Best Conspiracy!!! Ancient Diorite sic cut

The real question for the "poured concrete" folks is why the Ancient Egyptians didn't make the blocks all of the same size (reuse the same mold.) Instead, the stones are of hundreds of different sizes, many with tool marks on them. It makes perfect sense if they were cut. It makes no sense if they were poured.

And I'm pretty sure that you can't melt and pour diorite.

"melt" is a poor choice of words. We shouldn't assume every stone was placed/made by one set of rules. Some could be cut and dragged into place, some could be poured using this technique where access or building height was too difficult to drag a cut stone into place.

Most of the pyramid blocks are so badly weathered the original surface is long gone. Even so, all the limestone material had to be quarried, whether it was destined to be cut and placed by dragging, or crumbled into base material for pouring as an agglomerated stone.

Truly excellent finds, friends! Gives one much to think about. I always take a 'salt and pepper' approch to thoeries of ancient construction - a little of this, and a little of that. Chemistry analysis supports this theory for at least some of the stone work, I'm looking forward to reading more about it - I hope that mainstream science doesnt ridicule it before it can at least be looked into!

reply to post by Byrd


No way can you melt diorite and simply pour and cool it and expect to have diorite when it cools.

Different rocks are different in many cases because of the various different circumstances under which they underwent solidification.

I'm no geologist but I'm willing to bet that diorite has to be solidified under greater than atmospheric pressure or it won't form diorite when it cools.

Harte

You can't melt a stone like diorite and expect it to look like diorite when you finish.
Especially if you're going to pour it. Diorite features crystals in it's makeup, like granite. And, if you were to melt it and pour it, you'd have the crystals being mixed.

"melting" is not the correct term applied to agglomerated stones. See the video for the correct terms.

Agglomeration has nothing to do with melting rock.

Agglomerating rock would be to expend resources for no reason. Quarries aren't formed of limestone rubble/ agglomeration, they are mostly layered limestone. There is clear evidence that AE quarried large blocks. What purpose would be achieved by quarrying large blocks and then breaking them down to recreate large blocks? In the past I've spent several years on building sites and can't imagine how forming blocks in situ would be easier than placing blocks. The weight of a 3x3m limestone solid block is the same as it's agglomerated mass with the water and binder (washing liquid is often used today) adding more weight. As the whole mass dried and set it would require 'shuttering.' The shuttering would be supporting all that weight.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/56bcd9b15b9b.gif[/atsimg]

The diagram above gives a fairly one dimensional idea of the concept, but still applies. The ground stakes wouldn't be possible. The shuttering would need to be applied to the four sides and base. Not very likely. Pyramid blocks have gaps you can put your hand in. This illustrates that they didn't use adjacent blocks as supporting walls while they shuttered 3 sides. It would need to remain for several days until the block had dried enough to retain it's integrity.

Moving a solid 3X3m block 300m and placing it seems quicker than the alternative.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/094cd1c947f3.jpg[/atsimg]

The picture above is Khafre's quarry. It shows the remains of 3X3m blocks and the channels that separate them where the men would have worked. The quarry is 300m from the GP and is 30m deep.

What they achieved is testament to blood, sweat and motivation.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Kandinsky]

ok ima gonna aska the harda question


Where did the fuel come from to burn the limestone, and where were the fire pits.



thats all

in the video they only needed 4 hours - not three days to dry. The material would be carried up the pyramid in sacks, when hauling blocks would become too difficult. I venture to guess that most of the construction was done using cut blocks, but when the height became too great for reasonable hauling up a ramp, they would switch to agglomerated construction.

I don't think laying blocks out "adobe" style on the ground is applicable here, since the goal is to reduce the material to something workers would be capable of moving to the top of the pyramid structure. Adobe blocks pose the same weight challenge as solid stone so defeats the purpose of using agglomerated stone.

It's just a theory, but I think it needs to be given more consideration. Chemical analysis would determine which stones may have been made by agglomeration.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
You wouldn't need a complete mold for every block, just for the starter blocks. The previous blocks could act as 2 sides of the mold for succeeding blocks.

However, any such arrangement would be very easily detectable.

The stones in the Great Pyramid are visibly separate pieces. Your statement above about pouring using previous blocks as molds (forms) would result in the poured stones being joined.

They are not.

And no forms have been found left in place.

So, no, they weren't poured.

Harte

Regardless of the technique, is it even remotely possibly to make these "agglomerated" stones as strong as actual stone?

The fact that the pyramid is still standing almost as it did when it was new show that the Egyptians didnt skimp on construction cost or effort. If the pharaoh wanted a giant pile of stones, he obviously got it

[edit on 1-5-2009 by merka]

According to the geopolymer site, the agglomerated stones are stronger than natural limestone or sandstone, and would weather just like natural stone. If I had to guess, I would think the Egyptians might use natural quarried stone for the base and all the lower courses of their pyramds and temples, since these you can reasonbly drag a block into place. But when it came to dragging a 250 ton block up a long ramp? They (the experts) can't figure out IF a ramp was used, let alone how such a ramp would be configured, if they had two lanes of traffic, or used counterweights, and so on - so there's room in the egyptology world for one more theory I'm guessing.

If you cast against a dried block, it would be a separate block, they wont fuse together. In fact, the joint between the cast blocks would provide the needed stress relief for expansion/contraction.

The commentator in the video on the site shows where two side by side blocks had what appeared to be a casting form or marks that spanned the two blocks. Another showed where the underside of two possibly cast blocks had what appeared to be a small rock that got caught during the casting, then was removed after they had dried, leaving an indentation under both blocks.

What would be interesting is to see what the traditionalists say about the stele, if the geoploymer interpretation is out in left field or valid, and that the egyptian writer was explaining the ratios of mixtures for the agglomeration process?

Originally posted by frankensence
But when it came to dragging a 250 ton block up a long ramp? They (the experts) can't figure out IF a ramp was used, let alone how such a ramp would be configured, if they had two lanes of traffic, or used counterweights, and so on - so there's room in the egyptology world for one more theory I'm guessing.

You just multiplied the average GP stone weight with a factor of 100 (!!!), so yeah I can see why you would argue how they couldnt drag a 250 ton block up a long ramp. They never did. I even remember reading they decrease in size the higher you go.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by merka]

The caption to this image reads: "Blocks that appear to have been cast (top); blocks most likely not cast (bottom)"

The average block weighed around 2.5 tons. The traditional theory, although it lacks evidence, is a that a ramp was used to drag blocks to the top of the pyramid. But in order to reach the top of the pyramid, at a slope of 7% (about the max you can expect to drag such a weight), the ramp becomes about a mile long. And no trace of such a ramp exists. Not to mention you end up building a ramp structure that would nearly equal the pyramid in mass.

There is a sign at the GP of a short ramp, but it's too short for any "dragging" methods to have completed the pyramid. The "internal ramp" theory goes into that in more depth.

SOURCE

The Geopolymer scientists do have a lot of compelling evidence portions of the GP were cast. I'd be interested in reading Dr. Boshov's (sp?) report. If I'm not mistaken, there is a recessed line (or a slight depression) along each face of the GP, could that be from cast in place blocks being pressed against by a ramp/scaffold structure? A ramp leaning against cut stone wouldn't impress such blocks unduly - but crude early concrete cast blocks would be a different story.

Wanted to add: my mistake on the weight of the GP blocks. It is 2.5 tons (although some of the interior blocks weighed up to 50 tons). Sorry about the error!

[edit on 6-5-2009 by frankensence]

Byrd, The sarcophagus in the kings chamber is all one piece. I'm no expert but I doubt copper tools could have made it.
As far as the 80 ton granite blocks, I will speculate that they used some form of anti-gravity like Ed Leedskalnin at Coral Castle claimed. Or others claim the GP was designed by the multi-dimensional being Thoth. He was suppossed to have super psyhic powers.

reply to post by Sargoth

The sarcophagus in the kings chamber is all one piece. I'm no expert but I doubt copper tools could have made it.

The sacrcophagus has drill holes and clumsy saw marks that the builders had tried to conceal by sanding down...

There are clear saw marks in paving stones and basalt blocks across Egypt. There is also artwork showing carpenters using saws. There isn't any evidence that Egypt or her neighbors at that point had developed metals harder than bronze. Copper grave goods have been found from the 4th Dynasty (Khufu, Sneferu, Khafre etc).

Egyptian scholars don't simply come up with 'common sense' ideas that are then blindly accepted by everyone else. They need evidence to support their claims. Copper saws have been tested on granite blocks to see how well they worked....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eac305003446.jpg[/atsimg]

They worked as well as could be expected and left V-shaped saw paths consistent with contemporary blocks.

The Famine Stele: hieroglyphs on pyramids construction

Kandinsky, the copper saw was without doubt their most useful tool, but was it their only tool? At Giza you see indications of stone (in the upper levels) that were not cut so there must have been another method used.

I wouldn't call that saw blade hi-precision and how did they ream out the inside of the sarcophagus with precision? They had to have used higher tech, harder than copper tools. They just haven't been found yet.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer
I've read about the interpretation of the Famine Stele several times in relation to 'polymerization.' The page you linked is from a 1988 presentation available on pdf here. There's a more accessible explanation of the process here.

They make for interesting reading and the processes are plausible and practical based on the materials available at the time. To my mind, they are working on two premises that are flawed.

The first premise is the one that has led to any number of bizarre explanations for the construction techniques of the Giza Pyramids...anti-grav, aliens, vanished advanced civilizations etc. It's the premise that the numbers are too big, the scale too massive to be achievable by conventional methods. Any exponents of polymerization and obscure theories tend to support their ideas by a sort of appeal to ridicule...."How could they possibly have created the pyramids?" They cite math that demonstrates a block being laid every three seconds etc. Certainly there are elements of ridicule to their claims.

The second premise willfully ignores the evidence that there is a substantial record of quarrying blocks, masonry marks and other stone structures that clearly aren't made using techniques of polymerization.

I posted an image of one of several quarries that clearly show the square remains of blocks. Copper tools are still found under rubble. Unused blocks remain in place and can be found en route to the pyramid sites. The Unfinished Obelisk represents the scope of their ambitions...1200 tons of solid granite was considered possible. Shifting limestone blocks that averaged 2-3 tons is not quite the impossible task that alternative theorists like to imagine.

I've mentioned before that I've some experience in construction. Shuttering is the process needed to 'shore up' up the wet agglomeration. The wooden planks suggested in the second link illustrates two props...impossible. The downward force of over 2 tons of mix demands robust timber supports at 45 degree angles. This would mean that the adjacent blocks couldn't be laid until that block had 'gone off.' In the UK, with fast drying cement, a two ton cube of cement would take around a week before the shuttering is removed. Allowing for the dry climate of Giza (and ignoring the adverse night time temperatures-expansion forces v contraction), let's imagine 2-3 days? The theory begins to fall over...agreed...the transport of the mass could less labor-intensive but construction would be very slow.

I'm not Lehner or any form of Egyptologist...it seems that until other theories gather the weight of evidence...conventional, evidenced, tested explanations will remain.

reply to post by Sargoth
They hollowed out the interior of sarcophagi using boring techniques still used by stone masons today. By drilling holes in a grid formation they could then employ a wooden wedge to break out the interior piece by piece. The holes have been found in the bases of many sarcophagi.

Egyptian tube drilling

Google Books: Experiments in Egyptian archaeology
By Denys Allen Stocks (p172)