It's a shame that the video is in Spanish because it's very interesting. The author is a lawyer but has been advised by industry experts in this investigation.
Here is an AI translation. I haven´t checked it thoroughly, but it should be clear enough. Interesting,
@OrangeScorpion!
Dear friends, I kindly ask you to please watch the video you are about to see all the way through, calmly, and to share it.
The purpose of producing videos and content like this, as we have done in other specific cases in the past involving socially and politically significant events in Spain, is nothing more than to examine objectively and with perspective whether the information that is being disseminated, and what is being reported by the major media outlets to convince the public about—
again I repeat—events or incidents, accidents in this case of social and political significance, actually fits with reality or instead responds more to political convenience or to a constructed narrative designed to move forward without truly addressing the real causes of the problem, as has happened before.
In this specific case, over the last four days we have seen several accidents in Girona and Barcelona, and of course the tragic incident in Adam, which has already claimed 42 lives. There is enormous political convenience, enormous disinformation, and enormous interest on the part of all the actors currently on the political chessboard to sell a narrative either to assign blame or to absolve themselves, and that is not the purpose of this video.
I am going to present what I will say next and I am going to show and analyze it in the same way I would as a lawyer in a courtroom, based on what we know so far and what is within our reach. It is true that I have also had access—and you will see this exclusively—to direct information from people who have been working on site at the accident: the Military Emergency Unit, the Civil Guard, and firefighters. But I will present and approach the elements of the case file in order to clarify the facts, to clarify what has happened, and from there for each person to draw their own conclusions or carry out the appropriate investigations in a courtroom.
After 24 hours of extremely intense work, I must tell you that the first thing that surprised me, the first thing that caught my attention—obviously after the first day, when we were all shocked and immersed in grief—gave rise to expectation, curiosity, and, in some statements and pieces of information, to genuine puzzlement.
Yesterday we saw in the media that the most difficult task was reaching the Alvia train, that the Irio wagons first had to be removed, and that the area and the catenary had to be cleared in order to allow access for heavy-tonnage cranes.
This caught my attention powerfully because, while it was being said that efforts were underway to reach the Alvia in order to remove its wagons, the Alvia locomotive itself was being dismantled using a hydraulic demolition shear, reduced to scrap without any apparent justification. At that point, there were supposedly no bodies trapped, and even if there had been, we are talking about the first car—the one that allegedly derailed or caused the derailment. Precisely there is where fundamental evidence should exist: impacts, marks, traces that would explain why and how the Alvia train derailed.
In other railway accidents, such as the Valencia metro accident of 2006 or the Santiago high-speed train crash, the cars were preserved for years until all judicial investigations had concluded. In this case, the Irio wagons have been removed for later analysis, but the Alvia locomotive has been destroyed and no longer exists. Today, its remains have disappeared as if it had never existed.
This means that it will never be known whether it bore impact marks, whether there was a collision with the Irio, or whether there was evidence contradicting the official version. The fundamental element needed to prove this has already been eliminated.
Based on a photograph taken by the Civil Guard’s forensic unit showing a broken section of track, a media narrative has been constructed pointing to a faulty weld as the cause of the accident. According to this version, the Irio would have broken the track, derailed, and that damage would then have caused the Alvia to derail.
That version must be proven. And to do so in a courtroom, no loose ends can remain. If I were the lawyer representing the victims, the first thing I would do would be to request a complete photographic record of the area.
When analyzing the images, fundamental questions arise. If that point truly were the beginning of the derailment, locomotives weighing 14 tons traveling at 210 km/h would have left obvious marks: pulverized sleepers, destroyed ballast, and clear traces of wheels running off the track. Yet none of that appears for hundreds of meters.
What is observed instead is a very specific break in the rail, with deformation consistent with a powerful torsional force, not with continuous wheel movement off the track. There are no damaged catenary poles and no destroyed sleepers until much further on.
This rules out that point as the origin of the derailment. The real marks appear hundreds of meters later, practically where the remains of the Alvia ended up.
At that precise point something highly significant occurs: the beginning of a track switch, the so-called points. Exactly where the switch begins and ends is where the characteristic destruction of a true derailment is observed.
By counting poles, analyzing photographs, and locating debris—such as the Irio bogie, a metal structure weighing between four and six tons—it is possible to establish with considerable precision where the derailment of both trains occurred.
The distance between the broken rail point and the actual derailment point is approximately 300 meters, with no intermediate marks. This indicates that the track break was not the cause but rather the consequence of a torsional force produced when a wheel struck a metal element of the switch.
There are unpublished photographs showing severe deformations in wheels, consistent with impacts against metal, not stone. This reinforces the hypothesis of a failure in the switch system, whether due to poor configuration, deficient maintenance, or even an external alteration.
This hypothesis would explain why the Irio driver speaks of a “snag” and why the Alvia derails upon reaching the same area, without the need for a prior collision between the trains.
It is also striking that a bogie weighing several tons appears hundreds of meters away without the surrounding vegetation showing damage, something difficult to reconcile with a violent ejection at high speed.
High-speed rail tracks are continuously inspected using machines and electronic systems that detect cracks and defects. A track suddenly breaking without warning is extremely rare. A different matter altogether is the general deterioration due to lack of investment, which does exist and has been documented for more than a decade.
This video does not seek to assert absolute certainties, but rather to raise questions that are not being asked in the mainstream media. From my point of view, the key element in this accident is the switch system.
The problem is that there are already pieces of evidence that will never be able to be analyzed, such as the Alvia locomotive. Its destruction prevents any independent counter-expert analysis.
I hope that a thorough investigation is carried out and that it is explained why such a crucial element was dismantled with such haste.
The only thing that can truly close an incident are the facts: expert analyses, physical marks, and technical examinations—not official narratives or the most convenient hypotheses.
That is all. I hope this document has been of interest to you. Please share it.
A strong embrace of health and collective freedom.
