Could you give an example? It's been a bit since I watched them (except the last one) but nothing jumps to mind.
He picks the easiest topics, and never mentions that historians know vanishingly little of our 300,000-year past.
He does address the stonework point in [1] at 6:36[^]—though he says it's not true. He also says at 3:43[*] that archaeologists can make mistakes and don't know everything.
Anyway, I'm not here shilling for the channel. I just found the background info relevant and useful.
Finding a place with a course of smaller blocks under the largest ones is not addressing the question, it is purely dodging. Similarly, repair work is almost all radically cruder than the original work, so finding a place where it measures up is another dodge.
Which stonework?
The stone boxes in the Serapeum suffice to show that the copper tooling presented is laughably inadequate. Pretending otherwise, apparently just to avoid admitting ignorance of the real method, is disingenuous.
We really don't have any clue how they could have done that work. Certainly nothing found has been up to the job. What would be so bad about admitting that? It would be much better than lying.
2:09 for the boxes in the same video
Are archeologists suggesting that they used copper chisels for very hard stone?