So I just had to see if a fire truck's engine is actually located in the middle or at the front and as you can see, in the above pic, that the engines are located at the front. Now these may not be the exact same make and model of Ladder 3, but they look very similar. Here's a link to a different site http://www.brevardcounty.us/fire_rescue/fr_fm_fireengines.cfm
I have no clue what dropped the towers, but 1 and 2 seem to have gone down quite differently than 7. I think most people would agree that 7 was a conventional implosion. I know 1300 architects and engineers say that towers 1 and 2 came down by nano-thermite, but aren't we here to find the truth not just the consensus? I mean isn't that what the mainstream does? "All tops scientists say that AGW is real" or "all top scientists say that the universe is run by gravity".
I think since there is no definitive answer we should all just keep open minds.
I was just going to point out to Solrey that the photo of "Ladder 3 on a better day" was taken in 2007 or 2008, it is the NEW REPLACEMENT engine for the one destroyed on 9/11 and it is not the same model of truck. Comparing the two is not wise.
That being said the engines(motors) in 90% of ladder trucks these days are located either directly behind and partially under the crew cabin or further back closer to the rear axles which is supposed to provide better stability for the ladder when extended.
There is however some parts under the front of the crew cabin as you will notice the grill at the front for air intake for the engine block, but the engine block itself is usually further back just left of the man in the photo behind the front wheels/axle. The only way to get to it though is to lift the entire cab as seen as the rest of the truck is full of equipment and storage boxes and such.
Although I wasn't able to find out exact make and model info for the original Ladder 3 I share Solrey's opinion that the engine block was/is not in the section that is most badly mangled.
However the crew cabin and ladder above are built extremely tough and meant to handle some extreme situations, although it's not impossible the damage was caused by a massive piece of heavy debris I have seen numerous photos or videos of Ladder 3 from different directions and:
1. I have yet to see any piece of debris nearby the truck that could have caused the damage, nor any sign that a large piece or debris was removed so soon after the attacks when more pressing matters were priority. Though if it was blocking the street I could see them moving it off the street, but again I haven't seen any large debris anywhere nearby and I doubt they would have hauled it out of there completely by that time.
2. The size and weight of the debris needed to mangle the very strong cabin and ladder of the truck would indicate that...
a) the vehicle(s) and light post right next to it should be at least as badly damaged - which it is not;
b) the road itself should show damage from such a massive debris hit - which it does not.
3. Why is the ladder showing seemingly clean bends that look like a result of high heat rather than debris landing on it? (note: the biggest bend is clearly from the heat/fire evidenced directly below it)
If it is heat damage why does the passenger door of the crew cabin not have any signs of fire/soot on it while the rear of the crew cabin shows soot stains from an apparent fire?
The engine block spontaneously combusted and left the rest of the truck mangled but showing no fire damage?
I've seen normal vehicle fires before, including a firetruck that had it's engine block catch fire and I have never seen such 'contained' fire damage.
Perhaps it was a flaming piece of debris that landed on it and mangled it, then it bounced off a long ways away(thus not viewable in any photo/video I've seen from any direction) and then it started a very contained fire in or above the engine block... I've seen/heard crazier things, but I still won't be betting on it.
I am not completely sold on the idea of DEW being involved in the attacks however I do know a demo expert in the Canadian Armed Forces who says there is no way in hell that towers 1 and 2 could have come down like that and as quickly as that with normal explosives of any kind(including thermite/thermate/nano-thermite, etc) because there simply was TOO MUCH STRUCTURE in the way of the "collapse".
To cause such a rapid "collapse" would require removing at least 70%(his number) of the entire interior structure completely from the buildings, not just cutting it into pieces which would still be in the way of the "collapse".
Explosives could be used to blast much of the concrete structure into dust thus removing it and accounting for large amounts of dust from the towers, but explosives don't dustify steel. It could have liquefied the steel perhaps but then the heat required for that would have been noticed by the survivors who traveled down the stairwells nearby that structure and reported only feeling "warm" air flows, no extreme heat.
I do agree building 7 was conventional demolition but an expert I trust with my life and who has never steered me wrong before says there is no possible way towers 1 and 2 could come down like that with conventional explosives. I'm not usually someone who cares about the 'expert opinions' but when it comes to explosives and such the experts are very valuable.
Also, specifically @ Solrey - Studying directed energy and studying Directed Energy Weapons systems being developed by the U.S Military Industrial Complex are 2 different things. If you dig through government, military and private 'military contractor' websites for many hours a day as I have been doing for years you will know that I can't even mention some of the projects in the works here because they seem too insane even for most EU advocates.
But the most advanced particle beam weapons in development today(that I can find accessible info on) are designed specifically to penetrate into the INTERIOR of a structure using "relativistic particles" to 'attack' the structure of a hardened site and cause catastrophic collapse from the inside.
It doesn't de-atomize or de-molecularize the structure it simply weakens the molecular bonds of the matter severely reducing their load capabilities and causing them to fail(and cause steel beams to bend and twist like pipe cleaners).
The theory is that if you have a hardened structure with say multiple feet thick reinforced concrete walls and roofs it is more efficient and cheaper to simply bypass the exterior "armor" and attack the interior structure than it is to use a bunker buster or laser system to punch through it(BB's are expensive and not re-usable, lasers and such spread their energy over the entire surface area and use far greater amounts of energy than a particle beam).
I am not saying that such a weapon was used but that with such technology in existence and under the control of the people it is under the control of(Black ops/budget groups and the MIC), and with the U.S government(Rumsfield) having practically declared war on those very groups for trillions of embezzled tax payer dollars on September 10, 2001 I can not understand how an intelligent person can rule out the possibility.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/ ... 5985.shtml
On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said...