Hidden Chambers Filled with Sand + The Hill Under the Great Pyramid

Secret chamber/hallway recorded to be off the queens chamber. Filled with sand that is 100% filtered quartz dust. (not native sand from the area)

Worth watching for sure! Id love to hear thoughts regarding it!

a reply to: Triton1128

Can you show a real source? When I google this topic the only source is your thread.

a reply to: Triton1128

They used it for the creation of Geopolymers. It is an important ingredient.

The structures and statues were cast with this.

I go through this a bit in,

"Crop circles are underground structures", if anyone is interested.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Triton1128

Can you show a real source? When I google this topic the only source is your thread.

Where is Scott Creighton when we need him?

www.science-frontiers.com...

This is very old news. 1987

www.chicagotribune.com...

a reply to: Hanslune

Nothing about quartz dust in that article.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Hanslune

Nothing about quartz dust in that article.

Anyone seen proof of the liquid form mercury that mainstream archaeology claimed they found under south american pyramids?

They claimed that they lifted artifacts from liquid mercury, still no pictures, not a single one. Its been years already.

So they are all liars and thieves in my books until they present proof of their claims.

originally posted by: solve

...

Anyone seen proof of the liquid form mercury that mainstream archaeology claimed they found under south american pyramids?

They claimed that they lifted artifacts from liquid mercury, still no pictures, not a single one. Its been years already.

So they are all liars and thieves in my books until they present proof of their claims.

Why accuse archaeologists of behaviour like this, when a brief Google search reveals that the pools of mercury were miniature pools, that probably symbolised much larger pools?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Triton1128

Can you show a real source? When I google this topic the only source is your thread.

www.chicagotribune.com...

Initially discovered in 1988. Hadn't heard anything about it since then. Funny how things like this tend to be swept under the rug.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: solve

...

Anyone seen proof of the liquid form mercury that mainstream archaeology claimed they found under south american pyramids?

They claimed that they lifted artifacts from liquid mercury, still no pictures, not a single one. Its been years already.

So they are all liars and thieves in my books until they present proof of their claims.

Why accuse archaeologists of behaviour like this, when a brief Google search reveals that the pools of mercury were miniature pools, that probably symbolised much larger pools?

I accuse, because they are corrupt liars and thieves that hide history because of money and/or religion, you mentioned miniature pools, a couple of years back they were so large, that statues were lifted from the alleged pools, And where are the pictures of the supposed miniature pools? There are NONE. Because it is all lies.

originally posted by: Triton1128

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Triton1128

Can you show a real source? When I google this topic the only source is your thread.

www.chicagotribune.com...

Initially discovered in 1988. Hadn't heard anything about it since then. Funny how things like this tend to be swept under the rug.

They hide it because it supports the Geopolymer molding and casting theory. And makes those stories about slaves dragging massive stones look like fairy tales. Like those found in the Bible.

So, they "hide" it in the Chicago Tribune?
LOL
Guess TPTB in Egyptology need to take a lesson in how to hide things. I'd suggest maybe Hillary Clinton could show them a thing or two.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
So, they "hide" it in the Chicago Tribune?
LOL
Guess TPTB in Egyptology need to take a lesson in how to hide things. I'd suggest maybe Hillary Clinton could show them a thing or two.

Harte

Yes, correct, it only takes some dusty outdated schoolbooks that one reads as a kid, to fool entire nations.

But people are going to ask questions, eventually, especially since they have started using these exact mixes in modern buildings, it will be/it is, the new&improved green cement of the future, as it was in the past.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Hanslune

Nothing about quartz dust in that article.

Yep he was making 'sand' more sexy by calling if 'quartz dust'.....

I seem to recall a TV program discussing the possibility that most of the Great Pyramid is not actually solid stone, and instead is solid stone only where it needs to be structurally (the outside, the access-ways and chambers, etc.) with the rest being low-quality rubble for filler.

As I recall, this was one hypothesis that would make it potentially possible for it to be completed in a shorter amount of time (compared to if it was 100% stone blocks).

Maybe that also includes sand with the rubble filler?

originally posted by: EnhancedInterrogator
I seem to recall a TV program discussing the possibility that most of the Great Pyramid is not actually solid stone, and instead is solid stone only where it needs to be structurally (the outside, the access-ways and chambers, etc.) with the rest being low-quality rubble for filler.

As I recall, this was one hypothesis that would make it potentially possible for it to be completed in a shorter amount of time (compared to if it was 100% stone blocks).

Maybe that also includes sand with the rubble filler?

It certainly might be the core stones are pretty sloppy except for height and that is variable between tiers.

This shows how the outer cladding was very precise then the backing stone and finally the 'core'.







This top down gives an idea how the upper tiers were organized

a reply to: EnhancedInterrogator
"Chamber Method" construction: Link

Harte