5 ms·
I don't know why this theory is repeated as though it's fact. The explanation that a lifting gas bag ruptured, mixing it's contents with the air seems a better
by zardo 5y ago
I don't know why this theory is repeated as though it's fact. The explanation that a lifting gas bag ruptured, mixing it's contents with the air seems a better fit to the witness accounts.
- Zuider 5y agoNew footage shows the tail-fins catch fire before the gas-bladders erupted. Those tail-fins must, therefore, have been quite flammable. The video suggests that the trigger for the fire was the release of a large build up of static electricity on approaching proximity to the ground. An airship is essentially, an oversized Leyden jar, and such a build up would cause problems, even for ones using helium for lift. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFCgipjR2ow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFCgipjR2ow
- evgen 5y agoThe Hindenberg was also reportedly quite tail-heavy coming in for landing, which suggests a leak. If it was leaking at the tail and this was triggered by static discharge it would fit most of the facts.
- zardo 5y ago> New footage shows the tail-fins catch fire before the gas-bladders erupted. In the film you link the entire rear half of the craft is on fire from the first frame.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]