: AE911Truth Board; November 21, 2025

A Clear and Factual Account From the AE911Truth Board

Over the last several weeks, AE911Truth made a sincere effort to bring Richard Gage and Gail Gage back into the organization in leadership roles. Many supporters were hopeful that this transition would mark a new chapter in the movement — and we were hopeful too.

Because of recent public statements that do not accurately reflect what occurred, we owe our supporters a clear and factual account of what happened during the attempted transition. Transparency is essential to maintaining the trust that thousands of family members, engineers, architects, and donors have placed in this organization over the last sixteen years.

In 2021, when Richard was removed from the organization, AE911Truth chose to remain silent out of respect for him. Unfortunately, that silence allowed various narratives to circulate unchecked, including accounts that did not reflect what actually occurred inside the organization. We will not repeat that mistake.

Why We Invited Richard Back

Our intention from the start was simple. We wanted to do what is best for AE911Truth and for the movement as a whole. Despite the difficult history, we believed that working together again might unify supporters and provide momentum at a pivotal moment in the fight for a real investigation. In recent months, we have participated in joint interviews and public discussions together, and those interactions suggested that a renewed working relationship might be possible.

We are all aware that more than twenty-four years have passed and that the movement is fractured. At this point in history, we have a responsibility to do what is best for the movement, not what is best for any one individual or organization.

Despite moving quickly and offering a streamlined transition, Richard repeatedly pushed us to move even faster. He set a personal deadline of November 1, as if he were already in charge, and pressured us to execute major structural changes the day after the removal of the former executive director. We told him several times that we needed to slow down and do the transition properly. His response was that he had “waited long enough.” This urgency was not about what was best for AE911Truth. It was about securing immediate authority.

The Red Flags Became Impossible to Ignore

One of the earliest indicators that the priorities were misaligned came during the very first conversation about the transition. The first words out of Richard’s mouth were: “We have to dissolve the 501(c)(3) and make it an LLC.”

He explained that dissolving AE911Truth’s nonprofit status and converting it into a private company was necessary so he could not be removed from leadership again. His initial proposal had nothing to do with improving the organization, strengthening outreach, or advancing the evidence. It was about ensuring he could never again be held accountable by a governing body.

It was also clear that he did not understand the consequences. Dissolving the nonprofit and forming an LLC would have exposed him personally to lawsuits from donors, eliminated all of AE911Truth’s legal protections, jeopardized sixteen years of compliance, and placed the mission at serious risk. Once these consequences were explained, the proposal quietly disappeared — but the priority behind it did not.

When the two board members requested a presentation outlining what Richard would do as executive director, the purpose was simple: to understand his vision for leading AE911Truth. Instead of providing a plan for the executive director role, he submitted a document describing what he would do as CEO. The submission did not contain a mission, an outreach strategy, an operational plan, engineering goals, or any roadmap for stabilizing the organization. What it did contain was a detailed structure placing himself above all staff, controlling communications, directing all projects, and determining board composition. It was not a response to the question he was asked. It was a blueprint for ensuring he retained control.

This lack of substantive vision is why his later public statements about “big plans” deserve scrutiny. These plans were never articulated — not during the transition discussions and not afterward. The only plans presented involved altering who held authority. No strategy for outreach, no vision for engineering work, no mission-driven objectives. The absence of any substantive plan speaks for itself.

Earlier in the transition, Richard and Gail also stated that if one of the current board members did not step down, they would convene their own board meeting and vote that director out. When concerns were raised about the tone of this comment, it was described not as a threat but as “reality.” This occurred only a few days after the former executive director had been removed and contributed further to the escalating tension.

Another moment of concern involved Richard’s proposed method for removing the former executive director. That individual served the organization faithfully and deserved a transition handled with professionalism and respect. Instead, Richard suggested that he and Gail join the board solely to take part in the vote to remove the outgoing director and then immediately vote him into the CEO role. While the wording was careful, the tone conveyed the intent: not just administrative action, but staging a moment — creating a public and uncomfortable display for someone he disliked. Instead of focusing on strengthening the mission or serving the movement, creating a dramatic exit for someone he had personal conflict with took priority.

AE911Truth has a responsibility to treat every person who serves with dignity, regardless of disagreement. Decisions driven by personal animosity or the desire to make a public point are incompatible with the mission.

Clarifying the Work of the Former Executive Director

Throughout this period, the former executive director was carrying an unusually heavy burden. He had been managing the organization under difficult internal conditions, repeatedly raising concerns that were later borne out, and keeping AE911Truth operational despite pressures from multiple directions. His work during this time has at times been mischaracterized publicly, but the record shows that he held the organization together, maintained continuity, and acted consistently in the best interests of AE911Truth. The impression that he “was not doing a good job” is not accurate. He was performing under circumstances that would have strained anyone, and he did so with professionalism and commitment to the mission.

In addition to his work during the recent transition period, it is important to recognize the role he played when he returned to AE911Truth in 2023. The organization was going through one of the most challenging periods in its history, and his decision to come back was driven entirely by his commitment to the mission and to the supporters who depend on this work. He stepped into a difficult environment, took on responsibilities that would have overwhelmed most people, and worked tirelessly to stabilize operations, rebuild trust, and keep AE moving forward. His actions during that time were not only responsible, but genuinely selfless, and they reflected a consistent pattern throughout his tenure: doing what was best for AE911Truth, even when it came at personal cost.

The Issue of Governance

For nearly a decade, AE911Truth has used a probationary period for all new board members. The standard is sixty days, although in this case we did not intend to apply the full sixty. We communicated clearly that we were willing to work with a shortened period.

This probationary system is normal and responsible. It protects the organization during leadership changes.

Richard was not only familiar with the policy — he supported it for years. Beginning in 2016, AE911Truth adopted a structured review process for new directors after past instability. Seven or eight board members have been brought on under this system. Richard participated in applying it to each one of them.

He now claims that the policy is “illegal” and “not in the bylaws.” The only bylaws in his possession, however, are the original 2008 version — which we sent him recently while locating a more current copy. The probationary review is not a bylaw provision; it is a board policy adopted after 2008. Nothing in our review of nonprofit governance suggests that a reasonable probationary period for new directors is improper or unlawful. It is a standard internal safeguard.

Throughout this process, one theme kept resurfacing: the insistence on having a “clean slate” — yet that standard was applied selectively. Richard repeatedly emphasized that the organization needed a fresh start, but his meaning was unmistakable. He wanted one of the two existing directors removed, while insisting the other remain. A clean slate is not a clean slate if you handpick which director stays and which director goes. The issue was never structure. The issue was that he did not want a board member present who had historically held him accountable and prevented impulsive or unilateral decisions. That is not reform. That is an attempt to eliminate the only internal check on his authority.

What Ultimately Made the Transition Impossible

Before any of the new board members held their first meeting, Richard insisted on:

Immediate voting power
Immediate authority as CEO
Immediate authority for his wife as COO
Removal of one current director to achieve a “clean slate”
Full control of all website and social media credentials
Authority to preside over meetings
A complete restructuring of governance
No probationary period for himself or anyone he selected

He has since claimed that the transition failed because of procedure. It is important to be clear: Richard did not leave because of procedure. He left because he refused to wait even a few days and because he did not want one of the existing directors to remain on the board. This was not subtle. Just days earlier, that director had completed every step necessary to remove the former executive director in order to clear the path for Richard’s return. That director had also prepared multiple marketing plans for him, streamlined the transition process, and personally reached out to warn him that an article was being released so he would not be blindsided during a public relations crisis. His only response, in the middle of that crisis, was to ask how quickly that director could step down from the board. There was no concern for the organization, no acknowledgment of the work being done, and no interest in resolving anything collaboratively. His priority was singular: immediate authority without oversight.

During the final day of the transition, Richard sent a series of messages stating that he intended to make a public announcement of his departure on the upcoming War Room call unless he was granted immediate authority. The chairman responded calmly, asking him to slow down, take a few hours, and discuss the matter later that evening or the following day so the situation could be resolved responsibly. Richard refused. His exact response was that he and his wife were “bowing out” and that the announcement would be made on the War Room call. This was not a board decision, nor was it the result of any procedural barrier. It was an ultimatum he issued and then chose to act on — a decision driven not by governance but by the desire to force a moment of public drama rather than continue a constructive discussion.

Why We Are Speaking Publicly Now

Richard has published statements attributing the failed transition to others while omitting critical facts and presenting a narrative that does not reflect what actually occurred. He ends by saying he does not want to “trash” AE911Truth after publishing an article doing exactly that.

We take no pleasure in addressing this publicly. Conflict benefits no one. But AE911Truth supporters deserve honesty, transparency, and clarity. This organization has spent sixteen years building credibility with donors, family members, and professionals. We will protect that trust.

Where We Go From Here

AE911Truth is bigger than any individual. It always has been. The mission has survived every challenge because it is rooted in evidence, integrity, and a loyal community of supporters who refuse to let the truth be buried.

This transition failed because the conditions demanded of us were incompatible with responsible nonprofit governance. But AE911Truth itself did not fail. We remain stable, focused, and committed to finishing the work that began in 2007.

We will protect this organization.

We will protect its mission.

We will continue moving forward, with or without anyone who demands absolute control as the price of participation.

The truth matters too much to sacrifice it for personalities or power struggles.

We are here to finish what we started.

***