The Hindenburg Was The Pride Of Germany In 1925 these airships flew around the world. They would fly the beach over  Rio  Janeiro, the Amazon, Europe, the Mideast. This was Germany's greatest ambassador.           This Air Ship Was Enormous It was the size of the Queen Mary. Today's Goodyear blimp is approximately 22% of it's size.             What Orchestrated The Disaster World Jewry had declared war on Germany in 1934. Germany was feed up with them after the Weimar swindle, and Hitler gave them their walking papers.                   How Was It Done The generally accepted theory is a German rigger was set up with a communist, thought to be Esther Lieblinsky.           Eric Sphel According to Arthur Hoehling, Spehl  planted in "Gas Cell 4," the location of the initial explosion. The bomb broke the airship's back, a bottle of oxygen mixed with the Hydogen, and the ship was gone in 32 seconds.            Germany's Finest Pilots Captain Max Pruss, and Ernst Lehmann, were the Zeppelin Company’s most experienced pilots, with hundreds of flights. Both said a bomb took the ship down.           Dr. Hugo Eckener Eckener was the head of the Zeppelin airship company, and he blamed it on sabatoge.       I. This litigation arises from three separate accounts of the triumphant introduction, last voyage, and tragic destruction of the Hindenburg, the colossal dirigible constructed in Germany during Hitler's reign. The zeppelin, the last and most sophisticated in a fleet of luxury airships, which punctually floated its wealthy passengers from the Third Reich to the United States, exploded into flames and disintegrated in 35 seconds as it hovered above the Lakehurst, New Jersey Naval Air Station at 7:25 p.m. on May 6, 1937. Thirty-six passengers and crew were killed but, fortunately, 52 persons survived. Official investigations conducted by both American and German authorities could ascertain no definitive cause of the disaster, but both suggested the plausibility of static electricity or St. Elmo's Fire, which could have ignited the highly explosive hydrogen that filled the airship. Throughout, the investigators refused to rule out the possibility of sabotage. The destruction of the Hindenburg marked the concluding chapter in the chronicle of airship passenger service, for after the tragedy at Lakehurst, the Nazi regime permanently grounded the Graf Zeppelin I and discontinued its plan to construct an even larger dirigible, the Graf Zeppelin 11. The final pages of the airship's story marked the beginning of a series of journalistic, historical, and literary accounts devoted to the Hindenburg and its fate. Indeed, weeks of testimony by a plethora of witnesses before the official investigative panels provided fertile source material for would-be authors. Moreover, both the American and German Commissions issued official reports, detailing all that was then known of the tragedy. A number of newspaper and magazine articles had been written about the Hindenburg in 1936, its first year of trans-Atlantic service, and they, of course, multiplied many fold after the crash. In addition, two passengers Margaret Mather and Gertrud Adelt published separate and detailed accounts of the voyage, C. E. Rosendahl, commander of the Lakehurst Naval Air Station and a pioneer in airship travel himself, wrote a book titled What About the Airship?, in which he endorsed the theory that the Hindenburg was the victim of sabotage. In 1957, Nelson Gidding, who would return to the subject of the Hindenburg some 20 years later, wrote an unpublished "treatment" for a motion picture based on the deliberate destruction of the airship. In that year as well, John Toland published Ships in the Sky which, in its seventeenth chapter, chronicled the last flight of the Hindenburg. In 1962, Dale Titler released Wings of Mystery, in which he too devoted a chapter to the Hindenburg. Appellant A. A. Hoehling published Who Destroyed the Hindenburg?, a full-length book based on his exhaustive research in 1962. Mr. Hoehling studied the investigative reports, consulted previously published articles and books, and conducted interviews with Survivors of the crash as well as others who possessed information about the Hindenburu. His book is presented as a factual account, written in an objective, reportorial style. The first half recounts the final crossing of the Hindenburg, from Sunday, May 2, when it left Frankfurt, to Thursday, May 6, when it exploded at Lakehurst. Hoehling describes the airship, its role as an instrument of propaganda in Nazi Germany, its passengers and crew, the danger of hydrogen, and the ominous threats received by German officials, warning that the Hindenburg would be destroyed. The second portion, headed The Quest, sets forth the progress of the official investigations, followed by an account of Hoehling's own research. In the final chapter, spanning eleven pages, Hoehling suggests that all proffered explanations of the explosion, save deliberate destruction, are unconvincing, He concludes that the most likely saboteur is one Eric Spehl, a "rigger" on the Hindenburg crew who was killed at Lakehurst. According to Hoehling, Spehl had motive, expertise, and opportunity to plant an explosive device, constructed of dry-cell batteries and a flashbulb, in "Gas Cell 4," the location of the initial explosion. An amateur photographer with access to flashbulbs, Spehl could have destroyed the Hindenburg to please his ladyfriend, a Suspected communist dedicated to exploding the myth of Nazi invincibility. Ten years later appellee Michael MacDonald Mooney published his book, The Hindenburg. Mooney's endeavor might be characterized as more literary than historical in its attempt to weave a number of symbolic themes through the actual events surrounding the tragedy. His dominant theme contrasts the natural beauty of the month of May, when the disaster occurred, with the cold, deliberate progress of "technology." The May theme is expressed not simply by the season, but also by the character of Spehl, portrayed as a sensitive artisan with needle and thread. The Hindenburg, in contrast, is the symbol of technology, as are its German creators and the Reich itself. The destruction is depicted as the ultimate triumph of nature over technology, as Spehl plants the bomb that ignites the hydrogen. Developing this theme from the outset, Mooney begins with an extended review of man's efforts to defy nature through flight, focusing on the evolution of the zeppelin. This story culminates in the construction of the Hindenburg, and the Nazis' claims of its indestructibility. Mooney then traces the fateful voyage, advising the reader almost immediately of Spehl's scheme. The book concludes with the airship's explosion. Mooney acknowledges, in this case, that he consulted Hoehling's book, and that he relied on it for some details. He asserts that he first discovered the "Spehl -as- saboteur" theory when he read Titler's Wings of Mystery. Indeed, Titler concludes that Spehl was the saboteur, for essentially the reasons stated by Hoehling. Mooney also claims to have studied the complete National Archives and New York Times files concerning the Hindenburg, as well as all previously published material. Moreover, he traveled to Germany, visited Spehl's birthplace, and conducted a number of interviews with survivors. After Mooney prepared an outline of his anticipated book, his publisher Succeeded in negotiations to sell the motion picture rights to appellee Universal City Studios. Universal then commissioned a screen story by writers Levinson and Link, best known for their television series, Columbo, in which a somewhat disheveled, but wise detective unravels artfully conceived murder mysteries. In their screen story, Levinson and Link created a Columbo-like character who endeavored to identify the saboteur on board the Hindenburg. Director Robert Wise, however, was not satisfied with this version, and called upon Nelson Gidding to write a final screenplay. Gidding, it will be recalled, had engaged in preliminary work on a film about the Hindenburg almost twenty years earlier. The Gidding screenplay follows what is known in the motion Picture industry as a "Grand Hotel" formula, developing a number of fictional characters and subplots involving them. This formula has become standard fare in so-called "disaster" movies, which have enjoyed a certain popularity in recent years. In the film, which was released in late 1975, a rigger named "Boerth," who has an anti-Nazi ladyfriend, plans to destroy the airship in an effort to embarrass the Reich. Nazi officials, vaguely aware of sabotage threats, station a Luftwaffe intelligence officer on the zeppelin, loosely resembling a Colonel Erdmann who was aboard the Hindenburg. This character is portrayed as a likable fellow who soon discovers that Boerth is the saboteur. Boerth, however, convinces him that the Hindenburg should be destroyed and the two join forces, planning the explosion for several hours after the landing at Lakehurst, when no people would be on board. In Gidding's version, the airship is delayed by a storm, frantic efforts to defuse the bomb fail, and the Hindenburg is destroyed. The film's subplots involve other possible Suspects, including a fictional countess who has had her estate expropriated by the Reich, two fictional confidence men wanted by New York Sq. City police, and an advertising executive rushing to close a business deal in America. Upon learning of Universal's plans to release the film, Hoehling instituted this action against Universal for copyright infringement and common law unfair competition in the district court for the District of Columbia in October 1975. Judge Smith declined to issue an order restraining release of the film in December, and it was distributed throughout the nation. In January 1976, Hoehling sought to amend his complaint to include Mooney as a defendant. The district court, however, decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Mooney. In June 1976, Hoehling again attempted to amend his complaint, this time to add Mooney's publishers as defendants. Judge Smith denied this motion as well, but granted Hoehling's request to transfer the litigation to the Southern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), where Mooney himself was successfully included as a party. Judge Metzner, with the assistance of Magistrate Sinclair, supervised extensive discovery through 111ost of 1978. After the completion of discovery, both Mooney and Universal moved for SL1111mary judgment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, which was granted on August 1, 1979. II. It is undisputed that Hoehling has a valid copyright in his book. To prove infringement, however, he must demonstrate that defendants "copied" his work and that they "improperly appropriated" his "expression." Ordinarily, wrongful appropriation is shown by proving a "substantial similarity" of copyrightable expression. Because substantial similarity is customarily an extremely close question of fact, summary judgment has traditionally been frowned upon in copyright litigation. Saboteur Hoehling's principal claim is that both Mooney and Universal copied the essential plot of his book i.e., Eric Spehl, influenced by his girlfriend, sabotaged the Hindenburg by placing a crude bomb in Gas Cell 4. In their briefs, and at oral argument, appellees have labored to convince Lis that their plots are not Substantially similar to Hoehling's. While Hoehling's Spehl destroys the airship to please his communist girlfriend, Mooney's character is motivated by an aversion to the technological age. Universal's Boerth, on the other hand, is a fervent anti-fascist who enlists the support of a Luftwaffe colonel who, in turn, unsuccessfully attempts to defuse the bomb at the eleventh hour. Although this argument has potential merit when presented to a fact finder adjudicating the issue of substantial similarity, it is largely irrelevant to a motion for summary judgment where the issue of substantial similarity has been eliminated by the judge's affirmative assumption. Under Rule 56(c), Summary judgment is appropriate only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." Perhaps recognizing this, appellees further argue that Hoehling's plot is an "idea," and ideas are not copyrightable as a matter of law. Hoehling, however, correctly rejoins that while ideas themselves are not subject to copyright, his "expression" of his idea is copyrightable. He relies on Learned Hand's opinion in Sheldon, holding that Letty Lyiiton infringed Dishonored Lady by copying its story of a woman who poisons her lover, and Augustus Hand's analysis in Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc., concluding that the exploits of "Wondermall" infringed the copyright held by the creators of "Superman," the original indestructible mail. Moreover, Hoehling asserts that, in both these cases, the line between "ideas" and "expression" is drawn, in the first instance, by the fact finder. Sheldon and Detective Comics, however, dealt with works of fiction, where the distinction between an idea and its expression is especially elusive. But, where, as here, the idea at issue is an interpretation of an historical event, our cases hold that such interpretations are not copyrightable as a matter of law. In Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., we held that the defendant's biography of Howard Hughes did not infringe an earlier biography of the reclusive alleged billionaire. Although the plots of the two works were necessarily similar, there could be no infringement because of the "public benefit in encouraging the development of historical and biographical works and their public distribution." To avoid a chilling effect on authors who contemplate tackling an historical issue or event, broad latitude must be granted to subsequent authors who make use of historical subject matter, including theories or plots. Learned Hand counseled in Myers v. Mail & Express Co., (S. D. N. Y. 1919), "There cannot be any Such thing as copyright in the order of presentation of the facts, nor, indeed, in their selection." In the instant case, the hypothesis that Eric Spehl destroyed the Hindenburg is based entirely on the interpretation of historical facts, including Spehl's life, his girlfriend's anti-Nazi connections, the explosion's origin in Gas Cell 4, Spehl's duty station, discovery of a dry-cell battery among the wreckage, and rumors about Spehl's involvement dating from a 1938 Gestapo investigation. Such an historical interpretation, whether or not it originated with Mr. Hoehling, is not protected by his copyright and can be freely used by subsequent authors. The same reasoning governs Hoehling's claim that a number of specific facts, ascertained through his personal research, were copied by appellees. The cases in this circuit, however, make clear that factual information is in the public domain. All of Hoehling's allegations of copying, therefore, encompass material that is non-copyrightable as a matter of law, rendering summary judgment entirely appropriate.

Zeppelins had an impeccable 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.

At the time, sabotage was commonly put forward as the cause of the fire, in particular by Hugo Eckener, former head of the Zeppelin company and the "old man" of the German airships. (Eckener later publicly endorsed the static spark theory — see below.)

Another proponent of the sabotage hypothesis was Max Pruss, commander of the Hindenburg throughout the airship's career. Pruss flew on nearly every flight of the Graf Zeppelin until the Hindenburg was ready. In a 1960 interview conducted by Kenneth Leish on behalf of Columbia's Oral History Research Office, he described early dirigible use as safe and felt strongly that the fire was caused by sabotage. Pruss stated that on trips to South America, which was a popular destination for German tourists, both ships passed through multiple thunderstorms with lightning striking the ship without any trouble whatsoever.[citation needed]
Jews

Several theories as to the identity of the alleged saboteur have been put forward. In particular, some have alleged that Zionist agents working against anti-semitic Germany were behind the fire.

In 1962, A. Hoehling published a book entitled Who Destroyed the Hindenburg?. In the book, Hoehling considers all explanations, and rejects all but sabotage. He alleges that the most likely saboteur is one Eric Spehl, a rigger on the Hindenburg crew who was killed at Lakehurst.

Ten years later, Michael MacDonald Mooney published his own book, The Hindenburg. He, too, alleges that Spehl was the saboteur.

Those putting Spehl forward as the alleged saboteur focus on several historic threads including: the course of Spehl’s own life; his girlfriend’s anti-Nazi connections (she was reportedly a suspected communist opposed to the Nazis); that the fire started near Gas Cell 4 (Spehl’s duty station); the discovery of a dry-cell battery among the wreckage; the fact that Spehl was an amateur photographer familiar with flashbulbs that could have served as an igniter (presumably wired to the above mentioned dry cells); the fact a few crew members near the lower fin had seen what they described as a flash bulb (see below); and rumors about Spehl’s involvement dating from a 1938 Gestapo investigation.

Another suspect was a German acrobat named Joseph Spah. He actually survived the disaster. He brought with him a German Shepherd dog named Ulla as a surprise for his children. He often visited the dog and fed and talked to it. Some accuse him of planting a bomb when he was with his dog, who died in the disaster, and also point out that he made many anti-Nazi jokes. However, the FBI conducted an investigation on him and found no hard evidence against Spah.

It has even been suggested that Adolf Hitler himself had ordered the Hindenburg to be destroyed in retaliation to Hugo Eckener's anti-Nazi views [12] .

Supporters also point out that crew members stationed in the stern saw a flashbulb-like explosion:

During the landing maneuver the rigger Hans Freund dropped a landing line in front of the lower fin which was caught in the bracing wires of the ship. No. 2 helmsman Helmut Lau climbed up from the lower fin to release it. When both men looked up towards the front of the ship, they were surprised by what they saw. Freund described a flash-bulb like explosion (which remains debatable because some believe he was looking towards the back of the ship), and Lau saw a brilliant reflection between cells four and five, where some believe the fire began. They then heard a muffled detonation and a thud as the Hindenburg's back broke. Some believe that this is evidence that the airship was sabotaged.[citation needed]

However, opponents of the sabotage hypothesis claimed that no firm evidence, only suppositions, supporting sabotage as a cause of the fire was produced at any of the formal hearings on the matter. The opponents also claim that the sabotage theory rests on selective use of the available evidence. They point out that Spehl could be viewed as a convenient scapegoat as he died in the fire and was hence unable to refute the accusations made against him. These opponents also believe that the sabotage theory was fostered by the children of Max Pruss in an effort to exonerate their father. They also point out that neither of the postwar memoirs of Eckener nor Hans von Schiller contained any support for the notion of "suppressed investigation findings" and, given the timing of the memoirs, there would be little incentive for these two airshipmen to perpetuate a cover-up of the then fallen Nazi regime. This is particularly true of Eckener who had been extremely vocal in his opposition to the Nazis during their rise to power.[citation needed]

And finally, opponents point to the fact that neither of the formal investigations (American and German) concluded in favor of any of the sabotage theories. However, proponents of the sabotage theory point out that any finding of sabotage would have been an embarrassment for the Nazi regime. Thus they speculate that such a finding was suppressed for political reasons [13]. Opponents of the theory point out that no such political pressure would have been applied to the American inquiry which also concluded against sabotage.[citation needed]


Static spark theory
Another theory that the fire was started by a spark caused by a buildup of static electricity between the airship and the ground. Proponents of the "static spark" theory point out that 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 duralumin frame by nonconductive ramie cords. This may have allowed a potential difference between the wet Zeppelin and the ground to form. In order to make up for a delay of over 12 hours in its trans-Atlantic flight, the ship passed through a weather front with a high electrical charge and where the humidity was high. This made the mooring lines wet and thus conductive. As the ship moved through the air, its skin may have become charged. When the wet mooring lines connected to the duralumin frame touched the ground, they would have grounded the frame. The grounding of the frame may thus have caused an electrical discharge between the skin and the grounded frame. Some witnesses reported seeing a glow consistent with St. Elmo's fire along the tail portion of the ship just before the flames broke out, although these reports were made after the official inquiry was completed. The hydrogen in the airship did not catch fire until the skin had burned through. Like contemporary metal-framed, fabric-covered aircraft, the Hindenburg's cotton skin was covered with a potentially flammable finish known as "dope". [14] When the mooring line touched the ground, the electricity built up in the frame could have passed through the line and ignited the skin.[15]

Additionally, when the LZ 130 was making its early test flights, measurements were made to determine the static charge on the ship during flight which would be discharged when ground contact was made." A variant on this theory, presented by Addison Bain, is that there was a spark between segments of the Hindenburg itself.


Lightning theory
A. J. Dessler, former director of the Space Science Laboratory at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and a critic of the Incendiary Paint Theory, claims that there is a much simpler explanation for the conflagration: namely, natural lightning. The Hindenburg was not unusual in the fact that it had been struck by lightning several times previously. This does not normally cause a conflagration in hydrogen-lifted airships, despite the high ignition energy, because the hydrogen is not mixed with oxygen. However, many fires have been documented as started by lightning while airships were venting hydrogen in preparation for landing, as the Hindenburg was doing at the time. The vented hydrogen is mixed with air, making it readily combustible. He cites an airship rule from the time, "Never blow off gas during a thunderstorm."[citation needed]


Incendiary Paint Theory
Most current analysis of the accident assumes that ignition due to some form of electricity is correct. However, there is still a controversy as to whether the fabric covering of the ship or the hydrogen used for buoyancy was the initial fuel for the fire.

The Incendiary Paint Theory (IPT) asserts that the major component in the fire was the skin because of the varnishing, or doping compound used on it.


Proponents of the IPT
Proponents point out that the coatings on the fabric contained both iron oxide and aluminium-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB). These components were potentially reactive. In fact, iron oxide and aluminum are sometimes used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite. In fact, the propellant for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster includes "aluminum (fuel, 16%),(and) iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4%)" [[4]] [citation needed]

Bain also received permission from the German government to look through the old archives and discovered that the German scientists during the time of the Nazi regime concluded that the paint on the canvas of the Hindenburg was indeed the cause of the conflagration. Bain interviewed the wife of the lead scientist of the German investigation, and she confirmed that her husband had told her all about the discovery and instructed her to not tell anyone about it. The results of the German conclusion would likely have embarrassed the Nazi government.[16]

Proponents of the IPT claim that the hydrogen gas in the Hindenburg was "odorized" with garlic[citation needed] so that any gas leaks could be detected, and that there were no reports of garlic odors during the flight or prior to the fire. Opponents of the IPT point out that odorized hydrogen would only be detected in the area of a leak. The fire started near the ship's top, an area devoid of personnel. Since any leaking hydrogen would have moved upward, away from any personnel, there could possibly have been a hydrogen leak in the area where the fire started with no detected odor. Some even think this was added just to simply reject hydrogen as the cause of the fire. They also point out that the garlic odor would be masked by some of the other odors emanating from the fire, like burnt flesh and rubber as reported by many witnesses. Proponents of the IPT also point out that Hindenburg was also seen to stay aloft for a relatively long period of time after the fire started, instead of immediately tilting and falling as it would have if the hydrogen cells were ruptured. [citation needed]

Bain also claims that the fire most likely started on the starboard side behind the upper fin, not seen by most witnesses except for a few in the starboard side of the ship as well as a crew member in the lower fin that saw a fire on the starboard side. Opponents point out that this crew member is Helmut Lau (see above), who saw a brilliant reflection in between cells four and five, inside the ship, supporting the sabotage theory. He also said that the fire was spreading more to the starboard side, but that the fire began in the axial catwalk [17].


Opponents of the IPT
Opponents of the IPT point out that cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB) varnish is rated within the plastics industry as combustible but nonflammable. It will burn when placed within a fire but will not readily ignite by itself. It is considered to be self-extinguishing. The fact that so many pieces of the Hindenburg's fabric remain despite such a fierce firestorm are cited as proof of this. While the coating components were potentially reactive, they were not only in opposite proportions, but also only applied on part of the ship and were separated by a layer of CAB that would have prevented their mingling and reaction. Occasionally the Hindenburg's CAB is incorrectly identified as (or stated as being similar to) cellulose nitrate, which, like most nitrates, burns readily. Claims of the material being like "rocket fuel" are dismissed as being misguided on several counts, such as the presence of an oxidizer in rocket fuels and a misunderstanding of the rate at which rocket fuels burn, which are nowhere near the requisite velocity and require high pressures. [citation needed]

The ignition of the fabric is similarly dismissed. They note that in addition to the Hindenburg having suffered lightning strikes in the past, Bain had to use a high-energy ignition source and orient the fabric properly just to get it to burn.

While proponents of the IPT point out that, after the disaster, the Zeppelin company's engineers determined this skin material was the cause, opponents of the theory counter that Hindenburg had flown for over a year (and through several lightning storms, taking several strikes) with no reports of adverse chemical reactions, and no fires on the fabric. The IPT proponents ignore the fact that after the aft portion of the wreckage was on the ground, flames from burning hydrogen and gas cells was exiting the nose (ducted up the axial walkway) while the outer cover survived. It was surviving until the nose hit the ground in some places. [citation needed]

The photographs of the early stages of the disaster show the Hindenburg with the gas cells of the entire aft section fully aflame, with the burning gas exiting the top of the ship in a fireball, and the resulting low pressure inside causing the air pressure on the envelop to make the hull to cave inwards. If the gas was not burning but the envelope was, this would not have happened. [citation needed]

Opponents of the IPT claim that any delay in the ship's descent was the result of buoyancy forces and their effect upon the inertia of the ship's considerable mass. They point to pictures which show the fire burning along straight lines that happen to be the boundaries between different gas cells, suggesting that the fire was not burning along the skin (which was continuous), but within discrete cells. The total event, initiation of the fire and its near total destruction upon the ground, took only 32-37 seconds (number is in dispute, some say 32 seconds, while others say 34 or 37 seconds). Also, crew members stationed in the stern saw the cells burning [17].

Opponents also point out that the witnesses on the field, as well as the crew members stationed in the stern saw a glow inside cell 4, much before any fire broke out of the skin, indicating that the fire began inside the ship. The newsreel footage supports this [13].


Mythbusters and the IPT
The Discovery Channel series MythBusters explored the IPT in an episode which aired January 10, 2007 (Season 5, Episode 70). Using a 1:50 scale model, the show's hosts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman demonstrated that, while a thermite reaction was possible with the Hindenburg's paint configuration and a significant factor in the burn process, the hydrogen was the main driver of the burn. The model burned twice as fast when the model was filled with hydrogen, as compared to being filled with inert gases. The scale experiment produced a burn process which (visually) matched the newsreel footage quite well. Their conclusion was that both the hydrogen and the paint contributed to the disaster.


Rate of flame propagation
Regardless of the source of ignition or the initial fuel for the fire, there remains a third point of controversy with regard to the cause of the rapid spread of the flames along the length of the ship. Here again the debate has centered on the culpability of fabric covering of the ship vs. the hydrogen used for buoyancy.

The proponents of the IPT also contend that the fabric coatings were responsible for the rapid spread of the flames. They point out that the combustion of hydrogen is not visible, but burns in the ultraviolet range. This means that what can be seen burning in the photographs cannot be hydrogen. The motion picture films show the combustion burning downward.

Opponents of the IPT point out that once the fire started, all of the components of the ship (fabric, gas, metal, etc.) burned. So, while it may be that the combustion of the metal and fabric changed the color of the flame, the presence of color does not imply that hydrogen did not also burn. Also, while all fires generally tend to burn upward, including hydrogen fires, the enormous radiant heat from the burning of all of the materials of the ship would have quickly led to ignition over the entire surface of the ship, thus explaining the downward propagation of the flames. Some also think that what looked like downward burning was in fact burning pieces of fabric, metal and other materials. They observe that World War I airships filled with hydrogen, but constructed of completely different materials, also burned visibly, suggesting that the glow is produced mechanically like a gas lantern.

Opponents also cite recent technical papers which claim that even if the ship had been coated with typical rocket fuel (as is often stated in the press), it would have taken many hours to burn — not the 32-37 seconds that it actually took.[18] Proponents claim that this doesn't take into account the conditions that lead to firestorms, such as convection and ignition from radiant energy.

Additional opposition to the IPT is found in a set of modern experiments, recreating the fabric and coating materials of the Hindenburg, which dispel the IPT theory.[19] These experiments conclude that it would have taken about 40 hours for the Hindenburg to burn if the fire had been driven by combustible fabric. These experiments, as well as other industrial tests of the coating materials, conclude that the covering materials were combustible but nonflammable. Two additional scientific papers also strongly reject the IPT.[20]


Other controversial hypotheses

Structural Failure
In the Zeppelin Museum in Friedrichshafen a 33-foot full scale replica of the Hindenburg's passenger quarters shows some metal fatigue. Although Captain Pruss believed that the ship could withstand tight turns without much damage, others believe that the ship would have been weakened by being repeatedly stressed, leading to the puncture theory below.

There was also evidence of damage on previous flights. The ship did not get much routine inspection and once lost an engine and almost drifted over Africa where it could have crashed. Dr. Eckener was furious and ordered all section chiefs to inspect the ship during flight. In March of 1936, the Graf Zeppelin and the Hindenburg made a three day flight dropping leaflets and broadcasting speeches via a loudspeaker. On one day during this tour, Captain Ernst Lehmann flew the Hindenburg in very gusty conditions at full engine power to impress those watching. The ship's tail struck the ground and part of the lower fin was broken [5]. Many spectators had their cameras confiscated that day to prevent negative publicity. However Harold G. Dick hid his camera and took pictures of the damaged fin. Dr. Eckener was very upset and criticized Captain Lehmann in this manner:

"How could you, Herr Lehmann, order the ship to be brought out in such wind conditions. You had the best excuse in the world for postponing this idiotic flight; instead, you risk the ship, merely to avoid annoying Herr Goebbels. Do you call this showing a sense of responsibility towards our enterprise?" [21]

The Hindenburg can also be seen in the film footage and the pictures of the disaster cracking or bending, leading some to say that the ship's structure was rather weak.

This theory has not been very popular because it has to be combined with another theory.


Puncture theory
Another popular theory put forward referred to the film footage taken during the disaster, as well as the plan of the landing maneuver, in which the Hindenburg can be seen and planned taking a rather sharp turn prior to bursting into flames. Some experts speculate that one of the many bracing wires within the structure of the airship may have snapped and punctured the fabric of one or more of the internal gas cells. They refer to gauges found in the wreckage that showed that the tension of the wires was much too high. They also point out that even if you make cable the same, there is some variability, as they tested two bracing wires and noticed that the second one broke at only 70 percent of the load it was designed for [13].The punctured cells would have allowed hydrogen out of the Hindenburg, which could have been ignited by the static discharge mentioned previously. Advocates of this theory believe that the hydrogen began to leak approximately eight minutes prior to the explosion, building up until the spark ignited the gas. This theory, however, remains speculation, because no concrete evidence has shown that the gas cells were punctured.

However, witness statements seem to back up the hypothesis. Some witnesses reported seeing a flapping piece of fabric, where a static discharge could have entered into the leaking cell. The witnesses said that the fire began there. This leads some to believe a hydrogen leak in places other than the vent. Persons on board the ship also reported hearing a muffled sound and a ground crew member on the starboard side reported hearing a crack which some speculate to be a bracing wire cracking. Additionally, Dr. Eckener blamed Captain Max Pruss for rushing the entire landing maneuver and how he handled it [13], and privately at least he continued to believe that Pruss was to blame for the disaster [13].


Fuel leak
The 2001 documentary Hindenburg Disaster: Probable Cause suggested another theory. A 16-year-old boy had smelled what he described as gasoline when he was standing below the Hindenburg's aft port engine. During the investigation, commander Charles Rosendahl dismissed this clue. Some have suggested he had smelled diesel fuel, which could have leaked and could have created highly flammable oil vapor that could have ignited the ship. They also suggested that overheating engines may have played a role in the theory. This theory is thought by some to be misleading because it may have misinterpreted the statements by the crewmen of the lower fin. The show thought the crewmen saw a flash in the keel catwalk, when in reality they saw something in the axial catwalk.


Luger Pistol among wreckage
Some more sensational newspapers at the time said that a person on board committed suicide because a Luger pistol with one shell fired was found among the wreckage [21]. Another possibility would be that the Hindenburg was shot with the pistol. Most historians discount this story as having only circumstantial and incidental evidence.

 

H. F. T. v. Buttlar-Brandenfels, E. A. Lehmann, M. Pruss und H. v. Schiller
 

There lay the real cause of the Hindenburg disaster, for Germany has no helium. It is a U. S. monopoly. The willingness of Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt to sell Germany enough helium to fly the Graf and the Hindenburg on peaceful missions was offset by the price factor (more than 30 times as expensive, for 20% less payload efficiency) and by covert political opposition. As Columnist Dorothy Thompson wrote: "The destruction of the Hindenburg was an act of sabotage. For the peaceful world today, the world that seeks to join hands in the perfection of greater technologies, that seeks mutual enrichment and mutual understanding by all means of physical, intellectual and spiritual intercourse, is, indeed, being sabotaged by the fear and the threat of war. The Hindenburg represented the world and for that reason our eyes lighted when we saw its silver grandeur in the sky. It contended with another world which might make it at any moment an object of terror and of hatred."

In command was 45-year-old Captain Max Pruss, who went to work for old Count von Zeppelin in 1911, had made 170 flights across the Atlantic. Last year he commanded the Hindenburg on one flight from Lakehurst to Frankfort and on several to South America. As his adviser came famed Captain Ernst Lehmann, second only to great Dr. Hugo Eckener as a dirigible expert. He began flying airships in 1912 and was the man who conceived and supervised the Zeppelin raids on London. Tired old (65) Dr. Eckener, with full trust in his two subordinates, was last week off on a vacation in Austria.

But a sharp thunderstorm came up and when he reached the Naval reservation, Captain Pruss took no chances, turned off to sea. At dusk, while a drizzle fell from a sombre sky and a fitful breeze jerked the windsock, the Hindenburg once more poked her nose over Lakehurst. began maneuvering to land. It circled twice, then dropped to 500 ft., occasionally spewing water ballast. At 7:20 p.m. precisely, two lines fell from the bow. A trained squad of Navy men grabbed one, a squad of civilians the other. Gently the two groups began coaxing the big bag to the mooring mast. The breeze teasing the tail made it more difficult than usual. Captain Pruss put the two Mercedes-Benz Diesel engines in the stern gondolas into reverse to keep from overshooting the mast. Witnesses noticed that the port motor was backfiring.

Suddenly a stab of flame gashed the airship's flank near the port stern gondola. So swiftly that to many it seemed instantaneous the flame engulfed the whole rear half of the ship. There was a

Suddenly a stab of flame gashed the airship's flank near the port stern gondola. So swiftly that to many it seemed instantaneous the flame engulfed the whole rear half of the ship. There was a muffled, booming WHOOSH and a huge belch of white fire and smoke mushroomed skyward.

With a Cra-a-a-ack! the ship buckled. Down on the ground went the stern with a peculiarly gentle crash amid clouds of dust and smoke. As the still undamaged bow tilted up at 45°, the flame rushed through the middle and geysered in a long bright plume from the nose. For an instant the Hindenburg seemed a rearing reptile darting its tongue in anger. Then it was a gigantic halfback tackled behind the knees and falling forward on its face. The huge bag settled slowly to earth with fire roaring over it 50 yd. a second. Last place it reached was the passenger section in the belly, about one-third back from the bow. Silhouetted by the holocaust, passengers began dropping out of the windows like peas from a collander. From the control cabin swarmed officers and crew. Struggling figures emerged from the blazing hulk, stumbled, rose, fell again in fiery suffocation or from broken legs, shock, concussion. Down on the slowest ones then smashed the enormous incandescent mass in a blazing blizzard of fabric, crashing girders, melted duralumin. Still out of the inferno crept struggling figures, afire from head to foot, some stark naked, their clothes burned away, their skin and flesh in sizzling tatters.

The flames began to subside, but dense black smoke still poured from the twisted heap of redhot girders and the smoldering pud- dle of fuel oil. Not until next morning was the wreckage cool enough for men to pry out all the crisped bodies within, many of them only tentatively identifiable. The dawn score of deaths stood at eleven passengers, 21 crew, while 28 passengers and 49 crew miraculously escaped. One member of the ground-crew— Civilian Allen Hagaman—also died of burns. Most survivors were badly burned and three more crew and one more passenger presently perished. One of the first to go was Captain Lehmann. Just before he died he said: "I intended to stay with the ship as long as I could, until we could land her, if possible. But it was impossible. Everything around me was on fire. The windows were open in the central control cabin and I jumped about 100 ft. My clothes were all ablaze."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757837-1,00.html

According to the dramatic sabotage legend, a letter had arrived at the German Embassy in Washington, D.C., the day before the flight warning of a saboteur among the paying passengers. As a result, security was unusually thorough, and Captain Ernst Lehmann, the newly appointed director of the Zeppelin Company (his predecessor having resigned in disgrace), and two SS officials scrutinized the passengers. By journey's end, Captain Lehmann was convinced the letter was a figment of SS paranoia. Nothing of import had transpired. He did not know that Erich Spehl, a young rigger on the ship whose job it was to tend to the bags of highly flammable hydrogen within the aluminum superstructure, had surreptitiously planted a bomb within Gas Cell IV long before the ship had left its hangar. It was left to Spehl to rip open the gas bag shortly before landing and set the timer on his rudimentary bomb. It was not Spehl's intention to kill anyone: the innocent farm lad was motivated to perform his "act of genius" by his older, sophisticated girlfriend under whose tutelage Spehl had grown violently opposed to the Nazi regime. As the Hindenburg circled to position itself for landing, Erich Spehl slit the gas cell and set the bomb's timer for two hours, long after the passengers and crew should have disembarked. Unfortunately, the timer malfunctioned, or in his haste, he set it wrong. The Hindenburg was just preparing to dock when the bomb exploded, burning the silk bag and allowing air to rush in and mix with the highly flammable hydrogen.

Whether the explosion was caused by such a saboteur or not, a more dramatic black eye for the Nazi regime could scarcely have been planned. The disaster was featured in newsreels within the week, and it made a phenomenal spectacle, the bright white flames leaping into the dark sky as the silhouetted bulk of the zeppelin descended gracefully toward the earth. The German government, hoping to avoid an international incident, ascribed the disaster to "an act of God." A binational commission was convened, but the Germans had been expressly warned not to find any evidence of sabotage. The FBI, in turn, played along, but the commission met nightly, and convictions were aired off the record. The decision to sweep the mess under the rug abruptly brought any further experiments with passenger airships to an end.

http://www.nlhs.com/passenger-list.htm

http://altfrankfurt.com/Spezial/Zeppelin/   great pictures

 

I.

This litigation arises from three separate accounts of the triumphant introduction, last voyage, and tragic destruction of the Hindenburg, the colossal dirigible constructed in Germany during Hitler's reign. The zeppelin, the last and most sophisticated in a fleet of luxury airships, which punctually floated its wealthy passengers from the Third Reich to the United States, exploded into flames and disintegrated in 35 seconds as it hovered above the Lakehurst, New Jersey Naval Air Station at 7:25 p.m. on May 6, 1937. Thirty-six passengers and crew were killed but, fortunately, 52 persons survived. Official investigations conducted by both American and German authorities could ascertain no definitive cause of the disaster, but both suggested the plausibility of static electricity or St. Elmo's Fire, which could have ignited the highly explosive hydrogen that filled the airship. Throughout, the investigators refused to rule out the possibility of sabotage.

The destruction of the Hindenburg marked the concluding chapter in the chronicle of airship passenger service, for after the tragedy at Lakehurst, the Nazi regime permanently grounded the Graf Zeppelin I and discontinued its plan to construct an even larger dirigible, the Graf Zeppelin 11.

The final pages of the airship's story marked the beginning of a series of journalistic, historical, and literary accounts devoted to the Hindenburg and its fate. Indeed, weeks of testimony by a plethora of witnesses before the official investigative panels provided fertile source material for would-be authors. Moreover, both the American and German Commissions issued official reports, detailing all that was then known of the tragedy. A number of newspaper and magazine articles had been written about the Hindenburg in 1936, its first year of trans-Atlantic service, and they, of course, multiplied many fold after the crash. In addition, two passengers Margaret Mather and Gertrud Adelt published separate and detailed accounts of the voyage, C. E. Rosendahl, commander of the Lakehurst Naval Air Station and a pioneer in airship travel himself, wrote a book titled What About the Airship?, in which he endorsed the theory that the Hindenburg was the victim of sabotage. In 1957, Nelson Gidding, who would return to the subject of the Hindenburg some 20 years later, wrote an unpublished "treatment" for a motion picture based on the deliberate destruction of the airship. In that year as well, John Toland published Ships in the Sky which, in its seventeenth chapter, chronicled the last flight of the Hindenburg. In 1962, Dale Titler released Wings of Mystery, in which he too devoted a chapter to the Hindenburg.

Appellant A. A. Hoehling published Who Destroyed the Hindenburg?, a full-length book based on his exhaustive research in 1962. Mr. Hoehling studied the investigative reports, consulted previously published articles and books, and conducted interviews with Survivors of the crash as well as others who possessed information about the Hindenburu. His book is presented as a factual account, written in an objective, reportorial style.

The first half recounts the final crossing of the Hindenburg, from Sunday, May 2, when it left Frankfurt, to Thursday, May 6, when it exploded at Lakehurst. Hoehling describes the airship, its role as an instrument of propaganda in Nazi Germany, its passengers and crew, the danger of hydrogen, and the ominous threats received by German officials, warning that the Hindenburg would be destroyed. The second portion, headed The Quest, sets forth the progress of the official investigations, followed by an account of Hoehling's own research. In the final chapter, spanning eleven pages, Hoehling suggests that all proffered explanations of the explosion, save deliberate destruction, are unconvincing, He concludes that the most likely saboteur is one Eric Spehl, a "rigger" on the Hindenburg crew who was killed at Lakehurst.

According to Hoehling, Spehl had motive, expertise, and opportunity to plant an explosive device, constructed of dry-cell batteries and a flashbulb, in "Gas Cell 4," the location of the initial explosion. An amateur photographer with access to flashbulbs, Spehl could have destroyed the Hindenburg to please his ladyfriend, a Suspected communist dedicated to exploding the myth of Nazi invincibility.

Ten years later appellee Michael MacDonald Mooney published his book, The Hindenburg. Mooney's endeavor might be characterized as more literary than historical in its attempt to weave a number of symbolic themes through the actual events surrounding the tragedy. His dominant theme contrasts the natural beauty of the month of May, when the disaster occurred, with the cold, deliberate progress of "technology." The May theme is expressed not simply by the season, but also by the character of Spehl, portrayed as a sensitive artisan with needle and thread. The Hindenburg, in contrast, is the symbol of technology, as are its German creators and the Reich itself. The destruction is depicted as the ultimate triumph of nature over technology, as Spehl plants the bomb that ignites the hydrogen. Developing this theme from the outset, Mooney begins with an extended review of man's efforts to defy nature through flight, focusing on the evolution of the zeppelin. This story culminates in the construction of the Hindenburg, and the Nazis' claims of its indestructibility. Mooney then traces the fateful voyage, advising the reader almost immediately of Spehl's scheme. The book concludes with the airship's explosion.

Mooney acknowledges, in this case, that he consulted Hoehling's book, and that he relied on it for some details. He asserts that he first discovered the "Spehl -as- saboteur" theory when he read Titler's Wings of Mystery. Indeed, Titler concludes that Spehl was the saboteur, for essentially the reasons stated by Hoehling. Mooney also claims to have studied the complete National Archives and New York Times files concerning the Hindenburg, as well as all previously published material. Moreover, he traveled to Germany, visited Spehl's birthplace, and conducted a number of interviews with survivors.
After Mooney prepared an outline of his anticipated book, his publisher Succeeded in negotiations to sell the motion picture rights to appellee Universal City Studios. Universal then commissioned a screen story by writers Levinson and Link, best known for their television series, Columbo, in which a somewhat disheveled, but wise detective unravels artfully conceived murder mysteries. In their screen story, Levinson and Link created a Columbo-like character who endeavored to identify the saboteur on board the Hindenburg.

Director Robert Wise, however, was not satisfied with this version, and called upon Nelson Gidding to write a final screenplay. Gidding, it will be recalled, had engaged in preliminary work on a film about the Hindenburg almost twenty years earlier.
The Gidding screenplay follows what is known in the motion Picture industry as a "Grand Hotel" formula, developing a number of fictional characters and subplots involving them. This formula has become standard fare in so-called "disaster" movies, which have enjoyed a certain popularity in recent years. In the film, which was released in late 1975, a rigger named "Boerth," who has an anti-Nazi ladyfriend, plans to destroy the airship in an effort to embarrass the Reich. Nazi officials, vaguely aware of sabotage threats, station a Luftwaffe intelligence officer on the zeppelin, loosely resembling a Colonel Erdmann who was aboard the Hindenburg. This character is portrayed as a likable fellow who soon discovers that Boerth is the saboteur. Boerth, however, convinces him that the Hindenburg should be destroyed and the two join forces, planning the explosion for several hours after the landing at Lakehurst, when no people would be on board. In Gidding's version, the airship is delayed by a storm, frantic efforts to defuse the bomb fail, and the Hindenburg is destroyed. The film's subplots involve other possible Suspects, including a fictional countess who has had her estate expropriated by the Reich, two fictional confidence men wanted by New York Sq. City police, and an advertising executive rushing to close a business deal in America.

Upon learning of Universal's plans to release the film, Hoehling instituted this action against Universal for copyright infringement and common law unfair competition in the district court for the District of Columbia in October 1975. Judge Smith declined to issue an order restraining release of the film in December, and it was distributed throughout the nation.

In January 1976, Hoehling sought to amend his complaint to include Mooney as a defendant. The district court, however, decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Mooney. In June 1976, Hoehling again attempted to amend his complaint, this time to add Mooney's publishers as defendants. Judge Smith denied this motion as well, but granted Hoehling's request to transfer the litigation to the Southern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), where Mooney himself was successfully included as a party. Judge Metzner, with the assistance of Magistrate Sinclair, supervised extensive discovery through 111ost of 1978. After the completion of discovery, both Mooney and Universal moved for SL1111mary judgment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, which was granted on August 1, 1979.

II.

It is undisputed that Hoehling has a valid copyright in his book. To prove infringement, however, he must demonstrate that defendants "copied" his work and that they "improperly appropriated" his "expression." Ordinarily, wrongful appropriation is shown by proving a "substantial similarity" of copyrightable expression. Because substantial similarity is customarily an extremely close question of fact, summary judgment has traditionally been frowned upon in copyright litigation.
Hoehling's principal claim is that both Mooney and Universal copied the essential plot of his book i.e., Eric Spehl, influenced by his girlfriend, sabotaged the Hindenburg by placing a crude bomb in Gas Cell 4. In their briefs, and at oral argument, appellees have labored to convince Lis that their plots are not Substantially similar to Hoehling's. While Hoehling's Spehl destroys the airship to please his communist girlfriend, Mooney's character is motivated by an aversion to the technological age. Universal's Boerth, on the other hand, is a fervent anti-fascist who enlists the support of a Luftwaffe colonel who, in turn, unsuccessfully attempts to defuse the bomb at the eleventh hour.

Although this argument has potential merit when presented to a fact finder adjudicating the issue of substantial similarity, it is largely irrelevant to a motion for summary judgment where the issue of substantial similarity has been eliminated by the judge's affirmative assumption. Under Rule 56(c), Summary judgment is appropriate only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." Perhaps recognizing this, appellees further argue that Hoehling's plot is an "idea," and ideas are not copyrightable as a matter of law.

Hoehling, however, correctly rejoins that while ideas themselves are not subject to copyright, his "expression" of his idea is copyrightable. He relies on Learned Hand's opinion in Sheldon, holding that Letty Lyiiton infringed Dishonored Lady by copying its story of a woman who poisons her lover, and Augustus Hand's analysis in Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc., concluding that the exploits of "Wondermall" infringed the copyright held by the creators of "Superman," the original indestructible mail. Moreover, Hoehling asserts that, in both these cases, the line between "ideas" and "expression" is drawn, in the first instance, by the fact finder.

Sheldon and Detective Comics, however, dealt with works of fiction, where the distinction between an idea and its expression is especially elusive. But, where, as here, the idea at issue is an interpretation of an historical event, our cases hold that such interpretations are not copyrightable as a matter of law. In Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., we held that the defendant's biography of Howard Hughes did not infringe an earlier biography of the reclusive alleged billionaire. Although the plots of the two works were necessarily similar, there could be no infringement because of the "public benefit in encouraging the development of historical and biographical works and their public distribution." To avoid a chilling effect on authors who contemplate tackling an historical issue or event, broad latitude must be granted to subsequent authors who make use of historical subject matter, including theories or plots. Learned Hand counseled in Myers v. Mail & Express Co., (S. D. N. Y. 1919), "There cannot be any Such thing as copyright in the order of presentation of the facts, nor, indeed, in their selection."
In the instant case, the hypothesis that Eric Spehl destroyed the Hindenburg is based entirely on the interpretation of historical facts, including Spehl's life, his girlfriend's anti-Nazi connections, the explosion's origin in Gas Cell 4, Spehl's duty station, discovery of a dry-cell battery among the wreckage, and rumors about Spehl's involvement dating from a 1938 Gestapo investigation. Such an historical interpretation, whether or not it originated with Mr. Hoehling, is not protected by his copyright and can be freely used by subsequent authors.

The same reasoning governs Hoehling's claim that a number of specific facts, ascertained through his personal research, were copied by appellees. The cases in this circuit, however, make clear that factual information is in the public domain.
All of Hoehling's allegations of copying, therefore, encompass material that is non-copyrightable as a matter of law, rendering summary judgment entirely appropriate.
 

 

Myth: Hindenburg Fire In 1937 Proves That Hydrogen Is Too Dangerous For The Public To Use.
Excerpted from "The Philosopher Mechanic" by Roy McAlister

 

Often repeated remarks concerning the Hydrogen Economy go something like the following: Hydrogen would answer the pollution question ... When hydrogen is produced in sufficient amounts to achieve the economies of scale it will be the cheapest renewable fuel ... But "Remember the Hindenburg" ... It is often suggested that the Hindenburg disaster ended the chance for practical applications of hydrogen.

The Hindenburg was a rigid "airship" with a stretched outer shell of streamlined silver-colored fabric. It was lighter than air because it contained giant bags of hydrogen. Some 236 tons of air was displaced by the Hindenburg. This displaced air created a lifting force and buoyed the Hindenburg upward with a force of 236 tons.

Graf Zeppelin, a smaller hydrogen airship, had made 650 flights. More than 18,000 passengers were delivered safely during the nine years that the Graf Zeppelin flew. It flew 144 flights nonstop to and from Berlin across the Atlantic to Rio de Janeiro or New York.

The Graf Zeppelin traveled more than one million miles or 40 times around the world including a 20 day cruise around the world in 1929 on a publicity flight and it made a trip to the North Pole in 1931. This older Zeppelin, which was launched in 1928, carried sixteen giant "sausage" casings filled with hydrogen. One of the better German technologies that had been years in development was sausage casings. German engineers expanded this technology to make gigantic lightweight lifting bags. These bags were reinforced with cotton fabric and filled with hydrogen to atmospheric pressure. Over 800,000 ox-guts were required for the liners of these lifting bags.

The newer Hindenburg had crossed the Atlantic 21 times and used a Goodyear-formula for a gelatin-latex membrane to contain the hydrogen in the gas cells. Much attention was paid to the silver airship image that displayed giant swastikas on the tail section. The silver appearance of the Hindenburg was due to a surface varnish of powdered aluminum in a paint formula that resembles the chemistry of modern solid booster rocket fuel.

In fact we should remember the Hindenburg and carefully study this mishap. An eye-witness passenger reported events as follows on the fateful evening that the Hindenburg burned while attempting to dock at an elevated altitude to a tall mast at Lakehurst, New Jersey: "With my wife I was leaning out of a window on the promenade deck. Suddenly there occurred a remarkable stillness. The motors were silent, and it seemed as though the whole world was holding its breath. One heard no command, no call, no cry. The people we saw (on the ground) seemed suddenly stiffened. I could not account for this.

 

Bomb

Then I heard a light, dull detonation from above, no louder than the sound of a beer bottle being opened. I turned my gaze toward the bow and noticed a delicate rose glow, as though the sun were about to rise. I understood immediately that the airship was aflame ...

Photo Courtesy of Addison Bain and the National Hydrogen Association

For a moment I thought of getting bed linen to soften our leap (from 120 feet) but in the same instant, the airship crashed to the ground ... We leaped from the airship ... my wife called to me; ... took me by the hand; (and) led me away." (From the book "The Last Trip of the Hindenburg" by Leonard Adelt.) This account is substantially verified by the newsreel film of the fire. This was an eyewitness report of the burning of an airship that carried a crew of 59. It had capacity for 50 passengers in individual cabins or for 70 passengers on day flights. On the evening it burned, the Hindenburg carried 97 persons.

Passengers had ornate individual cabins with shower baths, a clubroom for all with an aluminum grand piano, and a carefully insulated smoking room. The kitchen stocked two luxurious tons of the finest foods. Passengers received the best food and drinks, the most modern conveniences, and the envy of other travelers because the Hindenburg sped past ocean liners, outran trains, and remained airborne for days or weeks after other aircraft had to land and refuel. Telephones, electric lighting, and modern appliances served the crew and passengers. Public rooms were large, decorated in the style of ocean liners of the day and they had windows that could be kept open for fresh-air viewing of the grand scenes that unfolded as the giant airship sped along at the cruise speed of 78 mph.

After being launched in 1936, the Hindenburg had completed ten and one-half round trips between Germany and the United States before burning in 1937. Cruising across the Atlantic took 50 to 60 hours under constant power form four 1,200-H.P., V-16 Mercedes-Benz Diesel engines. Wooden propellers 20 feet in diameter were turned by the V-16 engines. The fully loaded range was about 10,000 miles or about 5 to 6 days at cruise speed. It was the largest airship ever built, with an 813-foot long aluminum frame filled with 7,200,000 cubic feet of hydrogen contained in 16 bags made of two layers of woven fabric with a gelatin-latex plastic film cemented between. Two 30-kilowatt diesel-powered generators carried the regular loads and a stand-by unit could deliver additional electric power if needed.

Germany's Nazi Third Reich provided funding to build the Hindenburg. It was run by the Nazi Minister of Propaganda. Huge swastikas were painted on the tail fins and loudspeakers made Nazi propaganda announcements when the giant ship toured cities that it passed. Thousands of small Nazi flags were dropped to float down like tiny parachutes to thrill school children and others that watched the giant Zeppelin pass. Although observation balloons were used in the U.S. Civil War, Germany was the first to widely exploit the military possibilities of dirigibles in World War I.

The Hindenburg type of airship represented considerable technical advancement and posed a much larger threat because it could fly to virtually any target, drop bombs, saboteurs, or propaganda, and fly back to Germany without stopping. After the Hindenburg burned, much speculation about sabotage entered the investigation. Was the disaster caused by lightening or sabotage? Nazi investigators were never convinced that the fire was caused by natural sources.

Before World War II, certain natural gas wells in the United States were the only significant source of helium. Helium was extracted from natural gas produced from wells around Hugoton, Kansas. Although the Hindenburg was designed to use inert helium as the lifting gas, U.S. military authorities prevented exportation of helium to Germany. The U.S. Government still holds strategic reserves of helium and closely monitors production and export programs but the reasons for doing so have shifted from dirigibles and centered on the relative scarcity of helium and its myriad of applications ranging from use as an inert cover gas for welding to various heat-transfer applications.

On the fateful evening, camera crews gathered expecting to see a "high docking" in which the Hindenburg would be moored near the top of a mast and secured with ground lines. Their cameras recorded what happened as the Hindenburg dropped lines to waiting crews and the events after the flames appeared. If the Hindenburg would have been filled with helium, would it have burned and crashed at Lakehurst, New Jersey?

Regardless of much speculation, translation of a letter handwritten in German on June 28, 1937, by Hindenburg investigator and electrical engineer Otto Beyersdorff states "The actual cause of the fire was the extreme easy flammability of the covering material brought about by discharges of an electrostatic nature ..." Recently, NASA investigator Dr. Addison Bain has verified this finding by scientific experiments that duplicated the vigorous ignition by static discharge to the aluminum powder filled covering material. Spectacular colors of this type of combustion were produced from the burning skin of the giant airship. Dr. Bain concluded that the Hindenburg would have burned and crashed even if helium would have been used as the lifting gas. Dr. Bain noted that the particular type of aluminum powder particles, which are flake like in shape, are particularly sensitive to electrical discharge.

Hydrogen is about fifteen-times lighter than air. After ignition by the violently burning surface varnish, flames from hydrogen combustion traveled upward, far away from the crew and passengers in the cabins below. What fell to the ground with the passengers were burning shrouds from the exterior fabric, a large inventory of diesel fuel, and combustible materials that were in the cabins. Thirty-three persons were killed in the Hindenburg fire. The flames that continued to be supported by heavier-than-air materials, fabric and diesel fuel continued for hours.

Sixty-two persons from the Hindenburg lived through the disaster by being fortunate enough to ride the Hindenburg down and escape the flames and wreckage that fell to the ground. Many of these survivors were relatively unharmed.

"Remember the Hindenburg" should bring thoughts of the 200 persons in the landing-assist team that were below the Hindenburg that were holding or reaching for mooring ropes when the Hindenburg caught fire. If the Hindenburg had carried the same amount of gasoline as the energy released by burning the 7,200,000 cubic feet of hydrogen ... the loss of life would have surely included many more of the crew, passengers, and the 200-member landing team.

CONCLUSIONS:

Careful investigation of the Hindenburg disaster verified the opinion of the engineers on the Hindenburg and proved that it was the flammable aluminum powder filled paint varnish that coated the infamous airship, not the hydrogen that started the fateful fire.

The Hindenburg repeated the famous experiment of Ben Franklin regarding collection of electric charge on an object in the sky. Ben Franklin flew a kite in a storm to learn about lightening. The captain of the Hindenburg provided the 800' long, 236 ton, aluminum-powder varnish covered airship as a much larger electric charge collector. As the Hindenburg was grounded by dropping landing lines, the experiment was complete and electrical discharge in the Hindenburg's skin started the fire. The Hindenburg would have burned and crashed if it had been filled with helium or simply held in the air by some other force.

As eyewitnesses noted, the hydrogen fire started considerably after the Hindenburg’s surface skin started to burn and was over in less than one minute. The diesel fuel and other heavier-than-air components of the Hindenburg continued to burn many hours on the ground.

Movie cameras

On May 6, 1937, just minutes before 7:30pm, a German zeppelin called Hindenburg was approaching a mooring mast at Lakehurst Naval Air Station in New Jersey, completing its three-day expedition from Frankfurt, Germany with 97 souls aboard. This rare event– the first trans-Atlantic Zeppelin flight to the U.S. that year– had been heavily publicized in advance, so numerous reporters and journalists were present to record the grand occasion.

Surprisingly, smoking was allowed onboard. However, the act was confined to lounges, which were pressurized, preventing the flammable mixture of oxygen and hydrogen to form.

Gas Vents

Underneath the dirigible’s streamlined and seemingly empty, balloon-like structure was a relatively lightweight yet rigid aluminum frame. To help reduce the effects of drag, the passenger area was not limited to the gondola but was also located inside the lower body of the ship. Above were sealed, hydrogen-filled gas cells. As explained by “Secrets of the Dead,” the ship’s altitude was controlled through a series of pulley systems and valves that enabled the release of hydrogen. Gas would rise upwards through airshafts to several vents on the ship’s upper cover, and any leaking gas would flow through these vents and diffuse safely out into the atmosphere.

Hydrogen, like all gases, expands when heated. With the sun’s rays striking at nearly 360 degrees around the ellipsoid aircraft, the threat of overheating and expansion of the internal gas cells to the point of structural failure was a concern. To reduce the danger, however, engineers coated the Hindenburg’s cotton skin with a protective lacquer of powdered aluminum and iron oxide that reflected light and minimized the absorption of thermal energy.

According to Provan, the Hindenburg’s construction was more advanced than anything the Zeppelin Company had ever built and was considered far superior to the American and British airship technology, much of which was leftover from World War I. In fact, airship companies in both the United States and Great Britain had been plagued with deadly accidents. In contrast, the Zeppelin Company had a virtually flawless safety record.

Because of the Hindenburg’s enormity, growing popularity and the fact that she was the brainchild of German engineering, the rising Nazi Party quickly saw publicity potential in her. Although against the wishes of Hugo Eckener, the CEO of the Zeppelin Company, the Third Reich ordered the swastika emblem to be painted on the airship’s rudder. Showy flyovers and leaflet dispersal during political events were orchestrated, and they even entertained the idea of naming the ship the Adolf Hitler.

Just one year after her maiden voyage, the Hindenburg had flown nearly 193,000 miles and ferried some 2,800 passengers. On May 6, 1937, she was carrying 97 people from Frankfurt to the naval air station at Lakehurst, N.J. This flight would be the last. Arriving in the early evening, the Hindenburg was running roughly 12 hours late due to strong headwinds during the oceanic crossing and a severe lightning storm that had hit the eastern seaboard.

Just before landing, the Hindenburg caught fire and, in a matter of seconds, crashed as a rapidly burning inferno. Sadly, 35 people were burned to death.

Numerous theories have been put forth over the past seven decades explaining how and why the ship caught fire. Predating the flight recordings provided by black boxes, the disaster left little evidence other than its charred and mangled frame. Live visual and audio recordings taken from the ground and eyewitness accounts were all investigators had to go on.

Immediate suspicion of sabotage prompted thorough background checks and an FBI investigation, but no conclusive evidence of anti- Nazi plotting was uncovered. Other theories, including a hunter’s stray bullet or a possible lightning strike while the Hindenburg was venting gas, were proposed. Investigators soon became convinced, however, that mechanical failure, coupled with the presence of hydrogen, was the most plausible explanation.

oxygen

The Department of Commerce released an accident report concluding that a leak, creating a mix of hydrogen and oxygen in the airship, encountered a source of ignition.

Bain's report

Zeppelins quickly declined in popularity as passenger ships, and hydrogen was deemed an extremely dangerous and potentially deadly gas.

As reported by “Secret’s of the Dead: What Happened to the Hindenburg?” relatively new investigations have uncovered overlooked evidence that may help vindicate hydrogen. Spearheaded by NASA engineer and hydrogen researcher Addison Bain, this theory takes the spotlight off the Hindenburg’s inner belly and shines it on the outer reflective shell.

Bain proposed that, had a hydrogen leak been present, the fire would have begun at the top of the ship where the vents expelled the gas. Some eyewitness reports claimed that, although the fire quickly spread to the top, the first signs of a conflagration began in the rear. Film footage clearly showed that the Hindenburg remained aloft while engulfed in flames. Bain suggested that this could not have been possible if the hydrogen was the first component to ignite; buoyancy would have been lost almost immediately with the combustion of the gas.

The Flame Bain also studied the nature of the fire, which rapidly traveled around the body of the ship. According to Bain, a purely hydrogen and oxygen fueled fire would essentially burn upwards. Also, the fact the flames burned infernally hot and unmistakably orange was also intriguing as hydrogen usually burns with a bluish-white flame. Bain was convinced that something highly flammable, other than the hydrogen, was aboard.

From film footage, Bain calculated that the outer cover of the ship burned at the incredible rate of 49 feet per second. By examining remnants of the coated cloth through electron microscopy, the exact chemical components – aluminum and iron oxide – were deciphered. Interestingly, these same chemicals are used in the solid rocket boosters used by NASA space shuttles, leading Bain to conclude that the Hindenburg was essentially covered in rocket fuel.

If the fabric was the initial source of fuel, what ignited it? The fact that the Hindenburg had flown through an electric storm just prior to the fire has been a source of speculation for decades.

During a storm, static electricity can accumulate in the atmosphere from friction between air molecules. Passing aircraft can acquire this charge. The engineers of the Hindenburg were aware of this phenomenon and prepared for it by designing the mooring or anchoring lines of the Hindenburg to act as ground cables upon landing.

The Hindenburg’s skin was essentially a patchwork of separate cloth panels attached by poorly conductive cords. It has been proposed by Bain that the ship’s electrostatic charge may not have been able to travel completely from panel to panel, to the frame and safely through the mooring lines. Some panels may have been electrically insulated from each other and/or the grounded frame. A voltage difference between oppositely charged objects can result in a spark, as is the case between a thunder-head and the Earth when a lightning bolt strikes. Possibly, the fire that brought down the Hindenburg was the result of a voltage difference between her panels.

Although there is no question that the hydrogen helped to fuel the flames and ensure that this became one of the worst aircraft disasters of all time, Bain’s theory suggests that the Hindenburg would have ignited even if the ship had been filled with a more stable, inert gas such as helium.

Other theories continue to circulate, and Bain’s work has not been free of criticism. As explained by Wikipedia.org, those who are convinced that a hydrogen leak was the initial fuel source argue that the coating’s reactive ingredients were in the wrong proportions to have fueled the flames.

Although the debate continues, it is agreed that the Hindenburg fire was unfortunately one of the most physically impressive and disastrous of the 20th century. As hydrogen is being examined as a new fuel source for the coming decades, ongoing research into its past is vital for the safety of the future generations. Hopefully, through studying the Hindenburg, similar tragedies will be prevented.