there is a huge problem in our understanding of how ancient and near ancient buildings were constructed
63 2017-08-02 by CaptainApollyon
Academia swears up and down that this isn't the case. While lying through their teeth to our faces that these are solid granite
apparently this in the link above was built in 19th century and we see hollow columns with what it seems to be some covering of plaster peeling off it. is this the granite?
one way or another they either had a way to hollow out whole huge pieces of granit to just inches thick with no slaves.
or some other technique was employed.
it really just goes on like that forever the examples are... infinite
theres one guy talking about this construction stuff and he goes by wise up and he's not nice or polite but he's smart.
44 comments
5 ermanito 2017-08-02
The columns being hollow is such a closely guarded secret that even a travel agency website knows about it.
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
Didn't say it was a secret did i? I absolutely didn't mean to imply it was a secret i mean theres a goddamn youtube video i linked to. i'm saying the way these methods have been traditional represented to the public has been muddied to say the least.
also the quote you linked is referring to the columns holding up the dome not the ones in the video.
0 ermanito 2017-08-02
Here's what you claim:
Baseless claim, nobody is claiming that.
And what about that picture of a ruined church that clearly isn't St Isaac?
Why post that?
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
see my other comment to you they are absolutely claiming this
1 ermanito 2017-08-02
They are not. Provide a quote or admit that you are lying.
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
http://petersburg4u.com/st-isaacs-cathedral
1 ermanito 2017-08-02
Do you understand the meaning of "quote" or should I explain it to you?
Conclusion: you cannot provide a quote for your claim. You are just making things up. Why do you do that?
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
Alexander I ordered to reconstruct the cathedral in 1812, and all of a sudden approved a project of a young French architect, Auguste Montferrand. The construction took 40 years (1818-1858) with about 500 000 people involved into it. The basement only took 5 years of hard work. Building the cathedral the engineers used the latest technologies with some of those used for the first time. A new method of cutting was used to make 45-meter columns of solid granite; a barge was built to deliver them from Finland, with the first railway to connect the docks with the construction site. After grinding and polishing the columns (100 tons each) were put vertical with devices designed by Betancourt, an engineer, using the reels rotated by 128 people. There were 128 columns of different size made as total. 24 granite columns (60 tons each) were raised using an inclined planking 43 meters above the ground. The dome made out of 3 parts was lined with gilded copper plates, each of those gilded thrice, which took 7 years.
what it doesn't say is that a brick skeleton was built and a few tons of thin granite was carefully slipped over the top...
some one is lying n it ain't me
1 ermanito 2017-08-02
They were made from solid granite. That does not mean they were solid after completion. English, do you speak it?
But thanks for quoting the method of erection. There you have it so why do you ask?
And what about the brick? Why do you think that bricks are involved?
You are delusional. That much is clear now.
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
the first image in my op shows brick columns used as a skeletal structure eyes motherfucker do you have them?
3 CitationDependent 2017-08-02
We know that the Romans used pozzolan cement which is waterproof and stronger than modern day cement. A lot of modern day concrete's thickness is associated with reducing the rusting of the supporting rebar. Basaltic rebar with normal concrete can be made quite thin and still maintain integrity.
If anything, this should be a rather obvious conspiracy. We have the masons, houses that turn to shit and drive the economy, while keeping people living pay check to pay check and then examples of roman concrete that has only gotten stronger after 2000 years under salt water.
2 humanefly 2017-08-02
My understanding wasn't that the Roman cement was waterproof, but that recent research indicated that when it was exposed to water, there were elements in the cement that attracted minerals from the water, so the minerals would fill in the cracks, repairing it and making it stronger.
1 CitationDependent 2017-08-02
Then you should question your understanding of what waterproof means and not make the entirety of your judgment on a single abstract paper.
1 humanefly 2017-08-02
waterproof: watertight, water-repellent, water-resistant, weathertight, rainproof, impermeable, impervious
Roman cement is clearly none of these things.
1 lol-community 2017-08-02
Close. It's thick so that as the rebar rusts and corrode out the concrete, it doesn't ruin it right away. If the concrete were thinner, which it could easily be and still support cars, the rebar being placed inside would corrode much faster and ruin the concrete., meaning roads would have to be torn up and repaired far more then they are now, at least anywhere using salt in the winter.
2 Putin_loves_cats 2017-08-02
The dome, what else does this remind you of? Maybe... Hollow Earth? Why is the dome so important in Ancient/modern building, with a hole in the top?
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
http://i.imgur.com/df3YWjx.gif
2 ermanito 2017-08-02
St Isaac's cathedral isn't "ancient". It was built in the 19th century.
"Found to be hollow"? That's how they were built. That was never a secret.
ctrl+f "solid". O hits. What are you referring to?
Souce that this is St Isaac's cathedral? Because that totally doesn't look like it at all. St Isaacs cathedral stands in the middle of a busy square in St Petersburg with high buildings surrounding it and not on a field with some shacks around it.
Besides, it's like 10 time bigger than this ruin.
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
ancient means anything we know very little about. Inca empire are ancient in-spite of them being only 600 years from us. So if thats the definition of ancient what do you think i mean by near ancient?
Building the cathedral the engineers used the latest technologies with some of those used for the first time. A new method of cutting was used to make 45-meter columns of solid granite
lies
when did i imply that the image i posted was st isaacs? I implied it was a building built by the same builders that they say built st isaacs. we can use ruined buildings to get an inside look at how st isaacs was actually constructed.
https://media.tenor.co/images/4848e4d38fd7e86931950f5c88bf0b62/raw
2 ermanito 2017-08-02
How do you know it was built by the same builders?
Who exactly is claiming that those columns are solid granite?
Why do you doubt that people in the 19th century were able to hollow out granite?
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
because they were built in the same years by the same empire...
the link i just fucking showed you calls them solid i know you can find others claiming some are hollow but why would some be hollow and others not when in the image i showed of the ruined cathedral all of the columns are hollow. they cant keep their story straight this should be a huge red flag.
if it was just few hundred years ago surely you can show me something detailing how it was done an etching or photograph or some text anything please i've been looking.
1 ermanito 2017-08-02
I need a source for that.
No it doesn't. Do you have problems whith reading english? The article nowhere calls them solid. Please provide a quote where they are called solid.
Here are some inventions from the 18th century.
http://theinventors.org/library/inventors/bl1700s.htm
Why on earth do you find it unbelievable that in the 19th century, people would have been unable to hollow out a piece of granite? What exactly makes it so unbelievable? They had steam engines at that time.
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
show me a device from 1800 that can do this in fact show me a device from that time that can lift and move 364 ford taurus's
just reverse google image search the thing i'm not trying to dupe you
1 ermanito 2017-08-02
Here: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51IEHtQkp6L._SX355_.
They probably also used drills: http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e888330148c6c061e2970c-800wi
And here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Isaac%27s_Cathedral#/media/File%3ASt_Isaac_Wooden_Framework.jpg
The last is a model of the framework used to erect the columns. It's on display inside the cathedral.
1 HelperBot_ 2017-08-02
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Isaac%27s_Cathedral#/media/File%3ASt_Isaac_Wooden_Framework.jpg
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 97213
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
cool model bro
1 ermanito 2017-08-02
Are actually going to make a point or can we end this discussion with the conclusion that all your claims are baseless?
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
i actually think i love you
1 ermanito 2017-08-02
Again, who calls the columns solid? Quote please.
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
revers google image search please
i showed you did you not read
Building the cathedral the engineers used the latest technologies with some of those used for the first time. A new method of cutting was used to make 45-meter columns of solid granite
http://petersburg4u.com/st-isaacs-cathedral
they go on to say they are a hundred tons each does that make any sense if they are hollow?
1 ermanito 2017-08-02
Reverse image search brings no results. So, last time I will ask this: what is this church?
Provide evidence for your claim or admit that you are lying.
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yepifan
what reason would i have for lying??
1 ermanito 2017-08-02
St Isaac was built under Alexander I who died in 1825.
That other church was built after his death. Contradicts your claim.
You probably like the attention or you are just delusional.
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
they Completed st isaacs in1858 wtf are you talking about?
1 downisupp 2017-08-02
keep up the great work you are doing!
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
will do
2 downisupp 2017-08-02
fellow smoker ha? what's your thoughts on the Piri Reis map?
1 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
honestly i would need to read a translation of what is written on the map. something that should be crowdsourced, would be an interesting project.
1 downisupp 2017-08-02
i found some translations on the internet, but i agree whit you. a crowed sourced translation would be much better
here are some things that really have stuck to my mind.
lets start whit identifying some landmarks so we can orientate better.
Green1 is the Azores Green2 is the Canaries Green3 is the Cape Verde
whit that in mind another thing that really made my brain work over time is the lines inside the blue lines. And i think they are part of the Atlantic rift that would have been above the sea level at the end of last ice age and probably a couple of thousands years after that
so before going to my final point, the land area seen on the map in the south ain't the Antarctica shore line. and if you look at google maps you will see there are a sunken peninsula that the Falkland islands are "connected" to the south america.
so whit all that said, what are the stuff in the red circles ? could it be Atlantis? and if so there where probably more then one "Atlantis" ( who in it self was probably a trading center )
1 polkadotgirl 2017-08-02
Nice work!
2 CaptainApollyon 2017-08-02
thanks teach
2 polkadotgirl 2017-08-02
Lol I agree with that!
1 usernamenn 2017-08-02
I've watched this Wise UP channel before. He makes a lot of good points and shows some compelling pictures from egypt that suggest a lot of so-called solid rock construction is actually hollow, wood-framed, plaster exterior.
2 polkadotgirl 2017-08-02
Lol I agree with that!
1 ermanito 2017-08-02
St Isaac was built under Alexander I who died in 1825.
That other church was built after his death. Contradicts your claim.
You probably like the attention or you are just delusional.