What Caused the Hindenburg Disaster?

Lesson Plan - Get It!

Audio:

What Happened to the Hindenburg?

In 1937, the Hindenburg disaster shocked the world—not because it was the deadliest airship crash, but because it happened on film.

This enormous flying cruise ship—804 feet long and filled with over seven million cubic feet of hydrogen—offered passengers a luxurious way to cross the Atlantic. Onboard were lounges, staterooms, a dining hall, promenades, even a bar and smoking room.

It moved so smoothly you could balance a pencil on its tip without it falling. And it was fast: a trip that took five days by ship could be done in two by airship.

On May 6, 1937, the Hindenburg arrived late at Lakehurst Naval Air Station in New Jersey. Storms had delayed its landing.

Although the skies had started to clear, winds still gusted. The Hindenburg came in fast and high—about 200 feet off the ground—and dropped mooring lines so the ground crew could pull it in.

That’s when everything went wrong.

Witnesses saw a flash of blue light at the top of the ship. Flames burst from the tail. In under a minute, the entire airship was engulfed. The explosion killed 36 people. Some passengers jumped. Some were burned. Some survived.

Radio announcer Herb Morrison famously cried out, “Oh, the humanity!” as the fiery wreck collapsed to the ground in front of cameras and horrified onlookers. It was a tragedy no one could forget—and the end of airship travel around the world.

What You’re About to Read

After the disaster, people rushed to explain what had gone wrong. Investigators and experts put forward several theories. Some seemed reasonable, while others felt like wild guesses.

As you read about those theories, analyze each claim by asking yourself these questions.

• How is the theory introduced and developed?

• Does the author provide clear reasoning and evidence?

• Is the evidence relevant and strong, or weak and questionable?

• Are there any signs of false statements or flawed logic?

Think like an investigator. By the end of the summary, you’ll have the tools to evaluate these arguments and decide which ones hold up.

Theories About the Hindenburg Disaster

After the explosion, the world demanded answers. Investigators from the U.S. Navy, the Commerce Department, and even the FBI explored what might have caused the fire. Reporters and witnesses shared observations. Scientists weighed in. In total, several major theories emerged—some more believable than others.

As you read each one, evaluate how the argument is developed. Look for reasoning, evidence, and any signs of false or weak claims.

Theory 1: Sabotage

One of the earliest theories was that someone deliberately destroyed the Hindenburg. Some people believed a bomb had been planted to send a message or harm Nazi Germany, which built and operated the airship.

Commander Charles Rosendahl of the U.S. Commerce Department supported this theory. According to FBI records, one of the airship’s officers, Captain Anton Wittemann, said he and two other crew members had received a warning before the flight. But they were told by FBI agents to keep the warning quiet.

Still, no physical evidence of a bomb or any tampering was ever found. The FBI did not officially pursue the sabotage claim, and the theory faded over time.

• Does this theory rely on hard evidence or hearsay?
• What might make someone believe it, or doubt it?

Theory 2: Mechanical Failure

Some experts believed the ship's rapid descent and landing may have caused a mechanical issue. Interviews with the ground crew revealed that the Hindenburg was coming in too fast. To slow down, the captain may have thrown the engines into full reverse, which was unusual.

This sudden shift could have caused part of the ship’s structure to snap or spark, igniting the hydrogen gas.

Supporters of this theory point out that the fire started near the tail. However, there’s not much additional evidence. Airships had a strong safety record up to this point, and no signs of mechanical damage were found during inspections.

• Is a fast landing enough to explain the fire?
• Is this theory supported with solid proof?

Theory 3: Shot From the Sky

A few people claimed the Hindenburg was shot down—either for fun or out of anger. Some farmers had been known to fire at passing dirigibles. Investigators also found footprints near the back of the airfield in a restricted area.

However, many people had gathered to watch the landing, so anyone could have made those tracks. The Navy even caught two boys who had snuck onto the field. Nothing linked them—or anyone else—to a weapon or suspicious activity.

No bullets were found. No weapon was recovered. And no eyewitnesses saw any kind of attack.

• Why might this theory have spread?
• What kind of reasoning does it rely on?

Theory 4: Hydrogen Ignition

The most widely accepted theory at the time involved the Hindenburg’s lifting gas: hydrogen. Hydrogen is extremely flammable. If something had caused it to leak and then ignite—like static electricity or lightning—it could have caused the explosion.

Some thought the mooring lines might have carried an electric charge up to the ship. But the ground crew denied this, saying the lines couldn’t conduct electricity.

Another idea was that lightning had struck the tail. Witnesses saw a blue flash just before the fire, and lightning storms were in the area that day. This theory became the most popular explanation.

It also raised a big question: Why wasn’t helium, a safer non-flammable gas, used instead of hydrogen?

• This theory became the official explanation, but was it complete?

Theory 5: The Burning Skin

Years later, NASA engineer and hydrogen expert Addison Bain proposed a new theory: the fire wasn’t caused by the hydrogen—it was caused by the skin of the airship itself.

Here’s his reasoning.

The Hindenburg didn’t explode instantly. It burned in several directions.

It stayed in the air for about 30 seconds before crashing.

Hydrogen fires usually produce no visible flames, but witnesses saw flames.

No hydrogen leaks were reported. (Hydrogen on board was mixed with garlic to make leaks easier to detect.)

Bain discovered that the ship’s skin was made of flammable materials: cellulose nitrate or acetate for strength, and aluminum flakes for heat reflection. Those flakes are a key ingredient in rocket fuel.

He concluded that an electrical spark (maybe static or lightning) ignited the outer covering first. The hydrogen inside then made the fire worse, but it wasn’t the original cause.

Bain even found a letter from 1937 in the Zeppelin archives. It stated: “The actual cause of the fire was the extremely easy flammability of the covering material brought about by discharges of an electrostatic nature.”

• How does Bain’s argument compare to the earlier theories?
• What kind of evidence does he provide?
• Do his claims seem well-supported?

You’ve now read five theories—each with different levels of reasoning and evidence. In the Got It? section, you'll test your ability to spot strong arguments and weak ones.

• Are you ready to see what you think?