I think you will find that Barbelo's point was that the conjecture offered is nonsensical! ????
The conclusions are antithetical to the title of the video, "The Living Stones of Sacsayhuaman."
Any idea why that term was chosen?
Because the stones were reconstituted lifeless blocks of whatever?
If you wish to maintain the tenet of the hypothesis (artificial manufacture of stone), then you need to present a valid reason for doing so.
1. Why is the limestone in the blocks different from the limestone in the quarry?
2. Why, and how, did the pre Incas remove the organic skeletal remains from the quarried limestone?
The team took samples of the limestone from the megalithic wall itself and the quarry area from where the stones for Sacsayhuaman are said to have been extracted. Using optical microscopy as well as XRF analysis (X-ray fluorescence), they were able to determine the elemental makeup of the limestone blocks and samples from the quarry.
The blocks from the wall were composed of microcrystalline limestone with no organic skeletal fragments, whereas all of the samples from the quarry were not microcrystalline and had clear signs of organic skeletal remains.
3. If the material under debate is reconstituted, how is it that the ruptures in the sacred artefact (supposedly done with a hot sword) are very similar to existing, but larger, ruptures in existing rocks in the area?
Artifact from Sacsayhuaman
Rock wall at Ollantaytambo
It was not heated. It was a geopolymer concoction which solidified at ambient temperature. (imho)
4. Why not natural rock which solidified at ambient temperature?
5. Are you suggesting that the andesite outcrops are artificial? Or tailings from andesite mining? Or something else?
6. How were the oblong andesite blocks made?