How Were Pyramids Constructed

Through time, there have been many theories as to how the pyramids were built.
In the current century, many opinions have surfaced that have changed the questioning of how these magnificent creations were built. During scientific research in the recent decades, evidence has arrived that challenges alternate theories of how the pyramids were constructed. The results include the discovery of new chemical compounds found in the stone of the temples that lead to an entirely different approach of how the pyramids were built. The theory that will be further discussed in this document is perhaps the most loathed among archeologists. It depicts that the pyramids were built by pouring one of the earliest types of cement cast from synthetic material
into wooden molds. It is supported through the knowledge of the technology at the time, the characteristics of the stone and supported speculations and discoveries. This theory is much more logical than thousands of men pushing stone blocks up an angular temple that is several hundred feet high. This notion could dramatically change Egyptian and engineering history.

The first substantial piece of evidence that sparked this theory is when scientists invented a technology that was capable of processing the materials from the ancient pyramids. The results were astonishing. They had found “traces of a rapid chemical reaction which did not allow natural crystallization.” This reaction would be illogical if the large stone blocks had been quarried, but leads to the possibility that they had been cast in a concrete-like form. It is believed that the blocks were formed with crushed limestone and natural binding chemicals. These chemicals were readily available to ancient Egyptians. They would then carry wet sacks of cement up the platforms of the pyramid and pour the wet cement into square wooden molds. This would also explain how it is possible that the stone blocks had been placed so close together. Before this discovery, it had been said that the Romans were the first to use concrete for structural purposes. Had the Egyptians mastered this craft almost 2,000 years before the Romans? They had conquered the chemistry of mummification and making wine and vinegar, so it is possible that they had succeeded this task.

Pyramids have very interesting characteristics.
They are certainly more mysterious than some admit to believe. Like the pyramids, their individual stone blocks have their own characteristics. These details also support the theory that the pyramids were poured and not quarried. The measured density of the stone blocks found in the pyramids is not similar to the stone that is found in quarries. Quarry blocks often contain cracks filled with calcite, however the pyramids blocks do not. It is also common that fossil shells are layered horizontally within quarried stone, but within the pyramid blocks they are scattered throughout. These details are the differentiation between the stone used in the pyramids and the quarried stone that is commonly believed to have been used in the construction of the pyramids.
It is believed that all the stones in the pyramids are identical. In fact, the stones are so identical, there is hardly any distance between them. To this day, there has not been any discovery of ancient tools that were capable of carving the quarried stone so precisely. The nearest logical conclusion is that the pyramids were made out of a flexible material, most likely the cement that was described earlier in this
document.
The Egyptians were also known to keep records of almost all of their daily encounters. How is it possible that the quarried stone being lifted into the pyramid walls are not present among any of the pictorial remnants of this society? This has correlation to the fact that many things may have been lost in translation over the thousands of years since ancient Egypt.

It is possible that there will never be a solid conclusion with undefeatable evidence that depicts exactly how the ancient pyramids were built. There is always room for error within these theories. If the Egyptians were so accurate of recording their technology and events, why is the building of the pyramids still debatable? What has been presented in this document may be the closest to a solid conclusion that may ever arise in this century. It is certainly logical that the pyramids were most definitely built by cement and not by quarried stone. It is senseless to think that several ton blocks were lifted up a horizontal wall with little technology and only the source of man power. No theory has ever been proven, and this only leaves the future another possible accomplishment in history.