Dude, it most certainly hit a hospital.
The relevant issue for a missile is not the precise point of the projectile's impact, but what the blast area hits. And the blast area certainly included the hospital buildings, causing significant damage to them.
Yes, but what about the multiple sources that say it wasn't? There's a summary of competing views recently compiled by the BBC:
The BBC Verify team examines the latest evidence and assessments about what may have caused the explosion.
www.bbc.co.uk
A failed / intercepted munition with its fuel igniting on hitting the ground is maybe the most supported answer (consistent with a militant rocket). However, this evidence is far from beyond reasonable doubt either.
I'd also severely question the reliability of nearly all state actors on the issue, given that they are not neutral sources.
One of the dissenting opinions is from the Forensic Architecture agency. Quoting their wiki page.
"It consists of an interdisciplinary team of investigators including architects, scholars, artists, filmmakers, software developers, investigative journalists, archaeologists, lawyers, and scientists. It investigates alleged human rights violations by states or corporations on behalf of civil society groups."
"Forensic Architecture describes forensic work as operating across three spaces: the field, the laboratory, and the forum. Lacking the privileges of the state's forensic process - access to crime scenes, resources, and the power to set the rules of evidence - the agency employs 'counter-forensics', the process of turning the 'forensic gaze' onto the actions of the state. This includes operating in multiple 'forums', or public spaces, engaging not only with parliamentary and juridical processes but also museums, art galleries, citizens' tribunals, and the media. The ways in which the investigations by Forensic Architecture oscillate between judicial proof and art work is subject of an ongoing theoretical debate on evidence, aesthetics, and third-generation institutional critique."
Does this sound like a source for good information? You'll also notice that very few people believe it was an Israeli missile and the place of origin heavily factors into that. We have had four separate governments determine that the odds that this was an Israeli missile are very unlikely, the link you gave me has a picture of the blast site at night without hundreds of bodies around it. And even in the cases where different opinions are given, they never address all of the problems.
You question the reliability of all state actors yet people are still taking it as a given that Gaza is telling the truth?
You say the blast radius caused "significant damage to the hospital yet in the VERY ARTICLE you linked me, it says...
"But we have not seen any evidence of weapon fragments being recovered and there has been no significant update from officials in Gaza about their investigation.
Hamas told the New York Times that the missile had disintegrated beyond recognition. "The missile has dissolved like salt in the water. It's vaporised. Nothing is left," said Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas official."
"There were damaged tiles, broken windows and shrapnel marks on surrounding hospital buildings but
no visible structural damage."
Is everything beyond reasonable doubt? No. Is all of the evidence showing the snap claim that Israel hit a hospital with a missile and killed 500 people at all believable? No.
Also, stop trying to gaslight me with the "it technically hit the hospital since it hit the parking lot, you all know very well that is not what people that believed the story thought it meant.
