Pierre Crozat PhD



First part :

  1. C.V. Architect-Urbanist EPFL
  2. 1996 - Pyramids Constructive System
  3.  Pyramid increase: simulation
  4. 1997 - General presentation :
    1. Resume
    2. Introduction
    3. Scientifical, Technical and Operative Research
    4. The process of Pyramidal Growth
    5. Hérodotus was right
    6. Origin of matérials
    7. Technical continuum
    8. Conclusion

Second part:

  1. PhD Thesis in Civil Engineering
  2. 2002 - Publication of "Le Génie des Pyramides"
  3. 2002 - From geology to construction
  4. 2002 - Pyramids and Mathematics

Third part:

  1. Engineering of pyramids
  2.  Construction model
  3. Construction phases infographics
  4. 2005 - World Year of Physics
  5.  2006 - Fun and educational learning
  6. Journal of the Palais de la «Découverte»
  7. Paleo-topo-stratigraphic simulation of the Giza plateau

Fourth part:

  1. Geological hypothesis
  2. Open letter to Hany HELAL
  3. Circular letter to my peers
  4. Successive panels of exhibition
  5. Pedagogical experiences
  6. Curriculum Vitae Researcher

Part five:

  1. Communique - 2021
  2. Of the logistics algorithmic ?
  3. Cheops: computer graphic construction


  1. 2006-2008 - Paris, duo de ses pyramides
  2. 2010 - Of Engineering Works & Men
  3. 2013 - Marseille, pyramid of knowledge

Go to the second site of
Pierre CROZAT Architect - Urbanist

For any questions, contact the administrator Patrick FAIVRE (pf at faivre.ml)


Conference given on September 26, 2017 in the auditorium of CULNAT (The Center for Documentation of Cultural and Natural Heritage) in CAIRO (Egypt)

Poster - Invitation to attend the conference of Pierre CROZAT, presentation of his «Geological hypothesis» and its verification, that the building materials of the 3 great pyramids of Giza were borrowed on the Plateau at the very periphery of the works, by successive phases of volume increase; the verification being provided by the simulation of the paleo-topo-stratigraphy of the Plateau: each of the 3 pyramids being located in the middle of its own quarry.


These first observations were made in 1990 during an «organized» tourist trip to Egypt, during the 2 hours allotted to visit the 3 pyramids of Giza and the Construction Professional who I am to wonder: «if I had to make a pyramid... how would I do? » The challenge was launched, I had to answer it and here is my scientific, technical and operative research to the question.​

The 3 great pyramids of the Plateau de Gizeh are located on the high side of the anticlinal fold, they are not aligned by their summits but by their SE angles.

This partial view of the SE side of the Plateau is very difficult to understand, partly covered with tombs. Nevertheless one recognizes the pyramid of Kephren with the smooth coating of its summit, on the left on its platform its Temple High, its Rising Alley from its Temple Bas as well as the Sphinx below;the Pyramid of Cheops – the largest - the tip of which has been dismantled; between these two pyramids, at the top, the big Mastaba G 2000; and down the pyramid (2-level mastaba) of Queen Khent-Kawés.​

The pyramid of Khephren: one will notice at the top the final cladding (in limestone end of the quarries of Toura, on the right bank of the Nile), in the middle the regular terraces eroded and down the scree due to this erosion.​

Detail views of the pyramid of Cheops: photo on the left, its angle SE which seems «hollow», no doubt due to a spoliation; photo of the middle, its NO angle where we will notice the crack of the rocky ground (the pyramids rest on the rock and not in the sand); photo on the right, the first 2 seats are not paired (built) but cut on the spot and belong to the Plateau’s source rock itself, the proof is (to the right of the photo) the crack that goes up and goes a little bit into the third seat. Following this level to the left, one will notice a typical joint "from horizontal device to stall" which we will explain later.​

Geographical and historical situation of the Pyramids of Egypt (of which I knew nothing, it must be admitted), borrowed from Jean-Philippe LAUER French architect-archaeologist (1902- 2001) «The Mystery of the Pyramids», author of the Frontal Ramp Theory:

  1. to the left, in the box, the degree pyramids of the III° dynasty and the 5 Great Pyramids of the IV° dynasty, located on the western bank of the Nile; the pyramid plateau extends for 60 km,​
  2. on the right, and on the same scale to compare their respective sizes, at the top the Pyramids with degrees, in the dotted box the 5 Great Pyramids and at the bottom the small pyramids with text (text of the dead).​

Illustration of the various «rampiste» theories (related works that will then have to be demolished!). The most simplistic is J-Ph. LAUER’s “frontal” ramp theory. Put back in its topographical context, it requires the creation of a horizontal platform (on a slope: where to put the spoils?) then the realization of a ramp in earth or stone that must cross, and the height of the pyramid (147 m), and the difference in height between the alluvial plain and the platform (41 m) for a total of 188 m. This 10% slope ramp will measure 1,880 m and 5% 3,760 m in length and will, depending on the angle of the slope, make up to 7 times the volume of the pyramid itself! It will then have to be demolished... which doubles the work! This «theory», like the other «rampist» theories, cannot be admitted by a somewhat experienced Constructor.​​

This diagram provided by the French Engineer-Architect Polytechnicien (X), historian of Architecture, expresses the same intuition as myself, namely a volume magnification "in onion peels" (which he did not develop further).​

Some diagrams of the primary principle of Civil Engineering, such as Tumular Works of Architecture «vernacular», to recall:​
top: that the excavation corresponds to the fill; digging a trench is a shovel slope; the moat is the borrow area of the fortification wall materials, ​
in the centre: that a pyramid will borrow its constituent materials around the perimeter (hence the choice of its location), ​
Below: the «sand castle theorem»: a 3-year-old child sitting on the beach, with his 2 hands picks up sand to make his pile. He alone will find a way to make it grow (or increase): “the increase in volume” illustrated by the following photograph.

This English version seemed to me to be inaccurate compared to the French version: it can be confusing with “step-pyramids”; rather than “step (degrees)” use “benches”, “It was first constructed in this form, then ...” suggests that this form can be constructed in another way than by the process dictated by the use of the “machine” which Herodotus will describe to us then the mode procedure. Many readers have understood that the pyramid was built by starting from the top or that the coating but landed from the top, but this is the finish of the coating (which will be “cut” from the top).​​

This French version of Herodotus' text (Translation by Andrée BARGUET - FOLIO classique - France - 1985 - ISBN: 978-2-07-037651-3), by the precision of the terms: “bleachers” when other translations say “degrees”, which is confused with the “degrees” of the Pyramids at degrees (degrees of 10 m in height). This confusion has been made by many pyramidologists after - such as the theory of E. Guerrier - who think that one built the work first in pyramid with degrees and that one then filled these degrees to make it “smooth”. ​
The precision of A. Barguet “sometimes-sometimes” rather than “or -or” or “what some call -and others” or as this English version “sometimes / sometimes” is also more subtle which suggests that the same block changes its name in the course of its implementation: krossaï when he climbs the stairs (that these 2 terms generate) and bomides when he arrives at the top he is “seated” horizontally then serving as support for the next krossaï.​ ​

To clarify these two terms (apax) of the construction field, two identical blocks exactly superimposed do not say anything. If one shifts the top one, it forms in front of the "entablature" as a support (bomides) and behind the "corbelling" (crossai).​

All the blocks that climb the stairs (thus forming this staircase) are called “crossaî” by Hérodote, and once they are placed in their place they are then called “bomides” to support the following “crossaï”.​

The Series of Numbers-Are-Figures of PYTHAGORAS called «Sacred Numbers» concern us. In the text box: ​

  1. below: first set of constitution of the series of positive integers: 1; 1+1=2; 2+1=3; 3+1=4; etc.
  2. in the middle: series of Triangular Numbers or Summation of Numbers of the first series: 1; 1+2=3; 3+3=6; 6+4=10; 10+5=15; etc. either N=n (n+1)/2
  3. top: Square Number Series or Odd Number Summation: 1; 1+3= 4 (2²); 4+5=9 (3²); 9+7=16 (4²); etc.

One will notice that Pythagoras separates in all these series, by a line, what he adds (for the sake of pedagogy).
For the Architect that I am, the Triangular Numbers count and form each of the faces when the series of Square Numbers represents the increment of the base, of the «pyramidal increment».​
Finally, of these 2 faces which total 36 points, we must remember the second one (of Pythagoras) because we will be able to build it according to the «system».

The sketch at the top: on the left, represents blocks (numbered) in a horizontal quarry, on the right indicates by its numbering the order of stacking (same as the triangular Numbers). ​ ​
Bottom sketch shows 10 quarry blocks and “lateral” method of stacking (do not forget to shift the “crossaï” in depth by a third, which gives the angle of the pyramid faces) and leaves a support for the Herodotus wood "machine" whose machine movement will have to respond to this maneuver, a lever on a tripod should suffice.​

How to start “pyramid building”:​

  1. 4 blocks and a 5° placed on top constitute a central pyramid, ​
  2. construction of the 1° cone-shell, the 4 faces being mounted simultaneously, then 2°, etc. It is always the same machine movement, constantly repeated, that “produces and trains”, which constitutes the engineering of the (great) Pyramids.​

The “manual” modelling of the PYRAMID BUILDING SYSTEM dates back to 1996, here through the stacking of sugar chunks (Beghin Say #4). It makes it possible to increase the pyramid on itself by successive cones-envelopes embossed on each other; to reserve a room and, in anticipation on any of the faces, to realize an access ramp. Room and ramp will close by corbelling and will be enclosed in the pyramid by the continuation of construction on the 4 sides.​

The anticipation, coloured by (partial) cones-envelopes on the north face, was established infographically by the writing of a short program in Pascal by B. Hostaléry in 1997.​

In this image, were created infographically: a lower room and its horizontal corridor, a corridor or an ascending gallery, an upper room.

The machine proposed by Jean-Pierre ADAM, an architect trained in the history of architecture in «L'archéologie devant l'imposture» (Ed. Robert Laffont, 1975), seems much too voluminous and sophisticated to lift a 2.5 t block and especially tedious to serve for the loading of the counter-weight caisson that will have to be loaded and unloaded with each movement. While the weight of a few “big” equipment crews is much simpler, more useful and more mobile. Since that time, this author has returned and from "machinist" became "rampist"; why then?​

Infographic animation of the pyramid augmentation method, by Fabien PASIELSKY, then student. ​
Click in the window to start the animation.​

Middle section NS of the pyramid of Cheops, on its interior devices (from bottom to top: the unfinished underground chamber, and its descending corridor, the ascending corridor, the horizontal corridor and the Queen’s chamber, the the Great Gallery, the antechamber of the harrows and the room of the King, surmounted by the 5 raised chambers and the discharge arch (devices known on this date) showing (in red) the beam of inclined planes (ramps) built in anticipation on the North face, used to transport the granite monoliths of the "raised" (falsely called "discharge arcs") and the actual discharge arc.​
The angle of the ascending corridor, the the Great Gallery –GG– and the ramps of the inclined beam is given by the stacking of the blocks (2 heights for 5 entablature values).​
Note that the ramp, allowing the setting of the discharge arch at the top of the risers, corresponds exactly to the North foot of the pyramid. The blue coloured surface should (what remains to be demonstrated) correspond to the portion of “bedrock” of the uneconomic shelf, the sides of this isoscele triangle being the exploitation lines of the subhorizontal quarries at the very periphery of each cone-envelope of the pyramidal increment; which presupposes that the Queen’s Chamber would be placed on the original Plateau (pre-existing).

Then comes to mind that the GG – according to the diagram above – consisting of a central slide and 2 lateral benches fitted with regularly arranged mortars forming a corridor with rack, would have a “utilitarian” role and would constitute an “extraordinary oblique elevator” with as counterweight future buffer blocks that will then block the upward corridor (buffer blocks that the Caliph Al Mammoun circumvented and partially destroyed). Lift that will allow to put in place (in rappel) all the monoliths of granite (raised in bending) and limestone (arch of discharge in compression). The antechamber of the harrows (easily circumvented) has no role of closing but of rearmament (reassembling the counterweight blocks) of the elevator, these 3 harrows being hung under three wooden rollers (to be manoeuvred frequently) and their cumulative weight equivalent to a counterweight block. (P. Crozat – 1997)​

This drawing (camera lucida) by F. W. LANE of the angle NE of Cheops (we recognize the hole at the top on the angle) seems to want to show the last 2 cones envelopes degraded, the corner stone being easy to make to drop.​

The angle of this aerial photograph shows the 3 floors of erosion of the Khephren pyramid: (a) the cladding still in place at the top, (b) the regular seats below, and (c) the eroded cone-shell scree: there are 5 of which the last (the highest) shows us its thickness; a photograph that attests to the use of the proposed “pyramid augmentation” method (P. CROZAT – 1997) ​

Confrontation between a photo (in front view) of the NE angle of Cheops in front of the model (in pieces of sugar) of manual modelling; notice the identity of the provisions.​

Partial view (South face) of the current Cheops summit platform where one will notice the cuts of the blocks (coming support - bomides) to receive the future blocks (crossaï), this is proof of the use of the "horizontal drop-off equipment" observed by A. CHOISY in his "History of Architecture".​

On the left, on a cone-envelope, 2 «bomides» with the highest notch in order to realize (quickly, the stone is soft) a horizontal seat for the «crossaï» that will be placed on it.​
On the right, from one cone-envelope on the other one cuts the same and/or fills it.​

This is the crossai block of the next cone-envelope which, sitting down — sitting down — will become “bomides,” meaning support in turn.

In the yellow circle in the foreground, one will notice a remnant of quarry that goes all around the pyramid of Mykerinos under the erosion debris. In the second circle, one will notice the grid of the hauling paths of the blocks extracted above the horizontal platform of the Kephren pyramid. ​

Detailed photograph of the trench grid, reliquat of Mykérinos quarry, still under erosion debris (already spotted by Maragioglio & Rinaldi Architects in 1965)​

Aerial view of the pyramid of Cheops (angle NO) and its platform. One will notice the sub-diagonal fissures (diaclases) of fracturing of the Giza Plateau mother rock as well as the extraction stigmata (which seem to correspond well to the size of the stacked blocks), as well as the dotted holes aligned parallel to the side (called «removal boxes» by the carriers, old extraction technique).​
These block extraction stigmata actually indicate the dip of the Plateau bedrock (which will be inverted to the ceiling of the unfinished Underground Chamber).

One of the first expressions of the action of men in the erection of a central TUMULUS by peripheral exploitation of the surrounding ground stones (at the very periphery), on a circular plan, dating from 3 200 BC. (published by NGS, August 2014). This example is the very expression of the manual "vernacular" method used from close to close. It would even seem that we could continue its construction and constitute a second phase or cone-envelope...). This archaic method deserves to be tried again today – organization-method- for a pedagogical purpose.​

Near Pornic, in Loire-Atlantique (France), the Dolmen de la Joselière (2 bedrooms), stripped in part of its tumulus (galgal), on a square base, lets us see 2 envelopes. It was originally supposed to be a small pyramid at 2 degrees (kind of prototype 1,000 years before those of Egypt); «small», we would have to go back to see more closely...​

In China, in the lands of Lœus du Shaanxi, in Xi'an, the plot and the topography prove, here again, that the "generator" principle of the Tumular Works is indeed "borrow from the very periphery to proliferate in the center" in successive phases of volume increase. ​

In order to form the horizontal platform of the Threshing Area, on this sloping ground, by splicing the surrounding cultivated land (to kill two birds with one stone), it is sufficient to build a series of semi-wallsconcentric up to human height. The solution to further widen this surface is to use the next wall as scaffolding to exhale the previous one, and so on. The empirical and vernacular “degree-by-degree” (anthropometric) manual construction method is demonstrated here and now. It will induce, by technical evolution of the scaffolds, the method of construction of the pyramids to degrees of Egypt that should be called «pyramids by degrees» to make it clear to the children that “constructive method induces form”.​

These 3 comparative diagrams of the same form imply 3 different ways of doing things, the first 2 of which are false because they require, for Lauer an adjacent frontal ramp, and for Choisy and Guerrier a «rappel» ascending system (according to Guerrier’s sketches), while the Crozat method uses – like the wall of the Cipierre Threshing Floor – from the beginning of the following envelope to display the previous one, no longer an anthropometric limit but the height of wooden scaffolding (10 m, the height of the fortification walls of Egyptian cities under the III° dynasty).

Animation of the construction of the «Pyramid by degrees» by the method «accretion-exhaussement» (P. Crozat – 2002), that is to say: increase in width to rise in height = the method creates the form! ​
Click in the window to start the animation.​

Thanks to these 4 geologists for their valuable help! (they are mentioned in the development of this document below.)​

Geological map of Cairo and the surrounding area: the Giza plateau is bordered by 2 faults (indicated by the 2 arrows in red) which indicate an anticlinal fold with the axis oriented North 45° (in red). On the right-hand plane, it should be noted that the 3 large pyramids of Giza are located parallel to this axis (aligned by their SE angles) on a specific deposit and that all three are oriented diagonally in relation to this axis.​

The theory developed by M. RULAND «Recherches sur la fracturation naturelle des roches associés à divers modèles structuraux 1969-1972» Institut de géologie de l'Université Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg (France) – Research Team Associated with C.N.R.S. “Structural geology and tectonic analysis”. The image presented here has been inverted to serve as a support for the following image on the Giza Plateau.​​

Image showing:

  1. the implantation of the 3 pyramids of the Plateau de Gizeh aligned (by their angles SE) parallel to the Axis of the fold (in North 45°) according to the Longitudinal Diaclases - ΔL ​
  2. the orientation of each of them on the network of the Diagonal Diaclases right and left (Δdd and Δdg), diagonal in relation to the Axis in N 45°, that is to say on the 4 cardinal points, due to the exclusive and rational fact of the GEOLOGY.
  3. ​​

A clear example of the existence of natural fracturing networks of rocks, providing naturally squared blocks, fallen from this limestone cliff.​

Natural fracturing checkerboard in Algeria on a steep slope.

Different natural diagonal fracturing «regimes»: the Plateau de Gizeh is of type 2 whose frequency is proportional to the thickness of the strata.

Stratigraphy of the Plateau de Gizeh established by Jean CUVILLIER, Thèse d'Etat, Laboratoire de Géologie appliquée, Université P & M. Curie, Paris VI - Prof. de Géologie au Caire (en 1930) “Contribution à l'étude géologique du Mokattam (1923-24)” and “Révision du Nummulitique égyptien (1930)”.​
Note the relevant (underlined) observations of this author: a) Sphinx head and b) Sphinx front legs

NUMMULITES (of the same form as coins) large and small.​

Study of tectonic deformations and erosion of the Giza Plateau to reach the current state (right).

Giza Plateau Structure: Fold Axis and Longitudinal Diaclase (in N 45°); Transverse Diaclases (in N 135°). Note the 2 high and low Cuesta (sub-longitudinal) and the EW-oriented Sphinx, according to the network of Diagonal Diaclases.

Diagram of the different levels of the plate platforms (quarry tiles) of the 3 pyramids of Giza: Cheops (+ 60 m); Khephren (+ 70 m); Mykérinos (+ 75 m). Where is the Queen’s Chamber located?

​​The Sphinx: its head belongs to the layer (a) of the Auversien 6 m, the neck and the upper body to the layer (g) building stone 10-12 m of the Lutétien. The front legs and the lower part of the body belong to the layer (f) limestone to Nummulites Gizehensis & Curvispira 4 m, the back legs and the tail to the layer (e) limestone to Nummulites Gizehensis in extreme abundance 5 m.

View of the Sphinx Croup (prior to reconstruction) where the base rock of the layer (g) building stone is well identifiable (eroded as it is soft); note the natural fracturing network of the rocks – diagonal network right and left - the different strata and the size of the unit blocks. The analysis of these networks on the Sphinx had never been done, it explains in a rational way why the Sphinx is oriented EO, not by the course of the sun but by the GEOLOGY.

Front photograph of the Sphinx showing the geological layer (a) Auversien 6 m (the head), composed of several well visible strata that indicate the general dip of the Plateau, layer that can be found at various places on the site of Gizeh: Khephren High Temple, Pyramid of Khent-Kawès, outcrop at the N of the latter, at the NE corner of the pyramid of Khephren, as well as the whole pyramid of Mykerinos. One will notice here the stratification of the layer (g) building stone 10-12 m underlying, parallel to that of the ground of the Rising Alley of Khephren.​

Pyramid of Khent-Kawés: left layer (a) Auversien in place as well as right. The 2nd floor consists of stacked “unit” (non-cracked) blocks provided by this layer.​​

The cliff north of Khent-Kawès shows the layer (a) Auversien 6 m, and the stratification of the underlying layer of the Lutétien (g) building stone; note the fracturing regime (proportional to the thickness).​​

The north face of the pyramid of Khéphren (but also all around) shows a base of bedrock in place: here a bench of the layer (g) Building stone «Lutétien» of 2.5 m thickness whose regime of the «diagonal» network can be seen natural fracturing (proportional to the thickness of the strata). A bench that had to be redecorated into “workable” blocks of the same size as those that were superimposed on it.​

On this same bench, one will notice the stigma of redecorating “workable” blocks to the peak of bronze (or iron, says Herodotus).​​

On the west side of the pyramid of Khephren, the first 6 foundations were cut in the layer (g) building stone «Lutétien» showing cracks carefully plugged by diaphragms of the same origin and regularly arranged which seem to result from the extraction mode "by removal" (the technique of removing a block by means of a lever embedded in a "dump box" dug at the foot).​​

At the west-north corner of Khéphren, on the ground, we find these same square notches (and the same spacing), stigmata of the «removal box» (to take off the block from its bedrock).​​

Stigmata – on the bedrock – of “dislodging” blocks cut to the peak and taken off (relief of “dump boxes” in the foreground)​

Sketch of the Author showing the method of «removal» which explains the stigmata observed on the west side of the pyramid of Khephren.​​

New “Dislocation” Stigma: Beginning of the “Hijacking” Throat of a Future Block to Extract (Note – from left to right – the trace of the peak at the bottom of the throat, then the trace of a "cracking" notch and finally the "removal box" (1/4 of the box). The grounding is due to the final setting – horizontal – of the “quarry tile” platform.​

Example: fresco dating from the 20th century, on the ceiling of the Chamber of Crafts of Commercy (France) showing 2 men equipped with an “iron heel clamp” (the same type of tool: lever arm, but more efficient) in full effort of “dislodging” a block in a local quarry.​​

Infographic simulation, proposed by the Author (carried out by students of the Ecole des Mines de Nancy – Prof. O. Deck – 2005) of the correspondence between the extraction of blocks in horizontal quarries at the very periphery, in successive phases, with the construction of the Pyramid, by stacked cones-envelopes, according to the method known as “pyramidal increment” (P. Crozat – 1997).​

Pedological study of stratigraphic outcrops on the Plateau of Gizeh (by Alice Bastien, geology student and Matthieu Plard, Compagnon Carrier -2004): this study involves some «flagrant» errors and ignores the secondary network "diagonal" of natural fracturing of rocks (difficult to observe because these diaclases are closed, phenomenon due to shearing) to refer only to the primary regime of the main diaclases (easy to observe because "open", phenomenon due to anticlinal deformation of the extrados). Nevertheless, in the end, and paradoxically, this study is favourable to the observations of the Author (P. Crozat - 2002) and to the study of the site by A. Yéhia (1985). We will find the axis of the fold and the transverse diaclases, as well as the areas of errors circled with white; however the layer (blue) is incorrectly designated (b) whereas it is the layer (d) 5m limestone petrified small Nummulites on which lies the Sphinx at the bottom of the fold and the Mastaba G 2000 at the top of the anticlinal fold.​

Aerial photograph of the top of the «rhomboidal» pyramid in Dashour-Sud (photograph by Marcello Bertinetti «EGYPT between sky and earth» publisher National Geographic - 2004): the model of the Author (P. Crozat – 1997) proposes a "boutisse" block layout (frontal to the face under consideration): what the indicative arrows seem to confirm here. ​​

On the top of the Pyramid of Cheops, too.

The survey of fracturations (solid lines) was done on the attitude floor ignoring those that crack the Sphinx body (dotted lines) that belong to the "diagonal" secondary network (Δdd and Δdg)​​

Definitive scientific evidence of the presence of the "diagonal" secondary natural fracturing system was provided by the discovery (R. Perrier & P. Crozat – 2005) of characteristic streaks (of the limestone it caresses) a shear movement East – West, on the bedrock base at the foot of the Pyramid of Khephren, on its North face, close to its NW angle.​

DETAIL of Tectoglyphs (tectonic writing): “what anyone can see” indicating the shear movement of the bedrock. It was still necessary that chance, but especially the eye of the geologist specialized in oil research, fell on this precise place which he sought without saying it.
​ Here, horizontal streaks on cullet deposited by the evaporation of mineral salts after closed natural “diagonal” fracturing -Δdd & Δdg-, due to shear (closed) and therefore difficult to spot contrary to the large open ΔL & ΔT diaclases that everyone can see.​

In a quarry of Helwan on the right bank of the Nile, and in the layer «Observatory» corresponding to the layer (g) building stone of the Plateau of Giza, the 2 modes of mechanical and manual extraction follow the same rules of orientation of the "diagonal" operation in relation to the vertical plane of the main diaclase (indicated by the plane in yellow) that can be seen by its vertical cracks left and right.​​

This quarry of manual extraction (called the 2 brothers) still exploited today in Helwan, in the «Observatory» layer, shows us an ancestral way of exploitation (except for the iron corners which replace the fracture initiation notches of the past): here the splitting of a bench.

The carrier makes its extraction trench (the width and length of its tibia) with a small iron peak (formerly of bronze or copper with arsenic).

To the question: "Why in this direction?" the carrier replied, "Because of the crack you see there (left), otherwise I lose a lot of stone volume!". The detail of this fissure (diagonal network diaclase) shows us on the lateral faces a deposit of limestone stuck to the source rock. It should be noted that this cleavage continues on the quarry floor (in the alignment of the lens) and of course in the thickness of the entire layer.
The second question: “Did you see at the foot of the pyramids, is it identical?” His answer was, “No, but if you want to build one, I want to be one!”.​​​

Tests of extraction of a limestone massif «Lutétien» in Bonneuil, France (Carrière Mascitti) with the Compagnons du Devoir and a bronze peak (too heavy) manufactured by the foundry of the Ateliers Saint-Jacques du Domaine de Coubertin in Saint-JacquesRémy-lès-Chevreuse, France in 2008 (under the direction of Companion René Morel).​​

Action of «dislodging» of the cut block (too big) cracked, with 2 bastaings of wood.

Summary of observations made on the Plateau de Gizeh: drawn line, the axis of the fold (N 45°); in continuous line, the alignment of the 3 pyramids by their angle SE (N 45°), 2 Transverse Diaclases F1 & F2 (N 135°), biased diaclase indicative of a dextrous movement (N 120°) towards the E-ES; dotted, the quarries visible on the quarry tiles; yellow, the location of the Tectoglyphs.​​

Giza Plateau, indication of topographical levels and NO/SE diagonal sections of the 3 pyramids, preparatory to the establishment of the simulation of the “paleo-topo-stratigraphy” of the plateau.​​

Summary of the stratigraphy of the Plateau de Gizeh: we will refer to the column (P. Crozat – 2011) whose colors will be taken over by Professor J. Sausse author of the simulation.​​

Stratigraphic section on the High Path of the Pyramid of Khephren: the Head of the Sphinx and the High Temple belong to the layer (a) Auversien 6 m, the body of the Sphinx and the Low Temple to the layer (g) building stone 10-12 m.​
The layer (a) Auversien does not appear upstream of Khéphren.

Khéphren cut on diagonal NW/SE:
The pyramid borrows its materials only from the single layer (g) building stone (easy to work, compact, but "delitable"), which is located at the SE below and the NE above (without touching the Layer (f) underlying) justifying a complementary loan to the Layer (g) above the western quarry front.
The Layer (a) Auversien, deposited «on lap» should logically be reduced «by whistling», up to what?

DETAILS (in red dotted rectangle) of the boundary of the layer (f) underlying (g) building stone, and borrowing complementary to layer (g) above the face.​​

The Pyramid of Khent-Kawès is made of materials taken from the layer (a) Auversien, on a bedrock base of the layer (g) building stone​​

Levels of the layer (g) single building stone bedrock constitutive of the pyramid of Khephren at the 4 corners and in the center (77.3 m) on a quarry tile at 70 m.​​

Sections on the diagonals of the Pyramid of Mykérinos where one will notice that this pyramid is essentially composed of materials extracted from the layer (a) Auversien on a tile at 75 m. ​​

Works – here, digging of a channel by «intellectuals» to re-educate, in China, during the Cultural Revolution- requiring a method, an organization, a discipline and a large workforce, under the responsibility of the “algorithmic logistics”.​ ​