Blocks from Giza pyramid, found to be manmade

So that explains the Limestone blocks but what about the huge monoliths of granite within the structure?
Building the Pyramid while the granite and tunnels were in situ Could that mean that there could have been a structure replaced or built onto (Stages of continous construction) like we see in many of the pyramids in the Americas and if so then indeed the age of the original construction and the Sphinx could be alot older than first thought

[Quran 28.38] And Pharaoh said to his people: "I have not known a god for you other than myself; so Haman, light me a fire to bake clay so that I could build a rise high enough, maybe I see Moses' god whom I think is a liar."

Originally posted by frugal
I don't believe the pyramids are concrete blocks. Concrete cracks. All Concrete cracks rather rapidly too. All the pressure of the concrete on top of concrete with earthquakes and compression, the concrete blocks would eventually desintegrate. Nature makes things more perfectly than man made. Stone lasts longer.

My relative was killed changing a tire on a hay cart using a concrete cinder block which desintegrated and the cart smashed him. Concrete is not that strong.

edit on 12-6-2012 by frugal because: (no reason given)

Your basing that on the low quality concrete used in home construction. Having worked in my youth as an Industrial Electrician on projects, I've experienced high quality concrete. I once had to chip a knockout into an 8 inch wall of the stuff. It was so tough, we had to import a horizontal diamond core drill. All you could do is take small chips out of it.

Originally posted by djv1985
How did they know how to build the blocks?
how come pyramids were appearing all over the world?

Both of which are excellent questions.

This is something that we are guessing about. Instead, let's look at something we know more about - Roman concrete. We have books written in 25BC discussing in details several different forms of concrete, what works best in what situation etc. We might not know how the Romans discovered it, but we know they did. If one ancient civilization could discover it, then I think it is entirely plausible to say the Egyptians were more than capable of discovering their version.

It was suggested earlier in the thread that discovery was most likely a simple process of observation - that particular area already contained the basic ingredients, locals might have noticed that after flooding some kinds of mud would dry and harden in a particular way, etc. Trial and error, observation and experiment to develop ratios and technique would follow, just as scientists do today.

So why are pyramids appearing all over the world? I have no idea. It was suggested earlier in (this or another) thread that a pyramid is simply the easiest and most stable way to build a tall object. It's a simple, rational answer that I find myself agreeing with. Even as children we often find that building blocks stack better with a wider base for stability. The same shape might keep appearing all over the world not because the sites are linked, but simply because the builders all came to the same conclusion - this is the best shape for the job.

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
So that explains the Limestone blocks but what about the huge monoliths of granite within the structure?
Building the Pyramid while the granite and tunnels were in situ

Could that mean that there could have been a structure replaced or built onto (Stages of continous construction) like we see in many of the pyramids in the Americas and if so then indeed the age of the original construction and the Sphinx could be alot older than first thought

edit on 12-6-2012 by DreamerOracle because: (no reason given)

I'm wondering whether they might have started construction with the intention of using one method and then switched to another, easier method when they realised how hard it would be.

The other thing to consider is that they might have planned it that way. If you build a house with an expensive marble floor, you put it inside where you and your guests can marvel at it, the shell of the house is still built with normal bricks.

reply to post by mblahnikluver

We can't even replicate their structures today with the tools and machines we have.

Did you even read the OP?

Clearly we can.

Stop pretending that the Pyramids are an example of extremely advanced ancient technology....

They are just piles of rocks.... Get over it.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Stop pretending that the Pyramids are an example of extremely advanced ancient technology....

They are just piles of rocks.... Get over it.

Understatement of the last 10 millennia?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by mblahnikluver

 

We can't even replicate their structures today with the tools and machines we have.

Stop pretending that the Pyramids are an example of extremely advanced ancient technology....

I think the pyramids are an excellent example of our modern reliance on advanced technology, and highlight how much we have lost in that reliance. If we can't build something that an ancient civilization could make with some buckets, water, crushed rock and hard work, then it doesn't mean they were more advanced, simply that we've become more stupid.

reply to post by LUXUS


from what you can see in the video there really wasn't a crisp clean joint like you see at the GP. I'm not saying it wasn't poured, just saying they haven't replicated the edges in the GP stones. that tells me the French guy is missing something. Also I wonder if the French blocks are as dense as the Giza ones.

reply to post by EvillerBob

seriously if it was so easy why not build more and bigger ones?

reply to post by syrinx high priest


AND the aliens owned and operated the cement truck.

reply to post by LUXUS


This, if true, is awesome. I had been kicking around a theory recently that they were built using nano-assembly. All you'd need is to feed in raw materials and run the "Build Great Pyramid" program. This could feasibly support that as a possibility. Requires tech maybe 20-50 years ahead of where we are currently but does not require anti-gravity levitation or super-precise cutting machines.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by mblahnikluver

 

We can't even replicate their structures today with the tools and machines we have.

Did you even read the OP?

Clearly we can.

Stop pretending that the Pyramids are an example of extremely advanced ancient technology....

They are just piles of rocks.... Get over it.

Wow. Now here we have an example of someone going to the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I imagine years from now, an SR71 blackbird will be unearthed fully intact and operational and someone will say, "its just a glob of metal."

reply to post by EvillerBob

I think the pyramids are an excellent example of our modern reliance on advanced technology, and highlight how much we have lost in that reliance. If we can't build something that an ancient civilization could make with some buckets, water, crushed rock and hard work, then it doesn't mean they were more advanced, simply that we've become more stupid.

You can't possibly be this naieve....

The PURPOSE of this thread is to state, quite plainly and clearly that we know *EXACTLY* how to do this thing with *JUST* "buckets, water, crushed rock and hard work"

We *DON'T* do this, because the entire persuit is fruitness, pointless, and impractical.

Because it is a *GIANT PILE OF ROCKS*


Did you know that we routinely put LIGHT SPEED COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS IN ORBIT OF OUR PLANET?

I mean, DUH.

reply to post by dogstar23

Wow. Now here we have an example of someone going to the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I imagine years from now, an SR71 blackbird will be unearthed fully intact and operational and someone will say, "its just a glob of metal."

So, are you saying that the pyramids can fly?

What kind of half-[snip]ed argumentative tactic are you using, anyway?

Would you like to point out the "Practical Application" of this giant pile of rocks? Or just make childish assertions?

Very interesting, I have a question though, if it has not already been addressed...

Figures were given about the time require to place and set each block into position in order to finish by a certain deadline. I believe it were something like 1 block every minute, every hour, every day, for 20 years. I may be wrong about that, but I believe that is what I recall reading.

My question would then be... If the blocks were formed using this process, would it be possible to manufacture each block, remove the forms, and once it had sufficiently cured begin the process for the next block, efficiently enough to match the specific time frame alotted for the construction of the pyramid?

How quickly would each block need to be produced, set, and repeated in order to make constructing the pyramid with this technology the most probable construction process?

I will continue to read through the pages here, and look for the answer. That's one of the biggest issues I have in believing this method was preferred and indeed used to construct the pyramids.

I was so impressed with the required speed of installation each block demands in order to complete the structure within the life span of the Pharoah, which it was built for, that I could hardly believe it possible. It seems an even more impressive that these blocks could be poured and cured, in place, faster than the time frame proposed for quarried stone construction.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

What kind of half-[snip]ed argumentative tactic are you using, anyway?

Ah.... I see....

The "If By Whiskey" Logical Fallacy.

(third line)

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by dogstar23

 

Wow. Now here we have an example of someone going to the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I imagine years from now, an SR71 blackbird will be unearthed fully intact and operational and someone will say, "its just a glob of metal."

So, are you saying that the pyramids can fly?

What kind of half-[snip]ed argumentative tactic are you using, anyway?

Would you like to point out the "Practical Application" of this giant pile of rocks? Or just make childish assertions?

I was taking the "pile of rocks" statement to mean it has no use whatsoever. Are we really to assume that much wealth and effort was used simply for decoration? They didn't go through that much effort for nothing. Maybe it's a beacon for space ships, maybe a power generator, or maybe its simply a glorious temple dedicated to their Gods. The one thing we know for certain is that UT certainly wasn't just "a pile of rocks" to whomever built it.

reply to post by dogstar23

I was taking the "pile of rocks" statement to mean it has no use whatsoever. Are we really to assume that much wealth and effort was used simply for decoration?

It's a tomb built by a Pharaoh that had more money than sense.

They didn't go through that much effort for nothing.

They went through that much effort because the Official State Religion placed their leader as the CHOSEN OF THE GODS WHOSE WILL IS LAW.... and he wanted a nice burial chamber, thus.... Pyramids.

After his death, his lineage sort of took up his "Stupidity" as a birthright.

Maybe it's a beacon for space ships

It's a Pile of Rocks.

maybe a power generator

It's a Pile of Rocks.

or maybe its simply a glorious temple dedicated to their Gods.

If by that you mean a PILE OF ROCKS dedicated to their gods, then yes, I agree...

The one thing we know for certain is that UT certainly wasn't just "a pile of rocks" to whomever built it.

Blah, emotional appeals... it's just a pile of rocks.

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by Hanslune
This report is 5 years old, at this time no evidence has been found for 'concrete', jus good old limestone.

But if the "reconstituted limestone" is visually or texturally indistinguishable from naturally occurring limestone ? Only extensive testing would be able to discern the difference. And of course, virtually ALL leading "egyptologists", without performing any such testing, will swear to the fact that the pyramid blocks simply MUST have been laboriously carved in limestone quarries before transporting to the construction site ... because they're "experts" in their field and naturally know best !

Have you even BOTHERED to read Davidovit's scientific explanation as to how the limestone was crushed at the quarries ... then transported to the site where it was re-constituted (with hardners, etc) back into virtually indistinguishable limestone blocks ?
Have you even BOTHERED to watch any of his video's where he physically MAKES such artificial limestone blocks and shows in detail the steps needed ?

I don't think it would be that hard to determine if an aggregate limestone mix was used or a natural occuring limestone rock. You would only need a polarizing microscope .....