Secondly, let’s restate the question:
“The Hindenburg was destroyed by the flammable compound used to paint the bladder, not by the hydrogen gas within.”

We know that when hydrogen is exposed to flame and oxygen, it will ignite. Same goes for the skin and paint compounds. The key question is not how it was destroyed, but how it started. If it was by hypothesis purposeful, than that is not a science test, it is a police report. If it was by hypothesis static… for example lightning that was not witnessed by anyone, than the amount of heat produced from lightning would not for a fact but likely catch it on fire. I think I’ve seen something that is made that maybe have been used on Mythbusters that uses a contraption that can build up enough energy to get close to a lightning bolt. This might be a reasonable place to visit again, but cannot be for sure because of too many factors. Few being air pressure and air flow in an open sky.

This is a very serious gesture to try to close off something as controversial and historically serious with so little historical calculations put into the testing. To be more clear, I really don’t think this would ever be solved unless we came up with some real evidence, like someone testifying. Which anyone would probably have passed away by now.

Other airships such as the R-101, the Roma, or the World War I Bomber Zeppelins, burned similarly to the Hindenburg. They definitely weren’t painted with this sort of doping compound but burned because of hydrogen.

Yes the Hindenburg’s back broke, but that was because the gas in the rear had ignited but the bow still had lift. The fire did not spread cell-by-cell though. In fact, one gas cell only burned when the Hindenburg hit the ground. The fire spread by the axial catwalk, which was like a chimney. It channeled towards the front of the airship where the fire burst out of the hose. The Mythbusters experiment shows fire exiting out of the nose only with a hydrogen explosion. Had it just been paint, the fire would not have spread towards the nose because it would not be able to channel through the axial catwalk.

So even with reconsidering the experiment, I’d say the myth is still busted.

this myth is definitely not busted in my opinion.

The way the actual Hindenburg collapses from the rear – following initial flash – and angles backward at nearly 90 degrees allowing the flame propagation to climb upwards, laterally through the axis of the airship, naturally accelerates the flames.

Mythbusters should have executed the experiment emulating conditions more accurately, namely;
1. the nature of the initial flash,
2. pressurized gases in the airship – equivalent to that required to provide lift,
3. the rear collapse and change in angle of the ship as it burned and
4. several other factors which should probably be considered.

Unfortunately, the oxygen-filled example will never be a feasible comparison because no amount of air pressure will create lift.

An additional test case really should have been an air-ship using helium, just to see what the result would have been with a know ‘less flammable’ gas medium.

It would be better if Mythbusters used an electrical machine (such as a Tesla coil) and gave a brief zap and see if the skin ignites (hydrogen would ignite with such conditions).

The skin was however, a very poor electrical conductor and German scientists found out that the spark could jump right through it and ignite leaking hydrogen. (Bain claims that they found out the fabric itself was flammable). Thus the fabric was still to blame for the disaster as it caused the spark to ignite the hydrogen, but had it not been hydrogen, there would have been no ignition.