Richard Gage: "We Are Necessarily Gatekeepers" of 9/11 Truth 🤡 by @mestruth on 3Speak
On September 20, 2026 during the 9/11 War (Play) Room, AE911Truth's Richard Gage says the five people writing the 9/11 Truth and Accountability Report are "necessarily gatekeepers", and that they w...
Tags: #911truth #richardgage #ae911truth #gatekeeper #911 #conspiracy #controlledopposition #911spooks #deepdives
and making it a living document would definitely open it to the inclusion of the Pentagon and 93, and also for further participants in writing and contributing information. So I think that's really the current status. And Richard can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't want to appear like we're the gatekeepers of the information. We're not. It was a time factor that now we have more time. That's it. That's true. That sounds right. But we, I think we are necessarily gatekeepers. Our commission is to put forth irrefutable evidence. And let's clarify one thing. There's a difference, as David Ray Griffin lectured me about 15 years ago, between irrefutable and indisputable. People can dispute the evidence that we have, and they do. They dispute it. They take argument with it. That's what they do, and that's cool. They can question it. They can challenge it. that dispute is a refutation of what we do is something we can discuss. We believe that the evidence for controlled demolition with incendiaries and explosives is irrefutable. And so in our mind, in our opinion, it has not been refuted. It has been disputed by a whole lot of people. but they have not refuted it. So let's all be clear with our language on the heels of the great David Ray Griffin when it comes to those two terms. Thank you, Richard. That's a good point, Richard. But I think what I'm trying to say, and I agree with you, I mean, we have to vet the information. But I don't think that the five of us are like the exclusive... gatekeepers from here going on forward. I think that it was that way specifically because we had to produce a document within a timeline, which no longer exists. And so, you know, there's room for including the perspectives of other people, and we still have to, that information they bring forward would still have to meet that litmus test as you're talking about. But I don't think... It's exclusively just the five of us going forward. And I don't know how to comment on that because that has not been discussed to my memory, whether there would be an expanded group or not. The five of us work quite well together, and it's not a group that represents or touts to represent. the 9-11 truth movement in general. So we're going to be excluding directed energy weapons. We're going to be excluding nuclear weapons. And we're going to be excluding other things, too. Right, but we're going to consider the Pentagon in 93, I think. I hope so. Yeah. I don't know. I don't think we've discussed that since, you know, Johnson clarified his, good luck, you guys. I'm with you in spirit kind of message. He's with us in spirit and about, man, I wish this would be faster, he's with us in spirit and about $347,000, $347 ,000, yeah, Rick. Never mind. Anyways, I lie. Well, maybe we could at least agree, Richard, to say, now that we have more time, certainly information about the Pentagon and 93 would probably be on the table. We're not excluding that subject. Well, let's say that you're not excluding it. I haven't formed an opinion yet. And I don't know how much more time we have, Roel. I don't think we want to be working on this for the whole year. Maybe we do.