New research strongly suggests the Giza pyramids were constructed using artificial stone

reply to post by nonconform

Also unanswered how on earth did they move these massive amounts of granite.have you seen how big the statue of ramses the 2nd is

As large and heavy as this statue would have been, moving it by brute force was relatively easy as long as it was being moved across level terrain.

An example would be the transportation of the Statue of Djehutihotep which originally stood at 6.5 meters (21.3 feet) high and weighed an estimated 60 tons (132,000 pounds).

An experiment led by the French architect Henri Chevrier, showed that 25 kilograms (55 pounds) of force are exerted to pull 150 kilograms (330 pounds), indicating that 400 men would have been required to pull the statue along level terrain.

132,000 (statue weight) / 330 (weight pulled by 1 man) = 400 men

So, even what seems like a huge weight could still be conceivably pulled by a reasonable amount of men. But as pointed out, the work load is not excessive as long as it's done over level terrain but moving something similar like cut blocks up a ramp would be far more complex.

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

The Romans supposedly developed concrete in and around 200 BC. If this hypothisis is correct then it would predate the Romans by over 2000 years.

BTW I am giving you a star for this thread.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by grover]

Yes, it appears that this 'artificial limestone' technology may indeed pre-date the Romans by millenia. Quite possible it was once used extensively but over time, forgotten and slipped into obscurity.

In fact, it also mentioned that many of the stone jars/urns used by the Egyptians ... the ones with extremely narrow necks that increase into very bulbous main sections .... may also have been 'cast' rather than using a hunk of rock/stone that was hollowed out to form the jar/urn.
The main problem being that it's difficult to understand how the huge volume of rock/stone material from the inside of the jar/urn was removed if the only access was down the inside of the very narrow neck.
How would you go about grinding away that material to form the inside of the jar/urn ?

This may be your answer to the jars
en.wikipedia.org...

I see some people are saying that hauling the cement up the pyramid for casting would be as daunting a task compared with hauling the mega multi-ton stones up.

An easily solvable solution I see to this would be a human-chain.

Suppose the cement is being churned in big pits at the base of the pyramid and is being used for casting at the top.

Now imagine hundreds of workers linked in a line, they are only a few feet from each other and they're positioned on every level of the pyramid.

Cement is poured into a bucket and handed to the 1st worker who passes it to the 2nd, who passes it on.....all the way up the pyramid where it's moulded at the top. Another bucket is poured and passed to the 1st worker etc.

There are alot of estimates of how many people were used in the building process, 10,000+ is a figure I see often. That is alot of manpower to make a system like this successful. I can see some method like this being much more likely how it was built rather than the bs the 'experts' spew at us.

Excellent thread & great detail OP

Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but as an engineering student, concrete analysis is a requirement. With that said I do not believe a formed stone would be able to stand the weather for such a vast amount of time as the pyramids have. As I understand it concrete is strong under compression,weak under tension, and suseptable to erosion

Originally posted by Chovy
So they never used pulleys OR modern technology?

How did they do it then? Push the blocks uphill?

Sonic levitation

One test would do it though... take a sample... if its granite it wasn't poured because granite, unlike limestone would have no cohesion

[edit on 27-9-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by fixer1967

This may be your answer to the jars
en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for that interesting addition

Here's an example of stoneware jars that were found inside a pyramid. These jars were made from very hard material that would have been almost impossible to work using the metal available during that historical period, namely tools made from soft copper.

But given the existence of knowledge that allowed the ancient Egyptians to make a type of "stone slurry" that they could shape like clay, but once dried looked exactly like the original stone material, could easily explain such artifacts.

As Davidavits explains, the ability to create such materials is NOT advanced technology as it simply relies on the occurrence of naturally available raw materials in the area plus observation and experimentation ... materials and capabilities that the ancient Egyptians most certainly possessed.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c3a814ea39c.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by tauristercus


I have to lean toward the Egyptians pouring the melted artificial stone blocks

to create the Giza pyramids. It was not a theory that I have had that these

structures were made from giant blocks being melted and poured it is from

reality that I made this judgment. The only alternative that I have come up

with is that the pyramids were created by thought process. Many will say

aliens transported these giant blocked stones by flying ships transporting one

or many at a time. I have to give the aliens more technological credit then

having to transport these huge rocks or stones one or more at at a time to

the location of the pyramids being built.


A volcano melts molten rock at thousands of degrees and yes I know it is of

a different consistency, metal and minerals of the melted stone or rock used

to pour the blocks of the pyramids. With the giant nuclear tunnel boring

machines that can melt rock tunneling up to nine miles a day beneath the

Earth's surface it is similar to the same technology that was used to melt the

molten rock and form the giant stone blocks.



[edit on 28-9-2009 by amari]

www.theglobaleducationproject.org...

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology

The purpose in presenting these materials on ancient Egyptian stone technology is to, without prejudice to any particular possibility, encourage the scientific process in uncovering the truth about the skills of the ancient builders. Photos, diagrams and essays by W.M. Flinders Petrie, Chris Dunn and Robert Francis.
Lathe Turned Stone - Robert Francis - Hard evidence of Old Kingdom or pre-dynastic stone turning from the Cairo museum.

Tube Drilling - Robert Francis - Photos and commentaries describing stone tube drilling at Giza and in the Cairo Museum.

Stone Saws - Robert Francis - Photos and commentaries describing tube drilling, sawing and lathe work visible at Giza and in the Cairo Museum.

Mechanical Methods - Extracts from W.M. Flinders Petrie's classic reference work which describe some of his findings at 'Gizeh' - "...the graving out of lines in hard stones by jewel points, was a well known art." "...the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in the modern workshops." "...tube drills about 18 inches diameter" "...The only feasible explanation of this piece is that it was produced by a circular saw."

Ancient Machining - Chris Dunn - Photos, diagrams & technical discussion of ancient stone machining techniques.

Interesting site.

Originally posted by MysterE
Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but as an engineering student, concrete analysis is a requirement. With that said I do not believe a formed stone would be able to stand the weather for such a vast amount of time as the pyramids have. As I understand it concrete is strong under compression,weak under tension, and suseptable to erosion

As far as I can understand it, and I'm relying on his established expertise in the subject, Davidavits is saying that the result of geopolymerization in the case of the limestone blocks, is that once they've been set and allowed to harden, that they are visually indistinguishable from naturally occuring limestone.
So I guess he's saying that it's not so much a case of producing concrete as we know it today, but a method by which limestone is dissolved in water, other materials (hardeners, etc) added and the mixture allowed to dry and harden ... resulting in a product that looks like natural limestone.

"... a sample of stone I made with geopolymeric cement and fine limestone is mineralogically comparable to the latter [natural limestone], producing similar peaks on the X-ray charts."

Source: The Pyramids - An Enigma Solved", Davidavits, pg 87-88


"Even if geopolymeric concrete is as strong and beautiful as natural stone ..."

Source: The Pyramids - An Enigma Solved", Davidavits, pg 89

reply to post by tauristercus


Thanks for the reply tauristercus, it is strange for me to see this thread since ancient egypt has been my most recent online addiction!

Anyways, your thread certianly deserves my S&F

-E-

I read about this in Earth's Forbidden Secrets. He also thinks that the South America megaliths are also made this way, by softening stone using acids extracted from plant materials. The stone is then molded and re-hardened to form the perfect fittings.

Interesting theory. It could be true, but will we ever know for sure?

People shouldn't hate this new theory because it might make the ancient Egyptians seem less smart. Yes, the old theory made the Egyptians seem very smart because it was/is a mystery as to how they built the pyramids. This new theory, I feel, makes the Egyptians seem just as smart because the Egyptians invented concrete, and used it in a great way!

Actually I don't believe it for a number of reasons. One is that the pyramids are made with blocks, why pour blocks and then put them in place when they could pour slabs. The slabs would cure and then they could pour another slab on top of that one and then another and etc. etc.. Then they could shape whatever corridors or areas by pouring to the desired mold. All we see on the outside and the inside is blocks, some small in the few tons and others in the hundreds of tons like the main chambers and load areas. If you seen the history channels program on the wonders of the world they talk about Harrods wall, a wall made in the bay to protect the harbor. This was done with concrete and they used forms brought out to where they wanted it and concrete was poured into the forms, then they sunk. This was done well after the pyramids during the roman times. Also the Pyramids where capped on the outside with polished marble/stone, which was ripped off to help build mosques and other areas of cairo back in ancient times after a major earthquake destroyed the city. If the Pyramid was poured, then how would they be able to hold the polished stone slabs onto the poured concrete. It would be easier to polish the pour after it cured.

Also two things that should be known about concrete in construction. One is that it does break down. Air combines with the calcium hydroxide in the concrete to make calcium carbonate known as chalk. This quickly breaks down and produces deep and hazardous gouges in the concrete's surface. Also, anaerobic bacteria which gets into the pores of the concrete structure to leech nutrients which in turns pulls out the stuff that helps to keep it solid. Also if of low quality (which you know damn well it would have to be) containing dolomite, it would cause the concrete to expand which will definitely cause cracking and partial collapse.

Also one other thing that makes this an impossibility. Since the whole structure weighs in the millions and millions of tons and is exclusively "concrete", what about the curing of the concrete structure. Either in slabs or even as a block of poured concrete, it must be cured enough in order for more blocks or another slab can be poured on top of it, otherwise it would be to soft and the weight from the top would start the structure sinking in on itself. Then you have to think about how to cure the whole thing itself, I will post two links about concrete and the the hoover dam. Read the hoover dam especially because the stuff they had to do to help the curing process, you might as well say that they used artificial gravity or some technology to move massive blocks because they needed technology to help the process. Not rivers or stone axes, technology.

www.ehow.com...

www.concretecontractor.com...

It's a good theory with many theories, but the technology that would have been needed alone to help in the pouring and the curing of that structure (taking away the break down of concrete), would have at least needed a level of technology at our 1920's era of time in the US and the world.

Hello I'm new to the forums, But have been viewing the site now for a few months. Personally I've always wondered if the ancient monuments of the world could have been lowered into place we have no idea what the lay of the land was like. Working with gravity would be easier than against it. So say I want to use several ten ton stones to build something instead of lifting them i dig a hole lower them into place via earthen ramps then remove the dirt sand from around them. presto change o now i have a large heavy structure that i didn't lift into place yet no one who wasn't involved knows how it was done. just a thought.

Originally posted by tauristercus
As far as I can understand it, and I'm relying on his established expertise in the subject, Davidavits is saying that the result of geopolymerization in the case of the limestone blocks, is that once they've been set and allowed to harden, that they are visually indistinguishable from naturally occuring limestone.

That's not true. Limestone (unlike concrete) is not a single consistency. When I work on my dinosaur fossils, I encounter pockets of crystal as well as tiny areas of mudstone. There is an "up" and a "down" as well.

It'll look like it to someone who doesn't work with limestone. But microscopically and in other ways, it won't.

Besides, he hasn't explained why (once they had concrete) they would make millions of individual sized molds to cast every block (no two are exactly alike) rather than using a few molds and pouring those.

...and as someone else said, it takes weeks for a block of concrete that size to cure. It's far faster to just quarry stone.

Okay we are pouring concrete... ton and tons of concrete continuously for days on end...

So ummm

where did they get the cement powder from?

reply to post by hoghead cheese



I think there's still a slight misunderstanding regarding this geopolymerization process and the use of the term "concrete" when applied to the pyramid blocks.
This is NOT concrete as we generally know it today, the "concrete" referred to as the material for constructing artificial limestone blocks is somewhat misleading as these "artificial blocks" are for all intents and purposes INDISTINGUISHABLE from naturally occurring limestone and only microscopic and chemical analyses can differentiate between them.

So once cast, dried and hardened, these "concrete blocks" revert back to the texture and chemical properties of limestone ... whereas when we pour concrete today, even when it hardens, it's still obviously concrete !

Also two things that should be known about concrete in construction. One is that it does break down. Air combines with the calcium hydroxide in the concrete to make calcium carbonate known as chalk. This quickly breaks down and produces deep and hazardous gouges in the concrete's surface. Also, anaerobic bacteria which gets into the pores of the concrete structure to leech nutrients which in turns pulls out the stuff that helps to keep it solid. Also if of low quality (which you know damn well it would have to be) containing dolomite, it would cause the concrete to expand which will definitely cause cracking and partial collapse.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cca5bc1094ac.jpg[/atsimg]

Also one other thing that makes this an impossibility. Since the whole structure weighs in the millions and millions of tons and is exclusively "concrete", what about the curing of the concrete structure. Either in slabs or even as a block of poured concrete, it must be cured enough in order for more blocks or another slab can be poured on top of it, otherwise it would be to soft and the weight from the top would start the structure sinking in on itself.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/35230924da01.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by zorgon
Okay we are pouring concrete... ton and tons of concrete continuously for days on end...

So ummm

where did they get the cement powder from?

Zorgon ... did you not read my initial posts .... the callouses on my finger tips tell me that I DID type them !

Seriously, though .... all the raw materials required to create these artificial blocks was locally available and in considerable quantities ...

Mud from the Nile River contains alumina and is well suited for low-temperature mineral synthesis. A soft limestone with a high kaolinite content was quarried in the wadi on the south of the Giza plateau. It was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry. Lime (produced by calcining limestone in simple hearths) and natron (sodium carbonate - also used by the Egyptians in mummification) was mixed in. The natron salt is abundant in the deserts and salt lakes and reacts with lime and water to produce the main ingrediants for producing "artificial" stone. The pools were then left to evaporate, leaving behind a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet "concrete" would be carried to the construction site where it would be packed into reusable wooden molds. Sinai mines produced the arsenic minerals of olivenite and scorodite, needed to produce rapid hydraulic setting in large concrete blocks. In the next few days the mixture would undergo a chemical hydration reaction similar to the setting of cement.

reply to post by Byrd

Besides, he hasn't explained why (once they had concrete) they would make millions of individual sized molds to cast every block (no two are exactly alike) rather than using a few molds and pouring those.

Apparently there may not have been a need for 100's or 1000's of individual molds ... Davidavits explains it this way ...

"The molds would have been easily disassembled so that one or more faces of a [hardened] block could be used as a partial mold for casting the next block, producing the close fit. One of the characteristics of geopolymeric concrete is that there is no appreciable shrinkage, and blocks do not fuse when cast directly against each other."


So, assemble your wooden planks where you need it, cast the new block, let it harden, then dissasemble your wooden mold and move to the next location ... and repeat the process.
In fact, the majority of blocks would only require a 3-sided wooden mold as the previous cast block would provide the 4th side.

...and as someone else said, it takes weeks for a block of concrete that size to cure. It's far faster to just quarry stone.

Apparently the curing and hardening rate was quite fast.

"Once cast, within hours or even less ... a block hardened."

Originally posted by tauristercus
Seriously, though .... all the raw materials required to create these artificial blocks was locally available and in considerable quantities ...

I don't doubt material was available... but to prepare cement powder of enough quantity for what you claim would be a horrendous task... and give me a sample of the finished product and I will tell you in minutes weather it is natural or not


To Byrd

Where you getting them DINO bones from? Every time I go digging they want to arrest me

I do have a nice Brontosaurus egg from China though

[edit on 28-9-2009 by zorgon]