You are on page 1of 3

THE FOUNDATION OF THE AMERICAN HOLOCAUST Since 1896 fires within buildings in the United States have killed

and severely injured perhaps as many as 5 million people. Probably on average each death and severe injury brought heartache and devastating financial losses to five or ten additional friends and loved ones. The injured often were subjected to long and pain filled hospital stays and many were so horribly mutilated that they carried the scars, physical and mental, for the remainder of their lives. The most shocking aspect to this many decades long destruction of lives and property is that it was near 100 percent preventable. Those who were most trusted to protect society from the devastations of fire conspired to guarantee the continuity of fire. Fire produced financial profits for those who controlled the fire codes. And fire produced funding and job security for those within government who were entrusted to protect the public. Those who benefited from fire and created the codes and policies to maximize fire were similar to the pedophile priests who promoted good behavior while molesting small children at the same time. However, the priests who molested children did not cause the children to be killed and mutilated. And the numbers harmed by the priests were few in comparison to the incredible destruction of lives caused by those we trusted to protect us. Few want to believe the American Holocaust was the result of deliberate criminal activity by those who controlled the fire regulations and policies. Some will never believe it no matter how solid the evidence. But, it is the reality of the fire regulatory system and the evidence is available to all who are able to think logically rather than strictly emotionally. Those who are capable of analyzing the evidence and reaching a valid conclusion, despite a desire to not believe, will have no choice to reach the awful truth. The evidence is presented in part below. But the proofs are so many and so extensive that it will probably require more documentation to solidify the case. I begin below. The fire sprinkler system was developed to protect large industrial properties during the latter half of the 19th century. The system was so incredibly effective at preventing serious fires that, by the 1890s the fire insurers realized that if the sprinkler system was allowed to be improved to be able to protect all building, especially including homes, there would be little if any need for fire insurance. As explained below, sprinklers had the potential to essentially eliminate the building fire problem. So, in 1895 the insurers created the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to create fire codes and standards which would then be enforced by the insurers and the fire services. By 1896 the NFPA created the first code to regulate fire sprinkler system design and installations. Insurers needed protection for the extremely large and high hazardous industrial properties because an excessive number of losses of large industrial plants could bankrupt the insurers. However, the insurers needed many thousands of small buildings and compartmented to burn each year to sustain a profitable insuring system. Insurance underwriters, using prior loss data and the law of averages could calculate quite accurately the number of fires and the dollar value of the losses that would occur each year among the small and compartmented buildings including homes. He same type of calculations that the life insurance companies used to predict deaths were used to calculate fire losses. Insurers were able to retain a very substantial percent of all monies that flowed through them to those who suffered the losses. So, a very high burn rate was profitable to the insurers and if the

sprinkler was allowed to be installed in all buildings the fire losses would drop to near zero and most fire insurers would go broke. So, the firs code created by the NFPA was a code to restrict the installation of fire sprinkler systems to the very large high hazard industrial buildings. All other buildings, it was decided, must continue to burn at a high rate.

The fire sprinkler system was developed during the latter half of the 19th century has been proven to be extremely close to a 100 percent guarantee that no fire in a building (so protected) will grow large, become deadly, and destroy buildings and lives. Below I provide a reproduction of a report entitled, The Pursuit of Perfection in Sprinkler Performance, authored by T. Seddon Duke, President of Star sprinkler Corporation. Mr. Dukes article appeared in the September, 1959 issue of The Rostrum. Mr. Duke reported that the American District Telegraph Company had been keeping records of sprinkler performance since 1925 and that during that time the sprinkler systems had satisfactorily controlled building fires 99.98 percent of the time. A company that monitors a sprinkler system will receive an automatic warning if a control valve is closed (which would prevent the system from performing if a fire occurred). Also, the monitor company will inspect the system periodically to be sure it is in working order. And, if a fire occurs the company would receive an automatic notification and therefore the nearby fire department would by immediately alerted and respond. Thus, the record keeping confirmed that an electrically monitored sprinkler system provide a very close to a 100 percent guarantee that the early fire would be controlled with very little damage. Within Australia and New Zealand all sprinkler systems were required to be electrically monitored by a central station or a fire department. Thus, for decades sprinklered protected buildings were near 100 percent guaranteed to be properly maintained and in service. Because the local fire department received an automatic notification every time a sprinkler operated, there would be a response with reports of the performances of the systems maintained. A fire protection engineer in Australia, Mr. H. W. Marryatte, analyzed all these reports from1886 until 1968 and a book was published detailing the performance of the sprinkler system during that period. A few years later he updated his analysis covering a 100 year period from 1886 to 1986 which was published in 1971. The book name is Fire: A Century of Automatic Sprinkler Protection in Australia and New Zealand 1886 - 1986. During that 100 year period of sprinkler performance within these two countries there were 11 fire deaths in sprinkler protected buildings, which equated to slightly more than one fire death every ten years. When we consider the evidence of electrically monitored sprinkler performance as reported by T Seddon Duke and by Harry Marryatte, the reality is that a monitored sprinkler system is extremely close to a 100 percent guarantee that a building fire will not become large and will not result in a fire death. When considering the reliability of this anti-fire solution, it seems to me that there has never been a medical cure that has reliability as great as the available fire cure. If tomorrow, a cure to cancer was developed that had a 99.98 percent of success what would be the reaction of society? Perhaps more to the point, what would be the reaction of the public if a near 100 percent perfect cure for cancer was developed and key members of the American Medical Association (AMA) met secretly in a meeting room a decided that the cure would not be made available to 98 percent of people.

Assume that the AMA then created regulations and policies that permitted only about 2 percent of those with cancer to receive the near 100 percent certain cure. The doctors in this theoretical example denied most patients the near certain cancer cure because a prolonged period of treatment would be more profitable. After the denial of the cure was in force for a few years, obviously the dishonest physicians would realize that the cover-up must be carefully maintained because; if the truth came out certainly there would be an enraged citizenry to deal with. So, there would be a determined effort to continue to hide the truth. Then assume that many years later the people discovered the existence of the AMA conspiracy to deny the cure to most cancer ridden people. What would be the reaction of the public? The conspiracy to deny sprinklers to nearly all homes and most other buildings is a operation of such incredible deceit and corruption that there continues to be an enormous effort to hide the facts from the public. However, the truth concerning both the sprinkler fraud and the smoke detector fraud (another story) is slowly seeping out from the closet. Much evidence is already posted on the following web sites and more is coming. The 1959 report by T. Seddon Duke is reproduced below.