the Giza Building Project

[Catastrophe]

Different continent but there may be methods:

http://www.crewes.org/Reports/2000/2000_45.html

The purpose of this survey was to test whether a hammer seismic technique could propagate energy through the carbonate-rubble and mortar pyramid (30 m x 30 m at the base), and if this energy could be used to make images of the interior of the structure.

[Catastrophe]

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline04/0404feat.html

Here is another:

Less care was taken with the interior blocks; gaps in the masonry there were filled with chips, rubble, small stones, or mortar.

[Catastrophe]

Here is another point:

http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/Pyramids/pyramid_symbolism.htm

The Great Pyramid is at the northern edge of the Giza plateau and close to the cliff there. Much of the rubble and debris from construction was dumped over the cliff

Does this not suggest that the blocks were quarried or the rubble would have been used in making concrete?

[Catastrophe]

http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/0egyptintro/3egypt/index.htm

The inner core was crudely hewn and gaps in-between stone blocks were filled with rubble and mortar.

See under Userkaf.

Today only the inner construction remains partly visible in a pile of rubble originating from the crude filling of debris and mortar behind the casing stones taken away a thousand years ago.

See under Sahure

These are from googling:

pyramid interior rubble mortar

Interestingly a similar method was also employed in Central America.

[Catastrophe]

Re: moving blocks, there is a bas-relief of a 50 ton statue on a wooden sledge pulled by 172 men.

http://www.catchpenny.org/images/move1.gif

[Catastrophe]

This was probably 'my' original link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza

The core was made mainly of rough blocks of low quality limestone taken from a quarry at the south of Khufu’s Great Pyramid.

[Qoais]

A construction management study (testing) carried out by the firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall in association with Mark Lehner and other Egyptologists, estimates that the total project required an average workforce of 14,567 people and a peak workforce of 40,000. Without the use of pulleys, wheels, or iron tools, they surmise the Great Pyramid was completed from start to finish in approximately 10 years.[5] Their critical path analysis study reveals estimates that the number of blocks used in construction was between 2-2.8 million (an average of 2.4 million), but settles on a reduced finished total of 2 million after subtracting the estimated area of the hollow spaces of the chambers and galleries.[

[/b][/u]

These people themselves are stating that the interior is solid rock - less the amount for the chambers. 
I don't know where the "rubble" would be when building the pyramid.  The walls are solid blocks.  How could there be rubble in the walls? I can see that being the case in S. America where the tree roots managed to break up the rocks. 

Cat - I know they've made theories about this and that, but they've never demonstrated until now, HOW it was done.  Try an experiment.  Take a bunch of litle blocks, and place them on a flat surface.  Now try placing those blocks in steps like the pyramids.  You can't do it.  The first row will sit there, but the next row puts the weight over centre and will fall down inside.  There's no way to hold the blocks up while you build the next row.  Each layer has to be solid rock for the next layer to stand on.  As indicated by modern science accounting for the amount of blocks that were used as in the above paragraph.  They would not use this calculation if the they thought the pyramid was hollow.

As far as it being Imhotep that designed the thing, that's what the stele says, but we know that people in those days bragged about things they didn't do, and even Pharaoh's changed the previous rulers' steles and put their own names in.  They even in some cases, took over a burial place and took the goods for themselves that were put there for the other's afterlife.  The ruling classes were supposedly taught about spiritual things, and likely knew darn well they wouldn't need those things after they died. 

Imhotep - saying he discovered how to make the blocks, - doesn't tell us how he knew to engineer the thing, even to the point of taking the stress off the roof of the King's chamber.  Maybe that came in a dream as well.

[Catastrophe]

If you are going to deny facts, this discussion is ended.

[Qoais]

That's the whole point of a discussion - to discuss - what you're quoting is just a point of view of certain people.  I quote your own sources back at you and you don't like it.  Are you afraid you might be wrong?  Dr. Davidovits has DEMONSTRATED his theory ~ no one else has.  He has also proven the content of the stones as being MIXED from a SCIENTIFIC point, not pure rock from a quarry.  Why are you so desperate to hold on to an outdated train of thought?  Do you still use a horse and buggy as well?

[Catastrophe]

Slurry

A semi-liquid mixture of fine particles and water; thin mud.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the AEs reduced six million tons of stone to fine particles and then slurried this with water. Typical water content of slurries is 50% (for a dispersion, can be much higher) which means another 6 million tons of water to be transported.

If so, with what did they achieve this pulverization? Copper chisels?

You clearly do not like the [f]fact[/b] (not opinion) that a large proportion of the interiors could be large irregular stones and rubble (sometimes with mortar) because it reduces the work needed to trim the blocks. Tightly packed this would take the weight. In fact, the weight would help compaction. Mortar would be even better.

Is your lack of confidence now going to cause further insult because your realize that the concrete theory must be wrong? Can we now please 'discuss' this seriously on a factual basis?

I stick by the conventional explanation with the proviso that iron may have been available but long since rusted away.

Re: Particle size, this instrument:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:GcJOX4WGdE8J:www.outokumputechnology.com/14500.epibrw+slurry+particle+size&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=uk

will measure slurry particle sizes of 1-500 micrometers (millionths of a metre) and another reference quotes slurry particle sizes of 30-1100 nanometres (one thousand millionths of a metre). This also mentions water contents of 90percent, not 50percent, by the way. That would be 56 million tons of water required.

[Catastrophe]

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:EMUyr_E8fOkJ:www.lab.hii.horiba.com/Documents/PR_Horiba_LA-950%2520Slurry%2520Sampler.pdf+slurry+particle+size+range&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=uk

The Partica LA-950 Laser Diffraction Particle Size Analyzer has the widest measurement range (0.01-3000µm)

Clearly a slurry particle size analyzer should measure the sizes of particles found in slurries: in this case 0.1 to 300 micrometres. 300micrometres is 300 x 1000 x 10^-6 = 0.3 millimetre. Reducing 6 million tons of stone to that size is going to take some time and effort!

[Qoais]

Don't tell me ! Let me guess.  You didn't watch Dr. Davidovits' video did you?

[Qoais]

Anyone that believes manpower alone could have moved these monstrous blocks of stone using ropes and manpower is living in a fantasy world.

In fact, Lehner set up an experiment to see if it was possible to quarry, move and lift an obelisk weighing one-tenth of what the largest Egyptian obelisks weighed. It was filmed by NOVA and was an utter failure.

The team's master stonemason could not quarry the 35-ton obelisk so a bulldozer was called in. They could not move it, a truck was called in. These failures represent a turning a point in the long-standing debate.

Lehner actually confirmed what a Japanese team funded by Nissan had already learned in 1979, it is not possible to duplicate what the ancients did using primitive tools and methods.

Team Nissan was trying to prove something and they were very confident. But when they could not begin to excavate the blocks of stone they planned on using for their small scale-model of the Great Pyramid with ancient tools they turned to jackhammers.

When they tried to ferry the blocks they quarried across the river on a primitive barge, the stones sank. When a boat got them across the river they discovered that the sledges sank in the sand. They called trucks in to move the blocks to the site.


Once at the site they could not manipulate the blocks into place and found, to their ultimate embarrassment, that they could not bring the four walls together into an apex despite the deployment of helicopters.

This debate has matured and moved along. It is time for those that believe they have the solution and can prove that the ancients used primitive tools and methods to step up to the plate. We need to dispose of this obsolete thinking and move on to more realistic solutions!


By Will Hart

[Tom Hebert]

Who is Will Hart?  I don't like his reasoning.  He assumes that just because we don't know how the Great Pyramid was built, we have to accept the poured concrete theory.  Baloney!  It just doesn't add up!

[Qoais]

There
ARE
other passages and rooms in the
Great Pyramid of Giza!

And ~ here's where they put that seated statue!!