<HTML>Pathetic. First you cite a 1919 book. It's based on speculation because the Giza quarries weren't studied by the author--right Frank? Read Arnold and Klemm--the Old and Middle Kingdom quarry walls are covered with marks made by pointed picks. This has no relationship to the iron twist forks used on travertine in the 19th century or other old methods. And quarrying with pointed picks, probably made of stone, has no relationship to modern methods, like chains saws used to slice up quarry faces.
The real point is one you ignore. As I said, go figure the waste. There's no getting around it. After clearing 30 feet (compare the depth of the Giza quarry walls!) or so of waste rock from the top surface (good for concrete) of any quarry count on a 30 to 50 % waste factor with modern means. Talk to a real modern limestone quarryman who uses the best methods rather than reading old books. Then figure the waste from making trenches around blocks as you claim took place (even though there's not enough evidence of this to account for the GP according to Petrie and Waseda geologists--see Morris post). The waste is too high and the quarries identified too small; more must be conjectured to fudge the problem.
You're in over your head Frank and you must know that. Either that or its the comprehension problem I outlined earlier.
Sandy</HTML>
