On 11 Sep 2004 20:53:32 GMT, something compelled
(Gould 0738), to say:

But I found others, and
while they say Norman was there, had a gun, and fought with some
students, nowhere has it been proved that he was there with the
specific intent to cause trouble.

He was there.

He had a gun.

He was picking fights with students.......

But you fail to see how that establishes he was there to cause trouble?

No, but I've known more unbalanced nutjobs than you have. The
fact that all these things happened in no way proves that the FBI
either wanted or condoned those actions.

Norman turned his gun over to the local police, who quickly announced it had
*not* been fired. The FBI, however, was later able to establish that the gun
had been fired since it was last cleaned- although they couldnot establish that
it had been fired at the demonstration.

Which also does noting to show that the FBI wanted to provoke
anything.

A good synopsis of events:

from: http://www.spectacle.org/595/kent.html


Yeah, I saw that. I does not show that Terry was there to
provoke an incident. Apparently he was hired to be a
photographer for the FBI, I'll bet the fact that he had a gun
****ed them off to no end.