Richard Gage’s support for ‘new’ organization is reminiscent of a failed test of integrity from the past

In praising creation of the International Center for 9/11 Justice, Gage continues to shield the cabal that pushes almost every element of the Pentagon official story

July 4, 2023

By Craig McKee

Recently, AE911Truth founder Richard Gage posted an article on his website about the creation of the International Center for 9/11 Justice. In this article, Gage is effusive in his praise for the “new” organization, which he hails as a great advance for the 9/11 Truth Movement. In doing so, he compounds past harm he has done to the movement in the form of his support for a cabal that is determined to neutralize the fundamental evidence that proves U.S. government complicity in the 9/11 crimes.

As Gage and other 9/11 truth “leaders” confer false legitimacy on cabal members like David Chandler, Wayne Coste, and Ken Jenkins, they help those individuals to suppress the overwhelming evidence that a 757 crash was faked at the Pentagon. And this is very harmful to our cause because there is no other entity but the government that could have staged this event.

This cabal has done everything it can over the past 15 plus years to get this evidence taken off the table. They have used outright lies and a vast assortment of manipulative tactics to suppress it. They have convinced a significant number of well-meaning truthers that the Pentagon evidence should be put on the back burner because it’s too “controversial” and too “divisive.” This is very unfortunate. And false.

The only way this conclusion can be reached is if one looks at the Pentagon event in the most superficial way. I continue to be baffled that some people shrewd enough to see through the 9/11 lies can be so thoroughly hoodwinked by this infiltration and disinformation campaign.

I acknowledge the valuable contribution that Gage has made to our cause over the past 16 or so years, and I think he can continue to be an asset in our efforts. But it is precisely because of his stature within the movement that he must be very careful about who, and what, he endorses. He has real power among truthers, and in the past he has not always used that power wisely.

As I comment below, Gage put his name to a statement titled, “Complete Withdrawal of Support for CIT” (Citizen Investigation Team is the group that exposed the essential truth that the plane seen approaching the Pentagon did so on a path that is irreconcilable with the alleged “damage.” The meaning of this revelation is clear: if the plane didn’t create the “damage,” then the damage had to have been staged to fool the world.)

Gage gave in to pressure from the cabal (particularly former longtime AE911Truth volunteer Chris Sarns) to attack CIT, and this did damage that we are still dealing with today. In fact, one can attribute a portion of the rise to prominence of this cabal to Gage’s terrible judgment from 2011.  He knows very well what the case against the cabal is. I’ve spoken to him about this personally.

Further compounding the problem is something I discovered just yesterday. Gage’s disingenuous and harmful statement against CIT (which I plan to deconstruct in a future article) is actually posted on his recently created website (post AE911Truth). Stunning. Instead of being embarrassed to have put his name to this piece of propaganda, he is calling attention to it all over again.

I can’t help wondering if he did this on his own or whether he was pressured, yet again, by someone like Chandler to do so. The ethical, and truthful, thing for Gage to do would be to remove this page from his site and to renounce the statement. Doing so would truly help the movement to proceed in a more positive direction.

The text below is the comment I posted on Gage’s page a couple of days ago:

Richard, I don’t think you have yet figured out the harm you are doing by propping up people like David Chandler as they seek to gain total control of the movement. But the harm is considerable. It seems that no matter how dishonest and how outrageous the behavior of Chandler and this cabal, “leaders” like you will protect them. You help these people to maintain a veneer of “respectability,” which they use to do more and more damage.

You are now adding to the damage you did in 2011 when you put your name to a statement (written by someone else) that was labeled “Complete Withdrawal of Support for CIT.” If you want to be a truly unifying figure, you’ll withdraw that piece of propaganda that you were pressured into putting your name to. It remains a significant blemish on your record.

I would have thought that you had learned your lesson, but it seems you haven’t. Your reverence for the latest rewarmed 9/11 organization – the “new” International Center for 9/11 Justice – is misplaced to put it gently. In fact, your characterization of this organization as something new, fresh, and “ambitious” is disingenuous. This is more of a marketing effort and an effort to consolidate the cabal’s power than any genuine attempt to expose truth.

You refer to the people behind this organization as a “consortium of well-respected influential figures in the 9/11 Truth Movement.” Unfortunately, the worst of them HAVE been influential. But not in a good way. One has to be ignorant of the history of the movement to find Chandler “well-respected.” He is easily the most divisive and toxic figure in the movement (of course, I’ll be accused of fitting this description simply for daring to call him out for his unethical behavior, which I have plenty of evidence for).

You wrote that the creation of this “new” organization effectively resurrects “the best of three prominent technically-oriented organizations in the Movement that have received far less attention than they have deserved over the last decade or so.” At best, this is an exaggeration. At worst, it is a significant distortion.

I’m not sure whether the Toronto Hearings or the Journal of 9/11 Studies actually qualify as “organizations” at all. The former was a conference, and the latter is a website controlled by Kevin Ryan, who is part of the very cabal that Chandler has made his full-time preoccupation over the past 13 plus years. Ryan has all but called CIT agents and has posted a video that mocks them. How academic of him. He also wrote in his book Another Nineteen that the best way to challenge the official story of 9/11 is to “accept as much of the official account as possible.” (He writes that he favors this strategy for the sake of “simplicity” and to avoid “adding unnecessary complications.”)

Then we have the only thing one could actually call an organization, the now dormant 9/11 Consensus Panel. This effort has joined the other two in marginalizing, if not outright suppressing, the essential evidence that the U.S. government faked a plane crash at the Pentagon. Panel co-founder Elizabeth Woodworth (joining Chandler and Ryan as board members of the new group) admits that no points that address what caused the damage to the Pentagon were ever even considered by the panel. Even if they had been, Chandler and fellow cabal members Jon Cole, Fran Shure, and Dwain Deets would have had the votes to defeat such points. (Only four votes were needed to block them.)

Most concerning about your gushing and uncritical support for this “organization” is that it seems to coincide with your new meeting of the minds with one of your former harsh critics, Ted Walter. You have something very significant in common, you both feel you were wronged by AE911Truth, and the transfer of influence from AE to your efforts and to the IC911J seems awfully self-serving. But while it may be great for you and Ted, it is doing real damage to the organization that still represents more than 3,500 architects and engineers.

Your legacy in this movement will be significantly affected by how you deal with Chandler and company in the months and years ahead. You have failed this test in the past. But it’s not too late to do the right thing.


  1. I wish it wasn’t so Craig McKee that Richard Gage has done so much damage to the truth movement but wishing for that doesn’t make it true. It is long past time serious 9/11 researchers start re-evaluating those who are considered “leaders” of the truth movement. When it comes to Richard Gage I have done a lot of soul searching and have finally come to the conclusion that he is not a leader I have much respect for anymore. Your article fleshes out many of my reasons for withdrawing my support for Gage’s “leadership”. I still support the evidence he has spent so many years talking about, namely the evidence of controlled demolition of the towers in NYC. I strongly agree that the case has been made that the towers were all three brought down via controlled demolitions. Gage has been talking about that for years and years which is a very good thing. The problem for me with Gage comes in from his bizarre stance on the pentagon evidence and his support for disinformation put out by what I lovingly refer to as team treason. At this point in history there is really no excuse for anyone who calls themselves a truther to NOT know about the iron clad evidence that no airliner struck the pentagon. The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive yet we still have Gage supporting people who have been trying to prop up the official lies about the pentagon for over a decade now. To me when you support liars you are not a truther anymore. It is as simple as that. I can understand not taking on a position regarding the pentagon because of the effort involved in reviewing all the evidence. What I cannot understand is those who take on a position by supporting the official pentagon narrative, and those who push it, without doing the reading and researching of the damning evidence we have. Accepting the Chandler cabal narrative that a 757 hit the pentagon is proof that you have not reviewed the damning evidence. It is proof you are no longer a truther, that you do not think for yourself. So I for one do not consider Gage to be credible at all when it comes to anything other than the evidence of controlled demolitions. He is actually a detriment to the movement in all other respects.

    1. It is stunning that some people who call themselves truthers defend those who spend almost all of their time pushing one element of the official story after another. To those people, I would ask how they can defend people like Chandler – who has engaged in deception and mischief regarding the Pentagon for years – while they scold you, me, and other like-minded people for daring to criticize these frauds.

    2. Hey, I can’t disagree with a word you have said here.
      My take ~ Richard should get back to the drawing board, and earn his income honestly, instead of kicking the can down the road further and further & now supporting the statements of provable LIARS. PICTURE THIS: COLUMN 14 STILL STANDING. FLOOR INTACT. That’s why we call them SIMPLETONS. Some things are just SO SIMPLE>! Great article, Craig!

  2. I support your analysis of Richard Gage and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
    Richard was quite friendly whenever we met. The official account of the Pentagon on 9/11 is the easiest of the 9/11 events to debunk. I would have gladly provided Richard hundreds of copies of my book to distribute free at his events, but he never took up my offer.
    Download “9/11 UNVEILED” from The Wisdom Fund at
    * 175,000+ downloads; click section headings to view evidence
    * NIXON’s foreign policy advisor: “best short summary”

      1. For many years I gave Richard Gage the benefit of the doubt. I thought that he did not want to stick his neck out when he had so many supporting him. But when he refused to engage in debate (something that I as an engineer have had to do to justify my position) I began to suspect his intentions. This article of your’s convinced me that you and I have the facts on our side. Best wishes.

        1. Thanks, Enver. I knew that as soon as Gage was separated from AE911Truth he would be approached by the cabal. And they descended on him right away. So predictable. It’s also obvious that they’ve been manipulating him ever since.

  3. Thank you Craig, I agree. It’s painful to have to admit it, because it means the 9/11 truth movement is in very dire straits. But I think you are right and I greatly admire your courage and perseverance.

  4. From my perspective, debunking the official story re the Pentagon, by using common sense and asking a few simple question is easy. For openers, the security video released by the gov’t is a joke. So is the notion that an amateur pilot, one Hani Hanjor, tried to rent a single engine plane twice but was turned down both times for “poor flying skills.” That he could fly a jumbo jet for an hour and a half in the most controlled airspace in the world, turn the plane around, then find the Pentagon with no help from air traffic control, and smash the jumbo jet into the side of the building leaving the lawn pristine and only scraps of debris, is laughable.

    There is much more including CNN’s Jamie McIntyre video. His on the scene report showed the lawn as undamaged, with little bits of debris and the hole not being large enough to accommodate a jumbo jet. There is a lot more but I will leave it at that.

    Great article and hanks for keeping it real Craig.


    Great article Craig and hanks for keeping it real..


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *