Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Disasters & emergencies fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about disasters & emergencies. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

3,259 published reviews in this topic

FACTLYDisasters & emergencies

Recent video of a bridge getting collapsed in Assam due to rains

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerned a video shared during the recent Assam floods as showing a bridge collapsing in Assam because of rain. FACTLY’s review identifies the video relevant to that claim as unrelated to Assam and from Indonesia. Its conclusion is based on examining screenshots from the video and searching for matching or similar visuals, rather than on evidence that a bridge collapsed in Assam.

FACTLYDisasters & emergencies

Media did not report Dayanand Tiwari’s brave act of saving 50 people during the fire accident in Delhi’s Mundka

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The claim concerns Dayanand Tiwari’s rescue efforts during the fire near West Delhi’s Mundka metro station and alleges that media did not report his actions. FACTLY’s review says Tiwari, a crane driver, and his helper Anil Tiwari used a crane to rescue people from the burning building. It describes the fire as having killed at least 27 people, with others reported missing. The review’s central check is whether coverage existed, not whether Tiwari’s actions occurred. It names multiple outlets that reported his rescue, including The Times of India, Business Standard, NDTV, The Statesman, Amarujala, Odishatv, India TV, ETV Bharat and Times Now. It also says regional media reported the story. This directly contradicts the claim that media did not report his act. FACTLY further notes that politicians, film personalities and journalists praised Tiwari, and reproduces a post by politician Vijayasai Reddy commending a local crane operator for saving more than 50 people during the Mundka fire. The review therefore concludes that reports and public praise existed, making the claim that the media ignored Tiwari misleading.

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaDisasters & emergencies

Gota-Go-Gama පුස්තකාලය ගිනිබත් වුණාද?

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim concerns social-media posts and photographs saying the Gota-Go-Gama library at Galle Face was burned during the May 9, 2022 attack on the protest site. The review says it examined those circulating images and posts and found that the library itself was not set alight. It also reports that the people there protected the library and that its books had been taken outside before the attack. [S1: “පසුගිය 09 වනදා ගාලු මුවදොර ‘ගෝඨා ගෝ ගම’ට එල්ල වූ මැර ප්‍රහාරයේදී එහි පුස්තකාලය ද ගිනිබත් වී ඇති බවට සමාජ මාධ්‍ය ඔස්සේ සංසරණය වූ ඡායාරූප සටහන් වල නිරවද්‍යතාවය සොයා අප කළ විමර්ශනයයි මේ.”; “එමෙන්ම පහර දීමට ප්‍රථම පුස්තකාලයේ තබා තිබූ පොත් සියල්ල පුස්තකාලය තුළින් එළියට රැගෙන තිබූ බවයි.”] The review describes two forms of evidence for its conclusion: footage showing the library during the incident, and an account from Manuranga Wijesekara, whom it identifies as one of the young people responsible for the library. According to the review, he said the attackers tried to set fire to or damage it, but those present prevented them. [S1: “එම අවස්ථාවේ දී පුස්තකාලය ගිනි බත් නොවී ඇති අයුරු දක්නට ලැබෙන අතර පුස්තකාලය බේරාගෙන තිබුණේ මේ අයුරින්.”; “අරගල භූමියේ පුස්තකාලය භාරව කටයුතු කරමින් සිටි එක් තරුණයෙක් වන මනුරංග විජේසේකර එම අවස්ථාවේ පැවසුවේ පුස්තකාලයට ගිනි තැබීමට කඩා කප්පල් කිරීමට පැමිණි කණ්ඩායම උත්සහ කළත් ඔවුන් ඊට ඉඩ නොදුන් බවයි.”] The distinction matters: the review does not say that nothing at the protest site was damaged. It notes that posts also circulated showing books had been destroyed, and says it planned to seek further information from someone active at the library on May 9. Its conclusion is specifically that the library was not burned, based on the named volunteer’s account and footage showing the library that day. [S1: “කෙසේනමුත් අරගල භූමියට එල්ල වූ ප්‍රහාරයේ දී පොත් විනාශ කර තිබූ බව දැක්වෙන මෙවැනි සටහන් හුවමාරු වී තිබූ අතර මේ පිළිබඳව “ගෝඨා ගෝ ගම” අර්ගල භූමියේ පුස්තකාල පරිශ්‍රයේ මැයි 09 වැනිදා සක්‍රීයව සිටි අයෙකු සම්බන්ධ කර ගනිමින් වැඩිදුර තොරතුරු සැපයීමට ද බලාපොරොත්තු වෙමු.”; “එම අවස්ථාවේ පුස්තකාලය ගිනි බත් නොවූ බව එය භාරව කටයුතු කරන එක් තරුණයෙකු පවසා සිටි අතර මැයි 09 වැනි දින පුස්තකාලය දැක්වෙන දර්ශන වලින්ද ඒ බව සනාථ වේ.”]

FACTLYDisasters & emergencies

Video showing Asani cyclone visuals at Machilipatnam beach in Andhra Pradesh

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The review examines a social-media video presented as showing Asani cyclone conditions at Machilipatnam beach. It describes dark blue thunderclouds moving over a beach, then investigates whether the footage was from the cyclone or from the claimed location. The review reports that the video had circulated since June 2021, before the Asani claim, and concludes it was not related to the cyclone. [S1: “This video has been circulating on social media at least since June 2021. The video shared in the post is old and has nothing to do with the Asani cyclone.”] To trace the footage, the review says it reverse-searched screenshots from the shared video and found a similar video posted by the Facebook page Andhra Pradesh Weatherman on 17 June 2021. That page initially described the visuals as being from Yarada beach in Visakhapatnam district. After the clip went viral with the Machilipatnam attribution, the page clarified in a tweet that it had been taken at Kalingapatnam beach in Srikakulam district. [S1: “On reverse image search of the screenshots of the video shared in the post, a video with similar visuals is found to be posted on a Facebook page named ‘Andhra Pradesh Weatherman’ on 17 June 2021.”] The review also cites a Suman TV journalist’s clarification that the video was from Kalingapatnam beach. It qualifies its location finding: the reviewers could not independently establish the exact place. Its central conclusion rests on the earlier appearance of the footage, which rules out the clip as recent Asani cyclone visuals, even though the precise beach attribution was not definitively settled. [S1: “Though we could not ascertain the exact location of the place, it can be concluded from all these pieces of evidence that the video shared in the post is old and has nothing to do with the recent Asani cyclone.”]

APA - Austrian Presse AgenturDisasters & emergencies

Ein virales Video zeigt einen gerade ausbrennenden E-Bus.

Publisher’s rating: Der Bus im Video war mit Methan betrieben und kein E‑Bus.

The video does show a bus burning, but the review found that it was not an electric bus. The incident occurred on April 16 on Strada provinciale 344 near Perugia, Italy. The review says reports about the fire described the vehicle as a methane-powered transport vehicle, and that no passengers were aboard when it caught fire. To identify the vehicle, the review compared scenes from the viral Facebook posts with a video published by the online newspaper Umbria On. That video also showed the burned-out bus afterward. The review says those later images helped identify it as one of Perugia’s light-blue gas buses; the buses carry the wording “Io vado a metano,” meaning they run on methane. This evidence connects the burning vehicle in the viral footage to a methane bus, rather than relying only on the post’s description. The review also reports that an ÖAMTC electric-mobility expert confirmed the release of gas from the bus’s safety system. According to the expert, heat caused a safety device to open and release the methane; the gas did not ignite spontaneously, but was ignited by the vehicle fire. Thus, the dramatic flames in the video do not establish that the bus was electric.

dpaDisasters & emergencies

Video toont een fel brandende elektrische bus.

Publisher’s rating: De beelden van de busbrand zijn echt, al is het geen elektrische bus maar een aardgasbus (CNG). Italiaanse media meldden dat de aardgasbus op zaterdag 16 april 2022 op een provinciale weg bij Perugia vlam vatte, vermoedelijk onder de motorkap. De monteur die zonder passagiers onderweg was naar een werkplaats bleef ongedeerd.

The review investigated a 25-second video shared on Facebook on 18 April 2022 with the claim that it showed an electric bus on fire. It identifies the vehicle as a CNG (natural-gas) bus, not an electric bus. The incident it connects to the footage occurred on 16 April 2022 on a provincial road near Perugia, Italy; the bus was reportedly traveling to a workshop without passengers, and its mechanic was unharmed. The source says the fire may have started beneath the bonnet, but presents that cause as a possibility rather than a confirmed finding. To check the video's location, the review compared visible road, vehicle and landscape details with claims that the footage showed a bus in Kenya. It notes that traffic in Kenya drives on the left, whereas the bus in the video is on the right side of the road. It also points to the burned bus's white EU-style plate and says the plate formats described for Kenya differ; the landscape, too, does not match Karen Road. The review instead links the footage to Italy, citing Italian local-media reports and visual identifiers in a longer, clearer version of the video. The review also assesses whether the fire's appearance supports the electric-bus claim. It says the sustained jets of flame are characteristic of a natural-gas bus fire, and describes how heat can trigger pressure-relief devices on rooftop gas cylinders to release fuel that burns in jets. These observations support the identification of a CNG bus; the review's video comparisons and location clues provide separate evidence about where the incident occurred.