top of page
Writer's pictureEditor Darren Birks

Government Gaslight Public Over November Terror Attacks

Four chilling incidents all at key locations all within hours of each other, and all with the Hallmarks of a terrorist attack.


In the last two weeks, a series of alarming incidents in London have happened, all of them with the hallmarks of a co-ordinated terrorist campaign, begging the question are authorities gaslighting the public again?  All the evidence says they are.


Official explanations of the Westminster Bridge fight, suspicious packages at Gatwick, Euston , and the U.S. Embassy have portrayed them as both 'unrelated' and 'non terror-related'.  The Westminster Bridge stabbing was later revised to be a 'heart attack', the Airport and Train Station incidents ‘just precautions', and the US Embassy incident of the same day, 'a hoax'.  On their own they could all be mistakes and precautions, just as the Government says, but see them together, with three of them happening on the same day, and a very different picture emerges. One that is as sinister as it is chilling: The government are actively covering up these terror attacks, just as they did with the Stockport incident, and just as they will do again unless they are stopped.

  

Most people aren’t even aware that there have been four 'suspicious' incidents, all at key locations, within the last two weeks, with the mainstream media burying the stories or printing disinformation about the attacks in what is now a set pattern of collusion with authorities.


Westminster Bridge: Heart attack 'mistaken' for stabbing.

On November 24th, a chaotic incident on Westminster Bridge was initially reported as a stabbing but was later revised as a 'cardiac arrest' following an alleged fight. We are expected to believe an incident that prompted several police vans, an armed response unit, counter terrorist police and the entire area being cordoned off was due to someone having a heart attack. 


Three men from Algeria were arrested on charges of attempted murder, and remain in police custody, even after the incident was revised to be a cardiac arrest.   Police have been unwilling to give an explanation to the conflicting events.


Gatwick Airport:  ’Suspect Package’ No.1

Two days before, on November 22nd, a suspect package was found in Gatwick Airport.  The South Terminal of the airport was evacuated and a bomb disposal team destroyed the package with a controlled explosion.  


Afterwards the police declared the package had been 'harmless', and released two detained individuals without charge. However, the scale of the disruption—canceling or delaying dozens of flights— the evacuation of the terminal and the bomb squad's controlled explosion suggests otherwise. How could such an elaborate response result in no credible threat? Given the airport’s status as an international hub, it’s plausible the incident was terror-related but 'reclassified' as part of a wider cover-up.


Euston Station: 'suspect package' No.2

The same day, Euston Station had a near identical incident.   Another 'suspicious package' was found, with it too prompting an evacuation and controlled explosion by the bomb squad.  Again, the item was declared non-threatening, and normal service was resumed. 


The overlap in timing with the Gatwick incident and the identical responses by police raises inevitable questions.   Were these two events connected, perhaps as part of a coordinated attempt to target key transportation hubs? 


Authorities insist otherwise, but the likelihood of two unrelated 'mistakes' occurring simultaneously at critical infrastructure sites is dubious not to mention statistically impossible. 


U.S. Embassy  'suspect package' No.3

A few hours later, a third 'suspicious package' was found outside the U.S. Embassy in London.  As with the first two the third suspicious package was naturalised with a controlled explosion with the Embassy in total lockdown until security officers had declared it safe.   


This time officials dismissed the device as a “hoax” and the story was also buried by the media.  The government’s narrative of “coincidence” and “precaution” strains credibility to say the least.


The Bigger Picture: 

While authorities have presented these incidents as isolated, non-threatening, coincidental and precautionary the timing and targets themselves suggest otherwise. 

High-profile locations—the heart of government, a major airport, a busy train station, and a foreign embassy—align with classic terror attack strategies designed to maximise disruption and fear.  The decision to label them all hoaxes or misunderstandings raises the spectre of a deliberate disinformation campaign.

We know that this was the case with the Southport attack,  with the government going to unprecedented lengths to cover-up the truth, including imprisoning those who dared to say it.  

Why the Cover-Up?

It’s not unknown for governments to obscure details about security threats to maintain public order or shield sensitive intelligence. But this government's motives for cover up are not those, they're covering up these terrorist attacks for purely ideological reasons.   


Consider this:   If any of these incidents had been carried out by a white man, they would have been headline news.  If the mythical 'Far Right' had done them it would have been the one and only story on the msm for days.   Therefore, we know that white people weren't involved by the deafening silence surrounding these incidents.


Asked another way, What evidence supports the dismissal of terror motives? 

As the official terrorism threat level remains at “substantial,” it’s critical to question narratives that seem designed to pacify rather than inform.    

If these incidents represent a coordinated campaign, concealing the truth only leaves the public more vulnerable.

The pattern is too striking to ignore.  Britain is under attack from terrorists and the government is providing them with cover.   Thats the real reason behind Police gaslighting the public.    


The government is actively acting against the British people by providing cover for those who want to do us harm.


Darren Birks is the Editor of Vision News Online


Related:


50 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page