Almost 100 years ago, we had a form of transport that could fly around the world at almost no cost beyond the maintenance of the vessel, and we gave it up because one utterly sensationalized, propagandized, completely unexplained accident that two thirds of the passengers survived, that was reported on by some totally unknown guy who it seems never reported on anything else before or after.
You don't think that's a little fucking strange?
Even if you think sabotage wasn't the cause, how is anything else even remotely deniable?
It was also incredibly slow and easily outclassed by planes. The disaster merely accelerated an already obvious sidelining. That's why we have air disasters and nobody sane suggests getting rid of passenger planes, because there's no better alternative.
80mph is supposedly the max speed of an airship, imagine how ridiculously long it would take to get any distance where even a car of that era such as the Fiat 1100 , which could do 68mph, only 12 less than the airship, would not be the best option.
You do know that cruise ships still exist and go slower than shit. Sorry your argument is dumb, Bikes, trains, lots of other forms of transport still have massive use though faster "better" methods exist. Even after the Titanic people still used passenger ships. It seems there was a concerted effort to kill that industry using one not so tragic tragedy to do so.
Yes, and they're a very niche form of transport. Nobody says they're going to take a cruise to get somewhere, they're taking a cruise to take a cruise. The journey is the purpose.
Bikes, trains, lots of other forms of transport still have massive use though faster "better" methods exist.
They all have some kind of advantages.
Bikes are good exercise, and free to run. They're good for traveling a short distance.
Trains are usually cheaper than fueling up a car to go where you want to go, so you take them to save money, or because where you're going is near a station and parking is unavailable.
Is there anything stormcucks won't claim is fake?
Almost 100 years ago, we had a form of transport that could fly around the world at almost no cost beyond the maintenance of the vessel, and we gave it up because one utterly sensationalized, propagandized, completely unexplained accident that two thirds of the passengers survived, that was reported on by some totally unknown guy who it seems never reported on anything else before or after.
You don't think that's a little fucking strange?
Even if you think sabotage wasn't the cause, how is anything else even remotely deniable?
Cool it with the antisemitism bro.
It was also incredibly slow and easily outclassed by planes. The disaster merely accelerated an already obvious sidelining. That's why we have air disasters and nobody sane suggests getting rid of passenger planes, because there's no better alternative.
80mph is supposedly the max speed of an airship, imagine how ridiculously long it would take to get any distance where even a car of that era such as the Fiat 1100 , which could do 68mph, only 12 less than the airship, would not be the best option.
You do know that cruise ships still exist and go slower than shit. Sorry your argument is dumb, Bikes, trains, lots of other forms of transport still have massive use though faster "better" methods exist. Even after the Titanic people still used passenger ships. It seems there was a concerted effort to kill that industry using one not so tragic tragedy to do so.
Yes, and they're a very niche form of transport. Nobody says they're going to take a cruise to get somewhere, they're taking a cruise to take a cruise. The journey is the purpose.
They all have some kind of advantages.
Bikes are good exercise, and free to run. They're good for traveling a short distance.
Trains are usually cheaper than fueling up a car to go where you want to go, so you take them to save money, or because where you're going is near a station and parking is unavailable.