What are the Great Pyramids really made of?

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Here's why everything you thought you knew about how we built the Great Pyramids is probably wrong.

Read more...

[Mentalcase]

Cheese?

[cormac mac airt]

The article starts out with a lie, as no slaves constructed the pyramids, and delves into Davidovits theory which is more BS that's already been gone over in this forum. This is one idea that should die AND STAY DEAD.

cormac

[George Ford]

Interesting! Would make more sense if they blocks were poured. If it is the case then we should be able to reproduce the procedure. Unless of course aliens made the mixture...

[Ashotep]

It's hard to believe the pyramids are constructed of cement.  I would have to have further proof.<br>

[Mentalcase]

Well the fact that it's limestone from a quarry and has plenty of fossils in them, should be a good hint that they were carved.

[+OverSword]

The article starts out with a lie, as no slaves constructed the pyramids, and delves into Davidovits theory which is more BS that's already been gone over in this forum. This is one idea that should die AND STAY DEAD.

cormac

I disagree. Some of the lower level blocks were likely quarried but the upper I believe were poured. I don't believe this from some expertise or personal study of the egyptian pyramids, but because 99 percent of the time the simple and obvious explanation is correct.

[Marks_Thoughts]

If the blocks were actually cement then the forms should be found, if not in whole, at least in the graphics all around Egypt. There are writings about all kinds of everyday things, why not the manufacturing of the cement mixture or at least how to lay out the forms?

Essentially, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show us.

[Abramelin]

The name of the site says this, "We come from the future."

I am from the "past" and I say they talk crap.

They are idiots with no life. *I* have no life either, but I do not make up fantasies to get the needed attention.

But what is this internet about? It's about crazy people craving for their 15 minutes of fame.

And then we have the doomsday sayers, they are the worst.

.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Abramelin

[Cassea]

I disagree. Some of the lower level blocks were likely quarried but the upper I believe were poured. I don't believe this from some expertise or personal study of the egyptian pyramids, but because 99 percent of the time the simple and obvious explanation is correct.

This is so true. When I see people twisting themselves into knots I can't help but laugh. Usually the simplest answer is the right one.

[cormac mac airt]

I disagree. Some of the lower level blocks were likely quarried but the upper I believe were poured. I don't believe this from some expertise or personal study of the egyptian pyramids, but because 99 percent of the time the simple and obvious explanation is correct.

1) They cut the blocks, crushed the limestone, mixed the components into a slurry, poured said slurry into molds, allowed the molds to set, THEN transported the blocks to the pyramid site.

2) They cut the blocks, then moved them into place.

I'd say that option 2 is the simplest and quickest. Also, Professor Ioannis Liritzis has already shown that the blocks are carved and therefore consistent with the sedimentary layout of the Mokattam Formation from where they were removed.

cormac

[Cassea]

1) They cut the blocks, crushed the limestone, mixed the components into a slurry, poured said slurry into molds, allowed the molds to set, THEN transported the blocks to the pyramid site.

2) They cut the blocks, then moved them into place.

I'd say that option 2 is the simplest and quickest. Also, Professor Ioannis Liritzis has already shown that the blocks are carved and therefore consistent with the sedimentary layout of the Mokattam Formation from where they were removed.

cormac

Then why are there bubbles in the blocks?

[cormac mac airt]

Then why are there bubbles in the blocks?

You do know that limestone is a porous material, right?

cormac

[Cassea]

You do know that limestone is a porous material, right?

cormac

Yes but you act like dragging the limestone from the quarry was no big deal. If it was no big deal why is it a mystery. Bubbles can also be found in cement. Makes more sense to me.

[cormac mac airt]

Yes but you act like dragging the limestone from the quarry was no big deal. If it was no big deal why is it a mystery. Bubbles can also be found in cement. Makes more sense to me.

I never said it was no big deal, however it was done. But using your own argument it IS the simplest answer. In the least, it would likely take days if not weeks for the core of a 2.5 ton block (poured) to harden sufficiently enough to be moved, without disintegrating. And contrary to Davidovits and other 'cement' claims, the blocks are not consistant in size and shape. And again, the internal structure of the blocks is consistent with the natural sedimentary layout of the formation from which they were taken. Something that would not be the case in a poured product.

cormac

[Big Bad Voodoo]

The name of the site says this, "We come from the future."

I am from the "past" and I say they talk crap.

They are idiots with no life. *I* have no life either, but I do not make up fantasies to get the needed attention.

But what is this internet about? It's about crazy people craving for their 15 minutes of fame.

And then we have the doomsday sayers, they are the worst.

.

That site often have great articles.

[kmt_sesh]

It's not enough to settle on something that seems simplest. One has to examine the evidence of the source culture and what we know of it's technologies and capabilities. There is no evidence from pharaonic Egypt of concrete building methods. Probably the leading proponent of this theme is Davidovitz but cormac is right--the idea cannot be supported with real-world evidence. After all, there's a good reason the concrete argument is not taken seriously.

The Egyptians made ample use of mortar and it is well evidenced, but mortar was not used as a construction medium. Also common was mud brick, made today in much the same way it was thousands of years ago, but mud brick is not the most stable medium for monuments that were meant to stand forever. Look at the pyramids of the later Old Kingdom, whose cores are largely mud brick. They're mostly ruins today.

But at Giza the pyramids are mostly solid masonry through and through. This is why they've stood so well against the ages. And if there's any doubt, just look at the massive quarries at Giza: countless tons of stone blocks were obviously cut for something.

[Sundog]

also if you look at the actual core masonry blocks that make up the great pyramid they are all unique in size and shape and definitely not popped out of a mold, with definite chisel marks on all surfaces (see John Roma's book 'The Great Pyramid', excellent read)

[Abramelin]

That site often have great articles.

That depends on what you think is 'great'.

I was not impressed much by what I read there.

[voiceofreason]

Twoddle. If they were poured into a mould they would all be the same, They are definitely not. The Egyptians quarried blocks. (look at the unfinished obelisk for proof, you can see the hammer marks were it was pounded out of the bed rock). There are unfinished blocks in the quarry near to the pyramids. One question springs to mind. Would the moulded blocks be strong enough, structurally, to hold the massive weight of all the other blocks stacked on top? I think not. Anyone who has actually been to Egypt, and seen these structures, would know that they are cut from the nearby quarry, and dragged into place using sleds, ramps, and lots and lots of manpower.

Edited December 24, 2011 by voiceofreason

[Yellow Jacket]

It was aliens

[AdealJustice]

lol all the illogical theories, especially limestone ones. It is MUD, lol they made the mud bricks on the building sites, that why theres not much space between the bricks....

[voiceofreason]

lol all the illogical theories, especially limestone ones. It is MUD, lol they made the mud bricks on the building sites, that why theres not much space between the bricks....

The Egyptians did build out of mud bricks.They used them for houses, store rooms and sometimes palaces. But temples and tombs were made from quarried stone. A house had to last a lifetime, but a tomb or temple had to last for eternity. The pyramids are made from cut granite, and were finished off with a polished casing of limestone.

[voiceofreason]

The Egyptians did build out of mud bricks.They used them for houses, store rooms and sometimes palaces. But temples and tombs were made from quarried stone. A house had to last a lifetime, but a tomb or temple had to last for eternity. The pyramids are made from cut granite, and were finished off with a polished casing of limestone.

Also, there are lots of gaps between the stones, you appear to be confusing the pyramids with the Puma punka temple in South America.

Please see the picture below for gaps.

http://www.etltravel.com/Extra_Images_6/Khufu_Pyramid_Entrance.jpg

[ShadowSot]

The Egyptians did build out of mud bricks.They used them for houses, store rooms and sometimes palaces. But temples and tombs were made from quarried stone. A house had to last a lifetime, but a tomb or temple had to last for eternity. The pyramids are made from cut granite, and were finished off with a polished casing of limestone.

Er... no. There are some blocks of granite but most of the stonework is limestone. Though the limestone did have a outlayer of more refined limestone as well.