9/11 Truth candidate for U.S. Senate

I recently became aware of Richard Curtis, PhD, a candidate for U.S. Senate from the State of Washington

His website: http://www.richardcurtisphd.com/index.html

"Based on the philosophy that the current government "is not working for ordinary Americans," philosophy professor Richard Curtis is planning to challenge U.S. Sen. Patty Murray in the November election. Running as an independent, Curtis says he is backed by a "historic" coalition of people who identify with the Green, Socialist, Libertarian, and Democratic parties."

His perspective on 9/11: http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/270284_connellyrebut16.html

"The commission's conclusions and recommendations should be totally rejected. Its story is full of lies, distortions and omissions of fact. Following are two of the more than 40 reasons why the official story about what happened on 9/11 is untrue."

Richard Curtis, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of philosophy at Seattle University and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth; www.st911.org.


Does Mr. Curtis have political traction in Washington state?

Is there a realistic chance Mr. Curtis getting elected?

What are his other campaign agendas and positions?

Go Mr. Curtis, Go!!!

My state.

I live in Washington state. I'm delighted by this news.

I think we should remember what polls have concluded. One third of the public is on to the government. If you know of this, you have to be aghast., of course. It makes for much emotion.

SO, remember that one third of the population being Evangelicals in 04. Although, Bush, as many of us know, stole 2004 (as well as 2000), it was the one third Christianity vote that he held ground with, getting close enough to weasel his way back into the oval office.

We have one third of the public in the US, but I'm not sure what the polls would be in Washington state, if Mr Curtis could get in. I noticed, that the beginning of the commentary thread was anti-Truth, expressing disgust with the Times, etc.. It was a long thread, as all 911Truth subject matter threads are when in common MSM publications. I didn't read the whole thread, but it started out derisive, against us. I plan on heading over there and laying some info on them, as many of you probably already have already.

It's worth noting that the BEGINNING of the thread we have a great deal of positives for the Truth, and the LAST of the comments, are negative.

the wrong scholars . . .

FYI, the scholars group he is a part of is Fetzer's group, 911scholars.org.

At one time, apparently in 2006, he was on the board of Fetzer's group:

"With our new steering committee of Kevin Barrett, Richard Curtis, Rick Siegel, and Judy Wood, I am in the process of effecting a transition from an informal structure to a more formal structure, where the society has by-laws and a board of directors."

Skeptical, hopeful

I share the deep skepticism of those associations. As he begins to campaign, Curtis will show his colors. Many were swept into Scholars for 9/11 Truth before realizing that Jim Fetzer was an active source of disinformation, and before realizing that Judy Wood's bizarre, unsubstantiated assertions were intentionally confusing. I want to get my name off that website but haven't figured out how to do it yet. Someone tell me.