Table of Contents
Tina, posting as Curious Being, tests Geoff Drumm’s idea that Egyptian monuments were chemical factories and does not grant it. In her retelling, one mass makes sulfuric acid, another hydrochloric acid, and standing stones store lightning. Khem, she says, meant black soil, not a science of reactions. His map puts a furnace upstairs, a sound catalyst in granite, absorption along the gallery, and dilution below, fed by a lake no trench shows. She answers that those acids eat limestone, the shafts are too small and crooked to feed a fire, and there is no ignition, electrode, gauge, or tank. Real plants use a different catalyst and charge the vessel from above. Neither a buried lake nor a stone battery has the parts the story needs, and a near solid pyramid is wasted on a few rooms. She calls the factory reading a fantasy and leaves its replacement unproved in this video.
Key points
- Drumm’s proposal, as she summarizes it, turns separate Egyptian monuments into specialized acid and gas factories powered by lightning and ground current.
- She says the ancient name Khem means black soil, so it is not evidence of a chemical industry.
- Limestone would be eaten by sulfuric and hydrochloric acid, and the shafts and rooms lack feeds, seals, controls, and storage.
- She argues the sound catalyst step does not match how that acid is actually manufactured.
- A surrounding lake, a link between the two Giza monuments, and a stone battery all lack the parts they would need.
- Her conclusion is that a chemical plant reading is fantasy, while the pyramid shape itself remains unexplained by that model.
Short quotes
The oleum is then added to water in the Queen’s chamber to form the final product: very concentrated sulfuric acid.
Curious Being, Curious Being on pyramid chemical plants
She is restating his last mixing step, not endorsing it. Watch at 4:41
The stone construction of chambers and shafts is porous and not 100% water or air proof like lab apparatus.
Curious Being, Curious Being on pyramid chemical plants
Masonry, she says, is nothing like sealed lab gear. Watch at 7:06
Plainly put, these Egyptian pyramids were not at all fit for industrial scale chemical production and their structures defy such a function.
Curious Being, Curious Being on pyramid chemical plants
This is her blunt rejection of an industrial function. Watch at 21:37
This means Drumm’s assumption that pyramids were energy storing structures is false if not wishful thinking.
Curious Being, Curious Being on pyramid chemical plants
She denies that the stone mass stores power. Watch at 25:49
Video by Curious Being. Watch on YouTube.