburned piece of the covering owned by a descendant of a Hindenberg survivor was tested. It went up like a match when set on fire. I tried looking it up on the History Channel website, but their site search is just horrible, several times when I've known the exact title of a show, couldn't find anything on it.

There have been a lot of different documentaries over the years, each with their own slant. The flammable fabric explanation was in vogue for a few years and was included unquestioningly in some documentaries. More recent documentaries have tended to give it less play as the evidence against it has grown. Blimpguy 10:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The documentary your thinking of is most likely a presentation of "Secrets of the Dead" on public television. The show was called "What Happened to the Hindenburg."

[edit] Graf Zeppelin / Graf Zeppelin II

The 'Successful first year' section refers to Goodyear engineers having made flights 'while the Hindenburg and Graf Zeppelin II were in operation'. They weren't in operation at the same time. The Graf Zeppelin II didn't fly until 14 September 1938, almost a year and a half after the Hindenburg was destroyed at Lakehurst. Surely this sentence should refer to the original Graf Zeppelin, which first flew on 8 July 1928 and which remained in commercial service until it was grounded in the immediate aftermath of the Hindenburg's destruction?

Good point. In fact not only is the paragraph in error it's not particularly relevant to this article. I just remove it. Blimpguy 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] ITS THE PAINT!!

About 2 years ago there was a UK tv programme on the 'disaster'. It seemed to conclusivly prove that it was the exterior paint ignited by static that caused this whole thing. Anyone see that prog or heard of this line of enquiry? -max rspct 13:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the flammable paint theory has been pretty well rejected by serious researchers. Although it was in vogue for a few years. See the papers cited in the article. Blimpguy 16:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images on this page

Were incorrectly tagged as pd-usgov. Since they're not works of the us government, and the site used as a "source" credits them to someone else, I've tagged them as no-license. Matt 20:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionists

The bit about a Zionist conspiracy is in the wrong place, and is unsourced. I've asked the editor who wrote it to provide a source. Assuming that s/he does, I would think to move that to the 'sabotage' section. matt kane's brain 19:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Embargo

The Hindenburg was originally intended to be filled with helium, but a United States military embargo on helium forced the Germans to modify the design of the ship to use highly flammable hydrogen as the lift gas.

This needs a little more explanation; it is confusing. Was there a ban on moving large amounts of helium out of the US, which technically would occur each time the Hindenburg left US airspace? As currently written, it sounds like the US was the main producer of helium, and nobody could get their hands on any helium in Germany, which can't be right. Tempshill 17:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, that's exactly what happened. The US was (continues to be, I think) the world's leading producer of helium, and they wouldn't sell the necessary quantity to the Germans because they thought it would be used for military purposes.--chris.lawson 21:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of ignition: sub-categories

There was a heading for the Static Spark Theory, but no headings on the other theories listed, which looked a bit inconsistent. So I added a couple of headings for the other paragraphs. Alternatively all these subheadings could be removed without much great loss. --duncan 08:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the words "proponents" and "opponents" in the IPT entry, paragraph 4, have been reversed. Can anyone confirm this? If so, I'd like to change the words around. --Sleet01 02:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Title

Shouldn't the title be "The Hindenburg" instead of "Hindenburg disaster"? I mean, it talks about the Hindenburg and the disaster, and the disaster was part of the more general subject of the Hindenburg itself.--67.8.152.103 18:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Actually the title "Hindenburg (airship)" to differentiate it from the German President would be a good choice. I'd also leave a redirect from the current article to a new article with the new name. Blimpguy 19:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Led Zeppelin

"British hard rock group Led Zeppelin's eponymous first album has a picture of the Hindenburg disaster on the front cover. The band's name is a reference to Keith Moon's (of The Who) quotation that the band would "sink like a lead balloon" " This statement in the Cultural References - Audio section contradicts the Led Zeppelin article on two points: 1) It wasn't Keith Moon's quotation, it was John Entwistle's. 2) He wasn't referring to a forming band; he was referring to a gig gone bad.

Which article is correct? Enduser 18:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Their is more than the disaster

This article seems to focus mostly on the disaster, not on the luxurious aspects of the Hindenburg. Their is much more to it than the accident. Look at the titanic article it talks of how it was one of the most luxurious ships. Well this is one of the most luxurious things to fly. I believe we should expand this aspect. TrevorLSciAct 20:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The article was entitled "Hindenburg disaster" until just a few months ago. So expanding the non-accident portions is quite reasonable. Blimpguy 13:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seinfeld revert war

Considering that the article includes a bunch of mentions of Simpsons episodes, Duck Tales, Family Guy, the Waltons, Stephen Colbert, etc., I don't see the addition of a Seinfeld episode doing much harm. Removing all such stuff might be reasonable. Also, note that the episode in question includes more of a reference than the quote - there is also a large sudden fire that destroys a passenger vehicle. However, this is just my unsolicited opinion as someone who has not contributed to this page other than a little vandalism reversion. If longstanding contributors have a different opinion, then by all means please ignore my random intervention. —Wookipedian 15:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I just removed all that junk. Half of those 'references' weren't even about the Hindenburg, but completely different zeppelins! I left a couple where I didn't know enough to determine if they were significant or not. Kundor 02:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Souces, NPOV

I just added two tags to the article. It's very thorough, but there needs to be a lot more in the way of citation. A lot of the language is inflamatory (sorry), and should be rephrased to a more neutral tone. Thesmothete 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please give an example or two of phrasing that you consider inappropriate? Blimpguy 12:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
“a tremendous amount of money for the depression era”
Actually, it appears to be a lower cost than a first-class ticket from Europe to America today.
I'll agree with that, although it doesn't really change the fact that that amount of money, by contemporary standards, was a lot. Maybe using a word other than "tremendous" would fix this.
“The Germans had very advanced scientific and techinical experience with hydrogen,… so this switch from helium did not cause alarm. ….. Such was their confidence in their ability to handle hydrogen that a smoking room was present; it was pressurized to keep hydrogen out.”
From whose perspective do we know that it required “confidence” to put in a smoking room? What is the evidence/citation that the Germans were “very advanced”, as opposed to “slightly advanced” or “fairly advanced” or advanced at all? Compared to whom? The Germans of 10 years previous? The British? The Egyptians?
“He was given a hero's welcome in Frankfurt after defeating Joe Louis.”
What constitutes a hero’s welcome? Why is this fact relevant to the Hindinberg article?
“However, Zeppelins had an impressive safety record; the Graf Zeppelin had flown safely for more than 1.6 million km (1 million miles) including making the first circumnavigation of the globe. The Zeppelin company was very proud of the fact that no passenger had ever been injured on one of their airships.”
Why is this impressive? Is it better than modern aircraft? Contemporary trains? What is the evidence for a company’s “pride”?
It's extremely low compared to the accident/injury rate of contemporary transport aircraft. Heck, it's low compared to the accident rate of airline and commuter operations through the 1970s. (It's on par with the present scheduled airline safety record, which is far and away the safest it's been in history.) I agree that the "pride" bit could be better phrased -- did they emphasize this fact in marketing literature of the period?
“Public faith in airships was shattered by the spectacular movie footage and impassioned live voice recording from the scene. It marked the end of the giant, passenger-carrying rigid airships. …. What the Hindenburg had going for it that the Airlines did not was that one could travel fast in same comfort one could aboard a ship.”
What is the evidence that public faith was “shattered”? Did all interest in zeppelin flight stop? Or did it taper off, as would be more consistent with Pan Am competition? Why should 80 mph be considered “fast” for an atlantic crossing? What evidence is there that the “comfort” aboard a zeppelin is the same as aboard ship?
Well, after the accident, there was a pretty abrupt drop-off in Zeppelin flights, and ISTR reading somewhere that US plans for transport-class dirigibles were essentially shelved as a direct result of the accident. World War II didn't help matters, nor did the introduction of larger, faster, and safer airliners. The point about comparing the Zeppelins to a ship is valid, though. Compared to an ocean liner, 80 MPH was extremely fast. I don't know exact specifications of the rooms aboard the Zeppelins, but they're certainly far more comparable to the rooms on an ocean liner or train than on an aircraft (either contemporary or modern).
“As with many historic events, interpretations of the causes are often coloured by politics and polemics. The cause of the fire of the Hindenburg can now be laid to rest because it is known.”
What is the support for either of these statements?
None. They should go.
“The German Government for insurance reasons and political reasons covered up the real cause.”
What is the support for this statement?
None. It should go. Furthermore, what is the "real cause"? The article itself draws no conclusion (as it shouldn't, IMO) but merely presents the two most widely supported theories as to the Hindenburg's destruction. It's unlikely anyone will ever know the "real" cause of the accident.
“Nonetheless, there remain three major points of contention: …. These problems have been solved as follows.”
For whom are there three points of contention? Modern scholars? History buffs? Insurance examiners? Government investigators? According to whom have they been “solved”? Is there no more controversy or disagreement?
See above. I think this, at the very least, needs to be re-worded.

I'm not suggesting that some (or even all) of these statements (and others like them in the article) might not (Thesmothete 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)) turn out to be true, or supportable, or attributable to someone. Just that as naked assertions, they don't meet encyclopedic standards Thesmothete 14:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm pretty much in agreement with that.--chris.lawson 16:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
First, the controversies section, which was carefully cleaned up some time ago, has been horribly mangled by the proponents of various theories. Its carefully crafted NPOV is unrecognizable. Second, most of the complaints above (e.g. that faith in airships was shattered by the Hindenburg fire) are things gleened from years of study. Can I supply a specific citation, no. But these statement is obvious and entirely noncontroversial amongst people who've studied the history of airships. Likewise the statement that there are 3 main controversies. This is based upon long experience in the field, it is not a "textbook" citation. Wikipedia will be the worse if there is no way for it to include anything except the most superficial and bland collection of statements. Others will need to fix these things. This article has burned me out. I'm going to play elsewhere. Blimpguy 19:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think some of it is merely language usage. For example "shattered" is a very strong statement to make, even if it's a consensus in the field. Something like "greatly reduced" seems more fitting if it's meant to be unassailable. Likewise, simply identifying some context for the three points of contention, as you just did, ought to do the trick, e.g. "The scholarly debate over the Hindenberg focues on three main controversies." or "Conspiracy-theorists who study the Hindenberg have fomented three main controversies." If the language was just a little less sweeping, citations wouldn't be quite as critical. Thesmothete 22:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State of this article

I think this article needs a thorough re-write. There are many passages that seem to have been translated from another language, and not very well; others are just not well-written. I am very far from an expert on this subject, so I have nothing to say about that aspect of the content, just the use of the English language. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Should the title of this article be changed to "Hindenburg (airship)"? I just wonder whether anyone would look it up under the serial number of the airship. Thesmothete 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was the title. Somebody changed it, without discussion I believe. I didn't want to start a revert war. Blimpguy 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mayor Cleanup

I think many sections of this article are very poorly written, especially with style. Plus I have to mention that there may be serious problems with the factual accuracy --FrancescBlandino 15:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindenburg Disaster: Probable Cause color footage??

The show says that there is a color film from a 1936 private collection filmed by Harold G. Dick. However, I looked carefully and at least some of the film is of the LZ 130 Graf Zeppelin II!!!!!!!!! Aww man...... that sucked because that means thet there is no color footage of the Hindenburg before it crashed (unless parts of the footage are of the hindenburg) !!!!

Because of this does it mean the citations(done by me) to film are misleading???? Frankyboy5 06:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klingon Bird of Prey

Something tells me that whatever it was that caused the Hindenburg disaster, it wasn't a Klingon Bird of Prey as postulated in the theories section...

I have reverted that edit; even though the theory reeks of common sense, displays all the rigor of the scientific method one could possibly wish for, and was undoubtedly posted by someone who had nothing but the expansion and dissemination of human knowledge at heart, not to mention a laudable desire to see open-mindedness triumph against all odds, I just couldn't...well, never mind. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Eckner?

Hugo Eckner would not permit the Hindenburg to be named the Adolf Hitler? Can someone tell me who Hugo Eckner is, please? KamuiShirou 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Eckener was in charge of Luftschiffbau Zeppelin when the Hindenburg was built. As the article now makes clear. Eron 16:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the first time I have read that Hitler wanted it named after him. I've read that they were not allowed to name anything in Germany after Hitler. Anything that could be destroyed such as the Zeppelin. I'd like to know which one is correct. PershinBoy 06:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a good question. I don't have access to the references listed in the article, so I can't check that myself. I've added a citation needed tag to that statement.
Do you have a reference for the claim that nothing could be named after Hitler? At least one military unit was (1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler); I don't know if there were other things as well. - Eron 13:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of absence

I have removed this text from the article for obvious reasons: "However, keeping true science in mind, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore, there is no evidence that the Hindenburg wasn't sabotaged."

[edit] Perhaps it WAS the paint.

Did anybody see the Nova thing? It supported the paint, which they identified as akin to rocket fuel. Some guy even did a test on an old piece of the doped cloth that arguably proved it. Nova is pretty widely accepted as an accurate show, and since they're actually qualified to make serious theories (because they're the show that actually uses scientists), I suggest we listen to them. Thoughts?--The4sword 05:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? It's rejected by many serious scientists and should not be trusted. They claim the ship is in trim and that means that there is still hydrogen. Not Likely! The crew members in the tail fin said that the cells were already burning in the stern. Bain claims that one of them saw a fire on the starboard side, but the truth is that crew member, whose is a helmsman named Helmut Lau, only saw a reflection on cell 4. The other witness is a woman whose name is Elizabeth Tobin, who saw a fire behind the rear fin on the starboard side. IPT supporters claim that the hydrogen was "odorised" with garlic, but they have no proof of this and I think it is just to reject hydrogen. Even if it were true, the other smells would mask the odor. Also, the crew members in the stern saw a "flashbulb-like explosion", supporting the sabotage theory. I think the blue flame reported by one witness was not St. Elmo's Fire, but was leaking and burning hydrogen. Either a) the hydrogen would burn other materials such as the girders. But in order for the ship to blow up like that there must be some explosive device. Something was clearly burning inside the ship. It could have been a bomb or a fuel leak. The documentary Hindenburg Disaster: Probable Cause might have misunderstood the crew member's statements, saying the fire began in the keel. Frankyboy5 06:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

First, it was a fire. Not an explosion. Second, there are records of hastily-covered tests in Germany that the third reich performed that backed up the paint. Third, an actual scientist tested an old bit of fabric from the Hindenburg, which acted just as it would have if the paint was the cause. Fourth, colorized footage of the incident shows RED flame, as described from witnesses from the starboard. I challenge you to explain this away. Well?--The4sword 02:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel Lines

Were there really fuel lines in the axial catwalk?? Frankyboy5 06:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/z/_/Talk%7ELZ_129_Hindenburg_bc6f.html"