IMPORTANT:Fighting talk: The new propaganda

Fighting talk: The new propaganda

Robert Fisk -- Independent June 21, 2010

Following the latest in semantics on the news? Journalism and the Israeli government are in love again. It's Islamic terror, Turkish terror, Hamas terror, Islamic Jihad terror, Hezbollah terror, activist terror, war on terror, Palestinian terror, Muslim terror, Iranian terror, Syrian terror, anti-Semitic terror...

But I am doing the Israelis an injustice. Their lexicon, and that of the White House  most of the time  and our reporters' lexicon, is the same. Yes, let's be fair to the Israelis. Their lexicon goes like this: Terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror.

How many times did I just use the word "terror"? Twenty. But it might as well be 60, or 100, or 1,000, or a million. We are in love with the word, seduced by it, fixated by it, attacked by it, assaulted by it, raped by it, committed to it. It is love and sadism and death in one double syllable, the prime time-theme song, the opening of every television symphony, the headline of every page, a punctuation mark in our journalism, a semicolon, a comma, our most powerful full stop. "Terror, terror, terror, terror". Each repetition justifies its predecessor.

Most of all, it's about the terror of power and the power of terror. Power and terror have become interchangeable. We journalists have let this happen. Our language has become not just a debased ally, but a full verbal partner in the language of governments and armies and generals and weapons. Remember the "bunker buster" and the "Scud buster" and the "target-rich environment" in the Gulf War (Part One)? Forget about "weapons of mass destruction". Too obviously silly. But "WMD" in the Gulf War (Part Two) had a power of its own, a secret code  genetic, perhaps, like DNA  for something that would reap terror, terror, terror, terror, terror. "45 Minutes to Terror".

Power and the media are not just about cosy relationships between journalists and political leaders, between editors and presidents. They are not just about the parasitic-osmotic relationship between supposedly honourable reporters and the nexus of power that runs between White House and State Department and Pentagon, between Downing Street and the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, between America and Israel.

In the Western context, power and the media is about words  and the use of words. It is about semantics. It is about the employment of phrases and their origins. And it is about the misuse of history, and about our ignorance of history. More and more today, we journalists have become prisoners of the language of power. Is this because we no longer care about linguistics or semantics? Is this because laptops "correct" our spelling, "trim" our grammar so that our sentences so often turn out to be identical to those of our rulers? Is this why newspaper editorials today often sound like political speeches?

For two decades now, the US and British  and Israeli and Palestinian  leaderships have used the words "peace process" to define the hopeless, inadequate, dishonourable agreement that allowed the US and Israel to dominate whatever slivers of land would be given to an occupied people. I first queried this expression, and its provenance, at the time of Oslo  although how easily we forget that the secret surrenders at Oslo were themselves a conspiracy without any legal basis.

Poor old Oslo, I always think. What did Oslo ever do to deserve this? It was the White House agreement that sealed this preposterous and dubious treaty  in which refugees, borders, Israeli colonies, even timetables  were to be delayed until they could no longer be negotiated.

And how easily we forget the White House lawn  though, yes, we remember the images  upon which it was Clinton who quoted from the Koran, and Arafat who chose to say: "Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr President." And what did we call this nonsense afterwards? Yes, it was "a moment of history"! Was it? Was it so?

Do you remember what Arafat called it? "The peace of the brave". But I don't remember any of us pointing out that "the peace of the brave" was used by General de Gaulle about the end of the Algerian war. The French lost the war in Algeria. We did not spot this extraordinary irony.

Same again today. We Western journalists  used yet again by our masters  have been reporting our jolly generals in Afghanistan, as saying their war can only be won with a "hearts and minds" campaign. No one asked them the obvious question: Wasn't this the very same phrase used about Vietnamese civilians in the Vietnam War? And didn't we  didn't the West  lose the war in Vietnam? Yet now we Western journalists are using  about Afghanistan  the phrase "hearts and minds" in our reports as if it is a new dictionary definition, rather than a symbol of defeat for the second time in four decades.

Just look at the individual words we have recently co-opted from the US military. When we Westerners find that "our" enemies  al-Qa'ida, for example, or the Taliban  have set off more bombs and staged more attacks than usual, we call it "a spike in violence".

Ah yes, a "spike"! A "spike" is a word first used in this context, according to my files, by a brigadier general in the Baghdad Green Zone in 2004. Yet now we use that phrase, we extemporise on it, we relay it on the air as our phrase, our journalistic invention. We are using, quite literally, an expression created for us by the Pentagon. A spike, of course, goes sharply up then sharply downwards. A "spike in violence" therefore avoids the ominous use of the words "increase in violence"  for an increase, of course, might not go down again afterwards.

Now again, when US generals refer to a sudden increase in their forces for an assault on Fallujah or central Baghdad or Kandahar  a mass movement of soldiers brought into Muslim countries by the tens of thousands  they call this a "surge". And a surge, like a tsunami, or any other natural phenomena, can be devastating in its effects. What these "surges" really are  to use the real words of serious journalism  are reinforcements. And reinforcements are sent to conflicts when armies are losing those wars. But our television and newspaper boys and girls are still talking about "surges" without any attribution at all. The Pentagon wins again.

Meanwhile the "peace process" collapsed. Therefore our leaders  or "key players" as we like to call them  tried to make it work again. The process had to be put "back on track". It was a train, you see. The carriages had come off the line. The Clinton administration first used this phrase, then the Israelis, then the BBC. But there was a problem when the "peace process" had repeatedly been put "back on track"  but still came off the line. So we produced a "road map"  run by a Quartet and led by our old Friend of God, Tony Blair, who  in an obscenity of history  we now refer to as a "peace envoy". But the "road map" isn't working. And now, I notice, the old "peace process" is back in our newspapers and on our television screens. And earlier this month, on CNN, one of those boring old fogies whom the TV boys and girls call "experts" told us again that the "peace process" was being put "back on track" because of the opening of "indirect talks" between Israelis and Palestinians. This isn't just about clichs  this is preposterous journalism. There is no battle between the media and power; through language, we, the media, have become them.

Here's another piece of media cowardice that makes my 63-year-old teeth grind together after 34 years of eating humus and tahina in the Middle East. We are told, in many analysis features, that what we have to deal with in the Middle East are "competing narratives". How very cosy. There's no justice, no injustice, just a couple of people who tell different history stories. "Competing narratives" now regularly pop up in the British press.

The phrase, from the false language of anthropology, deletes the possibility that one group of people  in the Middle East, for example  is occupied, while another is doing the occupying. Again, no justice, no injustice, no oppression or oppressing, just some friendly "competing narratives", a football match, if you like, a level playing field because the two sides are  are they not?  "in competition". And two sides have to be given equal time in every story.

So an "occupation" becomes a "dispute". Thus a "wall" becomes a "fence" or "security barrier". Thus Israeli acts of colonisation of Arab land, contrary to all international law, become "settlements" or "outposts" or "Jewish neighbourhoods". It was Colin Powell, in his starring, powerless appearance as Secretary of State to George W Bush, who told US diplomats to refer to occupied Palestinian land as "disputed land"  and that was good enough for most of the US media. There are no "competing narratives", of course, between the US military and the Taliban. When there are, you'll know the West has lost.

But I'll give you an example of how "competing narratives" come undone. In April, I gave a lecture in Toronto to mark the 95th anniversary of the 1915 Armenian genocide, the deliberate mass murder of 1.5 million Armenian Christians by the Ottoman Turkish army and militia. Before my talk, I was interviewed on Canadian Television, CTV, which also owns Toronto's Globe and Mail newspaper. And from the start, I could see that the interviewer had a problem. Canada has a large Armenian community. But Toronto also has a large Turkish community. And the Turks, as the Globe and Mail always tell us, "hotly dispute" that this was a genocide.

So the interviewer called the genocide "deadly massacres". Of course, I spotted her specific problem straight away. She couldn't call the massacres a "genocide", because the Turkish community would be outraged. But she sensed that "massacres" on its own  especially with the gruesome studio background photographs of dead Armenians  was not quite up to defining a million and a half murdered human beings. Hence the "deadly massacres". How odd! If there are "deadly" massacres, are there some massacres which are not "deadly", from which the victims walk away alive? It was a ludicrous tautology.

Yet the use of the language of power  of its beacon words and its beacon phrases  goes on among us still. How many times have I heard Western reporters talking about "foreign fighters" in Afghanistan? They are referring, of course, to the various Arab groups supposedly helping the Taliban. We heard the same story from Iraq. Saudis, Jordanians, Palestinian, Chechen fighters, of course. The generals called them "foreign fighters". Immediately, we Western reporters did the same. Calling them "foreign fighters" meant they were an invading force. But not once  ever  have I heard a mainstream Western television station refer to the fact that there are at least 150,000 "foreign fighters" in Afghanistan, and that all of them happen to be wearing American, British and other NATO uniforms. It is "we" who are the real "foreign fighters".

Similarly, the pernicious phrase "Af-Pak"  as racist as it is politically dishonest  is now used by reporters, although it was originally a creation of the US State Department on the day Richard Holbrooke was appointed special US representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the phrase avoids the use of the word "India"  whose influence in Afghanistan and whose presence in Afghanistan, is a vital part of the story. Furthermore, "Af-Pak"  by deleting India  effectively deleted the whole Kashmir crisis from the conflict in south-east Asia. It thus deprived Pakistan of any say in US local policy on Kashmir  after all, Holbrooke was made the "Af-Pak" envoy, specifically forbidden from discussing Kashmir. Thus the phrase "Af-Pak", which completely avoids the tragedy of Kashmir  too many "competing narratives", perhaps?  means that when we journalists use the same phrase, "Af-Pak", which was surely created for us journalists, we are doing the State Department's work.

Now let's look at history. Our leaders love history. Most of all, they love the Second World War. In 2003, George W Bush thought he was Churchill. True, Bush had spent the Vietnam War protecting the skies of Texas from the Vietcong. But now, in 2003, he was standing up to the "appeasers" who did not want a war with Saddam who was, of course, "the Hitler of the Tigris". The appeasers were the British who didn't want to fight Nazi Germany in 1938. Blair, of course, also tried on Churchill's waistcoat and jacket for size. No "appeaser" he. America was Britain's oldest ally, he proclaimed  and both Bush and Blair reminded journalists that the US had stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Britain in her hour of need in 1940.

But none of this was true. Britain's oldest ally was not the United States. It was Portugal, a neutral fascist state during the Second World War, which flew its national flags at half-mast when Hitler died (even the Irish didn't do that).

Nor did America fight alongside Britain in her hour of need in 1940, when Hitler threatened invasion and the Luftwaffe blitzed London. No, in 1940 America was enjoying a very profitable period of neutrality, and did not join Britain in the war until Japan attacked the US naval base at Pearl Harbour in December 1941. Similarly, back in 1956, Eden called Nasser the "Mussolini of the Nile". A bad mistake. Nasser was loved by the Arabs, not hated as Mussolini was by the majority of Africans, especially the Arab Libyans. The Mussolini parallel was not challenged or questioned by the British press. And we all know what happened at Suez in 1956. When it comes to history, we journalists let the presidents and prime ministers take us for a ride.

Yet the most dangerous side of our new semantic war, our use of the words of power  though it is not a war, since we have largely surrendered  is that it isolates us from our viewers and readers. They are not stupid. They understand words in many cases  I fear  better than we do. History, too. They know that we are drawing our vocabulary from the language of generals and presidents, from the so-called elites, from the arrogance of the Brookings Institute experts, or those of those of the Rand Corporation. Thus we have become part of this language.

Over the past two weeks, as foreigners  humanitarians or "activist terrorists"  tried to take food and medicines by sea to the hungry Palestinians of Gaza, we journalists should have been reminding our viewers and listeners of a long-ago day when America and Britain went to the aid of a surrounded people, bringing food and fuel  our own servicemen dying as they did so  to help a starving population. That population had been surrounded by a fence erected by a brutal army which wished to starve the people into submission. The army was Russian. The city was Berlin. The wall was to come later. The people had been our enemies only three years earlier. Yet we flew the Berlin airlift to save them. Now look at Gaza today: which Western journalist  since we love historical parallels  has even mentioned 1948 Berlin in the context of Gaza?

Instead, what did we get? "Activists" who turned into "armed activists" the moment they opposed the Israeli army's boarding parties. How dare these men upset the lexicon? Their punishment was obvious. They became "terrorists". And the Israeli raids  in which "activists" were killed (another proof of their "terrorism")  then became "deadly" raids. In this case, "deadly" was more excusable than it had been on CTV  nine dead men of Turkish origin being slightly fewer than a million and a half murdered Armenians in 1915. But it was interesting that the Israelis  who for their own political reasons had hitherto shamefully gone along with the Turkish denial  now suddenly wanted to inform the world of the 1915 Armenian genocide. This provoked an understandable frisson among many of our colleagues. Journalists who have regularly ducked all mention of the 20th century's first Holocaust  unless they could also refer to the way in which the Turks "hotly dispute" the genocide label (ergo the Toronto Globe and Mail)  could suddenly refer to it. Israel's new-found historical interest made the subject legitimate, though almost all reports managed to avoid any explanation of what actually happened in 1915.

And what did the Israeli seaborne raid become? It became a "botched" raid. Botched is a lovely word. It began as a German-origin Middle English word, "bocchen", which meant to "repair badly". And we more or less kept to that definition until our journalistic lexicon advisors changed its meaning. Schoolchildren "botch" an exam. We could "botch" a piece of sewing, an attempt to repair a piece of material. We could even botch an attempt to persuade our boss to give us a raise. But now we "botch" a military operation. It wasn't a disaster. It wasn't a catastrophe. It just killed some Turks.

So, given the bad publicity, the Israelis just "botched" the raid. Weirdly, the last time reporters and governments utilised this particular word followed Israel's attempt to kill the Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal, in the streets of Amman. In this case, Israel's professional assassins were caught after trying to poison Meshaal, and King Hussain forced the then Israeli prime minister (a certain B Netanyahu) to provide the antidote (and to let a lot of Hamas "terrorists" out of jail). Meshaal's life was saved.

But for Israel and its obedient Western journalists this became a "botched attempt" on Meshaal's life. Not because he wasn't meant to die, but because Israel failed to kill him. You can thus "botch" an operation by killing Turks  or you can "botch" an operation by not killing a Palestinian.

How do we break with the language of power? It is certainly killing us. That, I suspect, is one reason why readers have turned away from the "mainstream" press to the internet. Not because the net is free, but because readers know they have been lied to and conned; they know that what they watch and what they read in newspapers is an extension of what they hear from the Pentagon or the Israeli government, that our words have become synonymous with the language of a government-approved, careful middle ground, which obscures the truth as surely as it makes us political  and military  allies of all major Western governments.

Many of my colleagues on various Western newspapers would ultimately risk their jobs if they were constantly to challenge the false reality of news journalism, the nexus of media-government power. How many news organisations thought to run footage, at the time of the Gaza disaster, of the airlift to break the blockade of Berlin? Did the BBC?

The hell they did! We prefer "competing narratives". Politicians didn't want  I told the Doha meeting on 11 May  the Gaza voyage to reach its destination, "be its end successful, farcical or tragic". We believe in the "peace process", the "road map". Keep the "fence" around the Palestinians. Let the "key players" sort it out. And remember what this is all about: "Terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror.
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/fighting-talk-the-new-propaganda-2006001.html

Last updated 25/06/2010

Titanic & Hindenburg: Two Psy-Ops, One Agenda?

Titanic & Hindenburg: Two Psy-Ops, One Agenda?

"Watchdog" -- Henry Makow.com June 24, 2010

The sinking of the world's fastest ship on her maiden voyage in 1912; and the spectacular fireball and "explosion" of the giant German airship in 1937. Could these two events be related? Each tragedy serves as a distinct marker; the beginning and ending of an era in which transatlantic passenger transportation underwent a colossal transformation.

In August of 2005, two independent divers, using the Russian-built deep water MIR submarines, found two new parts of the bottom of the hull of Titanic separate from the hull and stern at the bottom of the Atlantic. That means that this great unsinkable ship, which hardly nudged an iceberg, somehow broke itself into four pieces before leaving the surface of the ocean. Maybe it's time to consider the possibility of foul play?

Were both the Titanic and Hindenburg part of a plan to convert the world's means of passenger transportation from safe and luxurious ships to cramped, noisy and extremely dangerous aviation aircraft that use huge amounts of petroleum fuel? During this era, a conversion of cheaper and alternate fuels, used formerly in steamships, to the high octane fuels, used by the emerging passenger aircraft industry was accomplished, resulting in profits beyond measure.

The period from July 31, 1908 when Joseph Ismay signed the order to have the Titanic built until March 26, 1939 when transatlantic passenger travel via fixed wing aircraft was inaugurated, is the era of Titanburg.

During World War One, huge investments were made in the manufacture of aircraft engines which allowed the Illuminati bankers to stipulate that all aircraft engines use petroleum as the sole source of fuel. The final coup de grace: Burn the Hindenburg to give the world a reason to forget all about airships (as they consume much less fuel). And so petroleum, which had sold for pennies per barrel at the turn of the century was soon to be marketed at 100 times the cost.

Today we still use petroleum (kerosene called jet fuel) in all of our aircraft even though it burns and explodes, yet we have been sold the idea that hydrogen is so dangerous that it can't be used.

TITANIC CONTRADICTIONS

New steamships had to be broken in during their maiden voyage. They were not able to make good speed during their first two days out. So the idea that Titanic tried to set a speed record on her maiden voyage doesn't make sense. In fact, she was way behind a Cunard liner, which had more horsepower anyway.

Firsthand reports and testimonies in hearings held shortly after the disaster indicated that if the ship struck the iceberg at all, it continued to slip on past the iceberg. There certainly was no jolt. Shortly thereafter a disastrous leak was found that indicated five watertight compartments had been breached. Two hours and forty minutes later, the great ship pivoted until it pointed straight down toward the bow, and then slipped beneath the water. This was the testimony of the first officer of Titanic in a US court of Inquiry which was held days after the tragedy.

It never made sense to me that a seasoned captain such as Capt. Smith would have gone storming through an ice field. Then, there was the lack of a real collision with the iceberg itself, yet the damage done was so extreme, or was it? All the testimonies given in both the United States and later Great Britain board of Inquiries reveal that not one passenger was sure s/he felt a collision.

Today, we have the benefit of more information about this tragedy. First, in 1982 the two Russian-made Mir submersible submarines came into being, and by 1985 the Titanic wreck had been located and filmed. The wreck of the Titanic was in two pieces.

In 2005, another expedition organized by two American divers, Chatterton and Kohler, found two never-before-seen large sections. They were nearly a mile away from the forward and rear pieces of the hull! These large sections span the bottom of the ship from port to starboard, through both the inner and outer hulls.

Each piece is over thirty feet in length and the width of the beam of the ship which is 92 feet. That these new pieces came loose from the main hull of Titanic at the surface. They could not possibly have come off from the force of the Titanic hitting the ocean floor. They are too far from the hull and stern!

We now have to explain a ship that hardly touched an iceberg yet is in four pieces on the bottom of the ocean!

Keep in mind, these sections are from the very bottom of the Titanic and represent hundreds of tons of steel. Each near-rectangular section is made out of 1" thick steel plate, top and bottom (two separate layers 1" thick) separated by the athwart-ship ribs that are five feet in height. In other words, there was a space of five feet between the inner and outer hulls of the bottom of the Titanic, and both are 1" thick plate steel.

Both of these are sheared through right along the edge of the ribs, all the way across the bottom from port to starboard!! So we have two double hulled hollow sections, each about 30 feet by 92 feet, enough area lost in the hull to send it down in moments! Is it not time for an honest re-evaluation of the facts?

Perhaps the Titanic did not strike an iceberg after all? We know from the original eye witness testimonies that Titanic continued moving through the water as it went by the iceberg. The story is that 300 feet of steel suffered a gash 3/4 " wide, and that this was caused by the tearing action of the iceberg. No tool made of ice is strong enough to cut 300 feet of 1 inch steel. This is the size of the wound that would have been necessary, calculated to 12 square feet of leak area in order for the ship to sink in only 2 hours and 20 minutes. Now, spread this out along five watertight sections and you begin to see the near impossible job the ice cutting tool is asked to do in this scenario.

The only way it could have ripped the bottom out is if Titanic rode up on the ice, and that would have sent cups and saucers flying all over the place. It is a steel ship and thus rigid from keel to deck. But nobody felt it because Titanic missed the iceberg and slipped by.

If you watch or read earlier versions of the disaster there was no prior mention of the stern breaking off. The doomed ship rising out of the water which sends the stern crashing down as it breaks at the deck is a recent development and likely a scramble to cover the fact that this vessel was sent to the bottom from a large underwater explosion.

From my personal evaluation I would say that the only way to accomplish this amount of cutting would be by using charges pre-set in the bilge space along the top and bottom ribs. This would require six lines of charges from port to starboard, each 92 feet long. That's how many shear "cuts" had to be accomplished in the bottom of the Titanic, from one side of the ship to the other in order to produce completely separated blown-out sections of the hull.

If this in fact happened, it would mean that somebody planned the murder of over a thousand people.

CONCLUSION

With both the Titanic and the Hindenburg, the agenda was to break the human spirit, much like the devastation in the Gulf of Mexico today.

In the case of the Titanic there was much drama about this ship's luxurious accommodations--beyond any ship that had formerly been built. It was not only going to be the biggest but also virtually unsinkable. The seas were to be fully tamed once and for all. Steerage accommodations included cabins and community kitchens, entertainment and eating areas.

In the case of the Hindenburg the world was captivated with the vision of future travel by dirigibles, which had gone from war machines during WW1 to the safest form of travel by far. One of them flew over the North Pole in 1926. The Graf Zeppelin cirmcum-navigated the globe in 1929. They were the answer to global travel after sea travel had been deemed dangerous by the tragedy of the Titanic.

In both cases the sudden turn of events from ecstasy to heartbreak was mercilessly plastered across every form of media. In the case of the Hindenburg, there were 22 professional photographers present to record the event, and five of them used newsreel. Not one of them recorded the actual event of the explosion, but they did show charred bodies engulfed in flames walking their final steps toward the cameras before collapsing. Ladies were said to have fainted while watching newsreels in their neighborhood movie theaters. Sound like trauma brainwashing?

There were five ships in the area within hours of the Titanic distress call, one of them came to a stop and watched the entire event. The name of this vessel was the Californian, the Captain's name was Lord. His ship witnessed the entire event and did not respond even though the Titanic was firing white flares. The ship's captain testified he saw them but thought the ship was unsinkable.

Both of these heartbreaking tragedies set the stage for World Wars. The message came down, "no, the world is not going to deliver your dreams." This was the media-promoted reality: the failure of human technology to overcome large obstacles, and then the failure in governments and economies to overcome disasters and stop wars. Sound familiar?

---

Reference--"Titanic's Last Secrets," by Brad Matsen, Titanic Publishing LLC, C. 2005

Source: http://www.henrymakow.com/titanic-hindenburg_two_psy-ops.html

Last updated 26/06/2010

The airship "Hindenburg" Was Sabotaged

The airship "Hindenburg" Was Sabotaged

By "Watchdog"  for Henry Makow.com June 26, 2010

Editor's Note: Events like the sinking of the Titanic, the destruction of the Hindenburg, 9-11 and the recent Oil Rig can best be viewed as psy-ops designed to demoralize humanity and change commercial or political policy according to Illuminati need.

There were 22 photographers present at 7 p.m. May 6, 1937 to film the Hindenburg's arrival This seems like overkill for an event which had already occurred 20 times in the previous year at the same field without incident. So why would this typical New Jersey airship landing require 22 separate photographers, five of whom were newsreel photographers?

The Hindenburg was behind schedule by exactly 12 hours. It was supposed to land at 7 am. Both the captain and first officer admitted they were wary of a possible bomb attempt because of tensions with Germany. Sabotage was a serious possibility in those days, yet it was not to be mentioned by the press after the "accident".

Everybody knows what supposedly happened. But not one of the photographers caught the actual "spark" that led to the "explosion". There was plenty of footage of a large fireball above the airship with a portion of the outer skin opened up. There was footage of the poor souls trying to get away from the burning wreckage. But no one caught the spark.

It was the most extraordinary "missed-the-shot" photographic blunder of all time.

HYDROGEN DOESN'T BURN

The biggest problem with the Hindenburg explosion scenario is that Hydrogen, by itself, separated from oxygen as in a sealed gas cell (Hindenburg had 16 separate cells) does not burn. Hydrogen and oxygen need to be combined stoichiometrically. You would take a sample of water, convert it into a gas thus composing two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen. This burns with about seven times the amount of energy than an equal weight of petroleum. But only pure hydrogen was in the Hindenburg.

Blatantly striking a match inside a hydrogen fuel cell would do nothing at all except immediately go out (as soon as the oxygen, in solid oxide form, contained within the match head powder was exhausted.) If a static spark ignited Hindenburg, it would have started burning on the outside of the ship's skin where air containing oxygen could have mixed with the hydrogen escaping from a small leak. Even if there was a static electricity spark, as had never occurred in 30 years of successful operation, how would a flame requiring oxygen burn it's way inside the gas cell where there is no oxygen?

The Hindenburg had instruments that would detect and transmit the slightest changes in gas pressure to the bridge, so any sizable leak would have caused a pressure drop almost immediately and would have been detected.

The pilots would have delayed getting close to any structures and sought to correct the problem. If a spark had then occurred in this split section time window, then we would have seen a small flame on the outside skin burning like the head of a small gas torch where the hole was. But no way could this flame have gone inside the cell, and no way were there any makings of a bomb or explosion there.

[This story sounds very similar to the story of TWA's doomed flight 800 in which it was reported by the media that the center fuel tank "exploded" while outbound from New York to Paris. Did you know that the TWA flight 800 examination commission paid millions of dollars to a government contractor to conduct a test that would show how the fuel exploded within a similar tank? Did you know that after trying every possible manner of detonating jet fuel "fumes," they never could get it to go off? So they left that little fact out of the report.]

SAFETY RECORD

Another very large problem with the story of the Hindenburg disaster: The seven year performance of the Graf Zeppelin. This amazing airship proceeded the Hindenburg. Amongst Graf Zeppelin's many incredible aviation feats was her non-stop flight around the world in 1929 carrying 20 passengers! Passenger service using piston driven aircraft did not even offer New York to Paris service until 1939.

Over seven years, Graf Zeppelin logged more than 1,000,000 miles, carried 18,000 passengers in safety and comfort, and made 144 successful Atlantic crossings. Graf Zeppelin used only hydrogen as the lifting material.

Airships are a simple form of anti-gravitation. They are much more efficient for transporting people and cargo than piston driven and modern day aircraft which have to lift such heavy fuel loads and plow through the air to keep them aloft. With a streamlined blimp all one does is cast off a line and let the airship rise. Upon reaching a height of about 500 feet, the engines are started and away they go, like a ship floating in water.

Airship use should have been expanded and continued, but that they were shutdown in favor of inefficient winged aircraft which today consume ungodly amounts of petroleum kerosene, otherwise known as high priced jet fuel.

Postscript

In 1948, Gestapo Chief Heinrich Muller told his CIA interrogator James Kronthal that the Hindenburg was sabotaged, but they never caught the instigator.

Also by Watchdog - Titanic & Hindenburg: Two Psy-ops-One Agenda?

Source: http://www.henrymakow.com/the_case_of_the_hindenberg.html

Last updated 28/06/2010