Talk:Hindenburg disaster

Focus on Engineering Mistakes
I recommend the book Engineering Disasters: Lessons to be Learned by Don Lawson. Its first chapter deals with the Hindenburg disaster from the lens of an engineer reviewing design flaws. There is a wealth of information listed in addition to the many potential causes of the blaze and crash. This data includes technical facts about the zeppelin such as speed, weight, hydrogen and other material capacity, and more. As it also breaks down the post-crash investigation from both American and German sides, it is definitely worth a look for anyone interested in learning more. Socrates90 (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Too much on disaster, moving the parts about it to a separate article is a good idea
I believe that the whole article focuses FAR too much on the disaster. I believe that a separate article for the disaster would be a good move. To me, the article deserves a lower rating for its overfocus on the disaster. Frankyboy5 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - and it's only taken a year to do something about it :)


 * As can be seen in the page histories, a full 2/3 of the (very long) original article on the Hindenburg was about her final 60 seconds or so. Splitting it has brought the article about the aircraft down to a reasonable size, while this article is still large, but not so large.


 * More important (as I see it, anyway) is that the two articles now better reflect how information on aircraft and air disasters is generally presented in Wikipedia. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Luger pistol
"It is not unusual for owners of automatics to leave one spent cartridge in the chamber as a safety precaution precluding accidental discharge[19]." This is insane, and I think it should be removed. It not unusual for owners of automatics to leave the chamber EMPTY. Furthermore, this doesn't really make since with he whole suicide theory (it neither supports or discounts it) and the reference is merely a person's name. 68.117.144.130 (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It needs a citation anyway. Plus, now there is no ref. I've been bold and removed it. 173.164.86.190 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

aircraft_type parameter in Infobox
The "aircraft_type" parameter in Infobox Aircraft accident is consistently used throughout Wikipedia to mean the specific type of aircraft involved (eg Boeing 747), not its general "class" (eg "Multi-engine jetliner"). I've therefore replaced the generic "Zeppelin rigid airship" in this field with Hindenburg-class airship - the specific type of aircraft involved in the incident. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier flight that year?
"The airship had already made one round trip from Germany to Brazil that year." Our article on the Hindenburg herself states that the ill-fated flight was the first of the 1937 season of operations. Was there an earlier flight to Brazil that year? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The D-LZ129 Hindenburg arrived in Rio De Jenairo on its First 1937 South America flight on Monday March 22, 1937. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Hydrogen Theory
The Hydrogen Theory of the article suggests that the fire could not have been started by the varnish because it requires a very hot ignition source which would be 'impossible'. But it is a well known fact that the ignition source for the Hindenburg was static electricity (essentially lightning, a form of ignition hotter than the surface of the sun) built up by travel through the air and failing to drop wires to safely release that electricity into the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.234.172 (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Nova episode supports your contention in that the skin insulated from the frame was essentially a gigantic capacitor (providing a spark source). The contention that the skin is "eliminated" from being the ignition point is not supported by evidence. It also obfuscates the point that even IF a spark ignited the Hydrogen first, the flammable skin could not have been ignited and propagated the flames in conjunction or separately from the interior Hydrogen combustion. Pmarshal (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yellow Substance on Valve Cap
The yellow substance mentioned in the sabotage section was tested by the FBI and wasn't sulfur. The article cited the FBI report incorrectly. Dfarel (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it was later determined to be sulphur... Frankyboy5 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Burn, baby, burn
Any objection to moving to Hindenburg accident? I'm finding "disaster" a little "newsie". "Disaster" suggests 100s died, or an earthquake, not a fire & less than 50 dead. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  16:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your reasoning. However, it seems to me that this event is usually, if not overwhelmingly, known as the Hindenburg disaster; it's not our place to "correct" that. As one quick measure of that, "Hindenburg accident" gets 965 ghits, while "Hindenburg disaster" gets about 61,900. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think accuracy trumps ghits, & redirects can handle the WP searches, but I'm not fanatic about it.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  22:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really a question of "accuracy", since the distinction between a "disaster" and an "accident" is a subjective and arbitrary one. WP:NAME says "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". I submit that "Hindenburg disaster" is the most common name for this event; the ghits support this view. Do you have evidence that contradicts this?
 * FWIW, if it wasn't a "disaster" from the standpoint of loss of human life, it was the destruction of the world's largest (and perhaps most prestigious? Most expensive?) aircraft, and an absolute disaster for the Zeppelin company - its death-knell, in fact. (cf. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, in which "only" seven people died) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also find calling the Challenger accident a "disaster" too "newsie", up there with the Lewinsky debâcle being a "scandal", or with 4 people killed being a "massacre". I won't disagree it was a disaster for the company, but that's a different definition than what happened to the Zep, IMO. I'm not in a position to argue, beyond opinion (as noted). Nor am I inclined to fight over it, even if I thought I could win (esp in re Boston). Just a suggestion.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  00:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically a disaster does not necessarily denote loss of life. Calling it a disaster makes it seem newsie because, well, it was portrayed that way in the news of the time.  My vote would be to continue referring to the incident as the "Hindenburg Disaster."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.136.117 (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Turn your radio on
The article now says the accident led to the end of the "airship era". I've heard (just don't ask where ;)) it was the media coverage (including live radio, & esp film) that did it, not the accident per se. Maybe I'm splitting hairs (& I wouldn't begin to know how to source it), but does this bear mentioning?  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  22:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems clear to me in the article, but clarify if you want. I don't see how you can sepperate the two events though, given that they are in a causal chain of events. Would you say that the fact that people had their radios on was the real problem, not the news? Or the fact that they had ears? Or that they had brains? All were causes, as the industry would not have suffered so but for each thing I've mentioned, but only one event was unusual, akin to an experimental variable, and that was the accident- not the presence of ears or newsreporters reporting.--24.29.234.88 (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A conspiracy that is missed is the potential for the accidental triggering of the explosion by testing of Microwave Radar by First Signal Corp prior to exhibition.

According to the Sandy Shore Radar Report (sourced as: Slattery, Oral Interview, June 2001) 'The date was May 6, 1937 and the May demonstration had not yet occurred. The objective of this test recalls Slattery was to track the German Zeppelin Von Hindenburg as it approached the coastline en route to Naval Air Station Lakehurst. At around noon, prior to testing a storm approached and drenched the equipment rendering it inoperable. A few hours later at 7:25pm the Hindenburg caught fire and was destroyed as it made its mooring attempt in Lakehurst. This was a blessing in disguise for Slattery and Hessel. The following day the New York Times reported that German radio engineers, “aboard to listen for strange signals” were among the passengers on that flight. Slattery recalled that the RPF radar project’s “secret” classification was almost compromised that day had it not been for the storm which postponed the testing'

While indeed it's stated that the Radar equipment was "inoperable", I'm pretty sure that if they had been the cause they wouldn't likely have come forwards, after all it was a secret project being used to detect potential threats seen as Germans and the Hindenberg just happened to catch fire. --Stryderunknown (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why the conspiracy?
Why does this article spend an inordinate amount of time on fringe theories? Surely nobody can take seriously the proposition that it wasn't actually the hydrogen that was burning? Or that the mushroom cloud was not the hydrogen? This is just madness! Perhaps split to a separate article like Moon Landing Conspiracy, but surely that would just be a POV fork. I'd advocate a major cleanup. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Second thoughts, however deranged moon hoax theories are, it's still verifiable that such theories exist. Likewise with the Hindenburg, there are a number of competing theories as to how it happened, some more likely than others. Wikipedia should be optimised for general audiences over specialists, so this article should be about the disaster itself (timeline, aftermath etc) and have a brief synopsis of the theories and a link to the separate article dealing with detailed conspiracy theories and such. Thoughts? I'm happy to do it if everyone is ok with that.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Can one of the veteran editors check this article? It looks like there is some vandalism inside--note at the end of Historic Newsreel Coverage section:

"Kyle Treadwell, the cook on board, saved many guys in the ship, including seven children and 6 ladies. He was later awarded a medal from the president and awarded roughly 2.3 million for his good deeds."

This sounds *somewhat* suspicious.

Q.T.Quazar (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Q.T.Quazar

Seems to be more: last sentence of the first paragraph explaining the cause of the explosion, and the use of "pooop" in the image description. Kevinkace (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean? In seems incomplete: "7:19: the airship made the second sharp turn and valved 300, 300 and 500 kg of water ballast in successive drops because the airship was stern heavy. Six men (four were killed in the accident." 217.111.104.103 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Political sabotage
The US had previously vetoed the sale of helium because they were worried by the German technology competing with their domestic offerings and especially alarmed by Hitler's aggressive politics.

The Hindenburg, along with other airships had recently dropped election leaflets in Germany, and Hitler gained around 99% of the votes in that election.

Dr. Hugo Eckener, head of the company, was at odds with Hitler and was soon deprived of his citizenship, so the "B" team took over.

The fire was a gift to US the propaganda industry, meanwhile the Germans ran with sabotage theories. In war, truth is always the first casualty.

More recent work seems to suggest a technical crew was inside the frame, surrounded by gasbags, and actually dealing with an engine problem at the time of the fire.

Political pressure upon them probably caused anxiety. Did it also provoke risk-taking and eventually "finger trouble"....

Sorry this is only my recollection from long ago. I do not have any references for this. But it might perhaps help interested researchers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.150.66 (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An unsigned offering from someone's memory from "long ago" is worth nothing. Thanks for playing. Mark Sublette (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

First Flame Nonsense
There is an inconsistancy between too mentions of the first flame. One section (First Hints) says that, uncited, it is a common misconception among experts to believe that the fire started near the tail fin while another (the disaster)states that this is a possible location for the first fire according to witnesses and that the location of origination is unknown. Clearly mutually exclusive. Also the parts about experts knowing such and such and that being wronged needs a citation.--24.29.234.88 (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1) I agree completely that the first flame information is retarded. I added a "lacks inline sources" tag at the top of the page, and I added "this section needs sources" tags to first hints and disaster, and a "who?" tag to the experts remark. I think those tags are necessary to point out to readers that the information may quite possibly be a single person's opinion, presented as unsourced "witness" statements and the like. I'd add even more, especially "citation needed" ones but if I did it to every statement that needed it, the article would be twice as long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.185.228 (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

2) To me, it seemed at first as if the article in its current state was acceptable and approved, when the discussion page has many issues listed. I say shred the thing. Every time it says "witnesses said", it needs a "Citation needed" or a source. Every time it says "experts" it needs a "Who?". And why is the schedule of the ship as well as the entire timeline section presented without a single citation, or a single "citation needed"? This article honestly looks like someone watched a Discovery or History channel special and took all that unverified research as gospel. Surely there are enough books and articles on this subject that whoever put this information in can cite their sources, and their opinions can be clarified. If opinions and witness statements can not be clarified, then I think they need the "citation needed" tag to point out that lack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.185.228 (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per my comments above, I would support a ground-up rewrite. The conspiracy theories are a joke. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it; your suggestion above regarding moving the conspiracy material to a separate article and summarising it here is a good one. This article is currently around double the length that we generally aim for, so it could do with some breaking up. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Survivors
This is the first time I've ever really looked into the Hindenburg disaster; how did anyone survive?!? I assumed that everyone died. The whole thing was engulfed in flame and it was falling rapidly; the people were all underneath it; so how did over half the people live? Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jumping and running before it hit the ground. Many jumped too early and died from the fall.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A minor point with the numbers in the infobox. One of the people that died was a ground crew. People on board were 36 passengers and 61 crew = 97. there were 61 survivors and 36 fatalities = 97. but if one of the fatalities is a ground crew why do the numbers match. It should be one more. Or is this ground crew member one of the 61 crew, even though there are presumably many more ground crew also. It is unclear. Anyone understand me? Carlwev (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the dog that was on board? 79.66.107.109 (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is said in the article: "German acrobat named Joseph Späh, who survived the fire. He brought with him a dog, a German shepherd named Ulla, as a surprise for his children. (Ulla did not survive.)" 217.111.104.103 (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The 1977 movie The Hindenburg says the dog survived (it is at roughly the 1 hour, 33 minute, and 35 second mark). The claim in the article that the dog died has no reference and so I have replaced it with the movie reference.  If a reliable reference for the dogs can be provided then it can reverted.--2606:A000:131D:4413:AD8E:DC9F:498D:3A4B (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you think the dog could have possibly SURVIVED, since it was being transported in the rear cargo area, and all of the survivors were those who managed to jump out of the ship and run before it totally collapsed in a pile of flaming wreckage. How could the dog have escaped? The book "The Hindenburg!" by Michael Mooney states that the dog Ulla was killed in the wreck, but to avoid traumatizing his children who expected a new dog, they made up a story about how the dog had "miraculously escaped" and showed up a few days later with a dog that they passed off as the original, since the kids didn't know the difference. 64.222.109.243 (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

New Theory
See my comment in the disscusion page of St. Elmo's fire --Anonymous07921 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Timeline
The 7:19 entry on the timeline doesn't make sense to a casual visitor such as me. It doesn't follow on after "six men" in the first line. Dalliance (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * i was just goiung to say the same thing. there's a missing end bracket and the list of names is a distraction. I'll have a look in the history to see if there's a better old version. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Someone attempted to integrated a footnote into the main text and messed it up. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hydrogen vs. Helium
Would it be all right for me to add a little blurb in the disaster section mentioning that the Hindenburg had been designed to use helium but was forced to use hydrogen as a result of the embargo? --170.28.221.3 (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it. It was 100% sabotage. A bloody American shot it with a rifle. It was a very easy target. Gnostics (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it has been a bit of time, but if you shoot an airship with a rifle, all you get is a bullet sized hole leaking gas. You still need a source of ignition.  86.186.10.121 (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Water produced by Hindenburg explosion
When hydrogen burns in oxygen it produces water, right? So I wonder how much of it was produced when the Hindenburg went kaboom. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 00:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably almost all of the H2 burned, creating steam. Since the volume of the ship's gas cells is known, one could easily compute the maximum amount of water that would be, around 160 metric tons (for ~20 mt of H2) I believe.  Then that was hot, and must have gone straight up by convection.  All, some, or none of that would have condensed on cooling, depending on the temperature, humidity, and winds at the time.  I understand that there is often a hot water downpour downwind from Space shuttle rocket engine tests, which involve larger amounts of H2, producing ~250 mt of water for each engine.  Wwheaton (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal note
I once came upon a piece of the "Hindenburg". I grew up in New Jersey, and my middle-school science teacher apparently had a piece of it, which he handed around to everyone in class or at least showed it. It wasn't very big, about a half-an-arm's length of metal with holes of different sizes punched in it, but it was interesting to gawk at. I wonder if there are any other pieces of the erstwhile zeppelin out there. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 01:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the wreckage of the "Hindenburg" (which consisted mostly of the duralumin framework) was salvaged, shipped back to Germany, and used in the manufacture of military aircraft. A small amount of it, however, was grabbed by souvenir hunters and still exists today. I have a 9" crosspiece which I acquired at an auction about ten years ago an image of which you can see here. I also have a fairly large collection of philatelic items as will as other Zeppelin related artifacts (pieces of fabric covering, etc) of which I have also posted images in various Wikipedia articles on the LZ 129 Hindenburg, LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin I, LZ Graf Zeppelin II, USS Los Angeles (ZR-3), and elsewhere which you may also find of interest. Centpacrr (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the wreck was ever shipped back to Germany. It was loaded on trucks and taken to a metal scrapyard in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. The United States even sent Germany a bill for the clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.254.255 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If this claim is true, you have a responsibility to substantiate it so that the article can be amended with the correct information. rowley (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Airplane hook
I am very doubtful about the statement that just six days before the disaster that the U.S. Navy was involved in trying to assist in an aerial hook experiment involving the Hindenberg. When and where would this have taken place? For three days the airship was in transit across the Atlantic, and I find it highly unlikely that the U.S. Navy would have been involved in Germany in such a trial, just before the airship was due to begin its North American trip season. This sounds like unsupported speculation. Mark Sublette (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk)

False references to the USS Macon
One note is that in 1935 a helium filled blimp with an acetate aluminium skin burned near Point Sur in California with equal ferocity. Even the USS Macon, a U.S. Navy airship, burned after crashing into the Pacific off Monterey Bay. Those who disagree with these claims insist these two incidents had nothing to do with the dope, instead the small blimp burned because of a fuel leak, and the Macon burned because it was firing flares.

The above paragraph, taken directly from the article, uses the USS Macon to justify its point. I have never seen ANYTHING that said that the Macon burned. It suffered failure of the tail section due to unfinished repairs, loss of lifting gas from damaged cells, and sank into the Pacific. Furthermore, the statement is all the more dubious in that it describes the Macon as a "blimp", which is was not. It was a rigid airship. I suggest that this paragraph is fatally flawed as an argument or as a statement of facts. Mark Sublette (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note also that "these two incidents" are one in the same. Mark Sublette (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

These statements were made by Dessler et. al to counter Bain's claims that the dope is flammable. While I find these claims ridiculous they were stated by the people against hte IPT. The two incidents are not the same. Bain was referring to a small blimp in California. Frankyboy5 (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Time format
With the space of a few lines times are given both as "7:25 p.m." and "7:25pm". I know I've used both of these formats and probably several others, but can anyone report on what the wikipedia standard is? Thanks. PurpleChez (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup
I want to go ahead and add the cleanup template to the page. There's a lot of citations needed and a general restructuring is in order. Hope no one minds. Eddievhfan1984 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific about what you mean by "general restructuring" of the article. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just saw a lot of statements without citations, and there A LOT of 1st-level headings where using lower levels are a better choice. Eddievhfan1984 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that sounds fine. I was just concerned about massive rewrites, etc. Formatting tweaks for clarity and expanding citations seem fine to me. Centpacrr (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Dates
After voluminous amounts of dialogue/diatribe on the issue, most editors in the WP:Aviation group would assign D/M/Y dating to this article to recognize the subject's national origin. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
 * I always favor the international/military D/M/Y over the American M/D/Y style. Mark Sublette (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with D/M/Y being used. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad para
In section Incendiary paint hypothesis the second paragraph makes offtopical synthish somersaults:
 * first "iron oxide and aluminum-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate" are suspected,

Good! Then
 * "In fact" (WARNING: "in fact" is a clear indication on an editor's own speculation), "iron oxide and aluminum can be used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite. For example" ... blablabla.

'''Bad!! Removal recommended!!''' (This presents a pretty ridiculous discourse). Then next edit indicates some other editor killing that out-of-the blue speculation:
 * "However, the coating applied to Hindenburg's covering did not have a sufficient quantity of any material capable of acting as an oxidizer, which is a necessary component of rocket fuel."

'''Good! Keep!''' The "in fact" sentence should be removed in such a way so that the argument of the acceptable statements are not disturbed, but it needs consideration. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking the entire "Incendiary paint hypothesis" section should be cut to one paragraph.
 * The first paragraph is not sourced.
 * The second paragraph compares the coating to rocket fuel. Hey, water has hydrogen and oxygen, and so it must explode violently. The point I'm making here is that the source given for this section debunks and shows how silly the "rocket fuel" theory is.
 * The third paragraph goes back to this Bain guy. There's a source which today links to a mostly blank page.
 * From the 4th paragraph I learn that Bain has been on TV promoting his theory and that others debunk them with science and facts.
 * In summary - the incendiary paint theory seems to be one of those crackpot ideas that likely could not be published in a peer reviewed journal. Bain and his theory became notable in the popular media and so should be mentioned in this article but not given the full screen-full of text that it has now. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Another bad para
In Puncture hypothesis there are two contradictory sentences: "But Eckener knew that he was to blame as much as anyone else, for in 1928 he decided against using helium offered by the US government for economic reasons.[22] Not true that Eckener was to blame because of a decision he made in 1928" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.112.119 (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Living survivors?
'''Are there any left? I was going to guess at least one or two....? Anyone know? Any yes, I do want an answer on this, since no one answered it in 2009. HELLO!! --76.105.145.143 (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)'''
 * If you wait long enough you can be certain that the answer is no. 86.160.222.156 (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ^ An asshole asnswer. --RThompson82 (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Curious coincidence - going by the last survivor had died about a month before RT's comment. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please take a good look at the above referenced newspaper article from www.dailymail.co.uk. It indicates that Mr. Franz was the last surviving crewman; it goes on to say that there are thought to be three more living survivors.  (That's at least as of August 2014, the date of the article.) Richard27182 (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was checking up a slightly different line of enquiry which brought up both the WP and DM entries - and it is definitely #a# last and a coincidence in dates. (How many politicians have died in airship accidents?) Jackiespeel (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Oh, the humanity!"
I've heard it suggested that he does not say "Oh, the humanity!" but "All the humanity". When you listen to the recording it could be either, but the fact that he appears to continue "... and all the passengers" gives weight to this theory. Is there any proof that he really said "Oh"? The article says that the transcription, including the "Oh, the humanity!" line, is "as transcribed for broadcast by WLS radio", but I am not clear what that means. Why would you "transcribe" an unscripted commentary for audio broadcast? 86.160.222.156 (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion seems muddled
According to the article:


 * Using scale models inflated with hydrogen, a team of experts at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas found that, unlike a bomb or St. Elmo's Fire, static discharge was unable to produce an explosive result.

As I recall, the only reason for this was that there was no quantity of explosive hydrogen/air mixture in the vicinity of the static discharge spark, unlike the case with the St. Elmo's Fire experiment. Both involved sparks or spark-like discharge, both seemed equally capable of igniting any flammable gas, thereby causing or initiating an explosion. The difference seemed to be due to the location/environment of the ignition source, not whether it was St. Elmo's Fire or static discharge. Therefore I find this conclusion quite muddled, or poorly explained, unless I am missing some essential ingredient. 86.160.208.98 (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Recording subtitles
At 1:45, the video recording's subtitles read '...passengers and crew proportionate among them fell and jumped to safety...' However, listening to the audio, I heard the announcer say "...the fortunate among them fell and jumped to safety..." which also fits the rest of the line. Is this a mistake? Rincewind32 (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Color of hydrogen flame
I haven't seen any discussion of the color of a hydrogen flame in open air. I would assume that a simple hydrogen fireball would have a rather faint bluish flame, due to the high-energy but cool overall release in combining in random vortices with the oxygen in the surrounding air, similar in color to the color of a low-temperature flame of pure isopropyl or ethyl alcohol in air. What we saw in the Hindenburg accident was bright yellow flame, which indicates that something else was also burning, yes? That 'something else' could have been gasoline vapor, but much more likely small carbon particles due to partial combustion, such as burn in a candle flame, or the effect in a kerosene lantern, where the carbon-containing mantel screen doesn't burn much, but does glow white-hot. The most likely source of burning particles would have been the ignition of the outer skin, if the paint/doping were truly explosive/incendiary in nature, burning first and igniting the hydrogen with its burning particles, or if the hydrogen had already been mixed with air and was burning on its own and igniting the skin quickly with its heat and pressure. Are there any references for such hypotheses? David Spector (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This was discussed at great length in a documentary on the disaster (the aim of the documentary was an attempt to answer the question of the cause of the disaster). Hydrogen when burnt in air has a practically colourless flame (and if that is all that was burning in the Hindenburg, then the flame should have been practically invisible).  It clearly was not so something else was going on.  Hydrogen when combined in the ratio of two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen burns with a fairly intense white flame (and was used as an early light source for larger magic lanterns.  This cannot be the situation with the Hindenburg because there were no gas cells containing just oxygen on board.  It was known that the dope coating of the Hindenburg's outer skin was a mixture of regular aircraft type dope and ferrous oxide (a consituent of thermite).  This now provides a clue because the dope itself is flammable and the ferrous oxide when subject to high temperature combustion will itself burn with a brilliant yellow flame.  It was concluded that the brilliant flame visible on all the contemporary footage coupled with the description of the flame colour from the eye witnesses was consistent with the dope and ferous oxide burning.  Of course with the wreckage no longer available for analysis and the footage giving no clue to the actual colour, any discussion and theorising will forever remain just that - theoretical.  As for whether the coating ignited the hydrogen or vice versa?  The footage of the disaster clearly shows that the fire spread throughout the length of the Hindenburg very quickly suggesting that it was the hydrogen that ignited first.  As for what ignited the hydrogen: your guess is every bit as good as mine.  86.186.10.121 (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A recent YouTube video shows exploding hydrogen balloons in ultra slow motion, and the flame is yellow in color. - Hydrogen Explosions (slow motion) - Periodic Table of Videos - Also, video of a recent accident at Worldview Enterprises in Tucson, Arizona, where a large hydrogen balloon exploded again shows a yellow flame. - Video Shows World View Explosion Sending Flames Into The Sky - I conclude that there is a significant difference between burning Hydrogen in air and exploding Hydrogen in air. However, I am not aware of any study of the Hindenburg crash that mentions anything about this new evidence. --MongoTuslan (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Separate page for hypotheses on the cause
I think the section on hypotheses as to the cause of the Hindenburg disaster is large enough as to warrant its own page. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 12:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, there is too much waffle in the treatment of the cause of the fire, including a huge quote from Eckner, a that a bit of prudent trimming would benefit the article as a whole. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You both have a point, right now the article is to much focused on hypothesis. prokaryotes (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Werner Franz (cabin boy) death announcement
Werner Franz, who is mentioned in the article, has been announced on BBC News as having died today. That is, the announcement is today: they did not say which day he died. He is not linked, but I think it is best to stay off until we know which day he died until we add a little sentence or split para to mention, that the BBC said, he was the last living survivor of the Hindenburg disaster.

I mention this as a better editor than I can probably incorporate it better. For that reason I include no links, since it will be easily looked up and I imagine there will be brief obits in various papers but not to hit the Sundays, too late.

Si Trew (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The New York Times obituary published on August 29 which is cited in the article as the source of the date of death states at the start of its third paragraph: "Mr. Franz died at 92 on Aug. 13 in Frankfurt. The death was confirmed by Dan Grossman, a historian whose specialty is airships." Centpacrr (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Hindenburg disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080210174159/http://www.hydropole.ch:80/Hydropole/Intro/Hindenburg.htm to http://www.hydropole.ch/Hydropole/Intro/Hindenburg.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110608084511/http://www.fathom.com/feature/121907/ to http://www.fathom.com/feature/121907/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090601215831/http://www.sas.org:80/tcs/weeklyIssues/2004-12-17/project1/index.html to http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues/2004-12-17/project1/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Hindenburg disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060924180228/http://www.law.uconn.edu:80/homes/swilf/ip/cases/hoehling.htm to http://www.law.uconn.edu/homes/swilf/ip/cases/hoehling.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929134810/http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20070506_The_real_cause_of_the_Hindenburg_disaster_.html to http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20070506_The_real_cause_of_the_Hindenburg_disaster_.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindenburg disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090728130300/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count2.htm to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hindenburg disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527192220/http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9801/0112/hindenburg0112.pdf to http://www.balloonlife.com/publications/balloon_life/9801/0112/hindenburg0112.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914041322/http://www.lakehurst.navy.mil/nlweb/ to http://www.lakehurst.navy.mil/nlweb/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20070929081929/http://198.154.24.34/nlweb/documents/lke-facts-sheet-Apr-2003a.htm to http://198.154.24.34/nlweb/documents/lke-facts-sheet-Apr-2003a.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-BC-IDX/37-OCR/1937-05-15-BC-OCR-Page-8.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories? Is that really encyclopedic?
I was about to post a "well done" compliment to those who worked on this article, but then I got to the silly conspiracy theories. Those have no place in an encyclopedia. Name one encyclopedia that does this. Let other websites debate on conspiracy theories but facts should be the only things to remain here not a bunch of hypothetical garbage. If anything is ever proven, then that is another matter entirely but this paranoia simply must stop. Does it need to totally disappear? Not really. A simple short paragraph can list the various theories and you can even link to them in something like a For Further Reading section, but the current content, of this moment, on this day, is laughable at best and absolutely too long! One section, folks. One small section. I am unfamiliar with the content, hence my landing on this page, so I am unavailable to do it myself. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

agreed190.24.58.161 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Reference to the book by Commander Charles Rosendahl
In the "Cause of ignition" section, subsection "Sabotage hypothesis", the sentence "He laid out a general case for sabotage in his book What About the Airship? (1938), . . . which was as much an extended argument for the further development of the rigid airship as it was an historical overview of the airship concept", referencing Commander Charles Rosendahl's book, is flagged with a page needed tag. This is absurd. The entire book deals with this subject. No page reference is needed, or even applicable. I won't remove this tag without other editors being able to see it and reach agreement on it. The responsible thing would be for whoever placed this tag to re-examine their reasons for doing so, and then to remove it, themselves. And, please, let's have no more of this blindly and mindlessly tagging Wikipedia articles with unnecessary actions that can't be carried out. rowley (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Contradictory statement
"As these measures failed to bring the ship in trim, six men (three of whom were killed in the accident) were sent forwards" First, according to Micheal Mooney's "The Hindenburg", there was only one survivor out of all the men in the forward section. Possibly he meant out of all the men originally assigned to the bow section, but he certainly seemed to imply the rest died in the fire or from injuries shortly after. Anyway, the note given to this statement lists three survivors, only two of them with names matching those six crewmen sent forwards. So how do we end up with only three being killed in the accident? By the list of names it would appear that 4 of the 6 men sent forwards died, and all but one of the men stationed in the bow were killed. Of course when they say "three were killed in the accident", that may not include the ones who died shortly after because of injuries. There was at least one, Spehl the rigger, who in Mooney's conclusion was the one who planted a time incendiary in the rear gas bag and who died shortly after the accident. It implies he was instigated by his new girlfriend, who was a somewhat shady figure associated with the radical circles in Germany. It doesn't give much explanation of the evidence that led the author to this "conclusion" though, other than claiming that in the records in LOC there are statements that the FBI discovered the remains of a time indendiary device fabricated from a camera photo-flash timer, and that a preserved set of minutes of off-the-record discussion among the members of the investigation seemed to suggest that they thought it most likely that it was sabotage, but they didn't want to create a stir by admitting it publicly, and Germany felt the same, since it would make them look bad. A more sensational book than anything.

64.222.109.243 (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

flame color
If the skin was polluted by NaCl due to the over-ocean travel, the yellow emission of Na may override any other color (this is only a suggestion to a direct literature search).Suppongoche (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Footage of the landing from within?

 * "When passenger Joseph Späh, a vaudeville comic acrobat, saw the first sign of trouble he smashed the window with his movie camera with which he had been filming the landing (the film survived the disaster)."

This would be incredible if it is true. However, I can't seem to find this footage. Did he actually film the landing, and if so, what happened to the footage? -- Mocha2007 (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

explosion or not?
article says "the explosion" and then has a quotation saying "no explosion". No OR, I agree, but was there an explosion? What authority does app.com have? --142.163.194.97 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you ask why there are not footage of Hindenburg moments before explosion?
Even the film operators deliberately point the cameras at the people below Hindenburg to shoot exclusively without the interesting event, how the ropes are anchored. Someone told them to do it on purpose. There is no explosion event, because Hindenburg probably was shot by incendiary ammunition with rifle from the distance. Gas Bag was punctured and hydrogen start to leak inside the airship catching fire and burn it down outside skin. This is how US monopolists deal with unpleasant foreign competition then. And now you will see how US monopolists deal with unpleasant free speech in Wiki, nearly 100 years later. Nothing in US has changed. 77.85.214.77 (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Two words: citation needed. 2A00:23C7:99A4:5001:ECAA:1DB6:97C9:4F2A (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

More conspiracy theory unbacked by evidence. Referencing the Nova episode "Zeppelin Terror Attack", MANY incendiary bullets were fired into Hydrogen Zeppelins with no effect. It requires Hydrogen mixed with air for ignition. Pmarshal (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"When a single gas cell explodes" indicates unrealistic physics.
Hydrogen, even if mixed in stoichiometric proportions with air only produces low-order explosions unless contained in a pressure vessel. Animal intestine gas bags surrounded by a very weak fabric outer shell does not "explode" in any meaningful way, and references to "shockwaves" is entirely inappropriate and not supported by film or eyewitness evidence. As Eckner indicated, the gas space above the gas bags would have been Hydrogen rich (and not even stoichiometric proportions diluted with Nitrogen). Such a situation as he indicated is not an "explosive" environment. Unless this has some kind of valid supporting evidence it should be removed. This appears to be uninformed conjecture. Pmarshal (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguity
About the sentence, which this article contains at the time I'm typing this,
 * "Although Mooney alleges that three Luftwaffe officers were aboard to investigate a potential bomb threat, there is no evidence they were on board to do so, and military observers were present on previous flights to study navigational techniques and weather forecasting practices of the airship crew".
 * It's hard to know what the sentence intends to mean. If I say "Harry wasn't there to boil eggs", I intend to mean one of three things: (A) Harry wasn't there. (B) Harry was there, but the reason he was there was not for eggs to be boiled by him. (C) A person was there to boil eggs, but that person wasn't Harry. Since you can't tell from my writing WHICH one I meant, it's a bad sentence. The "there is no evidence" clause of this article's sentence in question should be rewritten to end in "there is no evidence they were on board, and military ..." (making it unambiguous that there was no evidence 3 officers there at all) or to end in "there is [xyz] that they were on board, but no evidence that the reason for them being on board was investigating a bomb-threat, and military ..." (where "[xyz]" would be replaced by "consensus", "proof", "evidence", "acknowledgment", or whatever may be chosen to indicate the desired level of certainty), which would make it unambiguous that while they WERE there, the reason they were there was something else, not to investigate a bomb-threat. 2600:1700:6759:B000:2037:1558:527B:D848 (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
 * It's hard to know what the sentence intends to mean. If I say "Harry wasn't there to boil eggs", I intend to mean one of three things: (A) Harry wasn't there. (B) Harry was there, but the reason he was there was not for eggs to be boiled by him. (C) A person was there to boil eggs, but that person wasn't Harry. Since you can't tell from my writing WHICH one I meant, it's a bad sentence. The "there is no evidence" clause of this article's sentence in question should be rewritten to end in "there is no evidence they were on board, and military ..." (making it unambiguous that there was no evidence 3 officers there at all) or to end in "there is [xyz] that they were on board, but no evidence that the reason for them being on board was investigating a bomb-threat, and military ..." (where "[xyz]" would be replaced by "consensus", "proof", "evidence", "acknowledgment", or whatever may be chosen to indicate the desired level of certainty), which would make it unambiguous that while they WERE there, the reason they were there was something else, not to investigate a bomb-threat. 2600:1700:6759:B000:2037:1558:527B:D848 (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
 * It's hard to know what the sentence intends to mean. If I say "Harry wasn't there to boil eggs", I intend to mean one of three things: (A) Harry wasn't there. (B) Harry was there, but the reason he was there was not for eggs to be boiled by him. (C) A person was there to boil eggs, but that person wasn't Harry. Since you can't tell from my writing WHICH one I meant, it's a bad sentence. The "there is no evidence" clause of this article's sentence in question should be rewritten to end in "there is no evidence they were on board, and military ..." (making it unambiguous that there was no evidence 3 officers there at all) or to end in "there is [xyz] that they were on board, but no evidence that the reason for them being on board was investigating a bomb-threat, and military ..." (where "[xyz]" would be replaced by "consensus", "proof", "evidence", "acknowledgment", or whatever may be chosen to indicate the desired level of certainty), which would make it unambiguous that while they WERE there, the reason they were there was something else, not to investigate a bomb-threat. 2600:1700:6759:B000:2037:1558:527B:D848 (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson