J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

Latest J7 news....

J7: 7/7 Inquests - News & Analysis
Recent J7 Blog Entries

Bookmark and Share

07/07/15: Tenth anniversary of 7/7: 7/7 Ten Years On - An indictment of the State and the state of investigative journalism

03/10/11: New 7/7 Video released by Tom Secker: 7/7: Crime and Prejudice

03/06/11: J7 announce the launch of the Official blog of the Free Mohammed Campaign.

21/03/11: J7 publish our Submission to the Inquests regarding resumption of the inquests into the four.

29/10/10: J7 publish 7/7 Inquests transcripts as searchable, print-friendly PDFs.

16/10/10: J7 launch the dedicated new J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog for latest Inquests news and analysis.

07/10/10: J7 publish our Submissions to the 7 July Inquests, a series of documents compiled following Lady Justice Hallett's decision to accept submissions suggesting questions and lines of inquiry for the Inquests.

10/08/10: A new film 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction has been released that places 7/7 in its wider historical and political context, and examines some of the many unanswered questions that still surround 7 July 2005.

01/08/10: J7 publish a review of another 7/7 related book, Out of the Tunnel, by Rachel 'North'.

07/07/10: J7 publish a detailed analysis of the number 30 bus explosion in Tavistock Square.

01/11/09: J7 respond to two 7/7 articles published in Notes from the Borderland issues 7 and 8. Read our response here.

01/11/09: Debunking 7/7 Debunking: An article in two parts that debunks some of the disingenuous attacks against those not convinced by the official story of 7/7. Read Part 1 here and read Part 2 here. October 2010 update: Debunking 7/7 Debunking Part 3.

04/07/09: J7 publish a revised, updated and expanded list of nine possible Alternative Hypotheses.

03/03/09: J7 publish an exclusive interview with political prisoner Hussain al-Samamra, a Palestinian who sought political asylum in the UK, only to be imprisoned for two years without charge by the British State.

13/01/09: J7 challenge assertions made by Paul Stott in his paper and presentation to the Anarchist Studies Network conference at Loughborough University

14/04/08: Latest J7 article in the Capitalising on Terror series published: Human Rights Abuses & The Demonisation of 'The Enemy' in Secret Britain

07/03/08: J7 publish two new articles summarising the results of the 7/7 investigation, "Three years of investigation, 7 arrests, 3 charges" - Part 1 and Part 2. See also the latest update.

07/02/08: J7 Exclusive Report: Peter Power's CV Fakery - 7/7 terror rehearsal man and regular BBC 'terror' consultant was suspended from Dorset Police pending an internal inquiry that resulted in a file being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Full story here.

04/01/08: In July 2007 the BBC approached J7 asking for participants in a 'documentary' about 7/7. Six months after initial contact, the BBC revealed the 'documentary' was part of BBC2's risible Conspiracy Files series. On learning this, J7 declined to participate. Find out why in the full J7 response to the BBC.

03/12/07: 7/7 Ripple Effect - J7 issue a rebuttal and rejection of the film and its unsubstantiated speculation.

05/11/07: Latest J7 Flyer published. View here, download PDF here and here

11/09/07: J7 book review - J7 reviews The 4th Bomb, a book by Daniel Obachike.

11/09/07: J7 reconstruct and republish the 7-7 discussion from the forum of cult writer/director Alex Cox.

24/08/07: Over a year since Dr John Reid acknowledged a fundamental error in the official Home Office 7/7 narrative, J7 receive a response to a series of Freedom of Information requests which includes an amendment to the repeatedly discredited narrative. Read the story and the revised section of the Home Office narrative on the J7 blog.

16/08/07: Channel 4 News' Darshna Soni blogs about the need for a 7/7 public inquiry and asks how independent or public such an inquiry would be under the Inquiries Act 2005, a piece of legislation that puts the government in control of 'independent' inquiries - 7/7 and the public inquiry dilemma, formerly titled, "Why it's time for a public inquiry into 7/7"

13/08/07: "Anyone who thinks the [Home Office] report is a full account is not being serious or realistic." On the launch of his new film The Homefront, the Cousin of 7/7 victim Anthony Fatayi Williams, filmmaker Thomas Ikimi, tells J7 about his film and the experiences of his family at the hands of the government since 7/7.

30/06/07: Major new content added - J7 Analysis of King's Cross / Russell Square incidents

04/06/07: July 7th Truth Campaign interviewed on Channel 4 News as a new survey shows 59% of Muslims don't believe the government has told the whole truth about 7/7. Watch Darshna Soni's original report, Survey: 'government hasn't told truth about 7/7', read viewer comments on the piece that show it's not just Muslims who don't believe we have been told the truth. See also Darshna Soni's follow-up blog and 7/7 The Conspiracy Theories which explains some of the many errors and anomalies in the official story.

03/06/07: Major new content added - J7 Analysis of Edgware Road / Paddington incidents

28/05/07: Major new content added - J7 Analysis of Liverpool Street / Aldgate / Aldgate East incidents

02/05/07: Full transcript and video of Tayab Ali's post-crevice statement on behalf of Salahuddin Amin

01/05/07: Video, audio and full transcript of Imran Khan's statement on behalf of Nabeel Hussain, who was acquitted of all charges in the Crevice trial

01/05/07: Transcript of Imran Khan's statement on behalf of the 5 men convicted in the Operation Crevice trial, given at the end of the trial on 30/04/07, which includes a statement by J7 on the renewed calls for a public inquiry into the events of 7/7

07/03/07: J7 publish a new article by Professor David MacGregor, 'July 7th as Machiavellian State Terror?' an article in which the events of 7/7 are given historical context and examined as potential acts of, 'Machiavellian state terror, spectacular violence perpetrated against the state by elements of the state itself'.

26/02/07: J7 is pleased and honoured to announce the publication of "The economics of 7/7 and other mysteries of capitalism explained", an article written for the July 7th Truth Campaign by writer and journalist William Bowles.

24/02/07: Brand new J7 article Capitalising on Terror - Who is really destroying our freedoms? - A look at how 7/7 has been used as the justification for the imposition of Draconian laws that criminalise everyone.

06/02/07: J7 publishes the London Bombings Dossier - an extensive portfolio of research by David Minahan, former National President of the MSF (Amicus) Union.

11/01/07: Above Top Secret publish an interview with J7 Truth Campaign team.

Full J7 news archive

New Statesman Media Awards 2006 Nominated

j7 logo

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

July 7th Story: Mind the Gaps - Part 1


Documenting the catalogue of inconsistencies in the story so far - Part 1

Ten months after the events of 7 July 2005, on 11 May 2006, the Home Office published the 'Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July' (here-in referred to as the Official Report).

The Official Report has since been discredited owing to a factual inaccuracy, namely the departure time of the train the accused are alleged to have taken from Luton to Kings Cross. This error was announced to Parliament by the Home Secretary on 11 July 2006.

The Official Report was designed to replace a full and independent public inquiry, yet has already been proven to be inaccurate.  Furthermore, additional errors in the report have also been acknowledged, again with regard to key aspects of the statements made.

Mind the Gaps Part 1 and 2 endeavour to highlight some of the many anomalies, inconsistencies and outright errors in both the official report and media coverage of the events of 7/7.

| Mind the Gaps #1 | Mind the Gaps #2 |

Mind the Gaps Part 1 - Gap Summary


Once the authorities had decided the affected trains had left King's Cross underground station, and were not heading towards the station as originally reported, and the Metropolitan Police had eventually decided the scope of the investigation had widened to include possible suicide bombers, it was originally announced that the alleged perpetrators had taken the 0740 Thameslink train from Luton to Kings Cross on the morning of July 7th.

An eyewitness later stated that she had been at Luton station that morning and that the 0740 had been cancelled. Thameslink Rail later confirmed that not only had the 0740 been cancelled but that all trains that morning ran with heavy delays due to problems further up the line. This confirmation first came from Marie Bernes at Thameslink Customer Relations and then from Chris Hudson, the Communications Manager for Thameslink Rail at Luton Station at the time.

It was also reported that the accused had taken the later 0748 train, but with reference to the actual Thameslink train times on July 7th, it was found that this scenario could not be correct either. The 0748 did not reach Thameslink until 8.42am; seven minutes after the Eastbound Circle Line train had departed from Kings Cross, which later exploded between Liverpool St. and Aldgate. The information about the departure times of the Underground trains from King's Cross was obtained by J7 researcher, with full details here. Nor did the 0748 reach Kings Cross Thameslink in time for the men to have made the journey to Kings Cross Underground station to have been captured on CCTV “shortly before 8.30am” as the police stated.

A scheduled 0730 train was delayed and left Luton station at 7.42am on July 7th. This train also arrived at King's Cross Thameslink station too late for the accused to have caught the affected Underground trains, arriving as it did four minutes after the first of the affected trains had already departed Kings Cross.

The accused were shown on a single CCTV image taken from outside Luton station, apparently entering the station six seconds before 7.22am, or so the timestamp on the image would indicate. On this basis, the earliest train alleged sucide bombers could have caught would have been the train that left Luton at 7.25am. This train arrived at King's Cross Thameslink at 8.23am.

The Government narrative of the London Bombings states that the accused caught the non-existent 0740 train and that it arrived at Thameslink at 8.23am. The narrative then says that the men were caught on CCTV at King's Cross Thameslink at 8.26am, whereas it was previously reported that this sighting had occurred at Kings Cross mainline station.

The narrative then claims the men were seen again, four minutes later at Kings Cross mainline, where they proceeded to split up in different directions, giving the impression that each man was off to board a tube train. The quickest route from Thameslink to the tube lines is through an underground subway but the narrative does not specify their alleged route from King's Cross Thameslink station to the mainline station.

TFL Journey Planner advises to allow 6 minutes to transfer between King's Cross Thameslink station and the mainline in the rush-hour, which doesn't allow sufficient time for the accused to transfer between the Thameslink and the mainline stations. The narrative states:

"The 4 are captured on CCTV at 08.26am on the concourse close to the Thameslink platform and heading in the direction of the London Underground system."

From the concourse of which the narrative is speaking, there are four possible routes:

1. Back down to the Thameslink platform at which they just arrived
2. Down to the northbound Thameslink platform
3. To the main exit out onto the street and
4. To the underground via the subway.

By saying the men were "heading in the direction of the London Underground system", the narrative is implying the men took the underground subway route. There have recently been refurbishments at Kings Cross station which now allow access from the Thameslink station to all tube lines. However, in July last year, it was only possible to access the Northern, Victoria and Piccadilly lines this way. Therefore, this route would only have facilitated the journey of Lindsay, who is alleged to have boarded the Piccadilly Line train; the other two men who were alleged to have been on the Circle Line trains would have had to have found an alternative route to the Circle Line platforms, necessitating their splitting up and making it extremely unlikely they would have been seen together again at 8.30am, as the narrative reports.

If we bear in mind that the eastbound Circle Line train left first, at 8.35am, and that Tanweer was reported to have still been on the Thameslink platform at 8.26am, they would have had to have moved at a fast pace for him to have caught this train. There are no reported witness sightings of four men with large rucksacks running. It is extremely difficult to see how Tanweer got to the Circle Line platform so quickly, if he either had to go overground or take a complicated journey to the Circle Line platform from another of the only platforms he could have reached via the Thameslink subway.

We must also factor in that the narrative states:

"At around 08.30am, 4 men fitting their descriptions are seen hugging. They appear happy, even euphoric. They then split up. Khan must have gone to board a westbound Circle Line train, Tanweer an eastbound Circle Line train and Lindsay a southbound Piccadilly Line train. Hussain also appeared to walk towards the Piccadilly Line entrance."

The narrative does not give a source for this information, so it is unclear whether the sighting was by CCTV camera or a witness, nor does it give the exact location in Kings Cross station. Nor is it clear whether the sighting is of the accused, else the narrative would surely have stated 'the 4 men' rather than '4 men fitting their descriptions'. However, this scenario of the men splitting up could only have occurred in the underground ticket hall of Kings Cross mainline station. There is only one entrance to the underground at Thameslink and also from the main concourse of the mainline station, so it would not make sense for the men to have "split up" there.

Also confusing is that the Metropolitan police stated in a press conference that the men were already at Kings Cross mainline by 8.26am when they appealed for information about the movements of Hussain "between 8.26am at King's Cross and 9.47am on the no. 30 bus when the explosion occurred."

This states that 8.26am was the last sighting of the men, as opposed to the time of 8.30am given by the narrative and it is hard to see how they could have been on the concourse at Thameslink station at 8.26am and also at Kings Cross station at that time.

In conclusion, the incorrect train given by the narrative cannot be put down to simple error. Even if the men had taken a train from Luton which actually ran that morning, it still would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to have been sighted at Kings Cross at the time they were said to have been seen, or for them to have caught the underground trains which were later bombed.

The narrative even says there were witnesses on the non-existent train who believe they saw the men. How could this be so when there was no such train? The anomalies in the narrative account regarding the train, its arrival time and how the men could have been sighted at Kings Cross only serve to cause much confusion.

Update: On July 11th 2006, the Home Secretary John Reid announced in Parliament that the Official Report was wrong in giving the time of the train that the suspects took from Luton to London as 7.40am. This led to relatives of the bomb victims renewing calls for an inquiry into the July 7th bombings as it raised concerns about the accuracy of the rest of the report. Strangely, Scotland Yard said that the official account had been produced by the Home Office and police had never given it the time for the train.

A spokesman said the mistake may have come from erroneous first-hand witness accounts of the timing it had received and then passed on. Where could the Home Office, who produced the Official Report have obtained the train time from but the police, who were conducting the investigation? It is also doubtful as to whether or not "erroneous first-hand witness accounts" would have been given to any other source than the police. It is also odd that the police only pointed out the error a year after the event and two months after the Official Report had been released.

Perhaps it was a coincidence that the July Seventh Truth Campaign had raised this issue in the national media not once but twice in the space of a week, just before this announcement was made. It is also still unclear, in the light of this clarification by the Home Secretary, why the 7.25 train was never given by any official or media source as being the train that the men took and no witness has stated they saw the men aboard it.


The narrative states that the men entered Luton station at 7.15am and passed through the ticket barriers on to the platform. This contradicts the timestamp of the one CCTV frame of them, released by the Metropolitan Police Service, where they appear to be entering the station at 7.21:54. It would not make much sense for the men to enter the station at 7.15am, buy their tickets, pass through the ticket barriers and then exit the station only to enter again at 7.22. Again, the narrative contradicts information already in the public domain and no reason is given for this glaring discrepancy..

mind the gapTHE CCTV IMAGES

The image which was released of the four figures entering Luton station is of extremely poor quality and on closer examination contains strange elements. When magnified, the reflection in the mirrored building behind the men shows an incorrect reflection of Hasib Hussain’s legs. They should, obviously, be the opposite to the direction of his legs in the foreground of the picture, but they are in fact, a duplicate.

There are other anomalies in the CCTV image, which have been discussed at length.

However, the strangest aspect of the CCTV images given for July 7th is that only one still frame has ever been released apparently showing them all. It is an extremely poor quality picture, yet the camera that captured it was capable of taking a much higher resolution image only nine days before.

A complete sequence of images was released for the men taking a trip to London on June 28th 2005. This day was reported to be a ‘dummy run’ or a ‘terror rehearsal’ but it is hard to see how this conclusion was drawn. Only three of the four men are present, they are making the journey at a much later time of day and do not visit the stations where the explosions occurred on July 7th. On this basis, it does not appear to be a ‘rehearsal’ at all.

An image of Hasib Hussain was released which was cropped and had no timestamp. This image was reportedly taken inside Luton station and stated by the police to have been taken at "approximately 7.20am".

According to the timestamp on the photo outside the station, this is two minutes before he even went inside the station. It is odd that the police should be giving approximate times. The image should have had a timestamp on it also, giving the definite time it was taken, so why should approximations come into it at all? There is also no explanation as to why it was necessary to crop the picture, removing all background and making it hard to see where the photo was actually taken.

A third image was released on October 2nd 2005 of Hasib Hussain apparently exiting a Boots store onto the concourse of Kings Cross station. There was no explanation as to why this image was released so much later than the others. It was said to have been taken at 9am, yet Kings Cross was already being evacuated at 9am. There are no signs of this in the CCTV picture.

There has been no CCTV showing the men in the car park at Luton station, on the train from Luton to London, at Thameslink or Kings Cross or on any of the tube platforms. According to Hazel Blears, this is due to the "ongoing investigation" when questioned by an MP.

For an in-depth analysis of the CCTV images and Khan and Tanweer videos, see the 'evidence' analysis page here.


If the reports that Tanweer specifically hired a Nissan Micra for the journey to London are correct, then these do not make sense on more than one level. Firstly, it appears that he had hired the car some days before the 7th, because it was so overdue that a representative from the car hire company had coincidentally turned up at his house to retrieve the car the same day that the police raided it.

Tanweer himself drove a Mercedes, a much more spacious car to accommodate three not insubstantially sized men, four rucksacks, a large amount of spare bombs and cool boxes to store them in. It makes little sense to hire a small car such as a Micra for such a journey. One might argue that the hiring of the car was Tanweer’s way of covering his tracks. However, he hired the car in his own name and used his own credit card to pay for it; illustrated by the company rep going straight to his house when the car became overdue for return. This suggests Tanweer felt there was no reason to be covert about hiring the car and therefore might just as well have driven his own car.


Up until September 2005, the colour of the Micra was universally reported as being red. Then it changed to blue and silver-blue.

One explanation for the reporting of the car being ‘red’ was that it may have been confused with the other car, apparently used by Germaine Lindsay, which was, according to the narrative, a red Fiat Brava. However, the narrative goes on to say that the Brava was towed away for not having a ticket. According to some reports, the car had been towed away on the day of the attacks and was apparently discovered in a compound in Leighton Buzzard, in which case, no reporter would have even got to see this car in order to confuse it with the Micra. The narrative reports the colour of the Micra as being light blue.


It was reported on July 18th that nine bombs had been found in the car at Luton station car park, although the car in which they were found was erroneously referred to as Lindsay’s Fiat and the narrative states that the Fiat was not there.

By July 27th the amount of bombs found in the car had risen to twelve. Pictures were released of these bombs, strangely not by the police but by an American news channel ABC.

These photos were ‘obtained’ by ABC news, and referred to in their report stating that there were twelve bombs, even though the next day it was reported by other media that the number of bombs found was, in fact, sixteen.

The finding of the bombs in the cars curiously echoes the way in which a trail was similarly found to incriminate the suspected 9/11 hijackers and the Madrid bombing suspects. The 9/11 suspects apparently left their car in the car park of Logan airport, which contained an Arabic flight manual for a 767, a copy of the Qu’ran and a fuel consumption calculator.

The Madrid suspects were traced through their apparently careless abandoning of a van near the train station car park which contained spare detonators and an Arabic tape of Qu’ranic quotes.

Perpetrators of any kind of crime, let alone one of this magnitude, tend not to leave such an easy trail straight to them and their possible associates.


Even more curious than the bombs being left in the cars, is why they left them there at all when it has been recently stated, and confirmed by the narrative that there were no other suspects involved with the attacks of July 7th. This rules out the possibility that other potential terrorists were waiting to retrieve the bombs later on to carry out further attacks.

If it was a suicide mission then there is hardly any logic to leaving behind any bombs at all, especially ones that have been shown by the ABC pictures to be even more capable of causing carnage than the ones actually used. Why leave behind not only the spare bombs but a spare rucksack, which was first reported to have been left under the passenger seat, although this report suggests the rucksack was left in the boot of the car.

Why load up a rucksack with bombs that nobody was apparently going to carry? The bus bomb, horrific as it was, might well have been far worse had it gone off on the bottom deck in the centre, rather than at the rear of the upper deck. These issues are not consistent with the alleged intention to cause "maximum carnage".

The narrative does not mention in detail what was left in the car, only referring to "other items consistent with the use of explosives." The narrative suggests that explosive devices found in the car (without stating which car) are of a different and smaller kind than those used in the attacks. It suggests these were possibly to be used for "self-defence" or a diversion in case the men were intercepted during their journey. This line of reasoning does not appear to contain much logic. If the men happened to be stopped on the way to London, then using bombs as a diversionary tactic to allay suspicion that they might be terrorists would be rather absurd.


Two days after the attacks, it was reported that Scotland Yard sources were disappointed to find that the CCTV on the bus was not working, and they would therefore have no footage of the person responsible for the attack actually on board the vehicle. The source said:

"It's a big blow and a disappointment. If the cameras had been running we would have had pin-sharp close-up pictures of the person who carried out this atrocity.  We don't know if the driver forgot to switch them on or if there was a technical problem but there are no images."

The report went on to say that the bus had four cameras - one covering people getting on, the second at the exit doors and one on each deck scanning the length of the vehicle.

An employee of Stagecoach, the company which runs the bus which was bombed gave an anonymous statement saying that there was no reason why the CCTV should not have been working since they are maintained more than once a week.

An ex London bus driver confirmed that the CCTV cameras not working on the bus was an unlikely scenario.

mind the gap


The Stagecoach employee referred to above also pointed out that the No.30 was the only bus to be diverted from its usual route that morning. However, this appears to be far from the case as two other buses that would not normally pass through Tavistock Square have been identified in Tavistock Square ahead of the 30.

Photographic evidence exists showing a number 205 whose usual route between Paddington and Whitechapel a short distance ahead of the number 30 and also a 390, whose usual route is between Notting Hill Gate and Archway, ahead of the number 205.

Also in Tavistock Square that morning, heading the opposite way, were a No.59 and a No. 68, both of which include Russell Square on their usual routes.

Neither the 30, the 205, nor the 390 would have any reason to pass through Tavistock Square on their usual daily routes. While it has been reported that the number 30 bus was diverted, it now seems that at least two other buses were also diverted and, to date, there has been no formal explanation for how and why the number 30 bus was diverted into Tavistock Square, or who ordered its diversion.

One possibility is that these buses were transporting the injured from the tube blasts, since it is widely reported that three buses were used for this purpose.

According to a witness who was on the lower deck of the No.30 bus, the bus exited Euston bus station via Euston Road, instead of its usual route out across Eversholt Street. According to Daniel Obachike:

I was aboard the lower deck of the bus that was blown up on July 7th. I rang the emergency hotline to report the 2 dark cars I saw holding the bus up and diverting it towards Tavistock Square. Instead of being asked to provide a statement what followed was 7 months of police surveillance and Harassment. My experiences are contained in a book called Statement: The 4th Bomb (as yet unpublished)

The bus then turned right into Upper Woburn Place, but could not go past the junction with Tavistock Square because of a police cordon across the road. The account of the cordon appears to be backed up in a Daily Mail interview published on 7th July 2006, in the Daily Mail, with Tania Calabrese, who survived the bus bomb. She had been travelling on the top deck of the bus, with her boyfriend, Tony Cancellara, and said:

"Tony was getting impatient and we were thinking about getting off and walking. We were talking to two ladies in front of us and the whole bus was buzzing - one of the ladies said she had heard something about a bomb and then I noticed there were police putting up tape to block off the street. There were a lot of people getting off just before it happened. I can't remember hearing it go off, I just remember a vacuum and being thrown forward."

Source: Daily Mail

Even though by the time the bus exploded emergency services would have been responding to the incidents underground and evacuation procedures were being carried out at King's Cross station, there is no explanation for why Tavistock Square was being cordoned off before an incident had occurred there.

According to traffic warden Adesoji Adesi, the driver of the No.30 bus, George Psaradakis, had been asking two Camden council parking attendants for directions when the explosion occurred.

It is also worth noting that while the destination blind of the bus indeed stated ‘Hackney Wick’, there were numerours reports in the first week of reporting that the bus had been travelling from Hackney and terminating at Marble Arch. It is difficult to see how this error was made, given that the destination blind was clear to see. However, could it be that the 'erroneous' reports were correct, and that despite other reports, the No.30 may perhaps have been travelling south, perhaps because it was carrying injured passengers picked up at King's Cross or Russell Square. This idea is backed up by a Guardian article from Friday 8th July 2005, Where the Bombers Struck:

According to eyewitnesses, some people who had been evacuated from Russell Square tube station had boarded the bus just before it too was attacked.

If this is indeed the case, then it is possible that the initial reports claiming the bus was travelling from Hackney Wick to Marble Arch were incorrect.

Also rather oddly, the driver of the bus, after helping to pull several passengers from the wreckage, walked for seven miles to the Central Middlesex Hospital at Acton, instead of seeking help or being attended to at the scene like other survivors and despite British Transport Police officers being on the scene before the explosion happened (see below).

In a Note to Editors in a press release from 8th July 2005, issued by the bus operating company, Stagecoach, states:

“The driver of the bus is an important police witness and is not being identified. For similar reasons, he will be giving no further media interviews in relation to this incident.”

Mr. Psaradakis was also reported by a Greek newspaper to be under police protection in a ‘secret location’ on July 12th - although he was back at work by September 8th, driving the bus for the first time since July 7th.

Mr Psaradakis has featured in numerous media interviews since that statement was made. Why the change of media strategy with the bus driver? And why haven't the drivers of the affected trains featured in a similar number of interviews?

Mr. Psaradakis does not remember seeing Hasib Hussain board his bus.

A tourist staying in a hotel in Tavistock Square, reported that, incredibly, she was told on the day by police that the bomb had been in a rucksack, when this was not publicly announced until many days later. How could this have been known on the same day? Especially since there is so much confusion over what the devices were made from and how they could have been transported.

It's also surprising that police were on the scene so quickly, considering the other incidents underground. One man, who had been driving through Tavistock Square in his daughter's car, and was right next to the bus when it exploded, stated that he'd been told by a police officer after he got out of the car, that he wouldn't be getting the car back.

The immediate presence of the police may partly be explained by the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, who, in a message to the BMA, wrote:

Three of my officers were travelling behind the bus when the bomb exploded, and were the first officers on the scene. Whilst they began to rescue passengers from the bus, your staff immediately sprang into action assessing and treating the casualties.”

Source: Bridget Dunne

However, some photographs and witness accounts suggest that police and plain clothes 'operatives', were on the scene and inside the cordon within seconds of the blast, with the implication that the scene was already set for something dramatic to happen.


A New Zealand doctor, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, who had been in the BMA building when the bus exploded outside, mentioned that there had been a second, controlled explosion on the bus.

"There was no room for hesitation - I wasn't thinking at that level. It was the moral and ethical thing to do," she said, before going on to describe how police then carried out a controlled explosion on a second suspect bomb. Scotland Yard, however, said there was no record of a second, controlled explosion at Tavistock Square."

There are other reports which correlate with her account of a second explosion on the bus.

“All the time they were conscious of a microwave box which had been left beside a window and was causing people to fear a secondary explosion.Eventually a bomb disposal unit were called and they destroyed the package.”

Ms. Oates-Whitehead was found dead at her flat in Shepherd’s Bush, London at the age of 35, two weeks later. There was an active media campaign to discredit her, this was highly apparent. The article from which her above quote was taken referred to her in the headline as a "bogus" doctor, yet Richmal Oates-Whitehead, was indeed a doctor.

It seems strange, when reporting the death of a young woman under strange circumstances to concentrate solely on the veracity of certain things she had said or done throughout her life. This is not generally the way unexpected deaths are reported.


The Metropolitan Police, in a statement on July 14th, said that they estimated there were around 80 people on the bus when it exploded.

Many reports indicate that the bus was filled to capacity, mainly due to the Underground being evacuated. The narrative stated that the bus bomb injured over 110 people. Obviously, not everybody injured by the bomb was a passenger on the bus, but the amount of people on the bus appears to be in dispute.

I saw a No 30 bus at Woburn Place with people getting off. My friend and I ran to catch it, we knocked on the door for the driver to open the door, he didn't as he needed I suppose to pull away in order to let an unmarked blue coloured car with the sirens going that was stuck in traffic trying to go through into Euston road. The bus was full but not cramped with people."

Source: BBC News

This seems to be backed up by this account from a survivor of the bus bomb:

"I strolled back to Euston to hop on a bus. It was now about 9.30am, and when the No 30 came with some space on it, I thought: "I'll just get out of Euston." Then the bus driver said we'd be diverted and those who wanted could walk to King's Cross. Oh, the lucky people who got off! The bus was emptier now and I got a seat at the back."

Source: The Times

Yet the bus driver had apparently had to stop passengers boarding, presumably because the bus was so full:

"I turned into Woburn Place at the same time as a number 30 bus, which would normally have headed straight towards Baker Street. The driver turned away one lucky lady at a bus-stop and he had got 50 yards ahead of me when I heard a bang."


Richard Jones stated that he had been on the No.30 bus, and had got off just before it exploded. According to Reuters, he stated that he got off the bus when he realised it wasn’t following its usual route. He also stated this in an interview with ‘Good Morning America’. He then went on to say that not only did about half a dozen people get off the bus with him, for the same reason, but the same number left via the back door of the bus. This conflicts with the statements in the section above.

Later on, Richard Jones changed his story and claimed he had left the bus because of the bizarre behaviour of a man he believed was the bomber. He described a man who was fiddling with a small bag at his feet, and who was wearing hipster-style fawn checked trousers, with exposed designer underwear and a matching jersey-style top. Mr. Jones even described the underwear, saying "The pants looked very expensive, they were white with a red band on top."

As can be clearly seen when compared to the CCTV images released of Hussain that day, this description does not even slightly equate to what he was actually wearing or the size of bag he was carrying. Moreover, Mr. Jones states that he was on the lower deck of the bus on the drivers’ side, yet the bomb exploded at the rear of the top deck, and seems confused as to whether he was sitting or standing and whether the ‘agitated young man’ was facing him or facing away from him, since these details changed with every account Richard Jones gave.

Regardless of the unusually vast capacity for detail of Richard Jones’ memory, all the details were completely wrong. He is not a credible witness and did not see Hasib Hussain on the bus. Yet his testimony is cited in the narrative.


The Government narrative states that after the men were seen at “around 8.30am” together at Kings Cross, and then split off into different directions, Hussain appeared to walk towards the entrance to the Piccadilly Line, in the same apparent direction as Lindsay. However, what he did after this appears to make no sense. The narrative does not mention Hussain again until 8.55am, when he apparently left the station to walk onto Euston Road where he apparently tried to contact the other three men on his phone. According to the reports at the time these phone calls came to light, Hussain was "frantic" and the calls described as "desperate".

Conversely, although the phone calls are mentioned, the narrative relays that Hussain’s demeanour was "relaxed and unhurried" over this period. There is also no explanation for how Hussain apparently had his phone with him in order to make these calls, yet his mobile was also apparently left in his room for his brother to find.

"When he failed to get in touch and the family heard news of the bombings, brother Imran went through Hussain's computer and the numbers in his mobile phone memory. Imran chanced upon one for Jermaine "Jamal" Lindsay, 19, the King's Cross attacker. He also called a stored number that led him to 18 Alexandra Grove in Burley, Leeds, which is now known to be the bomb factory."

Source: The Mirror

Five minutes later, at 9am, he re-enters Kings Cross through Boots – and is caught on CCTV coming out of the front of the store – then goes into WHSmith where "it appears" he bought a 9v battery. It is bewildering that the narrative uses this terminology – what made it "appear" that Hussain bought the battery? They are unable to ascertain whether or not he bought a battery but are able to ascertain the type of battery he bought? This makes no sense at all. Or is it that they can ascertain that he bought a battery but cannot say for sure what type it was? If this is the case, then why speculate at all as to the type of battery, when surely the phrase "He bought a battery" would suffice.

Hussain then left the station again and made his way across and along the Euston Road to McDonalds. All of this apparently took place within six minutes, as the narrative claims he entered McDonalds at 9.06am.

He apparently caught a No.91 bus, but at an unknown point, disembarked and boarded the No.30, which exploded at 9.47am. There is no reason why Hussain should have chosen to board a bus rather than a tube train; contrary to early reports, despite disruptions to the tube lines, he could have caught a train. Some reports even speculated that he had in fact attempted to board a train and failed to detonate his bomb. This was an explanation given for the apparent purchase of the battery, and the reason the bus was chosen as a target was because Kings Cross, by 9am was already being evacuated.

This speculation is not borne out by the narrative. It is also odd that despite the evacuation of Kings Cross, there are no signs of this in the CCTV image of Hussain leaving Boots.


A comment which appeared on the blog of a survivor of the Piccadilly Line explosion highlighted a peculiar situation regarding the number of the train. The driver of train 311 had been told that there was no record of his having been involved in the attacks, despite the fact that he had been interviewed at length after the explosion.

TFL stated that they had given the train number 311 in error and the actual number was 331.

This is in direct conflict with survivor statements and those of the driver, his companion and the Duty Manager of Russell Square Station.

There have also been conflicting reports of where the explosion actually occurred in the train; a BBC report stated:

"The device was in the first carriage by the first set of double doors where passengers stand."

This was what the Metropolitan Police had stated a week after the bombings. However, the same BBC report changed later on:

"The device was next to the rear set of double doors in the front carriage of the train."

This was apparently amended after survivors corrected the initial reports. However, some sources, including the Metropolitan Police website, still state that the explosion occurred at the front of the first carriage rather than the rear. The narrative, confusing as ever, simply states "Forensic evidence suggests the explosion occurred on or close to the floor of the standing area between the second and third set of seats."


There are absolutely no witness sightings of Shehzad Tanweer, the man accused of causing this explosion. The narrative states:

"Shehzad Tanweer is not visible, but he must have been in the second carriage from the front."

Which gives the distinct impression that this is merely an assumption. In fact, one survivor, who was very close to where the blast had occurred, said:

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag,"

Source: Cambridge Evening News

The hole in the floor with the metal pushed upwards was also described by Lizzie Kenworthy, an off-duty police officer who was on the train two carriages behind the bomb.

These accounts are consistent with a report published on July 8th, which stated:

"A counter-terrorism source told us the device was probably left on the floor of a train leaving Aldgate East Underground station. It was operated by remote control to explode at precisely the moment another train was passing in the opposite direction."

The report also describes how it was not just one train affected by the explosion:

"It is thought the blast - shortly before 9am - ripped through the shell of the carriage and tore a hole in the oncoming train….Our source said: "It was utter carnage inside both trains. There were limbs scattered everywhere."

In early reports the bombed train was reported to have been traveling towards Liverpool Street from the direction of Aldgate. In fact, TFL stated that not only was the train traveling in this direction but that it was on the Hammersmith and City Line, rather than the Circle Line. When an independent researcher queried whether this train was one which had been travelling in the opposite direction but affected by the bomb on the Circle Line train, the response from TFL was that this report had been given in error and that only one train had been affected.

The Metropolitan Police stated that the bomb had been on a train travelling “from Liverpool Street to Aldgate station” presumably this refers to the train being between these stations when the blast occurred. The police also said that the device was in the third carriage of the train.

However, the narrative places Tanweer in the second carriage of the train as stated above. It would surely be obvious, even a week later, exactly in which carriage the blast occurred.


Similar to the other incidents, there are no reliable witness sightings of Khan on the train. Survivor Danny Biddle remembers seeing Khan. However, there is no definitive account from Mr. Biddle; it changes every time it has been reported, varying from whether Khan was sitting or standing, the distance Mr.Biddle says he was from Khan, and whether Khan was holding his rucksack in front of him or whether it was on his back.

The press sensationally implied that another passenger, John Tulloch "may have seen" Khan, presumably due to Mr.Tulloch’s proximity to the explosion. However, there is also this:

"But surprisingly Prof Tulloch said the image of the bomber did not trigger his memory, and he remains unconvinced whether he saw the man who may have been sitting opposite him.

"I don't know if I did see him," he said. "I'm still not sure. In my police report I emphasised that I had a strong impression of someone who looked like him and was sitting opposite me in the Tube, but I can't guarantee that it was that day."

As with Aldgate, there were suggestions that more than one train was involved in the incident. At the press conference a week after the bombings, the police stated:

"The explosion blew a hole through a wall onto another train on an adjoining platform. The device was in the second carriage, in the standing area near the first set of double doors."

Source: Metropolitan Police Service

An independent researcher asked TFL to clarify how many trains were involved in the Edgware Road incident and received the reply:

"In total, four trains were damaged.  Three of the trains were those where the explosions took place.  A fourth train, a Hammersmith & City line train, at Edgware sustained damage, while passing Circle line train 216 when the device exploded.  No fatalities or injuries were recorded on the Hammersmith & City line train."

TFL only cites a Hammersmith and City line train being affected by the Edgware Road blast, but this is in direct conflict with the accounts of Jenny Nicholson, a victim of the Edgware Road blast:

"Jenny Nicholson, who was 24, was killed by the suicide bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan on the eastbound Circle line service she had boarded at Paddington station."

Source: The Guardian

Jenny was on an eastbound Circle Line train which she had boarded at Paddington station, yet Mohammad Sidique Khan was reported to be on the westbound train that he had allegedly boarded at Kings Cross.

Eyewitness accounts also support the view that the other train involved was an eastbound Circle Line train. It’s hard to see how TFL can be unclear which lines were affected by the explosion at Edgware Road.


On July 7th, the Metropolitan Police outlined the times that the explosions occurred at a press conference:

"At 08.51 on 7 July at Liverpool Street Station there was a confirmed explosion in a carriage 100 yards into the (Liverpool Street-bound station) tunnel.

At 08.56 there was another incident at King’s Cross / Russell Square. Both stations were used to bring out casualties.

At 09.17 there was an explosion on a train coming into Edgware Road underground station approximately 100 yards into the tunnel. The explosion took place on a train and blew through a wall onto another train on an adjoining platform."

Source: Metropolitan Police Service

These times were confirmed the next day by the Government Office for London – albeit with a rather inexcusable error in the first blast time given; 8.15am rather than 8.51am.

However, the day after that, July 9th, the police revised the original timings and said that the explosions had happened "simultaneously" within seconds of each other at around 8.50am. TFL released a statement the same day confirming these new times.

TFL said that their evidence was based upon the precise time the Tunnel Telephone system on the Piccadilly line went out of service. If this happened at 8.50 then it is difficult to see how 8.56 could have been originally given as the time for this blast.

Strangely, some sources have even given the time of the first explosion, which occurred on the Eastbound Circle Line train as 8.49am, which is backed up by this statement:

"The first report of a major incident at Liverpool Street station was received by the London ambulance service at 0849, within a minute of the blast."

Source: BMJ

This is, of course, in conflict with the official timing which claims 8.50am.

It is hard to see how the timings could have changed from having quite large gaps in between to being simultaneous. A log of events released by London Underground shows the initial confusion over what had happened.


On the morning of July 7th, Ian Blair issued a statement:

"London's Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair tells the BBC he knows of "about six explosions", one on a bus and the others related to Underground stations. He says he believes the six affected areas are Edgware Road, King's Cross, Liverpool Street, Russell Square, Aldgate East and Moorgate"

Source: BBC News

British Transport Police had said over an hour earlier that "power surge incidents" had occurred on the Underground at Aldgate, Edgware Road, King's Cross, Old Street and Russell Square stations.

Since the blasts occurred on trains that were between stations, wounded people were apparently emerging from both stations, which would explain some of the confusion, although a survivor of the Aldgate explosion says they were not allowed to exit through Liverpool Street but instead had to walk through the tunnel towards Aldgate, past the bombed carriage and the carnage it contained.

Old Street and Moorgate are one stop away from each other on the Northern Line. What occurred there that it was judged to have been an explosion site as well? Just after the police confirmed reports of the bus explosion, Transport Union officials reported that there had been three bus explosions. There were also reports that two buses had been damaged in explosions; one in Tavistock Square and one in Russell Square.

"Witness, Belinda Seabrook said of the Russell Square blast: "I was on the bus in front and heard an incredible bang, I turned round and half the double decker bus was in the air."

Source: BBC News

Surely this witness would have been aware of her location?

The next day, July 8th, however, Ian Blair was confident about the number of bombs…and also, oddly, about the number of bombers:

"If London could survive the Blitz, it can survive four miserable bombers like this. I'm not saying there are four bombers, four miserable events like this."

One might assume, as he quickly corrected himself, that this was a mere slip, since it was reported on the same day that it was believed 15 terrorists would have been needed to carry out the attacks. Either way, odd that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner would retract use of the word 'bombers' when it is apparently widely accepted that 'four miserable bombers' were responsible for what happened.

| Mind the Gaps #1 | Mind the Gaps #2 |

j7 logo J7:Inquests Blog | J7:Blog | J7:FB Group | J7:FB Page | J7:Forum | Contact J7 | Espanol | italiano | portuguese | Francaise | german |