China says deadly bus fire was deliberately set July 3, 2009.

A Chinese bus fire that killed 27 people and injured dozens last month was deliberately set by a man who committed suicide, state media said Friday. The air-conditioned bus caught fire during the morning rush hour in the southwestern city of Chengdu and was destroyed within minutes. Besides those killed, more than 70 people were injured, some seriously.

Police say a 62-year-old unemployed man set the fire after carrying a bucket of gasoline onto the bus, the state-run China Daily reported. The newspaper said the man, Zhang Yunliang, was burned to death at the rear of the bus. The official Xinhua News Agency said Zhang intended to kill himself. “Judging from the way the body lied on the floor and the direction it faced, Zhang did not intend to escape after setting the fire,” it said. The China Daily said Zhang had been threatening to commit suicide because he was dependent on his daughter for financial support. It did not say why he wanted to do it in a public place.

Xinhua reported at the time of the June 5 fire that the death toll was worsened by overcrowding aboard the bus and the lack of functioning safety exits. Most of the bus windows were sealed and had to be broken by people outside.

(Cat898) Suspicious points about the “arson” on the Chengdu bus

1. The most powerful evidence is the final letter to the family. Why not publish it for everybody to see? What is there to hide? The letter had been received on June 9. Why was nothing said about it until now?

2. Even if suicidal tendencies were exhibited in the letter and telephone call to the family, it does not explain why he chose this particular method of suicide. All sorts of pessimistic people think about committing suicide every day, but how many really actually do it? Do they all have to be reported to the police?

3. Is the retrieval of the cigarette lighter evidence? Eight out of the ten men smoke cigarettes and carry lighters. What kind of evidence is this?

4. Why is there no clear explanation about how come the door on the bus did not open? “What is the causal relationship between “the suspect carried gasoline onto the bus” and “the door on the bus did not open”?

5. Why didn’t the gasoline burst into flames as soon as it was lit? Why was there only smoke for a certain period of time first? Is there such a kind of strange gasoline in the world?

6. If he poured the gasoline on the floor first before he set it on fire, then everybody in the car should detect a strong smell of gasoline and ask for the bus to stop. How come none of the survivors have said so?

The dead person cannot reply. By blaming a dead person, the bus company can avoid the huge medical bills incurred by the injured passengers. This is the best answer for the bus company, and the officials can also avoid being held accountable for inadequate supervision.

Those who tried to help passengers escape are commendable.

If people don’t ask questions about what happened then measures can’t be taken to help prevent the same thing happening in the future.

BTW, I’ll bet that they smelled flammable liquid on the bus. It was RIGHT BENEATH THEM! 107 liters… who knows how many there were prior to the wires/fuses finally melting so that the engine/pumps stopped? This statistic mean NOTHING. if they can still find the gas line, I’m sure that the blaze will have been most intense there, even if it started further away (for instance where some fuel hit a hot pipe, frayed wires etc. etc.