Analysis of the Sanjiv Bhatt/IIT Delhi (flashfire) theory of Godhra train burning

Modi said that the Godhra train burning was done by ISI.  This is entirely FALSE.

Modi said that the Godhra train burning was pre-planned. FALSE – at least in the form the Patel court has insisted.

I don't know precisely how the train caught fire, but the alternative view by Sanjiv is radically different to the one that Modi has been touting.

But this is not just Sanjiv's view. It is the view of some of the top experts of India (IIT Delhi).

From analysis so far I've found that we DEFINITELY needed blood tests of the deceased. These would have conifirmed whether they had CO in their blood, or even cyanide. The presence of these (and related) compounds would have been DECISIVE in determining the cause of fire. But all evidence points to some of the shoddiest post mortems conducted in India's history.

The IIT Delhi report clearly points out serious flaws with the conduct of post mortems. Sanjiv Bhatt has raised further doubts:

==

Dear Sanjeev,

I just checked the PM Records of all the people who died in the S-6 tragedy. Surprisingly, even as per the records, the Inquest Panchnamas which should normally precede the Autopsies, were drawn along with the Autopsy Examinations. All the Autopsies were performed in a slipshod manner by Medical Officers from nearby Primary Health Centers. Most of the Medical Officers were not even trained to perform Autopsies. Many of the Medical Officers were not even qualified MBBS Doctors. And, at least one of the Doctors was a VETERINARIAN.

All the fatalities in the ill-fated S-6 coach were attributable to asphyxia [Sanjeev: The PMs all reported ante-mortem burn injuries, I would say this attribution is of other independent experts like IIT Delhi]. The actual Flashover Fire occurred only when one of the survivors managed to open the compartment door towards the Signal Falia side. That is when oxygen rich air rushed into the coach and fulminated the inflammable gases which were released and trapped inside the closed confines of the coach during the thermal decomposition of the vinyl, rexene, rubber-foam etc., causing near-simultaneous ignition of most of the directly exposed combustible material in the enclosed area of the S-6 coach. This resulted in all the seats/sleeper-berths bursting into flames in the Flashover Fire [Sanjeev: do we know that all seats were burnt? YES. I checked the internet and fond photos to confirm.]. That is why the survivors who negotiated the flames and reached the open door, sustained burn injuries on their upper bodies.

In response to your second query, there are many photographs of the S-6 victims in the public domain. Most of the bodies were charred and fused beyond recognition. The S-6 coach burst into flames owing to the Flashover Fire only after the door towards the Signal Falia side was opened from inside by one of the survivors, whom I had personally interviewed while in the IB. Temperatures during Flashover Fire within the S-6 coach would have ordinarily exceeded 500 °C.

Also from Sanjiv (on Facebook): "The observation in the Judgment that "all the external burn injuries were ante-mortem…" is nothing short of ridiculous. A mere look at the badly burnt bodies would make it clear to any individual with the slightest of knowledge of Forensic Medicine that the unfortunate victims would have died much before the charring."

THE PATEL JUDGEMENT REJECTS FLASHOVER ON THE MOST FLIMSY GROUNDS

The Patel judgement makes NO MENTION of the following words: vinyl, foam, cyanide, carbon monoxide, cushion. It talks about flashover fire in the following manner:

On 25-8-2004, Mr. Noyel Parmar, the then Investigating Officer by letter dtd;25-8-2004 (Exh.1353) made a request to the Director, FSL, Gandhinagar for clarifications about Vestibule Rubber, Flash back-Flash Over Theory, burn injuries sustained by passengers on upper portion of the body etc.
In response to the said request letter, Dr. M.S.Dahiya (PW-240), the then Asst. Director, FSL, Gandhinagar, in his reply dtd; 2-9-2004 (Exh.1354) made clarifications as under:-

Flash over is defined as a stage in the development of a contained fire in which all exposed surfaces reach ignition temperature, more or less simultaneously. During free burning phase of fire, the rate and intensity of open burning increases geometrically. The intensity of the fire doubles with each 10o C rise in the temperature. Heat rapidly evolving from the origin point of fire, is convected and collected in the uppermost area of the structure/room. Additional heat is transferred through conduction and radiation. The convected (super heated) gases themselves become a source of radiated heat, radiating heat energy downward on to all surface areas directly below them. This heat is absorbed by conduction into the mass of those items whose surfaces are struck, causing surface purolysis (backed effect). When the temperature reaches the ignition temperature of these items, a flash over occurs, flames instantly “Flash over” the entire area. Sometimes, the different items in the room, different ignition temperature, start burning at different time intervals. It has also been seen that because of vide variations in ignition temperatures of the items, some are burnt while others do not burn giving a false look of multiple origins of fire. Large the volume area and free low of air delays in the build-up of temperature as well as time to flash over. The time of flash over has vide variations or may never occur depending upon the factors like confinements, length of time of fire, size of the fire, location of the fire in the structure, volume area, aeration. position of the burning point, quality of the combustible material in the structure, etc.

Looking to the above, a train compartment with so many outlets for the leakage of hot gases is not an ideal structure for flash over phenomenon. In the type of structure like in the question, a sufficient amount of fire accelerant is required to initiate the fire because of the fire resistant and self-extinguishing nature of the material. Fire originated from a point requires a lot of time to spread up in the whole compartment especially in a stationary train and all the three theories of heat transfer i.e. conduction, convection and radiation are applicable to some extent.

MY TENTATIVE CONCLUSION

The outright rejection by Patel judgement of the flashfire theory is unbelievable. It does so on a flimsy pretext, not on the basis of the FACTS OF THE CASE. In this case the windows were shut. That rules out the reasons given by Patel to reject this theory. Remember, a very similar incident has already been demonstrated by IIT Delhi in a Jagadhri coach.

The ONLY way to reject this alternative view would be if there were at least some unburnt seat cushions.

But it is clear that ALL SEAT CUSHIONS HAD EVAPORATED. I've taken these snapshots from this video.

Also this:

And this:

And this:

The fire is visible below. Note the significant amount of toxic smoke.

And note that it is EQUI-DISTRIBUTED across the coach, likely a sign of a flash fire.

It also seems very likely that it was the FLASH FIRE (which builds up INSTANTANEOUSLY) that prevented the evacuation of all the passengers. Toxic smoke makes one unconscious in seconds. So, in a crowded coach (there were over 250 in that coach), difficulties in movement would have made people unconscious and prevented their escape. And when the flash fire occurred, all those who fell unconscious would have been instantly roasted.

There are therefore ENOUGH REASONS why this hypothesis should have been examined through better evidence and not rejected outright by Patel. It should be possible even now (should there be access to any tissue sample of those who died) to test for cyanides and other toxic gases in their blood, which would indicate flash fire. [Sanjeev: on this matter Sanjiv Bhatt has informed that "Nothing has been preserved. The autopsies were a big farce."]

I won't be able to spend the time necessary to conclusively determine (to my satisfaction) that the Godhra train incident was caused in the manner detailed by IIT Delhi and Sanjiv Bhatt. But one thing is becoming more clear: The Modi story is DEFINITELY FALSE.

Now, if Modi's story is false, then he is directly implicated in INCITEMENT TO MURDER through his inflammatory actions:

(a) to call this incident an attack on India's sovereignty (by ISI);

(b) support for VHP bandh and constant interaction with VHP the whole day on 27 February; 

(c) handing over dead bodies WITHOUT PROPER POST MORTEM to VHP so they could parade these in Ahmedabad; and

(d) his own (BJP) State wide Bandh.

These are PROVEN FACTS and don't need any "witness" by the likes of Sanjiv Bhatt or Sreekumar.

On 27 February 2002 Modi was either seriously incompetent or criminally involved. The view I've formed is that Modi is not incompetent. He is criminally motivated.