Skyscrapers are made out of garbage. They're already being replaced. Not even 100 years later. Like almost every post war building. An investment scam. Torn down thrown up. Made of crap. Sure they say crap like how these buildings will last 1000 years. The only skyscraper that can possibly is the AT&T building/NSA beep. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street . Or even nature, plants, insects. They eat that shit.
Otherwise they're a heap of shit.
Here's a rundown on some shit. But it is conjecture. https://stacker.com/environment/how-long-it-takes-50-common-items-decompose
Conjecture because it hasn't fully accounted every environmental condition. Things like extreme cold, heat, oceans. Meanwhile almost all that stuff is changing to materials that degrade.
Glass for example, in an ocean, becomes a coloured stone? They did this at a glass factory threw the glass bottles into the sea. What is found on the beach are colored stones people turn into beads for necklaces. Yea it's still glass but it's changed from being that bottle, yes. That bottle shatters if you try too wear it, or make it into a bead. The glass degrades turning back into sand and it ain't even been that long. Decades.
What about plastic in an impact scenario. Or volcano. Melted.
Anyhow watch that series linked. About 10-15k years the extent of humans. Only because of reinforced steel bridges. Full degradation, dust. A planetary fart. 15k years.
Sure idiots from the lost tribe of Mickey Mouse, might restart better. Have better means than our ancients. Hell they'd be trading in nuka cola caps or something. But the fact is if a Greenland crater occurs, it doesn't take much for that stuff to be gone. Rather than a pyramid.
Discovery channel movies are the worst popular science stuff I ever seen. And that multiple repetition of questionable and completely unimportnat statements diring a movie - I don't understand it at all. IDK, if it is kind of specific Discovery/BBC style devoted to somehow make that pop-science acceptable for the dumbest of viewers, but it is weird as fuck. No explanations using laws of nature, no formulas, no proof of sentence based on what said previously, no any decent structure of movie, even. Amount of knowledge transferred is below zero. This kind of art is more like a chewing gum for bored housewives, not something that could be named even "popular science".
A smart person, goes and checks it out.
A smart person knows chemistry, physics, and have logic. He knows properties of limestone and sandstone used in pyramids and properties of modern construction materials. He don't even need to watch stupid movies made to make dumbest audience feel like they know something cool.
It is pretty simple to find out that modern giant structures of comparable size and volume will outlast pyramides for millions of years.
It's a documentary you haven't watched. Instead you're mouthing off against it, without watching it. No. Discovery or other documentary channels are source of knowledge. A series of documentaries with a heap of read the wiki commenting on it. They stress tested and ran scenarios. It covers impact, nova, ice age, oceans, nature etc.
Smart people don't spew ignorance about something they haven't watched.
The pyramids are already 5k years old according to the concentric narrative. We're in a topic arguing they're older. Skyscrapers, dumbass, are already being replaced.
No. Watch a series possibly on Netflix about it. Life after people. They used structural engineers, scientists, etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_People
Skyscrapers are made out of garbage. They're already being replaced. Not even 100 years later. Like almost every post war building. An investment scam. Torn down thrown up. Made of crap. Sure they say crap like how these buildings will last 1000 years. The only skyscraper that can possibly is the AT&T building/NSA beep. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street . Or even nature, plants, insects. They eat that shit.
Otherwise they're a heap of shit.
Here's a rundown on some shit. But it is conjecture. https://stacker.com/environment/how-long-it-takes-50-common-items-decompose Conjecture because it hasn't fully accounted every environmental condition. Things like extreme cold, heat, oceans. Meanwhile almost all that stuff is changing to materials that degrade.
Glass for example, in an ocean, becomes a coloured stone? They did this at a glass factory threw the glass bottles into the sea. What is found on the beach are colored stones people turn into beads for necklaces. Yea it's still glass but it's changed from being that bottle, yes. That bottle shatters if you try too wear it, or make it into a bead. The glass degrades turning back into sand and it ain't even been that long. Decades.
What about plastic in an impact scenario. Or volcano. Melted.
Anyhow watch that series linked. About 10-15k years the extent of humans. Only because of reinforced steel bridges. Full degradation, dust. A planetary fart. 15k years.
Sure idiots from the lost tribe of Mickey Mouse, might restart better. Have better means than our ancients. Hell they'd be trading in nuka cola caps or something. But the fact is if a Greenland crater occurs, it doesn't take much for that stuff to be gone. Rather than a pyramid.
Fascinating. Netflix as a source of your knowledge accompanied with pedowikia link. I think further discussion is completely senseless.
It wasn't made by Netflix. It's on Netflix. It was on the discovery channel. It's now possibly on Netflix. Or you can stream it.
Don't fuck with me. Asshole.
A smart person, goes and checks it out. They don't spew ignorance. What harm is there in looking. It is actually a fascinating watch.
Discovery channel movies are the worst popular science stuff I ever seen. And that multiple repetition of questionable and completely unimportnat statements diring a movie - I don't understand it at all. IDK, if it is kind of specific Discovery/BBC style devoted to somehow make that pop-science acceptable for the dumbest of viewers, but it is weird as fuck. No explanations using laws of nature, no formulas, no proof of sentence based on what said previously, no any decent structure of movie, even. Amount of knowledge transferred is below zero. This kind of art is more like a chewing gum for bored housewives, not something that could be named even "popular science".
A smart person knows chemistry, physics, and have logic. He knows properties of limestone and sandstone used in pyramids and properties of modern construction materials. He don't even need to watch stupid movies made to make dumbest audience feel like they know something cool.
It is pretty simple to find out that modern giant structures of comparable size and volume will outlast pyramides for millions of years.
It's a documentary you haven't watched. Instead you're mouthing off against it, without watching it. No. Discovery or other documentary channels are source of knowledge. A series of documentaries with a heap of read the wiki commenting on it. They stress tested and ran scenarios. It covers impact, nova, ice age, oceans, nature etc.
Smart people don't spew ignorance about something they haven't watched.
The pyramids are already 5k years old according to the concentric narrative. We're in a topic arguing they're older. Skyscrapers, dumbass, are already being replaced.
Here's a pyramid that's much older https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunung_Padang.
When I link a wiki, it's a reference. Not a protest.