Comments on: Photographic Evidence the Hindenburg was not “Painted with Rocket Fuel”

By: hyperblimp

hyperblimp — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:27:38 +0000

wow! this is an information overload. very informative indeed. thanks for sharing

By: George Wilson

George Wilson — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:57:20 +0000

On a slightly unrelated note, how did the stern landing wheel end up where it did, to the right of the wreck in pretty good shape? I’ve noticed that in several photos & it makes me curious.
George Wilson

By: Shawn

Shawn — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 04:57:55 +0000

Before reading this, I had no idea that there existed “myths” about how the Hindenburg went down. I guess general high school chemistry has taught me that hydrogen is extremely flammable, and when you’re not trying to look for reasons that aren’t there, you often put 2 and 2 together.

By: Rubens Martins Borges Filho

Rubens Martins Borges Filho — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:38:27 +0000

Dear Dan,

I would like to know more about the Colonel Fritz Erdmann.
What he really doing in the ship.

By: john

john — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:10:27 +0000

it is showing a bit of the fabric that is not burnt

By: reinhardt

reinhardt — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:19:40 +0000

yes… it seems obvious that the skin was NOT any problem.. nor was the hydrogen (vast record of safe operations worldwide for years) My question is WHY would such nonsense even be published, and by whom…. who would benefit by sabotaging the entire industry… and what technology has been supported to replace the ‘proven-promise’ of the rigid airship. i would welcome even more than a ‘discussion’ ….i would love to see a suggestin along the lines of a company like Virgin Galactic… humans could actually bring back this wondrouse and safe technology…. if we can just get started

By: reinhardt

reinhardt — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:11:12 +0000

all the history is very very interesting, just as the idiotic legends and myths that surround (and try to justify) the destruction of incredible technology. Technology and industry that was providing safe, eco-friendly, economically superior, already existing and proven technology that could NOT be readily “Militarized”
Perhaps the MYTHS and Slanderous lies that destroyed the industry was NOT ACCIDENTAL , NOR merely IGNORANT….
Perhaps the Hindenburg was sabotaged to support the more militarially -promising heavy lift technologies by the Military industrial complex which now controls our populations worldwide ….addicted to oil, and supporting astounding military societies, rather than human beings…. this technology would be vastly superior to the successful peaceful endeavors of our past…. if only our brains could overcome our fear from the miltary industrial terrorists in control.. and their ignorant propaganda. Want to rebuild america with a new technology? …similar to what the internet has done… EASY!! Just develop rigid airship technology.
If the oil-military conglomerate doesn’t destroy you first.

By: Dan (Airships.net)

Dan (Airships.net) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:50:25 +0000

No-one has suggested that the ship’s covering was not combustible (in other words, that it would not burn).

I am a little confused by your comments: I cannot figure out whether or not you are trying to make a specific point. If you would like to make a specific suggestion about the Hindenburg disaster, it would be very welcome, but please make your point a little more explicit so it will be easier for people to respond (whether in agreement or opposition).

By: warbirder

warbirder — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:47:56 +0000

The linen and butyrate would still burn as evidenced in Ray Stits videos from the 50′s-60′s demonstrating his aircraft covering process.

By: Dan (Airships.net)

Dan (Airships.net) — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 22:04:18 +0000

@ warbirder:
Nitrate dopes (like nitrate film stocks) are known to be highly flammable, which is why they were not used by the designers of the Hindenburg; the designers chose an acetate butyrate solution instead of a nitrate solution for that very reason.