Home > Bio-Terror at University of Oklahoma ?
School-University Attack-Terrorism USA Michael P. Wright
Michael P. Wright —
Norman, Oklahoma, USA
mpwright9@aol.com
Just a month ago, during a football game on October 1, University of Oklahoma student Joel Hinrichs detonated a bomb on a bench not far from the west stadium gate and killed himself. The bench was right adjacent to a sidewalk, and the bomb exploded three minutes before half-time. Police confirmed that two days earlier he had attempted to buy ammonium nitrate, and that other explosives were found in his apartment when they searched it after the explosion.
Terrorism expert Stephen Sloan told the Tulsa World (October 9) that "it is unfortunately logical to think that he was trying to get into the stadium." Sloan also said that the size of the explosion indicates that it was designed to hit more than Hinrichs and that it seems more than coincidence that this occurred on the Saturday night of a football game. Sloan was an OU political science professor until last year.
The Oklahoman, an Oklahoma City newspaper, interviewed Edmond psychologist Stewart Beasley for an article published October 9 about the Hinrichs bomb. Beasley said that there is not much of a "message" in Hinrichs’ suicide, "unless the explosives were detonated prematurely — preventing him from making a larger statement where more humans would be killed."
By contrast, OU president David Boren, deeply troubled by the likelihood that terrorism fears would diminish revenues from football ticket sales, has been frantically trying to convince the media that the death was just a "lone suicide" by an "emotionally troubled" student who intended no harm to others.
At this time OU has been clouded again with more suspicions of terrorist activity. The November 2 Oklahoma Gazette, Oklahoma City weekly, has an article about the recent tunnel burglary at OU, for which two young men were arrested. It discloses some alarming information which, to no one’s surprise, was not published by the Oklahoma Daily, the OU newspaper.
Assistant District Attorney Rick Sitzman said that the suspects entered a room clearly marked "biohazard." He adds: "Fortunately, it no longer had any biohazards in it, but I can’t say they didn’t know that." One of the men also had a stoppered glass vial in his possession when arrested.
The Gazette article also discloses that the two men belong to a group called 3rd Space Infoshop, and that one of their members claimed they have been "harassed" by the FBI "as having ties to Joel Henry Hinrichs."
For the Gazette article, go here, select November 2, and click on NEWS. Then look for "Biohazard Break-in."
The Oklahoma Daily report on this does not mention the evidence strongly suggesting that the burglars were interested in biohazards. The release of such information by the OU newspaper would bring great displeasure to Boren, a shady character and former U.S. Senator widely known as the mentor and patron of George Tenet. Here is the Daily article:
http://www.oudaily.com/vnews/displa...
Observe the comment from one of Boren’s propagandists: "Most of the tunnels on campus are used for utility purposes, said Burr Millsap, vice president of administrative affairs."
Go here for more information about the Hinrichs bomb:
Forum posts
4 November 2005, 23:07
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM MICHAEL WRIGHT:
The burglars entered the zoology building through the tunnel. The zoology building has numerous labs with warnings on the doors notifying entrants of toxic chemicals, non-potable water, toxic gas, and radioactive materials.
11 November 2005, 06:09
"Most of the tunnels on campus are used for utility purposes..." Clearly that is a bold face lie! Those tunnels are not used for unities! All the pipes that go to and from the physical plant are magically floating in the sky! Those tunnels, much like their Koran cousins, are used to move terrorists around. I here that may be how Boren’s gay lovers get in and out of Boyd house too! You hear that some kids break into a building and it is automatically terrorism. They entered a room that was marked Biohazard, so they were looking for some germ or bug to use to kill everyone. That is your logic is it not? There is no way that two college dropouts were looking for beakers, tests tubes, and piping to use in manufacturing drugs is there?
‘Biohazard’ break-in
Oklahoma Gazette
November 2, 2005
“Book titles at the organization include “Encyclopedia of Political Anarchy,” “Fast Food Nation” and “Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, & Cheap Labor in the American Black Market,” according to the article”
I do find it troubling that they did manage to get into the building and into an old biohazard lab, but just as you and I can not be sure on what their intentions were, perhaps one needs to think about why there was no longer any biohazard materials there. Were the moved to a more secure room or building? Did OU actually do something right by possibly moving these materials? Did they see a threat that someone could easily gain access to said materials where they were, and move them to a more secure location? Perhaps instead of sitting behind a computer all day fantasizing about the end of the world, and how when it comes you will have been proven right, you should relax and try to understand that everything that happens isn’t a sign of terrorism.
18 November 2005, 02:54
MICHAEL WRIGHT REPLIES:
Like so many of my hysterical anonymous critics, you pretend that I have made certain statements, then you go about attacking them. In logic, that is called the informal fallacy of "setting up a straw man." Read my post again. I drew no conclusions that the perpetrators were engaged in bio-terrorism. I asked questions. The headline has a question mark after it. Take your blinders off and maybe you’ll see it. Given the array of facts, they are reasonable questions to ask.
18 November 2005, 06:47
I am terribly sorry. You see I did reread your post, and you are correct you never came out and said that you believed that terrorism was involved. You simply strung together a few statements written by others and blamed Boren for trying to cover something up through his newspaper the Oklahoma Daily,
“At this time OU has been clouded again with more suspicions of terrorist activity… It discloses some alarming information which, to no one’s surprise, was not published by the Oklahoma Daily, the OU newspaper.”
Other than this statement indicting OU and president Boren, you did indeed just “ask questions.” The way you organized news bits and you own asinine “questions” however does lead a reader to form certain conclusions about what actually happened. I highly doubt that this leading of the reader was unintentional. I can detect the cynicism in your “questions” so don not try to say that they were objective and unbiased. You hear something, draw your own conclusions, then report bits and pieces of real news to make your idea seem to be factual. Convenient how you included what they stole, what group they are a part of, that the FBI had questioned them about the suicide bomber, but not that the group is a hippie druggie group. But to your credit you did give a link to the complete article that you stole most of your “news” from so reader, if so inclined, could find out for themselves the facts you knowingly omitted. Take your blinders of my friend, your spurious claims have no merit. Why present the facts in a biased way to ask an unbiased question? You may not have implicitly stated your opinion one way or another, but your point of view is very clear.
20 November 2005, 22:24
REPLY FROM MICHAEL WRIGHT:
First of all, let’s play on a level playing field. It never ceases to amaze me how, after I identify myself in my posts, I am subject to vitriol from anonymous cowards. If you were at all confident about your drivel, you would sign your name. Your retreat into the safe comfort of anonymity says so much about you.
You accuse me of "leading" readers to "conclusions." That comes right out of your fertile imagination. I have attempted to lead readers into being skeptical and asking questions. Apparently that distinction is beyond your mental abilities to grasp.
You admit that I just asked questions, after accusing me of "indicting Boren and OU" (after I correctly pointed out that the Daily, in one of its stories, had overlooked the statements by assistantd D.A. Sitzman). Then, in the same text, while apparently forgetting what you had earlier written, you accuse me of "spurious claims." You have a very limited attenion span, don’t you?
You accuse me of having stolen my information. You don’t have the foggiest notion of what plagiarism is. Is the word even in your vocabulary? I appropriately gave credit to my sources, and provided links to them. That’s not stealing anything. That’s what you call documentation.
It is no surprise that you are so ignorant. Most likely, you are an OU student, and that institution is as corrupt as the day is long. You defend Boren, so you might even be an OU administrator. They are mostly a gang of Boren sycophants. Your affiliation with OU is betrayed by the first three digits in your IP address, on display with your message. They are 129 — the same as mine. That’s because I’m posting from a public terminal at the University of Oklahoma library.
22 November 2005, 06:16
Ah, wrong again my friend, now it is you putting words into my mouth. For you see, I never said that you “plagiarized” a thing. I simply said that you stole the work of other people. Did you interview anyone? I presume not. Then all the information in your little post was gathered by other individuals, meaning that all you did was regurgitate the facts you liked from their stories. As far as the Boren thing goes, perhaps I work for him, or perhaps not, but that is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is this; I know you, I know that you enjoy your little fantasies of Boren corrupting the country with his evil, homosexual ways. You accuse Boren and his evil empire or coercing the news to there advantage, yet you are guilty of that exact crime.
As far as you leading the reader to the river that is your nonsensical ideas, I hardly believe that I am alone in the thinking that you are trying to convince people of what you perceive to be the truth. You were merely leading the readers to be skeptical huh? Well I guess that you just admitted to leading readers then didn’t you?
One more thing, let us not forget that you are a graduate of the illustrious University of Oklahoma yourself. Mid sixties if I am correct. Well, I guess a degree from OU meant about as much then as it does now. What did you ever do with that degree of yours again? Right one article for a San Fransisco paper, Do research into how it is impossible to contract AIDS through vaginal sex (Someone should tell Magic Johnson that one), and appear on KFOR in that slick little tank top? If you wish to challenge my intelligence, then perhaps you wouldn’t mind me questioning yours? Why is it again that you still live in Norman, even though you hate it here, almost forty years after you graduated? As far as living in anonymity goes, if I told you my name was Rusty Shackleford, would that do you any good? Do you feel better now. Unfortunately I am not well known around Norman like you are so my name means little, but I hope it makes you feel better.