02-01-2005, 07:06 PM
I haven't followed this fine discussion, but let me suggest that when two sides say two different things, there is often a third explanation which fits the facts (but not necessarily the conclusions) of both sides.
OK, we know:
1. The train stopped beyond the station.
2. The coach burned.
3. The coach was decoupled from rest of train (??)
4. Before the coarch was decoupled, there was a "vestibule" connecting the coach to bogies in front - IOW, free access to and from this coach from rest of train.
5. Lots of eyewitness accounts that SOMETHING inhibited people from jumping out of a stopped and burning coach.
Now the other issues:
1. Why did the train stop? Answer is not "track was blocked with trees" like we see in Cowboy vs. Injun movies. It was " someone pulled the chain".
OK< that meant that someone who wanted the train stopped was <b>INSIDE THE TRAIN - and not in the engine either. </b>
2. Why did the coach burn?
Obviously because something very flammable caught fire, and<b>there was enough heat released to set other things on fire.</b>
There are two conflicting explanations:
a) fuel was thrown in from outside by the mob.
b) the fuel was inside the train before the mob threw in burning stuff.
The explanation is very simple:
<b>WHOEVER PULLED THE CHAIN COULD HAVE BROUGHT THE FUEL ON BOARD AND LEFT IT THERE </b> Can open? Can open with a fuse burning? Those are minor details.
No wonder the IMC and the Kangrej and the Rel Mantri wanted a new investigation. THEY PROBABLY KNEW that the person(s) who placed the fuel there and pulled the chain were not getting due credit in the sloppy investigation conducted by the railways.
"Thrown in from outside" indeed _ and u think these morons could have done that without setting their own hair on fire - remember that guy in TSP setting fire to the American flag in Nov. 2001? <!--emo&:tv--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tv_feliz.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tv_feliz.gif' /><!--endemo-->
OK, we know:
1. The train stopped beyond the station.
2. The coach burned.
3. The coach was decoupled from rest of train (??)
4. Before the coarch was decoupled, there was a "vestibule" connecting the coach to bogies in front - IOW, free access to and from this coach from rest of train.
5. Lots of eyewitness accounts that SOMETHING inhibited people from jumping out of a stopped and burning coach.
Now the other issues:
1. Why did the train stop? Answer is not "track was blocked with trees" like we see in Cowboy vs. Injun movies. It was " someone pulled the chain".
OK< that meant that someone who wanted the train stopped was <b>INSIDE THE TRAIN - and not in the engine either. </b>
2. Why did the coach burn?
Obviously because something very flammable caught fire, and<b>there was enough heat released to set other things on fire.</b>
There are two conflicting explanations:
a) fuel was thrown in from outside by the mob.
b) the fuel was inside the train before the mob threw in burning stuff.
The explanation is very simple:
<b>WHOEVER PULLED THE CHAIN COULD HAVE BROUGHT THE FUEL ON BOARD AND LEFT IT THERE </b> Can open? Can open with a fuse burning? Those are minor details.
No wonder the IMC and the Kangrej and the Rel Mantri wanted a new investigation. THEY PROBABLY KNEW that the person(s) who placed the fuel there and pulled the chain were not getting due credit in the sloppy investigation conducted by the railways.
"Thrown in from outside" indeed _ and u think these morons could have done that without setting their own hair on fire - remember that guy in TSP setting fire to the American flag in Nov. 2001? <!--emo&:tv--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tv_feliz.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tv_feliz.gif' /><!--endemo-->