There's a ton of information coming out from a bunch of different sources and it's difficult to keep track of who's said what and who has evidence of what. This thread is to keep track of who's making what claims, who has what evidence, and discussion surrounding those.

For top-level comments, please separate into two categories:

Evidence (videos, facts, circumstantial evidence, etc.) that we can validate, invalidate, or provide supporting sources for

Claims (IDF, Hamas, Western media, etc.) that we can prove or disprove using current evidence

=== 2023-10-19 ===

It's established fact that Israel was operating aircraft near the hospital, that Israel was striking targets near the hospital, that Israel had indicated that they would strike the hospital, that Israel had striked the hospital in the past, and that Israel had targeted multiple hospital staff in the days leading up to the strike.

It's currently up to debate, but many indications suggest that Israel's message has changed multiple times. The initial claim was that the attack was on Hamas operatives within the hospital. The claim afterward was that this was a Hamas misfire (using demonstrably falsified audio evidence).

The videos show that a single large explosion triggered whatever happened, not a sequence of smaller explosions or secondary detonations. The video circulating of a Hamas rocket "misfire" is more indicative of a MANPADS launch given multiple comparable flight paths from other MANPADS. It's a clear usage of a multi-pulse rocket motor, something Hamas does not have domestic capability for but does have access to through Iranian MANPADS. An Iranian Misagh-2 fires a missile with less than 2kg of explosives and less than 20kg of total weight.

At this stage, my most likely conclusion is that the damage was the result of an airburst bomb.

  • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]
    ·
    9 months ago

    BBC Verify (New BBC 'fact checking' unit):

    "Inconclusive" is their top line.

    They spoke to independent weapons experts. All but two apparently declined to make a conclusion. One is a British State linked military think tank and the other is an American University scholar with fellowships at The Council on Foreign Relations and the NATO Defence college. BBC Verify does not disclose these facts.

    J Andres Gannon, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University, in the US, says the explosion appears to be small, meaning that the heat generated from the impact may have been caused by leftover rocket fuel rather than an explosion from a warhead.

    Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) in the UK, agrees. While it is difficult to be sure at such an early stage, he says, the evidence looks like the explosion was caused by a failed rocket section hitting the car park and causing a fuel and propellant fire.