To:
Chris Matthews
Dominic Bellone
David Shuster
Christina Jamison

RE: Your Appearance at Harvard University

Chris:

In your recent appearance at Harvard University, I saw that a very polite fellow
asked if you would be interested in interviewing a gentleman by the name of
William Rodriquez.

The normally stoic Chris Matthews became quite irritated by this question, so I
decided to check the identity of this Rodriquez fellow. Well, a simple search
indicates that he is a hero of 911. He was the janitor in the North Tower of the
World Trade Center and literally saved the lives of emergency personnel and
other individuals before the explosive collapse of that structure.

This from CNN:

"Rodriguez, who had keys to the elevators, began climbing the upper levels of
the tower with a police officer to help trapped people. He saw firefighters
weighted with rescue equipment catching their breath on the 39th floor."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/

The story of Mr. Rodriquez is certainly newsworthy and interesting, even if you
find it unimportant, or ask:

Matthews at Harvard: "Why are we talking about this now?"

Well, sir, apparently "we" are talking about this now because it has received scant coverage in the corporate media. I cannot believe that you are so stupid as
to not be aware of the many newsworthy stories surrounding the events of
September 11, 2001. Your cowardly blathering about “conspiracy theorists” cannot
dismiss these newsworthy stories.

The official story itself is a conspiracy theory--but you already know that.

You also intimated that the questioner was "wacky":

Matthews: "We haven't heard anything that's wacky here, except that guy--he's
crazy."

Upon reviewing the tape, the gentleman who asked if you would interview hero
William Rodriquez certainly WAS NOT "wacky" nor was he "crazy." In fact, you
appeared wacky, disingenuous, sarcastic, and your performance was an insult to
the individuals in the audience.

Mr. Rodriquez has met with both Hillary Clinton and President Bush, among
others, and for you to dismiss him as a “conspiracy theorist” (especially as a
supposed journalist) is pathetic.

However, Chris Matthews (the expert political pundit) already knows this
information. You claim that you play “Hardball”, but all you play is corporate
“softball.”

Incidentally, the questioners other comment about BBC was actually true. BBC did
report the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell. That is simply true. Whether there
is sound reason for the report is a different issue. Mr. Matthews again
sarcastically dismissed this question with a combination move. He used the
quintessential “conspiracy theorist” comment along with joining forces with an
ego-stroking zombie in the audience (who stated he had worked for both CNN and
FOX).

Good day sir,

[ferric oxide]

Yeah Yeah Politeness doesn't count with a jerk like Matthews he still puts you down. Well anytime you want to play hardball let me know you PHONY! Come on people this guy knows the truth and he is now an accomplice to Murder! Sorry but I don't think I want to wipe off my shoes before I go in his door. He should be arrested for impersonating a journalist.

I tried using these email addresses and they all got kicked back.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for asking tough questions.

But if you're going to ask tough questions, why not do it from a more professional standpoint?

Write the question down, research the question, and say it on "their level".

In that situation, you could have focused on a wide-variety of 'non-conspiratorial' issues - NORAD war games, 9/11 Whistleblowers, etc. - but instead the same question comes back to Controlled Demolition.

I'm not against asking these questions on CD, but we've seen TIME AND TIME AGAIN that these questions do not work. Instead, they are thrown back in our face and we are immediately turned into the wacky conspiracy theorists.

I spoke to Matthews briefly in Philadelphia during the first Democratic Debates and brought up factual information, and he said for me to send it to him and take a look. Yes yes, I know - he's a "puppet", "media-controlled"... that's fine and dandy.

But, I wasn't called a lunatic or a conspiracy theorist.
We should really re-consider the types of questions we ask, that's all I am saying.

We've been asking the same questions for years and have gotten the same response.
The questions I've seen posed that are non-conspiratorial and actually deal with something that cannot be irrefuted, are often given better responses that we can use AGAINST these people if and when a new investigation, and the truth comes about.

Keep up the good work everyone.
See everyone in NYC on 9/11/08. :-)

Regards,
Mark in Philly
http://www.FealGoodFoundation.com