posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:58 PM
While there were no sources provided in the OP, I found it quite provocative, interesting and intriguing. It is the kind of slant, perspective and
insight into a prominent historical event that can make a person wonder what all has gone on (and is going on) behind the scenes.
As history unfolds, the internet (sites like this) and other information sectors continually illustrate to us “masses” that a lot more is going on
(again) behind the scenes than we were taught and conditioned to perceive, consider and believe. We have been taught to ignore, dismiss and ridicule.
Many here on ATS are out-of-the-box thinkers, people who do not necessarily accept the official story force-fed to us by the mainstream media (MSM)
and governmental sources (from the US or any government).
A statement about sources: it is a necessity in academic writing, in which there seems to (perhaps rightfully) be a mindset that there is no original
thought unless a person has done the basic research personally. Every “fact” must be source. It is tedious, yet provides substantiation to a
certain degree. And, accordingly, the sources should have sources (unless part of an original study, and so on).
However, ATS is by far not an academic forum. Not to “down” ATS on this. ATS was not ever **conceived** to be an academic forum requiring
sources. It is what it is: a place where people who think outside the proverbial box gather to share ideas, and in this sense, ATS has accomplished
its mission grandly, perhaps even working as a change catalyst and effecting Butterfly Effect-styled changes that might develop in downstream chaotic
patterns dramatically altering unfolding historical events. With as many complaints and rants about a lack of sources for the OP, one might get the
impression that ATS was an academic forum. Sure, sources are nice and provide a touch of substantiation, but (as we all should know), sources do not
necessarily equate to validity for anyone can surely find “sources” and “links” that have little substantiation themselves.
Just because something is sourced does not mean that it is valid. In fact, it can be argued that if someone discovered some disturbing (or
well-hidden) truth, there may be no valid sources. The truth about an event might have been passed down through a family via oral history with no
official/internet “source.” Consequently, a *lie* might be meticulously sourced to lend it validity, yet still remain a lie. Examples of this
might include the official story of 9-11 or the justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or –you get the idea. There are many “sources”
that “support” the official stories for those events (or “cover” stories some of us/you might prefer).
Just because the OP provided no sources does not necessarily mean that what was originally posted is not true or valid. Just because the government
provided “sources” for information regarding 9-11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq does not mean that those explanations and rationalizations and
official stories are true.
Back to the topic of the OP. I, personally found it quite interesting. Because of this potential historical windfall of perspective, I will most
likely look into the topics of freemasonry, 33 degree masons, the Alamo, “treasure rooms” and secret codes/messages built into missions and
You see, the OP was so intriguing, that it inspired me to look into all of this for myself. There is nothing wrong with that. Sure, the OP might
have posted 18/19 threads, provided no sources for any of them, and/or never engaged in the discussion. No big deal. WE have the power to engage in
discussions about the original post, right? Instead, the majority of what I read (before I got tired of reading the ridiculous complaining and
debating about everything except for the actual topic) was pointless, meaningless and/or threatening. A “super moderator” even made comments
early on that sounded threatening until I read the context.
(--cont'd next post because of 5000 character limit--)