It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
122
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I cut my teeth on this material in my youth. In college I had a friend in my office (I was work study graphic design for the district) that was writing 3 books on egyptology at the time, and I got a great education on how distant and unknown the language alone was, not to mention the architectural technology.

I steeped myself in this subject and remember actual materials experiments to create concrete blocks not unlike the ones we assume were quarried from distant sites. This took me to precolumbian and other pre-civ histories too.

I'm hoping we can get a detailed account of history from intervening races who have 3D FILM!


Sorry, but once you KNOW such is real, there is no going back.

Waiting for the libraries of Alexandria X 1000!

ZG




posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Lastone
 


You are cool for posting that video. I seen it a long time ago and I always think about it from time to time when I think of ancient Egypt. You know scientist say we only use 10% of our brain. Just imagine if we could use even just 30% what we could do. Very exciting.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outlawstar

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by Matyas
 


So why not place your bet that humans had some sort of advanced or lost technology like sound levitation that we don't have in these days? Just because you believe they had some sort of advanced technology doesn't invoke aliens or gods. Like I said look at how amazing ancient cultures knowledge of astronomy was.



Very true, although I concede its possible, Im thoroughly convinced the Pyramids are man-made, we must be careful not to underestimate mans ability and ambition, that said Im also convinced that the means by which they were built has been lost to us, and I dont see this as accidental either, I see a network of suppression surrounding not just the truth of the pyramids, but in fact the entire history of the human race.

Oh and dont get me wrong, I certainly have no doubt that the Egyptians simply did not build the pyramids, I think they are a relic of a long lost pre-flood civilisation.
There are just too many anomolies to accept that history is as mundane and quantifiable as it has been so carefully presented.


Spot on, spot on. they are alot older than what has been told. I have always wondered did the ancient civilization take there "toys" and leave after finishing their work or left them to rust away over 10 thousand years to today on the lush plains of Egypt (remember back around this time, you wouldn't recognize northern Africa because it was temperate and rained more often). The devices could still be buried under sand in the new desert.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hoghead cheese
 




Because for one if you didn't, your mix would set before you get it to the mold that may be on a higher level


Sometime I think it's possible to "over think or over analyze" how something was accomplished !

Davidovits explains that there were a number of materials that when combined, would result in the creation of "artificial but natural looking" limestone blocks.
From his description of the process, a slurry (semi-liquid, semi-solid) is created from all the raw materials and just before pouring the cast, a rapid set hardener is introduced which results in hardening within a very short period of time. But until the hardener is added, the slurry remains viscous for a long time, long enough to use something as simple as a "bucket brigade" chain of workmen to transport the slurry to any point of construction where it's needed.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Then what your talking about would be limestone mortar not cement.Firing limestone at high temperatures produces "quicklime", a substance that when mixed with sand and water produces lime mortar suitable for use with brick construction. Lime mortar is not the same as concrete, and is not a suitable replacement.

Portland cement is the ingredient in concrete that transforms a mixture of sand, gravel, and water into concrete. It is made by firing clay and limestone at very high temperatures and then grinding the resulting clinker into a fine powder. The Egyptians clearly did not have the facilities for carrying out this process. They would have to construct a very high temperature wood fired rotary kiln and load broken up pieces of limestone and clay in a continuous stream. They would need large powerful grinding mills to convert the clinker to powder. Camel power would not suffice!

There is no process that spontaneously converts limestone mud into concrete by mere drying. This is simply would not work to produce any kind of concrete capable of holding up under the extreme pressure.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Then what your talking about would be limestone mortar not cement.Firing limestone at high temperatures produces "quicklime", a substance that when mixed with sand and water produces lime mortar suitable for use with brick construction. Lime mortar is not the same as concrete, and is not a suitable replacement.

Portland cement is the ingredient in concrete that transforms a mixture of sand, gravel, and water into concrete. It is made by firing clay and limestone at very high temperatures and then grinding the resulting clinker into a fine powder. The Egyptians clearly did not have the facilities for carrying out this process. They would have to construct a very high temperature wood fired rotary kiln and load broken up pieces of limestone and clay in a continuous stream. They would need large powerful grinding mills to convert the clinker to powder. Camel power would not suffice!

There is no process that spontaneously converts limestone mud into concrete by mere drying. This is simply would not work to produce any kind of concrete capable of holding up under the extreme pressure.




As stated by Davidovits ....

"Cement found in various parts of the courses of the Great Pyramid is about 4,500 years old, yet it is still in good condition. This ancient mortar is far superior to cements used in construction today. Yhe modern Portlan cement used to repair ancient Egyptian monuments has cracked and degraded in only about 50 years."

Source: "The Pyramids - An Enigma Solved", Davidavits, pg 68


"Much of the restoration by Lauer on the pyramid of Zoser was made with Portland cement concrete. Those repairs of thirty years ago have cracked, and consequently, had to be replaced with carved limestone. The geopolymeric material would be ideal for a lasting restoration of monuments."

Source: "The Pyramids - An Enigma Solved", Davidavits, pg 108




The following is a summary of the chemical processes involved in the creation of "artificial stone" as per Davidovits.


Source: www.rexresearch.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
doernenburg.alien.de...

Don't have time to explain all the details and also, what about the Obelisk found have completed in quarries. They have been worked on from the rock and not poured. Also when you go to this website you will see that the blocks aren't uniform, far from it.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hoghead cheese
doernenburg.alien.de...

Don't have time to explain all the details and also, what about the Obelisk found have completed in quarries. They have been worked on from the rock and not poured. Also when you go to this website you will see that the blocks aren't uniform, far from it.


Just took a look at that website and yes, I agree that he does raise some valid points that I, personally am not qualified to respond to.


But what I can do is compare the experience and expertise of the website owner and that of Dr. Joseph Davidovits to get an indication as to which of the two may be most qualified to comment on ancient Egyptian pyramid construction methods ... based on their knowledge, their credentials, their experience, their standing in the scientific community, etc

Ok, lets make the comparison ...


First, the bio of

Joseph Davidovits

International renown French Scientist, born in 1935, working in France, Europe, USA, Australia and China.
Honored with one of France’s two highest honors, the grade of ” Chevalier de l’Ordre National du Mérite ” (Nov. 1998).
Discoverer and inventor of the geopolymer chemistry and its technical applications.
Author and co-author of more than 130 scientifical papers and conferences, and more than 50 patents.

Archaeology

Joseph Davidovits has also presented different papers and studies in ceramics, ancient cement and roman concrete in several congresses in archaeology and archaeometry.
He is mainly well-known by the general public for its theory on the method of building the pyramids of Egypt with re-agglomerated stones, say a natural limestone manufactured like a concrete.
Member of the International Association of Egyptologists, he presented several conferences on ceramics, blue faience, cements, pigments, and the analysis of pyramids stones at several International Congresses of Egyptology in 1979 (Grenoble, France), 1982 (Toronto, Canada), 1988 (Cairo, Egypt), 2004 (Grenoble, France).
Authors of several books:

1988, The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved.
2002, Ils ont bâti les pyramides édition Jean-Cyrille Godefroy, Paris, ISBN 2-86553-157-0.
2004, La nouvelle histoire des pyramides d’Egypte édition Jean-Cyrille Godefroy, Paris, ISBN 2-86553-175-9.
2005, La Bible avait raison t.1, l’archéologie révèle l’existence des Hébreux en Égypte édition Jean-Cyrille Godefroy, Paris, ISBN 2-86553-182-1.
2006, La Bible avait raison t.2, sur les traces de Moïse et de l’Exode édition Jean-Cyrille Godefroy, Paris, ISBN 2-86553-190-2.

Education

French Degree in Chemical Engineering.
German Doctor Degree in Chemistry (PhD).
Professor and founder of the Institute for Applied Archaeological Sciences, IAPAS, Barry University, Miami ,Florida, (1983-1989).
Visiting Professor, Penn State University, Pennsylvania (1989-1991).
Honorary Professor, Xian Universtity of Architecture and Technology, China (1999).
1979 to present: Professor and Director of the Geopolymer Institute , Saint-Quentin, France.
2001 to present: Research Director at CORDI-Géopolymère .

Professional expertise

World expert in Modern and Ancient Cements.
World expert in Geosynthesis and man-made rocks.
Consultant (expert) to the European Union Commission.
Inventor of Geopolymers and the chemistry of Geopolymerization.
Polyglot: English, French, German, Spanish, Latin, Ancient Greek, Hieroglyphs

Member of the following societies

International Association of Egyptologists
New York Academy of Sciences
American Concrete Institute (former member)
American Chemical Society (former member)
American Ceramic Society (former member)

International Scientific Awards

NASTS Gold Ribbon, awarded at the National Press Club, Washington DC, Sept. 26, 1994, by the National Academy of Engineering, The Federation of Materials Societies and the National Association for Science, Technology and Society.
Honorary Membership awarded by the National Noise Observatory of the Czech Republic (Narodni Hlukova Observator CR), Prague (Czech Republic), 04 Nov. 2005


Now, the bio of
Frank Dörnenburg

"I visited the Stadtwald-Gymnasium (German for high school!) and studied afterwards physics, majoring in extraterrestrial physics with the subsidiary subject astronomy. But parallel to that I founded in 1986 with two friends a computer company which still exists.
There we developed hard- and software for Atari 8-bit and later the ST computers, including microcontroller devices, signal processor applications and high-end sound samplers. Although the company still exists we do not sell products anymore at the moment.
My partner Frank Stachowiak and I are currently working as free lancing IT consultants, developing industrial applications in C++ (mainly MS Visual C++) with database connections (nainly for Oracle). At the moment we are expanding our knowledge to .NET, C# - but also Java. Because nobody can be sure what will survive the next few years.
Privately I am dabbling around with web design including CSS and PHP - you are guinea pigs here

Together we are still working on a "dream" - a massive-multiplayer-online-sci-fi-game, "Cosmic Empires". The first version was started in the 80's, but neither the old 8 bit Ataris nor the Atari ST or Amiga computers had the capacity to realize what we had in mind".


In my opinion there's really no comparison whatsoever ... Davidovits' professional credentials speak for themselves ...



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
last week we needed to move a six thousand pound milling machine outside a shop.It lay flat on the floor and on skates would not fit through the door!To get it off the floor we used grizzly bars and leveraged it off the floor.Next we put a steel plate under it and dragged it under the door with come alongs.

My point is we run into this sort of thing all the time, then it comes down to problem solving and pure muscle.This is why I can understand how they did it, they had all the muscle and time in the world,not to mention a well developed problem solving brain.


I follow you reasoning, but it's a little bit more to it than just goodwill and brains,

They probably had a lot of manpower, but they were on a very tight schedule - according to modern archaeology.

IF Khufu was the one who built the Great Pyramid (which contemporary archaeology claims) they had maximum 23 years to plan and build the whole thing (Khufu reigned from 2551 to 2528 BC). Herodotus writes about 10 years of preparation and 20 years of building it.
Counting all the stones in the Pyramid, 342 stones of various sizes have to be moved daily (working during 365 days a year) or 431 stones daily (working during 290 days a year).
With a 10-hour work day: it equals a stone put in place every 2 minutes (34 to 43 per hour)
8-hour work day: nearly a stone every minute (42 to 53 stones per hour)

Factor X, such as accidents, tools and machinery breaking down, rupture in stock and delivery, strikes, uprisings, whatever, which you probably agree must have happened during 20 years on such a gigantic project such as the Great Pyramid, is not part of the calculation.

So, don't compare it to moving a six thousand pound milling machine outside a shop, but 342 of them, and you've got ten hours to do it.

During every day for 20 years.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Heliocentric]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
yes i agree but where could this all be coming from?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by hoghead cheese

Originally posted by Outlawstar

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by Matyas
 


So why not place your bet that humans had some sort of advanced or lost technology like sound levitation that we don't have in these days? Just because you believe they had some sort of advanced technology doesn't invoke aliens or gods. Like I said look at how amazing ancient cultures knowledge of astronomy was.



Very true, although I concede its possible, Im thoroughly convinced the Pyramids are man-made, we must be careful not to underestimate mans ability and ambition, that said Im also convinced that the means by which they were built has been lost to us, and I dont see this as accidental either, I see a network of suppression surrounding not just the truth of the pyramids, but in fact the entire history of the human race.

Oh and dont get me wrong, I certainly have no doubt that the Egyptians simply did not build the pyramids, I think they are a relic of a long lost pre-flood civilisation.
There are just too many anomolies to accept that history is as mundane and quantifiable as it has been so carefully presented.


Spot on, spot on. they are alot older than what has been told. I have always wondered did the ancient civilization take there "toys" and leave after finishing their work or left them to rust away over 10 thousand years to today on the lush plains of Egypt (remember back around this time, you wouldn't recognize northern Africa because it was temperate and rained more often). The devices could still be buried under sand in the new desert.



Im convinced there is much to be discovered under giza yes, just take a look at some of the ground penetrating radar results, that place is a maze of corridors and passageways under there just waiting to be explored, but alas, the status quo is more important to those who benefit from it than the truth about human history and the truth about who we are, where we came from and what we are capable of.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Hi! Netfix has alot of the National Geographic dvds and other dvds on Egypts people and monuments. In one of the dvds on the Great pyramid
they talked about the skelotens of the workers having broken bones repaired and that their back bones revealed spinal comression due to lifting heavy blocks of stones for years. They found the workers camp and bread/food making village. It was enormous.
If the concrete theory had any validity they would find the spot where they were made and all the messy leftover concrete droppings of excess
mess. Contractors and construction workers, no offense to anyone,
99% of the time don't clean up after themselves. There is
always lots of left over mess left behind. This is my obsevation from 19 years of rehabbing and contracting homes.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by frugal
Hi! Netfix has alot of the National Geographic dvds and other dvds on Egypts people and monuments. In one of the dvds on the Great pyramid
they talked about the skelotens of the workers having broken bones repaired and that their back bones revealed spinal comression due to lifting heavy blocks of stones for years. They found the workers camp and bread/food making village. It was enormous.
If the concrete theory had any validity they would find the spot where they were made and all the messy leftover concrete droppings of excess
mess. Contractors and construction workers, no offense to anyone,
99% of the time don't clean up after themselves. There is
always lots of left over mess left behind. This is my obsevation from 19 years of rehabbing and contracting homes.
You aint gonna learn the truth about the Pyramids from the propoganda spewing National Geographic!!



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 

I have a friend who is obsessed with lime and uses in his work as much as possible (he's a plasterer)..

He once told me (at great length) about how limestone can be made into this pourable form, and I immediately thought about the pyramids and the close tolerance of the "cut stones", and how it would have been much easier to make a liquid pourable material which would then be pumped into place and shuttered to make blocks. There is further corroboration where core samples have been made of the pyramid blocks, and they have been found to have a higher concentrations of microfossils at the bottom, rather than homogenously distributed. this lends credence to the idea that it was once a liquid suspension, and the fossiles simply settled to the bottom of the mixture while setting.

we are already aware of the Al Medina (is that spelt right?) complex where the temple builders lived. it is apparent they had a water supply but that it must have been pumped there (it's halfway up a mountain), so there are 2 cases for pumping technology, also some research has defined the central core chambers of the great pyramid to be some kind of pump...



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
this makes sense. it also explains how they made the pyramid cap, just pour some of the solution over the top.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Barsoum, Davidovits, et al. performed a scientific analysis of samples taken from the Great Pyramid, which they published:

Barsoum, M. W., Ganguly, A. and Hug, G. (2006), Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt, Journal of the American Ceramic Society 89 (12), 3788-3796.
Differential thermal analysis (DTA) detection of intra-ceramic geopolymeric setting In archaeological ceramics and mortars., Davidovits J.; Courtois L., 21st Archaeometry Symposium; Brookhaven Nat. Lab., N.Y.; 1981; Abstracts P. 22

You can read more from their website, they include also photo's of examples "reconstituted" blocks: SOURCE - Pyramids (2) The evidences

They don't refer to the reconstituted (or re-agglomerated) stone as "concrete", calling it concrete is a misnomer. They don't claim all of the pyramid is built of reconstituted stone, in fact they claim only 15% was built as such, the rest built as traditionally thought, quarried stone. They include photos of the demonstrably different stone types in lower/upper layers of the GP, including one odd example of two stones "cast" over an obstruction (a rock) which has since fallen away, leaving a mirrored cavity in both adjoining stones.

Much has been implied that IF the stones in question were reconstituted, cast-in-situ, then why the variety of sizes? This is an ad-hominem attack implying the stones can't be cast because they don't conform to OUR expectations of how a cast stone should appear. The testing done by the Geopolymer Inst. indicate the stones are not quarried limestone but a reconstituted stone. HOW they came to be cast or placed is not part of their study. My opinion is that considering the bulk of the work force would have been uneducated and lacking in measuring tools, they are reasonably close in size. Adobe blocks of the pueblos also vary in size due to their handcrafted nature. One thing is certain - when stone-hauling up a ramp to the height of the upper pyramid became unfeasible, a bucket/basket brigade hauling raw materials to the top would be far easier.

In support of their theory, they refer to several stele that indicate an ancient process was used to make reconstituted stone for statuary as well as blocks:
The Irtysen Stele Proof
The Sehel Stele Proof
The Famine Stele Proof
The Le Chatelier Proof also extends the theory according to Henri Le Chatelier that certain statuary also appear to be cast in some sort of synthetic material and not sculpted from stone.

There is one last "ad-hominem" attack to address: "Why, if some of the blocks in the pyramid were built of cast-in-situ reconstituted stone, wasn't ALL of the pyramid built thus? For that matter, why weren't ALL of the pyramids across Egypt built this way?" One simple answer is that knowledge is easily lost, even when the knowledge was inscribed by one generation into stele, it may have lain lost or ignored by succeeding generations. If such knowledge is maintained by a priestly caste then the knowledge could easily live (and die) according to their fortunes.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Blackmarketeer]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Its really a shame this day and age we still do not know how these pyramids were made. Only speculations..



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
wiki great source, get a real one next time



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Biggest problem with this whole theory how to crush the limestone into a powder. They would not have been abled to accomplish this and there not just going to be abled to melt limestone.Contrary to what some people believe limestone is a very hard rock heating it in a kiln can help this process but that would have taken the Egyptians more man hours than cutting and moving the stones.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Biggest problem with this whole theory how to crush the limestone into a powder. They would not have been abled to accomplish this and there not just going to be abled to melt limestone.Contrary to what some people believe limestone is a very hard rock heating it in a kiln can help this process but that would have taken the Egyptians more man hours than cutting and moving the stones.




Apparently obtaining the raw limestone base material may not have been as difficult as one would imagine.



"The vast amount of limestone rubble required to make pyramid blocks was easily obtained. Water, probably brought as close as possible by canal, was used to flood the bedrock of Giza to saturate it for easy disaggregation. The limestone of Giza becomes so extremely soft when saturated that it can be broken easily into chunks when wooden sticks are inserted."

Source: The Pyramids - An Enigma Solved:, Davidovits, pg 78





Source: The Pyramids - An Enigma Solved:, Davidovits, pg 80-82


Based on information such as the above, constructing the pyramids by using the Davidovits process becomes more and more logical and feasible, in my opinion ...

[edit on 29/9/09 by tauristercus]



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join