Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!swift
From: swift@reed.UUCP (Theodore Swift)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.physics
Subject: Re: Hydrogen (isn't flammible?!?)
Message-ID: <1269@reed.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 6-Apr-85 19:45:03 EST
Article-I.D.: reed.1269
Posted: Sat Apr  6 19:45:03 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Apr-85 01:44:11 EST
References: Hydrogen (isn't flammible?!?) <610@ahutb.UUCP>
Reply-To: swift@reed.UUCP (Ted Swift)
Distribution: net.misc,net.physics
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Lines: 16
Xref: watmath net.misc:7805 net.physics:2422
Summary: Hindenburg 

>Well, if Hitler wanted to convince the US, he sure did a good job,
>considering what happened to the Hindenburg in Lakewood, New Jersey.
>We didn't even have to use incenidary bullets, just a little St. Elmo's
>Fire.
>
>Sharon Badian  ihnp4!hocsp!ahutb!seb

I'm not sure, but I believe the cause of the Hindenburg disaster
has never been conclusively determined.  There have been many
explanations proposed, including the above theory of 
natural phenomenae, but there was also some evidence that there
was a saboteur who planted an incindiary bomb near the tail.  He
had intended it to go off AFTER the Hindenburg had moored and
all the passengers had disembarked (DeZeppelined? :-))
Does anyone else have more conclusive explanations, or any
confirmation of the saboteur theory?