“believes she heard the engineer tell another regional train operator in a radio transmission that the train had been struck by something just before the accident,...”
This is ambiguously written. Did she hear him say this after the derailment (before he lost his memory and all...)?
Or did he say it just before the derailment. Next, the use of “accident” seems like premature spin, when the story implies it wasn’t an accident at all.
Did the engineer broadcast an “excuse narrative” knowing the train was likely to derail due to excess speed due to his act or omission?
Did he have a special interest in historic train wrecks by chance? Somebody better check his media visits.
Only way to know is dispatch recordings, I guess.
I dont know his history
I do know that there were three different trains which were allegedly hit by projectiles along that same track...in fairly close proximity... the 3 incidents happening within minutes of each other.
there’s a map of the “action “ in post #184. this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3290340/posts?page=184#184
the FBI did indeed deny that terrorism was involved the very night the incidents occured...though they are still investigating .....oddly enough
in earlier threads no one had mentioned their normally ubiquitous denial having been made in this case.
the denial was not at all widely reported almost needless to say