Sir Richard Arcos talks about the Temple

It is plain from some of Dr. Langdon's statements that he believes ruins from the temple were standing when the Crusaders came to Jerusalem. As he does note, the second temple was completely destroyed in the reign of the Emperor Julian, some small portion of it having stood until this point. As I understand, in 1099, the Temple Mount looked much as it did today. The 'Temple of Solomon' the Templars were given room in was the Al-Aqsa Mosque. As this was also the Royal Palace, it seems highly unlikely the Templars making like moles would not have been spotted. Oh, and it seems he thinks the Holy of Holies was underground. For someone who researched his book, he didn't look very far. The Knights Templar were one of three major Knightly orders, the others being the Knights of the Hospital of St. Mary of the Germans (Teutonic Knights) and the Knights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem (Hospitallers). These groups were widely blamed for losing the Holy Land, as it was felt they could have done a much better job. The King of France, Philip the fair (typical French lies), suggested it would work better if there were just one group of Knights. Oh, and it would work even better if he were in charge. He invited the Grand masters of the three orders to France to meet him on urgent crusading business. Only one Grand Master, Jaqes de Molay, was mug enough to accept. All Templars in France were arrested too. You know the rest. In England, Edward II told the Templars he would arrest them in 12 months time, by which point all the boodle (and most of the Templars) had gone West. In Scotland, the king forgot about this completely, after telling the Templars to make themselves scarce. In the Holy Roman Empire, the Templars were let off after their leader claimed the right to trial by combat, and in Spain the kings laughed at the orders, the Templars gave themselves a Spanish name and, when the Papal officials came looking for Templars declared there weren't any Templars in Spain (they were called something else). Only in France were the Templars burned en masse. In England, they were told to confess, a number did, while the rest feigned ignorance and joined the Knights Hospitaller. In other words, there were hundreds of Templars runing about, even in France. Templars who confessed to all the crimes were allowed to live on in monasteries. If these guys had real dodgy knowledge the Pope wanted destroyed, why were most of them allowed to join other military orders, or form independent orders of crusaders? The fact is that Pope Clement knew the knights were innocen, but was too scared of the French to pronounce them so, thus he arranged ways out for all sensible knights. As is well known among historians of the period, the ceremonies the Templars were accused of, kissing cats' bottoms(!), each others' bottoms(!!), and worshiping heads (!!!) were ascribed to the Cathars too. And, before some mug yells, 'see, they were the same!' in the Albigensian Crusades, the Templars were commended for their zeal in slaughtering Cathari like cattle. The Hospitallers were dodgy on this issue, though... Again, a bad fact. Oh, and the Cathars denied the bottom thing too, as with the head thing. These were standard heresy charges, sort of like 'you're gay!' in the playground. There was no substance to them! The Knights Tempar were, however, a powerful and secretive order which possessed tons of boodle and direct approval from the Pope and the doctors of the Church. They were distrusted because they held their Chapters in secret, had their fingers in every pie in Euope, their members included English Ministers and they were rumoured to perform extreme acts of penance. Sort of like another organisation that Dr. Langdon has had dealings with, perhaps?

[The remark about the French is, of course, just Sir Richard's opinion]