Proof that the ancients used concrete

I came across this doco from the Enigma channel, Which shows that the Ancient Egyptians used polymerized red Granite, just like the kitchen benches used to day, which is undisguisable from real Granite. I originally thought this was a bit overdone, but when the shots of ISIS destroying ancient winged statues came on you could clearly see that the interior of the statue was rubble with metal supporting rods, with an exterior made in polymerized granite.

a reply to: anonentity
I'm sure I've read something about the Romans using some kind of conglomerate in their building projects.
As for the mediaeval period, if your travels allow you to inspect the ruins of old castles and abbeys, you will find that "stone" walls and even "stone" pillars frequently had a filling of rubble and conglomerate with a superficial facing of fine stone. The effect is more obvious when the fine stones themselves have been hacked away by previous generations.

originally posted by: anonentity

...when the shots of ISIS destroying ancient winged statues came on you could clearly see that the interior of the statue was rubble with metal supporting rods...

if you wouldnt mind, what timestamp is that part?

They look like modern duplicates. Hell, they have re-bar inside.

The big question is who stole the originals?

Now, think it through.

Start War in Iraqi. Check.
Win War. Check
Steal everything that is not nailed down ... especially antiquities Check
Make duplicates Check
Have ISIS to smash the fakes Check.

Now then, no one is looking for the stolen Antiquities because ISIS smashed them

Lots and lots of money to be made on the black market.

Oh, and one more thing ... this is not proof of anything.

P

a reply to: anonentity

Enigma channel...
No need to say more.

A lot of the statues isis destroyed were either replicas or originals that had been repaired and restored in the modern Era, hence the rebar and modern concrete.

Same in Egypt, a lot of things are repaired or reinforced to make sure they don't fall over on tourists.

I suspect these explain the things in the video.

originally posted by: anonentity
I came across this doco from the Enigma channel, Which shows that the Ancient Egyptians used polymerized red Granite,

I thought of this possibility, and simply asked the question on some official archaeology site forum, and was immediately kicked off the site for asking an obviously dumb question.

There's no tolerance in the minds of archaeologists for this question at all. They believe they know for certain the stone was cut with hammer and chisel and not "poured" and "hardened" like concrete.

However, I notice something else, that the builders of the great pyramid left a message that seems to tell us exactly how they achieved their work of art.

The message is in the Kings Chamber of the Great Pyramid, and comes in the form of a puzzle.

The puzzle is a "granite box" in the Kings Chamber whose peculiar dimensions incorporates essentially the same puzzle paradox as that given by the Oracle of Delphi to the worshipers known famously today as "Doubling the Cube".

The question is: "How do you double the volume of an object?"

You see, the King's Coffer sitting near one end of the Chamber happens to have the same volume in stone as the volume of it's enclosed empty space. That is, basically, the total volume of the "box" is "double" the volume of it's "capacity."

They essentially solved this puzzle and constructed the box using the solution, leaving that granite box there as the "clue" to us in the future "how they did it."

Now, of course, modern mathematicians have "proved" that it is "impossible" to double the volume using the geometer's tools. And yet, there stands the box whose external volume is double the internal empty space.

So, the Ancient Egyptians were able to solve this impossible problem.

But, actually, the problem is not so impossible, if we use our "creative imagination" and realize that :

doubling the volume of a liquid is an entirely simple problem,

even though doubling the volume of a solid is impossible.

So, all we need to do, is change from solid to liquid, double the volume, and change back from liquid to solid.

Bingo!

The "granite box" tells us how they constructed in such large chunks of stone.

It's concrete.

a reply to: AMPTAH
Thanks!for your reply and in-depth look at how the Egyptians used to work. Your description points to the ability to turn liquid to stone as very probable. All we have is to ask is what liquids would do the trick.

Um... we've known this for quite some time...not new.
a reply to: anonentity

originally posted by: ancientthunder
a reply to: AMPTAH
Thanks!for your reply and in-depth look at how the Egyptians used to work. Your description points to the ability to turn liquid to stone as very probable. All we have is to ask is what liquids would do the trick.

Well there are "two competing hypotheses" of liquid to solid stone transitions used to build ancient megalithic stone structures,

1) the first is the softening of stone using sound energy, vibrations that make the stone essentially "molten" and pliable like putty, which allowed ancient builders to work with the stone easily, and explains all the weird cut and fit shapes used in wall building.

2) the second is the concrete idea, that the solid stone is first crushed and made into a form of cement, and used to make the putty that hardens slowly, like our modern building methods.

Personally, I prefer the "concrete" idea, because I don't quite understand how the "vibrations" would soften the natural stone. But, it may be just lack of knowledge right now that makes the vibrations theory less likely.

But..maybe they used all three methods "cut and fit" , "concrete", and "vibration" softening.

Then, depending on the "bias" of the observer, that investigator simply picks the evidence seen that supports one hypothesis, and rejects any evidence that might support the other two.

I like to keep an open mind.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I'm sure I've read something about the Romans using some kind of conglomerate in their building projects.

Roman concrete is longer lasting than todays equivalent. Heres why...

Brighthubengineering

a reply to: pheonix358

Steal everything that is not nailed down ... especially antiquities Check
Make duplicates Check
Have ISIS to smash the fakes Check.

Now then, no one is looking for the stolen Antiquities because ISIS smashed them

Annnd... alarmist news reports about the urgent need to 'rescue' Iraq and Syria, (i.e bomb them).

Win, win all around for DOD.

We know that the Romans made some super strong concrete. Stronger that much of what we have today, and able to withstand the elements and even the ocean

a reply to: anonentity

Ones things for sure they didn’t cut hard granite stone using the conventional explanation. It would have taken far to long for thing and there’s no way they could achieve right angle cuts either.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: anonentity

Ones things for sure they didn’t cut hard granite stone using the conventional explanation. It would have taken far to long for thing and there’s no way they could achieve right angle cuts either.

They did right angle cuts with saws and drills... just like we do today and they left drawings of themselves using saws.

They did not have poured stone (this kind of material has an entirely different texture. They did use mortars... but it wasn't until the Romans that we get true concrete.

Any time a civilization gets pourable stone-like material (concrete) they then use it for everything. Romans used it to make the Colosseum and to make tenement houses and dams and thousands of other things. Concrete and poured stones are also consistent in texture and don't show layering... unlike natural stone.

The Egyptians used natural stone. It has none of the features of a poured stone.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
We know that the Romans made some super strong concrete. Stronger that much of what we have today, and able to withstand the elements and even the ocean

Because they used materials from one spot basically. And it was perfect for the climates they built in.
Try using Roman concrete in Canada for side walks or for roads in the tropics, it won't last.
The Romans were good engineers, and they only built stuff to last, if it wasn't going to last they didn't build it. Most old Roman structures in the UK don't have the typical concrete in them either. It was different than what they used in the med.

a reply to: anonentity

I actually contemplated posting something about this video a while back--it's something that I've been considering (the geopolymer approach to the building of ancient megalithic sites) for quite a while, and the more that I research it, the more that it seems plausible.

This is something that you might want to watch--it's over an hour long, but it describes the formula for the "concrete" of the blocks of the pyramids (starting with the Step Pyramid), and talks about quarries, "strange things" that don't quite fit the official narrative, explains the difference between how fossil shells in natural versus agglomerated limestone are aligned, discusses microscopic analysis between natural versus agglomerated limestone (a paper about which was published, but I can only access the abstract without paying), talks about recreating the pyramid limestone blocks with various mixtures, and other topics that I don't feel like listing.

If you enjoy a French accent spoken in a boring way about interesting subject matter, then this video is for you!

a reply to: NobodiesNormal

Start at 7:38, then go to 12:50 or 15:30. There may be more parts that discuss it, but the 15:30 mark would be a good one to start with.