By Allan Cornford
Copyright © 2022 Allan Cornford. (Standard Copyright License.) All rights reserved. Independently Published through KDP. The images which are included for informative purposes only, are Screenshots, courtesy of Ewaranon’s YouTube documentary; ‘The Lost History of the Flat Earth’. All external links to images in the public domain, are courtesy from Wikimedia Commons and where possible, credits are given to each source. This I believe, comes under the term of Fair Use.
I credit the website ‘Stolen history’. net for bringing to my attention the bizarre case of elevated cities.
And the amazing reconstruction speed of cities destroyed by fire.
There were five Great Fires in America just in 1889 alone.
An unusual number of cities were devastated by fire during the nineteenth and early twentieth century, and all had one thing in common.
Extensive damage to the city’s infrastructure, with minimal loss of life.
Stolen History reports;
1842.
The Hamburg Fire killed 51people, and destroyed a third of the city, leaving an estimated 20,000 homeless.
1845
The Pittsburgh Fire killed 2 people and destroyed as many as 1,200 buildings.
1871.
The Chicago Fire killed 122 people, and destroyed 17,500 buildings, 73 miles of road and 120 miles of pavement.
1872.
The Boston Fire killed 76 people and destroyed 776 buildings.
1889.
The Seattle Fire killed zero people and destroyed 2,160 buildings.
1889.
The Bakersfield Fire killed one person and destroyed 196 buildings.
1901.
The Jacksonville Fire killed 7 people, and destroyed 146 city blocks, and more than 2,368 buildings.
1916.
The Paris, Texas, Fire killed 3 people and destroyed 1,400 buildings.
That’s not to mention the many other great city fires that broke out during the 19th and the 20th centuries.
Hundreds, maybe thousands of cities throughout the entire realm have suffered a similar fate.
Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of city buildings (many of them supposedly wooden) have been destroyed by these fires, and in each case, they have been replaced by masonry structures, in a relatively short space of time.
Yet strangely enough, there are comparatively few photographs of these new buildings under construction.
In fact, they are extremely rare, if they can be found at all.
It’s very likely that in many cases false narratives were deployed to disguise what is known as a “controlled burn”; a planned event to destroy and/or repurpose old world structures and to revise history.
Seattle Blamed on woodworking shop assistant, John Back, for over-heating a pot of glue using a gasoline fire, the Great Seattle Fire of June 6, 1889, blazed for one day only, yet it destroyed approximately 120 acres of the city, including the entire central business district of Seattle.
This was due in the main, to virtually all of the structures in the neighborhood at the time, being wooden.
Hence the fire spread rapidly, and the majority of buildings were razed to the ground.
Yet there were Zero fatalities.
The fire however is not the issue here, but rather the incredible speed at which the city was rebuilt.
There is some discrepancy over exactly how many city blocks were destroyed by the fire, with numbers ranging from 45 to 64 blocks.
This variation is likely due to some being single blocks, whilst others were double, and may have been counted twice.
Either way, after the Seattle fire there was a new rule enacted, that no more wooden buildings could be constructed, and new building standards and regulations were set.
Rather than starting over at another location, Seattle’s citizens decided to rebuild on the same site, and by the end of 1890, brand new masonry buildings had been erected in their stead.
A total rebuild period of eighteen months.
According to the local newspaper, ‘The Seattle Post-Intelligencer’ dated January 1, 1891,
The conditions of 1889 were extraordinary, and the devastation caused by the fire rendered necessary the immediate construction of a great number of buildings and the outlay of enormous sums of money.
Construction during the year therefore, reached high water mark, the amazing number of 3,465 new buildings being the result.
The same newspaper of January1, 1891, also reported:
There were constructed in Seattle and suburbs during 1890, and are in course of construction, 2,100 buildings upon which an aggregate of $8,935,657 was expended.
It is not too much to say that no other city of 50,000 inhabitants in the United States can make such a remarkable showing of great rows of business blocks constructed in the most artistic, costly, and expensive manner.
Bear in mind these are documented ”facts” from January1, 1891, which refer to the years 1889-1890.
Over the two-year period, we are told that a grand total of 5,625 new buildings were erected, 2,100 of which were still under construction.
Hence, 3,465 new buildings were constructed over an 18-month period.
If 3,465 new buildings are correct, that amounts to 192.5 buildings a month, or 6.4 buildings per day, with no days, and no nights off.
And this, without taking into account, clearing up all the ash, debris and mess left behind in the wake of the fire.
Nowhere are we told what percentage of Seattle’s 50,00 inhabitants were children, nor told how many brick layers and masons came to rebuild Seattle.
One way or another it had to be enough to erect 6.4 buildings a day in 1890.
We’re not talking about erecting quick-build housing estates, although many were one-to-two story frame buildings, mostly for single-family homes.
But most were designed in the Richardsonian Romanesque style, which incorporates 11th and 12th century southern
- French
- Spanish
- Italian
characteristics.
Others were massive, beautiful and complex, such as the 7-story Seattle-Harrisburg Building, the 6-story Hotel Seattle and the 6 story Pioneer Building, to name but a few.
This uncredited photograph of the Pioneer Building was taken one year after its construction in 1900.
The architectural design of these buildings is truly impressive, each having amazing stonework and hundreds of windows, and although not a builder myself, I suspect each building alone, would have taken far longer than 18 months to complete.
More like a minimum of 2 or 3 years per building at a guess.
Where these 3,465 buildings originally came from, or who built them in the first place, I really wouldn’t know.
But 3,465 buildings certainly weren’t constructed over an 18-month period, as the official narrative claims.
It’s even hard to tell from the available photographs, whether or not the larger and more elaborate buildings were actually new at the time the photo was taken.
Indeed, some appear to be fairly old and well weathered, rather than a spanking brand-new building.
Where did all the new building material come from?
The millions of bricks for example, required to rebuild Seattle?
At the time, Seattle was famous for its Henry Yesler’s sawmill, but that’s about it.
Henry Leiter Yesler (December 2, 1810 – December 16, 1892) was an American entrepreneur and a politician, regarded as a founder of the city of Seattle. Yesler served two non-consecutive terms as Mayor of Seattle and was the city’s wealthiest resident during his lifetime.
Under the heading, A Family-Owned Northwest Company, ‘Mutual Materials’ claim; As a local family owned and operated company with fifth generation family leadership, Mutual Materials was founded in 1900 by Daniel Houlahan as Builders Brick Company.
Following the Great Seattle Fire of 1890, our brick literally rebuilt Seattle and can be seen in many historic buildings today.
This is just one of multiple discrepancies which appear in the narrative.
The Seattle Fire occurred in June 1889, not 1890, and Houlahan we’re told, whose ‘‘brick literally rebuilt Seattle” founded a brick factory at the base of Beacon Hill in 1900.
That’s a minimum of ten years after the fire. Assuming Mutual Materials made a genuine mistake, and the Builders Brick Company built a factory in 1889, the year of the fire, one then has to account for the time it took to build the plant, before production could even begin.
I’m sure that building a brick making factory from scratch in 1889 was no mean task.
Yet we’re told from June 6, 1889, that 3,465 new buildings were erected in 18 months, bringing us to 1891.
How did a 19th century brick making plant, produce enough bricks to construct a minimum of four buildings per day, for 18 months straight?
Compared to automated mass production plants today, brick manufacturing in the 1800’s was a far more labor intensive and lengthy process.
It’s easy enough to find the information about brick production at the time, which was likely to be a maximum of 36,000 bricks per week.
The approximate number of bricks that are required to build three 4-bedroom houses.
Something is not right with the official narrative, although I’m not entirely sure in which way.
Were these alleged new buildings actually constructed in 1889?
Or was the fire itself used as an excuse to excavate and renovate buildings from the old world, buildings that already existed?
It’s hard to tell from the scenery in the available photographs, which is an actual construction zone, and which might be an excavation or demolition work in progress.
But there was certainly something very bizarre going on in Seattle at the time.
And now the story gets even stranger.
According to Wikipedia;
”Seattle quickly rebuilt using brick and stone buildings that sat 20 feet (6.1m) above the original street level.”
Other sources confirm the same.
All the new buildings constructed in Seattle after the fire, sat a minimum of 20 feet above the original street level. ‘University Libraries’ (Washington) inform us that;
“At the same time, streets were raised up to 22 feet in places, helping to level the hilly city.”
What does that even mean?
Did thousands of workmen physically shift mountains of dirt to fill in the valleys and troughs between the hills, in order to level the entire area?
Actually, yes, that’s exactly what they did, according to the narrative anyway.
Hosepipes and thousands of gallons of water were used to sluice the topsoil from the side of the hills, and somehow, they managed to steer the flow of sodden earth downhill to the required location.
Exactly how they managed to achieve this remarkable feat, we are not told.
Maybe this all sounds quite plausible when taking a quick glance at the narrative.
But is it really?
For when giving more thought to what they would have us believe, questions begin to arise, and the official narrative starts to crumble.
Can you imagine the sheer volume, and the enormous tonnage of ballast and dirt required, to raise the entire area of the rebuilt city 20 feet above its original level?
I would love to know what construction and excavation equipment they had at the time, to achieve all this.
As far as I can find, the most innovative form of machinery for this type of work, was the old-fashioned Steam Shovel.
There’s no disputing that the original neighborhood of Seattle was completely gutted, and was either destroyed accidentally, or was intentionally demolished by fire.
Nor is it disputed that the ground level across the entire area, underwent a radical change of some sort.
Evidently tourists can still pay a fee to visit a network of underground passageways and basements in the Pioneer Square area, which we’re told, was the original ground level of the city.
The problem is, after having been told the original buildings were virtually all made of wood, when viewing photographs of the Seattle underground, all we see are the remains of concrete and brick-built structures.
And so, yet again the official storyline crumbles.
According to the narrative, when they reconstructed their:
- buildings
- merchants
- landlords
knew that the original ground floor would eventually be underground and the next floor, twenty feet above, would be the new ground floor.
We’re even told that during the construction process, rather than walk up the street, around the corner and along the foot path, pedestrians had to climb 20-foot ladders to access the new level above.
Can we really believe that elderly customers with a bagful of shopping had to scramble down a twenty-foot ladder to get back home?
If this crazy story makes little sense, it is because we are not being told the truth.
What puzzles me, is why go to such extreme measures to raise the entire area by a minimum of 20 feet, without bothering to demolish the original ground level infrastructure first?
Or at the very least fill everything in.
Was the whole event a fabricated cover story, used to explain away the evidence for scores of old world structures, found buried or partially buried beneath the ground?
The majority of which were fully excavated and renovated, to produce the new Seattle?
If so, it’s quite remarkable how they got away with it.
Something very strange was going on during the nineteenth century that we have little or no knowledge of, due to fabricated stories like this one.
And how about the bogus story of the entire City of Chicago being raised by at least six feet?
Chicago During the 19th century, the elevation of the Chicago area was little higher than the shoreline of Lake Michigan, so for many years, there was little or no naturally occurring drainage from the city surface.
The lack of drainage caused unpleasant living conditions, and standing water harbored pathogens that caused numerous epidemics including typhoid fever and dysentery, which blighted Chicago six years in a row, culminating in the 1854 outbreak of cholera that killed around six percent of the city’s population.
(Credit: Wikipedia)
In 1856, engineer Ellis S. Chesbrough, drafted a plan for the installation of a citywide sewerage system and submitted it to the Common Council, which adopted the plan.
Ellis Sylvester Chesbrough (1813–1886) was an engineer credited with the design of the Chicago sewer system, which are sometimes known as the ‘Chesbrough sewers’. This was the first comprehensive sewer system in the United States. He is responsible for the plan to raise Chicago, construction of the first water crib in Chicago, and designing the Boston water distribution system. The water system he designed for Chicago is on the National Register of Historic Places and has been designated a Historical Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
One major problem, much of the city was built on marshland.
To overcome this, and make room for the new sewers, workers first laid drains and refinished and covered the roads and the pavements with up to 6 feet of soil.
Can you imagine the mountains of rubble and dirt needed to raise the new street level of an entire city by 6 feet?
And this gargantuan task carried out 30 years or so before the sale of the first semi-truck?
In March 1862, the Chicago Tribune observed:
“Chicago is deep in mud.
Mud floats in the atmosphere — we have mud on the sidewalks, on streets, on bridges, in fact, m-u-d is written everywhere in unmistakable characters.”
But by increasing the height of the streets, suddenly the buildings around them would be either part-buried, or several feet lower, meaning a flight of steps would be required, running from the new street level, down to the building’s entrance.
To get around this problem, the planners came up with the ingenious idea of raising the entire city center’s brick-built structures by an average of 6 feet instead.
According to Wikipedia,
”The work was funded by private property owners and public funds.”
Wikipedia also tells us:
In January 1858, the first masonry building in Chicago to be thus raised—a four-story, 70-foot (21m) long, 750-ton (680 metric tons) brick structure situated at the north-east corner of Randolph Street and Dearborn Street—was lifted on two hundred jackscrews to its new grade, which was 6 feet 2 inches (1.88m) higher than the old one,
“without the slightest injury to the building.”
It was the first of more than fifty comparably large masonry buildings to be raised that year.
To achieve this truly mammoth undertaking, teams of construction engineers physically raised most of the city’s buildings to the new level by using multiple rows of jackscrews and hydraulic jacks.
The official narrative tells us that once raised by six feet, and whilst supported in midair by dozens of hydraulic jacks, new foundation walls were quickly erected in the 6-foot gap beneath the building.
Furthermore, businesses operating in the premises remained open during the entire process.
Without batting an eyelid, people seemingly came and went, done their shopping, or worked in them as if nothing out of the ordinary were happening.
‘Enjoy Illinois’ website states:
Eventually, they even figured out how to raise an entire block at once.
They placed 6,000 jackscrews under the one-acre block between Lake, Clark and LaSalle streets, estimated at 35,000 tons in weight, and raised the whole thing over four days— buildings, sidewalks and all.
The process was gradual enough that business continued in the buildings throughout.
Many buildings were even larger, the Tremont House Hotel for example.
This luxurious, brick-built building which had a footprint of over one acre, stood six storys high.
It remained open for business throughout the operation, or so we’re told.
According to ‘Living History of Illinois and Chicago’®
One patron was puzzled to note that the front steps leading from the street into the hotel were becoming steeper every day and that when he checked out, the windows were several feet above his head, whereas before they had been at eye level.
This huge hotel, which until just the previous year had been the tallest building in Chicago, was in fact raised fully 6 feet without a hitch.
This is utterly nonsensical if one stops to think about what is being said here.
For we’re told that each building was raised by six feet, complete and intact without any damage to the structure.
The surrounding streets and pavements were also raised by six feet accordingly.
In other words, both the building and the infrastructure surrounding it were all raised by the same amount of six feet Hence both still remained more or less at the same level.
Flights of steps leading from the pavement up to the hotel entrance would not become steeper.
And windows would not rise by several feet but remain at eye level.
Can you not see how the entire mainstream narrative has been fabricated?
The million-dollar question is why?
What are they trying to hide?
Not every building went through the raising process, because many were wooden.
These old wooden buildings were placed onto rollers, and drawn by horses, were moved to the outskirts of town.
We’re even told that many enterprising owners of businesses operating in these wooden buildings continued to serve customers, even as the buildings were rolling down the street.
Talk about doing a shopping run!
According to Wikipedia,
Scottish salesman, David Macrae, who was in Chicago on business at the time, wrote,
Never a day passed during my stay in the city that I did not meet one or more houses shifting their quarters.
One day I met nine.
Going out Great Madison Street in the horse cars we had to stop twice to let houses get across.
Whatever might have been going on at the time, and for whatever reason, the entire story is at best, a fabricated one.
Although there is some photographic evidence of huge buildings suspended above ground level and supported by rows of hydraulic jacks, it is certainly not conclusive.
For there is no way of knowing whether or not each building was actually being raised by six feet. Indeed, it’s equally possible that six feet of mud and dirt had accumulated around the building itself and was being systematically removed.
Put another way, several feet of soil were excavated from around a partially buried old world building, making it now appear to stand on a higher level.
Was this the true purpose behind the supposed elevating of entire cities?
Your guess is as good as mine, but either way, we’ve all been hoodwinked.
Theoretical I know, but as I said previously, we’re not privy to the knowledge of what was really going on in the 1800’s.
What happened?
When did it happen?
Or did it even happen at all?
One way or the other, this entire bizarre event, like so many others could be classified as a historical anomaly.
If raising cities was so achievable in the nineteenth century, why aren’t we doing it anymore?
Rather than raising cities, the controllers are more intent on razing cities.
The Great Fire
Twelve years after the city was miraculously raised by six feet, the Great Chicago Fire of October 8-10, 1871, killed approximately 300 people, destroyed roughly 3.3 square miles of the city including over 17,000 structures, and left more than 100,000 residents homeless.
Great Chicago Fire – Wikipedia
The fire, (which was blamed on Mrs O’Leary’s cow for knocking over a lantern) also raises questions.
For the narrative suggests that 40 years previous, most if not all of the buildings raised to the new level, were brick built.
And how the wooden structures were rolled down the streets and removed to the outskirts of town.
In other words, we are given the distinct impression that back in the 1860’s when the city and its streets were raised, by far the majority of the buildings were of masonry construction.
Yet Wikipedia tell us that; More than two-thirds of the structures in Chicago at the time of the fire were made entirely of wood, with most of the houses and buildings being topped with highly flammable tar or shingle roofs.
All of the city’s sidewalks and many roads were also made of wood.
However, when checking out the schematic diagrams of Chicago, which were drawn prior to the great fire, it’s hard to tell exactly which wooden buildings Wikipedia are referring to.
For virtually every building in the diagram is depicted as being a masonry structure.
The majority being 3-story and 4-story, multi windowed, flat-roofed buildings.
A lithographic view of the original Chicago City Hall, (created in April 1866, by Louis Kurz), is a classic example.
A towering, 5 story, old world masonry building, complete with domed rotunda and spiked antenna.
Yet we are expected to believe this architectural wonder, was built by the very people we see in the street.
Those whose only means of transport at the time, was the horse and cart that we see with them.
At the same time, we are led to believe that the main reason why the old city hall and the buildings surrounding it, were destroyed in the great fire, is because they were primarily constructed from wood?
Any who are inclined to research the architecture of Chicago in 1868, might be in for quite a surprise.
Likewise, photographs taken in the aftermath of the great fire, hold more than a few surprises.
Not in the least, because we are told that primarily wooden buildings were destroyed in the blaze.
Yet most of the images show the remnants of concrete, brick and mortar structures supposedly destroyed by fire, yet without any real trace of extensive fire damage.
Furthermore, the ruins look strangely clean.
There is no soot, no charred and half burnt wooden beams, no flame-blackened windows, no sodden remains of:
- blankets
- furniture
- carpet
- rugs
- clothing
etc.
Only rubble.
In fact, it almost appears as if these buildings were destroyed by some form of explosive weaponry, or laser technology way ahead of its time, that we’re totally unaware of.
What type of fire can split large concrete blocks, reduce masonry buildings to single bricks, rubble and dust, whilst nearby trees and wooden Telegraph poles remained barely untouched?
One particular photograph has three large, upright concrete blocks, each split or cut vertically down the middle.
In fact, these images are uncannily reminiscent of photographs taken in more recent times.
The strange wildfires that mysteriously broke out in California in 2015 and 2017 for example.
Here we see entire rows of houses turned to dust with very little debris, whilst nearby bushes and pine trees fail to ignite and remain standing untouched.
It’s almost as though these fires are selective in what to consume, ignoring Fire Breaks, and skipping over one potential fuel source to devour another.
With any fire or other catastrophe on a city-wide scale, there would be millions of tons of brick, concrete, marble and other debris to clean up.
Again, apart from a handful of photos of the occasional workman wielding a broom or shovel, and a horse or two hauling a cart of brick rubble, there is virtually zero evidence of a mammoth clear up operation.
In a lengthy article at National Geographic for example, there is only one photograph of the actual clean up.
This doesn’t prove anything of course, apart from the fact that nobody could be bothered to take pictures of the hundreds, maybe thousands of people clearing the streets.
All very strange.
Although the size of the city has since been increased, the rebuilding process, which we’re told began the day immediately after the fire, was completed within less than two years.
Once again, in record time and with relatively few photographs of this huge undertaking.
Writes Carl Smith, professor emeritus of English at Northwestern University and author of ‘Chicago’s Great Fire:
The Destruction and Resurrection of an Iconic American City’; The great legend of Chicago is that it’s a ‘phoenix city’ – it almost instantly rebuilt itself bigger and better from the ashes.
And to a certain and significant extent, that’s true.
The reconstructed 10-story, Chicago City Hall for example, which opened in February 1911, was completed six years before Ford had produced what may be considered the first pickup truck made in America — the Ford Model TT, in 1917.
Yet another remarkable achievement during the horse and cart era, wouldn’t you say?
Why have there been so many cities destroyed by Fire over the last 400 years?
And why was the reconstruction process achieved in record time?
Are these bizarre tales of entire cities being elevated by up to 20 feet, merely science fiction, to cover up any trace of an epic world-changing event?
One not recorded in our history books?
Or was the entire city-raising narrative invented, in an attempt to justify the existence of the architectural evidence for an earlier advanced civilization.
Followed by a Great City Fire, which then justified the destruction of that evidence?
There are several old maps that clearly show the name Chilaga in roughly the same location as to where Chicago would be established 200 years later.
In the 1890s, a Newspaper Article from the Chicago Tribune covered this topic, but 6 days later a response was issued in order to downplay and debunk it.
Could this have been because they didn’t want folk to know that Chicago is actually much older, and was established by an earlier people, and not by the European settlers in the 1800s?
Helen H. Tanner (1916-2011) who was a distinguished scholar of American Indian history, and a former research associate at the Newberry Library of Chicago, once said;
“Chilaga is a legendary, mythical place that kept cropping up on early maps.”
“It is tops on my list to investigate,”
she said.
“I don’t know if you can say it had a connection with the present-day Chicago.”
She further remarked how;
“It sometimes turns out, that the statistically most far out possibility turns out to be the right one.”
(reported by the Chicago Tribune Mar 04, 1987)
Some suspect that the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893, aka the Chicago World Fair was actually held at the former site of Chilaga.
That the fourteen palatial main buildings, and all the other supposedly temporary grand structures, already existed as old world buildings.
This of course, is likely to be
”the statistically most far out possibility”
of them all.
I’m not saying that it’s the right one, but it would certainly go a long way to explain how these majestic and supposedly temporary buildings were constructed in record time, and why virtually all of them were destroyed the following year.
The official reason being, we are told they were all constructed on a temporary basis from wood, plaster of Paris, hemp fiber and straw.
The temporary Agricultural Building for example, which prior to its destruction, was illuminated at night with a spotlight shining across the lagoon.
CONTINUE
BOOK: EXCERPT: Tartarian Rule? Or Millennial Kingdom? – Tartaria – Library of Rickandria
BOOK: Tartarian Rule? Or Millennial Kingdom? – Library of Rickandria
BOOK: EXCERPT: Tartarian Rule? Or Millennial Kingdom? – Raising Cities