Verification within Meta’s Third-Party Fact-Checking Program
A photo of alleged explosions in the center of Moscow has been spread in network from April 16, 2022. It is stated that the explosions happened in a pyrotechnics warehouse, and sirens sounded during the explosions. As a result of the explosions, a fire allegedly broke out and spread to a nearby building. However, in reality there are the explosions caused due to the fire in a warehouse with gas cylinders in Moscow in 2020 on a photo.
Screenshot of the publication
Google reverse image search showed that there were the explosions caused due to the fire in the warehouse with gas cylinders in Moscow on November 2, 2020 on a photo.
Search results at Google Images
Pay attention! The text of the news is written in a combination of Cyrillic and Latin (compare: Latin “u” is used in the text instead of Cyrillic “и” in the words “BuбуXu” (explosions).The text itself is emotional. Also number zero (“0”) is used instead of a letter “o” in the words «Р0сіяни», «Прям0», «п0чалася» та «п0жежа» (“Russians”, “Straight”, “started” and “fire”). Such signs indicate that you are facing either a fake or a clickbait.
In addition, there is a link to a telegram channel, where a video from an accident scene was allegedly published. However, the link does not lead to a specific post, but to a closed telegram channel. You must wait for the confirmation from an administrator to receive an access to the channel. Such news with impressive photos or headlines is spread to increase the number of subscribers in the telegram channel by deceit.
The author of the publication also publishes two videos, which probably show a fire in the pyrotechnic warehouse in Moscow, and claims that it happened on April 16, 2022 (as of the date of publication). However, there is another publication date in the video – June 19, 2021. That day on the embankment of the Moscow River there was a fire in the warehouse of pyrotechnics, as a result of which the explosions were heard. It was noted that there were no residential buildings nearby.
The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have no relevant affiliations