The MSM reports are at the CBC and the CTV.
From the CBC (read it all via the link above):
Some witnesses said they saw a man go into the washroom with a bomb strapped around his waist and wires hanging out of his pocket. But those reports were quickly discounted, as was speculation that the man was a terrorist bomber.
The police investigated and found the man had carried a can of gasoline into a washroom stall a short time before the explosion and flash fire that killed him.
So that's what the MSM is saying... not necessarily exactly what the police are saying. The MSM isn't providing much in the way of direct quotes for us to judge for ourselves, but is making its own subjective interpretation of what the police supposedly told them.
Now, just wait a minute here! Note that the police are said to have "quickly discounted" witness reports of a bomb strapped to the guy's body with wires hanging out of his pocket, but they don't say why. We must ask why. Did the police find no wires? No explosives? No detonator device? They do not say. They just claim, way too simplistically, too quickly into the ongoing investigation that it was not terror-related.
They fail to tell us what was the cause of the explosion! Stupid MSM... not asking obvious questions... too quick to believe the more comfortable, albeit insufficient, "explanation".
It's what they're not telling us that is the problem!
From the CTV (read it all via the link above):
Police said that while the injuries leading to the man's death are believed to be self-inflicted, "there are no criminal aspects to this incident."
There's no explanation as to why they've (so suspiciously quickly) concluded thusly. No rationale, no logic. No explanation of what the evidence tells them. If they fail to disclose what they found, then we must err on the side of caution and, in response, conclude that they're not telling us everything; that they may well be covering up something much more sinister than a "suicide".
And it wouldn't be the first time the authorities covered up the facts.
What proved to them it was a suicide? Did they find a suicide note? Hell, they don't even know who the decedent was. They don't know if he's, for example, affiliated with Al Qaeda or not. Did they find a lit match? Did they find a lighter? Did the gasoline actually ignite and the can blow up? They didn't say.
They didn't say! So why should we necessarily believe what they've told the MSM? Why should we assume that the headlines speak of the truth?
The police did not make their case to us that it wasn't terrorism-related.
Read the entire reports to get the picture, with all its omissions, gaps and unexplaineds, for yourself and use reason and logic. Question, question, question! Don't be told what to think. Demand proof.
Further, despite the denials of police as to possibility of relation to terrorism, we have the following warning:
Chris Mathers, a former Mountie who works as a security consultant, told The Canadian Press on Monday it was easy to fear the worst when the fire erupted.
"Given what's happening these days in the world, it's certainly not a stretch to assume that a bombing in the downtown core could be terrorist-related," Mathers said.
"I don't want to take anything lightly, but I guess if you want to strike at the Canadian heartland, Tim Hortons would be the place to go."
I would suggest that the official denials of terrorism-relation combined with this serious caution are perhaps designed to prevent public panic while warning us to be ever-vigilant as there is indeed the threat of terrorism happening inside Canada.
Don't forget also to read about this independent investigation by the Northeast Intelligence Network.
I must advise that we must take the official statements at this time with a grain of salt.
And that we must remain vigilant as ever, precisely as if the incident at the Toronto Tim Horton's was terrorism-related.
And we await the finding of the decedent's identity. Did he possess ID? Yes or no? They didn't say!
Who is Mr. X?
