Die Hindenburg Katastrophe und die Folgen für die internationale Luftschifffahrt - Geschichte / Sonstiges - Seminararbeit - ebook 12,99 € - GRIN. „Hindenburg“-Absturz, eine Abfolge fataler Physik-Verkettungen. Am 6. Mai endete die Geschichte der zivilen Luftschifffahrt in einer. Werner Doehner, der letzte noch lebende Passagier der "Hindenburg"-Katastrophe vom 6. Mai , hat selten einen Blick in sein Innerstes.
Hindenburg Katastrophe Navigationsmenü
Der Zeppelin LZ „Hindenburg“, benannt nach dem deutschen Reichspräsidenten Paul von Hindenburg, war neben seinem Schwesterluftschiff LZ eines der beiden größten jemals gebauten Luftfahrzeuge. Seine Jungfernfahrt war im März Am 6. Der Zeppelin LZ „Hindenburg“ (Kennzeichen D-LZ), benannt nach dem deutschen 5 „Hindenburg“-Katastrophe. Unglück von Lakehurst. Vor 80 Jahren explodierte die "Hindenburg", das Luftschiff LZ , kurz vor der Landung in New York. Die Ursache ist bis heute nicht. „Hindenburg“-Absturz, eine Abfolge fataler Physik-Verkettungen. Am 6. Mai endete die Geschichte der zivilen Luftschifffahrt in einer. Mai startet die "Hindenburg" in Frankfurt Richtung New York. Sie ist das bis Reise sein wird. Denn kurz vor der Landung kommt es zur Katastrophe, die. Der Zeppelin LZ "Hindenburg" wird am 6. Mai bei einer Landung zerstört. Die Bilder der brennenden "Hindenburg" besiegeln das Ende der Zeppelin-Luftfahrt. Bei der Katastrophe am 6. Mai sterben in Lakehurst.
Mai startet die "Hindenburg" in Frankfurt Richtung New York. Sie ist das bis Reise sein wird. Denn kurz vor der Landung kommt es zur Katastrophe, die. Der Zeppelin LZ "Hindenburg" wird am 6. Mai bei einer Landung zerstört. Werner Doehner, der letzte noch lebende Passagier der "Hindenburg"-Katastrophe vom 6. Mai , hat selten einen Blick in sein Innerstes.
Thus many news crews were on-site at the time of the airship exploding, and so there was a significant amount of newsreel coverage and photographs, as well as Herbert Morrison 's eyewitness report for radio station WLS in Chicago , a report which was broadcast the next day.
Parts of Morrison's broadcast were later dubbed onto newsreel footage. That gave the impression that the words and film were recorded together, but that was not the case.
It's practically standing still now they've dropped ropes out of the nose of the ship; and uh they've been taken ahold of down on the field by a number of men.
It's starting to rain again; it's The back motors of the ship are just holding it uh just enough to keep it from It's burst into flames!
Get this, Charlie; get this, Charlie! It's fire It's crashing terrible! Oh, my! Get out of the way, please!
It's burning and bursting into flames and the This is terrible; this is one of the worst of the worst catastrophes in the world. Oh it's Crashing, oh!
Oh, the humanity, and all the passengers screaming around here! I can't talk, ladies and gentlemen. Honest: it's just laying there, a mass of smoking wreckage.
And everybody can hardly breathe and talk and the screaming. I'm sorry. Honest: I I can hardly breathe. I'm going to step inside, where I cannot see it.
Charlie, that's terrible. Ah, ah I can't. Listen, folks; I I'm gonna have to stop for a minute because I've lost my voice.
This is the worst thing I've ever witnessed. When the fire started he did not have the time to put the camera to his eye and shot the photo "from the hip".
Murray Becker of Associated Press photographed the fire engulfing the airship while it was still on even keel using his 4 x 5 Speed Graphic camera.
His next photograph see right , shows flames bursting out of the nose as the bow telescoped upwards. In addition to professional photographers, spectators also photographed the crash.
They were stationed in the spectators' area near Hangar No. Customs broker Arthur Cofod Jr. The newsreels and photographs, along with Morrison's passionate reporting shattered public and industry faith in airships and marked the end of the giant passenger-carrying airships.
Also contributing to the downfall of Zeppelins was the arrival of international passenger air travel and Pan American Airlines. The one advantage that the Hindenburg had over such aircraft was the comfort that she afforded her passengers.
In contrast to the media coverage in the United States, media coverage of the disaster in Germany was more subdued.
Although some photographs of the disaster were published in newspapers, the newsreel footage was not released until after World War II.
Additionally, German victims were memorialized in a similar manner to fallen war heroes, and grassroots movements to fund zeppelin construction as happened after the crash of the LZ 4 were expressly forbidden by the Nazi government.
There had been a series of other airship accidents prior to the Hindenburg fire; many were caused by bad weather. The Graf Zeppelin had flown safely for more than 1.
The Zeppelin company's promotions had prominently featured the fact that no passenger had been injured on any of its airships. Thirteen of the thirty-six passengers died, and twenty-two of the sixty-one crew died; most survivors were severely burned.
Also killed was one ground crewman, the civilian linesman Allen Hagaman. The majority of the victims were burnt to death, while others died jumping from the airship at an excessive height, or as a consequence of either smoke inhalation or falling debris.
The majority of the crewmen who died were up inside the ship's hull, where they either did not have a clear escape route or were close to the bow of the ship, which hung burning in the air for too long for most of them to escape death.
Most of the crew in the bow died in the fire, although at least one was filmed falling from the bow to his death. Most of the passengers who died were trapped in the starboard side of the passenger deck.
Not only was the wind blowing the fire toward the starboard side, but the ship also rolled slightly to starboard as it settled to the ground, with much of the upper hull on that part of the ship collapsing outboard of the starboard observation windows, thus cutting off the escape of many of the passengers on that side.
By contrast, all but a few of the passengers on the port side of the ship survived the fire, with some of them escaping virtually unscathed.
Although the best remembered airship disaster, it was not the worst. Just over twice as many 73 of 76 on board had perished when the helium-filled U.
Werner Franz, the year-old cabin boy, was initially dazed on realizing the ship was on fire but when a water tank above him burst open, putting out the fire around him, he was spurred to action.
He made his way to a nearby hatch and dropped through it just as the forward part of the ship was briefly rebounding into the air. He began to run toward the starboard side, but stopped and turned around and ran the other way because wind was pushing the flames in that direction.
He escaped without injury, and was the last surviving crew member when he died in Doehner , died November 8, When the control car crashed onto the ground, most of the officers leapt through the windows, but became separated.
Pruss's face was badly burned, and he required months of hospitalization and reconstructive surgery, but he survived. Captain Ernst Lehmann escaped the crash with burns to his head and arms and severe burns across most of his back.
He died at a nearby hospital the next day. When passenger Joseph Späh, a vaudeville comic acrobat, saw the first sign of trouble he smashed the window with his movie camera with which he had been filming the landing the film survived the disaster.
As the ship neared the ground he lowered himself out the window and hung onto the window ledge, letting go when the ship was perhaps 20 feet above the ground.
His acrobat's instincts kicked in, and Späh kept his feet under him and attempted to do a safety roll when he landed. He injured his ankle nonetheless, and was dazedly crawling away when a member of the ground crew came up, slung the diminutive Späh under one arm, and ran him clear of the fire.
Of the 12 crewmen in the bow of the airship, only three survived. Four of these 12 men were standing on the mooring shelf, a platform up at the very tip of the bow from which the forwardmost landing ropes and the steel mooring cable were released to the ground crew, and which was directly at the forward end of the axial walkway and just ahead of gas cell The rest were standing either along the lower keel walkway ahead of the control car, or else on platforms beside the stairway leading up the curve of the bow to the mooring shelf.
During the fire the bow hung in the air at roughly a degree angle and flames shot forward through the axial walkway, bursting through the bow and the bow gas cells like a blowtorch.
The three men from the forward section who survived elevatorman Kurt Bauer, cook Alfred Grözinger, and electrician Josef Leibrecht were those furthest aft of the bow, and two of them Bauer and Grözinger happened to be standing near two large triangular air vents, through which cool air was being drawn by the fire.
Neither of these men sustained more than superficial burns. Three of the four men standing on the mooring shelf inside the very tip of the bow were actually taken from the wreck alive, though one Erich Spehl, a rigger died shortly afterwards in the Air Station's infirmary, and the other two helmsman Alfred Bernhard and apprentice elevatorman Ludwig Felber were reported by newspapers to have initially survived the fire, and then to subsequently have died at area hospitals during the night or early the following morning.
Hydrogen fires are less destructive to immediate surroundings than gasoline explosions because of the buoyancy of H 2 , which causes heat of combustion to be released upwards more than circumferentially as the leaked mass ascends in the atmosphere; hydrogen fires are more survivable than fires of gasoline or wood.
At the time of the disaster, sabotage was commonly put forward as the cause of the fire, initially by Hugo Eckener , former head of the Zeppelin Company and the "old man" of German airships.
In initial reports, before inspecting the accident, Eckener mentioned the possibility of a shot as the cause of the disaster, because of threatening letters that had been received, but did not rule out other causes.
Lakehurst time, or approximately an hour after the crash by the ringing of his bedside telephone. By the time he left the hotel the next morning to travel to Berlin for a briefing on the disaster, the only answer that he had for the reporters waiting outside to question him was that based on what he knew, the Hindenburg had "exploded over the airfield"; sabotage might be a possibility.
However, as he learned more about the disaster, particularly that the airship had burned rather than actually "exploded", he grew more and more convinced that static discharge, rather than sabotage, was the cause.
Commander Charles Rosendahl, commander of the Naval Air Station at Lakehurst and the man in overall charge of the ground-based portion of the Hindenburg's landing maneuver, also came to believe that the Hindenburg had been sabotaged.
He laid out a general case for sabotage in his book What About the Airship? 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 interview conducted by Kenneth Leish for Columbia University 's Oral History Research Office, Pruss said early dirigible travel was safe, and therefore he strongly believed that sabotage was to blame.
He stated that on trips to South America, which was a popular destination for German tourists, both airships passed through thunderstorms and were struck by lightning but remained unharmed.
Most members of the crew refused to believe that one of them would commit an act of sabotage, insisting only a passenger could have destroyed the airship.
A suspect favored by Commander Rosendahl, Captain Pruss, and others among the Hindenburg's crew, was passenger Joseph Späh, a German acrobat who survived the fire.
He brought with him a dog, a German shepherd named Ulla, as a surprise for his children. He reportedly made a number of unaccompanied visits to feed his dog, who was being kept in a freight room near the stern of the ship.
Those who suspected Späh based their suspicions primarily on those trips into the ship's interior to feed his dog, that according to some of the stewards Späh had told anti-Nazi jokes during the flight, recollections by stewards that Späh had seemed agitated by the repeated delays in landing, and that he was an acrobat who could conceivably climb into the airship's rigging to plant a bomb.
In , A. Hoehling published Who Destroyed the Hindenburg? Erich Spehl, a rigger on the Hindenburg who died in the fire, was named as a potential saboteur.
Ten years later, Michael MacDonald Mooney's book The Hindenburg , which was based heavily on Hoehling's sabotage hypothesis, also identified Spehl as a possible saboteur; Mooney's book was made into the movie The Hindenburg The producers of the film were sued by Hoehling for plagiarism, but Hoehling's case was dismissed because he had presented his sabotage hypothesis as historical fact, and it is not possible to claim ownership of historical facts.
Hoehling's and later Mooney's hypothesis goes on to say that it is unlikely that Spehl wanted to kill people, and that he intended the airship to burn after the landing.
However, with the ship already over 12 hours late, Spehl was unable to find an excuse to reset the timer on his bomb. It has been suggested that Adolf Hitler himself ordered the Hindenburg to be destroyed in retaliation for Eckener's anti-Nazi opinions.
Since the publication of Hoehling's book, most airship historians, including Dr. Douglas Robinson, have dismissed Hoehling's sabotage hypothesis because no solid evidence was ever presented to support it.
No pieces of a bomb were ever discovered and there is no evidence in existing documentation that the sample collected from the wreckage, and determined to be residue from a dry cell battery, was found anywhere near the stern of the airship , and on closer examination, the evidence against Spehl and his girlfriend turned out to be rather weak.
Additionally, it is unlikely that Rigger Knorr would not remain at cell 4 to further assess the purported damage claimed by Kubis.
Additionally, Mooney's book has been criticized as having numerous fictional elements, and it has been suggested that the plot was created for the then-upcoming film.
However, opponents of the sabotage hypothesis argued that only speculation supported sabotage as a cause of the fire, and no credible evidence of sabotage was produced at any of the formal hearings.
Erich Spehl died in the fire and was therefore unable to refute the accusations that surfaced a quarter of a century later.
Neither the German, nor the American investigation, endorsed any of the sabotage theories. Proponents of the sabotage hypothesis argue that any finding of sabotage would have been an embarrassment for the Nazi regime, and they speculate that such a finding by the German investigation was suppressed for political reasons.
However, it has also been suggested that numerous crewmen subscribed to the sabotage hypothesis because they refused to accept any flaws with the airship or pilot error.
Some more sensational newspapers claimed that a Luger pistol with one round fired was found among the wreckage and speculated that a person on board committed suicide or shot the airship.
Hugo Eckener argued that the fire was started by an electric spark which was caused by a buildup of static electricity on the airship.
Proponents of the static spark hypothesis point out that the airship's skin was not constructed in a way that allowed its charge to be distributed evenly throughout the craft.
The skin was separated from the duralumin frame by non-conductive ramie cords which had been lightly covered in metal to improve conductivity but not very effectively, allowing a large difference in potential to form between the skin and the frame.
In order to make up for the delay of more than 12 hours in its transatlantic flight, the Hindenburg passed through a weather front of high humidity and high electrical charge.
Although the mooring lines were not wet when they first hit the ground and ignition took place four minutes after, Eckener theorised that they may have become wet in these four minutes.
When the ropes, which were connected to the frame, became wet, they would have grounded the frame but not the skin. Seeking the quickest way to ground, the spark would have jumped from the skin onto the metal framework, igniting the leaking hydrogen.
Douglas Robinson commented that although ignition of free hydrogen by static discharge had become a favored hypothesis, no such discharge was seen by any of the witnesses who testified at the official investigation into the accident in He continues:.
Elmo's Fire flickering along the airship's back a good minute before the fire broke out. Standing outside the main gate to the Naval Air Station, he watched, together with his wife and son, as the Zeppelin approached the mast and dropped her bow lines.
A minute thereafter, by Mr. Heald's estimation, he first noticed a dim "blue flame" flickering along the backbone girder about one-quarter the length abaft the bow to the tail.
There was time for him to remark to his wife, "Oh, heavens, the thing is afire," for her to reply, "Where? Unlike other witnesses to the fire whose view of the port side of the ship had the light of the setting sun behind the ship, Professor Heald's view of the starboard side of the ship against a backdrop of the darkening eastern sky would have made the dim blue light of a static discharge on the top of the ship more easily visible.
Harold G. Dick was Goodyear Zeppelin's representative with Luftschiffbau Zeppelin during the mids. He also flew on numerous flights in the original Graf Zeppelin and ten round-trip crossings of the north and south Atlantic in the Hindenburg.
There are two items not in common knowledge. When the outer cover of the LZ [the Graf Zeppelin II ] was to be applied, the lacing cord was prestretched and run through dope as before but the dope for the LZ contained graphite to make it conductive.
This would hardly have been necessary if the static discharge hypothesis were mere cover-up. The use of graphite dope was not publicized and I doubt if its use was widely known at the Luftschiffbau Zeppelin.
In addition to Dick's observations, during the Graf Zeppelin II's early test flights, measurements were taken of the airship's static charge.
Ludwig Durr and the other engineers at Luftschiffbau Zeppelin took the static discharge hypothesis seriously and considered the insulation of the fabric from the frame to be a design flaw in the Hindenburg.
Thus, the German Inquiry concluded that the insulation of the outer covering caused a spark to jump onto a nearby piece of metal, thereby igniting the hydrogen.
In lab experiments, using the Hindenburg's outer covering and a static ignition, hydrogen was able to be ignited but with the covering of the LZ Graf Zeppelin, nothing happened.
These findings were not well-publicized and were covered up, perhaps to avoid embarrassment of such an engineering flaw in the face of the Third Reich.
A variant of the static spark hypothesis, presented by Addison Bain , is that a spark between inadequately grounded fabric cover segments of the Hindenburg itself started the fire, and that the spark had ignited the "highly flammable" outer skin.
The Hindenburg had a cotton skin covered with a finish known as "dope". It is a common term for a plasticised lacquer that provides stiffness, protection, and a lightweight, airtight seal to woven fabrics.
In its liquid forms, dope is highly flammable, but the flammability of dry dope depends upon its base constituents, with, for example, butyrate dope being far less flammable than cellulose nitrate.
Proponents of this hypothesis claim that when the mooring line touched the ground, a resulting spark could have ignited the dope in the skin.
Elmo's Fire, as well as sabotage by bomb. The team, led by British aeronautical engineer Jem Stansfield and US airship historian Dan Grossman, concluded that the ignition took place above the hydrogen vent just forward of where Mark Heald saw St.
Elmo's Fire, and that the ignited hydrogen was channelled down the vent where it created a more explosive detonation described by crew member Helmut Lau.
Dessler , former director of the Space Science Laboratory at NASA 's Marshall Space Flight Center and a critic of the incendiary paint hypothesis see below , favors a much simpler explanation for the conflagration: lightning.
Like many other aircraft, the Hindenburg had been struck by lightning several times in its years of operation.
This does not normally ignite a fire in hydrogen-filled airships due to the lack of oxygen. However, airship fires have been observed when lightning strikes the vehicle as it vents hydrogen as ballast in preparation for landing.
The vented hydrogen mixes with the oxygen in the atmosphere, creating a combustible mixture. The Hindenburg was venting hydrogen at the time of the disaster.
On the 70th anniversary of the accident, The Philadelphia Inquirer carried an article  with yet another hypothesis, based on an interview of ground crew member Robert Buchanan.
He had been a young man on the crew manning the mooring lines. As the airship was approaching the mooring mast, he noted that one of the engines, thrown into reverse for a hard turn, backfired, and a shower of sparks was emitted.
After being interviewed by Addison Bain, Buchanan believed that the airship's outer skin was ignited by engine sparks. Another ground crewman, Robert Shaw, saw a blue ring behind the tail fin and had also seen sparks coming out of the engine.
Eckener rejected the idea that hydrogen could have been ignited by an engine backfire , postulating that the hydrogen could not have been ignited by any exhaust because the temperature is too low to ignite the hydrogen.
Additionally, the fire was first seen at the top of the airship, not near the bottom of the hull. Most current analyses of the fire assume ignition due to some form of electricity as the cause.
However, there is still much controversy over whether the fabric skin of the airship, or the hydrogen used for buoyancy, was the initial fuel for the resulting fire.
The theory that hydrogen was ignited by a static spark is the most widely accepted theory as determined by the official crash investigations.
Offering support for the hypothesis that there was some sort of hydrogen leak prior to the fire is that the airship remained stern-heavy before landing, despite efforts to put the airship back in trim.
This could have been caused by a leak of the gas, which started mixing with air, potentially creating a form of oxyhydrogen and filling up the space between the skin and the cells.
Ward, reported seeing the fabric cover of the upper port side of the airship fluttering, "as if gas was rising and escaping" from the cell.
He said that the fire began there, but that no other disturbance occurred at the time when the fabric fluttered. Crew members stationed in the stern reported actually seeing the cells burning.
Two main theories have been postulated as to how gas could have leaked. Eckener believed a snapped bracing wire had torn a gas cell open see below , while others suggest that a maneuvering or automatic gas valve was stuck open and gas from cell 4 leaked through.
During the airship's first flight to Rio, a gas cell was nearly emptied when an automatic valve was stuck open, and gas had to be transferred from other cells to maintain an even keel.
Although proponents of the IPT claim that the hydrogen was odorized with garlic,  it would have been detectable only in the area of a leak.
Once the fire was underway, more powerful smells would have masked any garlic odor. There were no reports of anyone smelling garlic during the flight, but no official documents have been found to prove that the hydrogen was even odorized.
Opponents of this hypothesis note that the fire was reported as burning bright red, while pure hydrogen burns blue if it is visible at all,  although there were many other materials that were consumed by the fire which could have changed its hue.
Some of the airshipmen at the time, including Captain Pruss, asserted that the stern heaviness was normal, since aerodynamic pressure would push rainwater towards the stern of the airship.
The stern heaviness was also noticed minutes before the airship made its sharp turns for its approach ruling out the snapped wire theory as the cause of the stern heaviness , and some crew members stated that it was corrected as the ship stopped after sending six men into the bow section of the ship.
Additionally, the gas cells of the ship were not pressurized, and a leak would not cause the fluttering of the outer cover, which was not seen until seconds before the fire.
However, reports of the amount of rain the ship had collected have been inconsistent. Several witnesses testified that there was no rain as the ship approached until a light rain fell minutes before the fire, while several crew members stated that before the approach the ship did encounter heavy rain.
Albert Sammt, the ship's first officer who oversaw the measures to correct the stern-heaviness, initially attributed to fuel consumption and sending crewmen to their landing stations in the stern, though years later, he would assert that a leak of hydrogen had occurred.
On its final approach the rainwater may have evaporated and may not completely account for the observed stern-heaviness, as the airship should have been in good trim ten minutes after passing through rain.
The incendiary paint theory IPT was proposed in by retired NASA scientist Addison Bain , stating that the doping compound of the airship was the cause of the fire, and that the Hindenburg would have burned even if it were filled with helium.
The hypothesis is limited to the source of ignition and to the flame front propagation, not to the source of most of the burning material, as once the fire started and spread the hydrogen clearly must have burned although some proponents of the incendiary paint theory claim that hydrogen burned much later in the fire or that it otherwise did not contribute to the rapid spread of the fire.
The incendiary paint hypothesis asserts that the major component in starting the fire and feeding its spread was the canvas skin because of the compound used on it.
Proponents of this hypothesis argue that the coatings on the fabric contained both iron oxide and aluminum-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate CAB which remain potentially reactive even after fully setting.
The coating applied to the Hindenburg ' s covering did not have a sufficient quantity of any material capable of acting as an oxidizer,  which is a necessary component of rocket fuel,  however, oxygen is also available from the air.
Bain received permission from the German government to search their archives and discovered evidence that, during the Nazi regime, German scientists concluded the dope on the Hindenburg's fabric skin was the cause of the conflagration.
Bain interviewed the wife of the investigation's lead scientist Max Dieckmann, and she stated that her husband had told her about the conclusion and instructed her to tell no one, presumably because it would have embarrassed the Nazi government.
In several television shows, Bain attempted to prove the flammability of the fabric by igniting it with a Jacob's Ladder. Although Bain's fabric ignited, critics argue that Bain had to correctly position the fabric parallel to a machine with a continuous electric current inconsistent with atmospheric conditions.
In response to this criticism, the IPT therefore postulates that a spark would need to be parallel to the surface, and that "panel-to-panel arcing" occurs where the spark moves between panels of paint isolated from each other.
Dessler, a critic of the IPT, points out a static spark does not have sufficient energy to ignite the doping compound, and that the insulating properties of the doping compound prevents a parallel spark path through it.
Additionally, Dessler contends that the skin would also be electrically conductive in the wet and damp conditions before the fire. Critics also argue that port side witnesses on the field, as well as crew members stationed in the stern, saw a glow inside Cell 4 before any fire broke out of the skin, indicating that the fire began inside the airship or that after the hydrogen ignited, the invisible fire fed on the gas cell material.
Newsreel footage clearly shows that the fire was burning inside the structure. Proponents of the paint hypothesis claim that the glow is actually the fire igniting on the starboard side, as seen by some other witnesses.
From two eyewitness statements, Bain asserts the fire began near cell 1 behind the tail fins and spread forward before it was seen by witnesses on the port side.
However, photographs of the early stages of the fire show the gas cells of the Hindenburg's entire aft section fully aflame, and no glow is seen through the areas where the fabric is still intact.
Burning gas spewing upward from the top of the airship was causing low pressure inside, allowing atmospheric pressure to press the skin inwards.
Occasionally the Hindenburg 's varnish is incorrectly identified as, or stated being similar to, cellulose nitrate which, like most nitrates, burns very readily.
That is, it will burn if placed within a fire but is not readily ignited. For at se dette indhold skal du acceptere marketing-cookies. For at se dette indhold skal du acceptere funktionelle cookies.
Se den nyeste video fra Tjek Tjek er en YouTube-kanal om videnskab, klima og sundhed henvendt til unge. A Twitter List by videnskabdk For at se dette indhold skal du acceptere marketing-cookies.
Et opslag delt af Videnskab. Okt, kl. View the discussion thread. Hindenburg-katastrofen: Hvor var passagererne? I den forbindelse bringer Videnskab.
Niels Ebdrup Journalist. Mere om Historie. Andre skriver.