Campus Alert Archive
Syracuse

Three false threat reports target two campus buildings over five days

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
NYswattingemergency notificationhigh confidence
Compare →
Confirmed HoaxDetermined to be a hoax. The institutional response is documented because it reveals how the alert system performed under a perceived real threat.

Between February 11 and 16, 2024, Syracuse University received three separate false threat reports targeting Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall, including two false active shooter reports and one bomb threat. The Department of Public Safety confirmed the incidents were cases of swatting and worked with the FBI to investigate.

Alerts
3
Response
—
Killed
—
Injured
—
Institution
Syracuse University
Private R1 · NY
All Syracuse cases →
~22,850 studentsOrange Alert
Official alert policy
Read when and how Syracuse says it will use Orange Alert: summarized, quoted, and analyzed.
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

3 messages in sequence · 3 verified verbatim

INITIAL ALERTEmail
Verified verbatimSyracuse University Department of Public Safety official informational notice, February 11, 2024430 chars
Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS) received a FALSE report of an active shooter at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall. We quickly determined this report was false following an immediate review of available video footage and confirmed by swiftly dispatched DPS and Syracuse Police Department (SPD) units. Together with our law enforcement partners, we are investigating who is responsible for making this false report.
Verbatim text from the official Syracuse DPS public safety informational notice posted on February 11, 2024
The false report was called in to 911 on Sunday evening, targeting the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
DPS was able to quickly determine the report was false through review of available video footage
UPDATEEmail
Verified verbatimSyracuse University Department of Public Safety official informational notice, February 12, 2024292 chars
Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS) received another FALSE report of an active shooter at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall at 11:47 a.m. on Monday, February 12. The report was determined to be false following a quick response from DPS and Syracuse Police Department (SPD) units.
Verbatim text from the official Syracuse DPS public safety informational notice posted on February 12, 2024
In a Monday-night campus-wide email, Associate Vice President and Chief of Campus Safety and Emergency Management Services Craig Stone wrote (per Daily Orange): 'We take all these reports seriously and investigate fully. Despite both of these incidents being swatting calls, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) will maintain increased patrols at Maxwell and Eggers Halls. DPS is also in contact with the FBI and local law enforcement as the investigation into who made these calls continues.'
DPS confirmed both reports were instances of swatting on February 12, 2024
The repeat targeting of the same building suggests a coordinated harassment campaign
UPDATEEmail+4d
Verified verbatimSyracuse University Department of Public Safety official informational notice, February 16, 2024304 chars
Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS) received FALSE report of a bomb threat at Maxwell Hall at 4 p.m. on Friday, February 16. The report was determined to be false following a quick response from DPS and Syracuse Police Department (SPD) and an urgent review of all available information.
Verbatim text from the official Syracuse DPS public safety informational notice posted on February 16, 2024
This was the third false threat at Maxwell Hall in five days, escalating from active shooter reports to a bomb threat
The pattern of targeting the same building prompted DPS to coordinate with the FBI
Message elements

How the first alert is built

To check this alert, Claude (an AI) read it in full 25 separate times, independently. Each read decided whether the message answers each of the six questions and gave a short reason. A final reviewer then weighed all 25 and wrote the plain-English verdict you see when you open a row. The score (for example 22/25) is how many reads agreed; the 25 individual reads are tucked underneath if you want to check them.

Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS) received a FALSE report of an active shooter at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall. We quickly determined this report was false following an immediate review of available video footage and confirmed by swiftly dispatched DPS and Syracuse Police Department (SPD) units. Together with our law enforcement partners, we are investigating who is responsible for making this false report.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    All 25 reads agree the source is present; the message names the Syracuse University Department of Public Safety as issuer.

    Who is sending the alert and who is responding. People act faster on a message from a clearly identifiable, credible sender, such as a named department, the police, or a branded alert system, than on an anonymous notice. A branded signature counts.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" as issuer.
    2. present: It names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and SPD.
    3. present: Names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)", the issuing authority.
    4. present: It names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)", a responding authority.
    5. present: Names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "Syracuse Police Department".
    6. present: It names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "Syracuse Police Department".
    7. present: It names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "Syracuse Police Department", authorities.
    8. present: Names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "Syracuse Police Department".
    9. present: Names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "Syracuse Police Department".
    10. present: It names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "SPD".
    11. present: It names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "SPD".
    12. present: Names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "Syracuse Police Department".
    13. present: Names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)", the issuing authority.
    14. present: It names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and SPD.
    15. present: It names the "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "Syracuse Police Department", the senders.
    16. present: Names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "Syracuse Police Department".
    17. present: It names the "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety" (DPS).
    18. present: It names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "Syracuse Police Department".
    19. present: It names the "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)".
    20. present: It names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)", the issuing authority.
    21. present: Names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "Syracuse Police".
    22. present: Names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "Syracuse Police Department".
    23. present: It names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" as the sender.
    24. present: It names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "Syracuse Police Department".
    25. present: It names "Syracuse University Department of Public Safety (DPS)" and "SPD".
  • Hazardpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous that the hazard is present; it names a false report of an active shooter, the specific threat reported.

    What the threat actually is. A complete warning names the specific danger, such as a shooter, a fire, a tornado, or a gas leak, rather than a vague emergency, because people decide what to do based on what they are facing.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Names a "FALSE report of an active shooter", a specific (false) threat.
    2. present: It names "a FALSE report of an active shooter", a specific (false) threat.
    3. present: Names "a FALSE report of an active shooter", naming the specific threat reported.
    4. present: It names "a FALSE report of an active shooter", a specific (false) threat.
    5. present: States a "FALSE report of an active shooter", naming the specific threat reported.
    6. present: It names a "FALSE report of an active shooter", the referenced threat.
    7. present: It cites a "FALSE report of an active shooter", naming the threat type even though false.
    8. present: States a "FALSE report of an active shooter", naming the active shooter threat reported.
    9. present: States "a FALSE report of an active shooter", naming the specific threat reported.
    10. present: It names a "FALSE report of an active shooter", a specific threat.
    11. present: It states a "FALSE report of an active shooter", naming the specific threat reported.
    12. present: States "a FALSE report of an active shooter", naming the specific reported threat.
    13. present: States a "FALSE report of an active shooter", naming the specific (false) threat type.
    14. present: It states a "FALSE report of an active shooter", naming the threat type even though false.
    15. present: It names a "FALSE report of an active shooter", referencing the specific threat reported.
    16. present: Names "a FALSE report of an active shooter", a specific threat referenced.
    17. present: It names a "FALSE report of an active shooter", referencing the active-shooter hazard.
    18. present: It names "a FALSE report of an active shooter", a specific threat (here false).
    19. present: It reports a "FALSE report of an active shooter", a specific threat being referenced.
    20. present: It references a "FALSE report of an active shooter", naming the active-shooter hazard described.
    21. present: States a "FALSE report of an active shooter", naming the active-shooter hazard claimed.
    22. present: Names "a FALSE report of an active shooter", a specific (false) threat.
    23. present: It names "a FALSE report of an active shooter", a specific threat described.
    24. present: It names "a FALSE report of an active shooter", a specific (false) threat.
    25. present: It names a "FALSE report of an active shooter", identifying the swatting/threat hazard.
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    All reads agree a location is present, citing Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall.

    Where the threat is. Saying whether danger is in a specific building, a part of campus, or area-wide lets people judge their own proximity and choose a safe direction. Without a where, a warning is hard to act on precisely.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Locates it "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall".
    2. present: It says "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", specific places.
    3. present: Specifies "Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", named buildings.
    4. present: It cites "Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", specific places.
    5. present: Says "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", specific buildings.
    6. present: It says "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", specific places.
    7. present: It specifies "Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", specific buildings.
    8. present: Says "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", specific buildings.
    9. present: Locates it "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall".
    10. present: It says "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", specific buildings.
    11. present: It names "Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall".
    12. present: Locates it "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall".
    13. present: Says "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", specific locations.
    14. present: It locates it "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall".
    15. present: It cites "Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", specific buildings.
    16. present: Says it was "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", specific buildings.
    17. present: It locates it "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall".
    18. present: It locates it "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall".
    19. present: It locates it "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", named buildings.
    20. present: It locates it "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", specific places.
    21. present: Says "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", specific buildings.
    22. present: Specifies "Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall".
    23. present: It locates it "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall".
    24. present: It names "Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall", specific buildings.
    25. present: It locates it "at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall".
  • Guidanceabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    All reads agree guidance is absent; the message narrates the investigation but gives recipients no protective action.

    The protective action to take. A clear, specific instruction, such as shelter in place, evacuate, avoid the area, or run-hide-fight, drives faster and more correct protective behavior than describing the threat alone.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: Narrates investigation but gives no protective action to recipients.
    2. absent: It narrates the investigation, giving recipients no protective action.
    3. absent: Reports the investigation but gives recipients no protective action to take.
    4. absent: The text describes the investigation but gives no protective instruction to recipients.
    5. absent: No protective action is directed to recipients; it describes the investigation of a false report.
    6. absent: The text describes the false report and investigation but gives no protective action instruction.
    7. absent: It describes investigation only, giving recipients no protective action.
    8. absent: The message gives no protective action; it explains the report was false and is being investigated.
    9. absent: Describes the investigation but gives no protective action to recipients.
    10. absent: It only narrates the investigation, giving recipients no protective action.
    11. absent: It describes the investigation but gives no protective action to recipients.
    12. absent: Describes the investigation; no protective action is instructed to recipients.
    13. absent: No protective action is directed to recipients; it explains the false report and investigation.
    14. absent: It describes only the investigation of the false report; it gives recipients no protective action.
    15. absent: It explains the false report was investigated but gives recipients no protective action.
    16. absent: Describes investigative actions taken, with no protective action instructed to recipients.
    17. absent: It describes the investigation but gives recipients no protective instruction.
    18. absent: It only narrates the false report and investigation, giving recipients no protective action.
    19. absent: It recounts the false report and investigation but gives recipients no protective action.
    20. absent: It describes the DPS investigation but gives no protective instruction to recipients.
    21. absent: The message explains the false report and investigation but gives recipients no action.
    22. absent: The text describes the false report and investigation, giving no protective action to recipients.
    23. absent: It only narrates the investigation, giving no protective instruction to recipients.
    24. absent: No protective action is directed at recipients.
    25. absent: It gives recipients no protective action, only narrates the investigation.
  • Timeabsent1/25

    Final assessment

    Timing is absent by near-unanimous read; no clock time or date appears and only vague words like quickly were noted by one dissenter.

    When the message applies. A timestamp, the word now or immediately, or a phrase like until further notice tells the reader whether the danger is current and how quickly to act.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    2. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word appears in the text.
    3. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" appears.
    4. present: It uses "quickly", "immediate review", and "swiftly dispatched", conveying recency.
    5. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" or "immediately" appears.
    6. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" or "immediately" appears.
    7. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" appears in the text.
    8. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word such as "now" appears in the text.
    9. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    10. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    11. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    12. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears.
    13. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word appears in the text.
    14. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word such as "now" appears.
    15. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" appears in the text.
    16. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    17. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    18. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    19. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" or "immediately" appears.
    20. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" appears in the text.
    21. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word like "now" appears in the text.
    22. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    23. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    24. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears in the text.
    25. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word such as "now" appears.
  • Impactabsent2/25

    Final assessment

    Absent by near-unanimous agreement (23 of 25); the message stresses the active shooter report was FALSE and quickly disproven, conveying no actual harm or danger to people.

    What the hazard could do to the people in its path. Beyond naming the threat, a complete warning conveys its potential consequences or severity, such as that a tornado can level buildings or that a leak could be explosive, so recipients grasp how much danger they are in. Research on warning message content finds that a concrete impact statement helps people personalize their risk and act sooner.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. absent: States a false report of an active shooter and confirms it was false, conveying no actual harm or danger.
    2. absent: It states a false active shooter report was determined and confirmed false, conveying no actual harm or danger.
    3. absent: It states the active shooter report was false and was quickly determined to be false, conveying no actual harm.
    4. absent: It states a false report of an active shooter was quickly determined false, conveying no actual harm or danger.
    5. present: States the active shooter report was FALSE and confirmed false, an all-clear that explicitly addresses the potential deadly threat.
    6. absent: States a false report of an active shooter was quickly determined to be false, conveying no actual harm.
    7. absent: States the active shooter report was false and confirmed false, conveying no actual harm or threat.
    8. present: It states the active shooter report was FALSE and confirmed false by review, conveying the consequence that there was no real threat or danger.
    9. absent: States a false report of an active shooter was determined false with no actual threat, conveying no harm.
    10. absent: It states a false report of an active shooter was quickly determined to be false, conveying that there was no real threat.
    11. absent: States a false report of an active shooter was quickly determined false, explicitly conveying no real harm.
    12. absent: It reports a false active shooter report that was determined to be false, so no actual danger or harm is conveyed.
    13. absent: States a false report of an active shooter was determined to be false, conveying no actual harm.
    14. absent: It states a false active shooter report was quickly determined false, explicitly conveying no actual threat or harm.
    15. absent: The text states the active shooter report was false and quickly determined to be false, conveying no actual danger.
    16. absent: Explains a false report of an active shooter was quickly determined false, conveying no actual harm or danger.
    17. absent: It states a false report of an active shooter that was quickly determined false, conveying no actual harm.
    18. absent: States the active shooter report was false and quickly determined to be false, conveying no actual harm or danger.
    19. absent: Describes a confirmed FALSE report of an active shooter quickly determined to be false, conveying no actual danger.
    20. absent: States the active shooter report was false and quickly determined to be false, conveying no actual harm.
    21. absent: States the active shooter report was false and was quickly determined to be false, conveying no actual danger.
    22. absent: States a false report of an active shooter was quickly determined false, conveying the absence of any actual threat or harm.
    23. absent: It states the active shooter report was false and quickly determined false, so no harm or actual danger is conveyed.
    24. absent: Confirms a false active shooter report determined to be untrue, indicating no actual threat or harm.
    25. absent: It confirms a false report of an active shooter and that it was determined false, stating no actual harm.

Systematic AI judgments with visible reasoning, not human-validated codings.

About this analysis
Context

Background

Over the course of five days in February 2024, Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs was targeted by three separate false threat reports. The first came Sunday evening, February 11, when a 911 caller reported an active shooter at Maxwell Hall and Eggers Hall. DPS quickly confirmed the report was false through video review. Less than 24 hours later, a second false active shooter report targeted the same buildings at 11:47 AM EST on February 12. In a campus-wide email sent Monday night, Associate Vice President and Chief of Campus Safety and Emergency Management Services Craig Stone wrote: 'We take all these reports seriously and investigate fully. Despite both of these incidents being swatting calls, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) will maintain increased patrols at Maxwell and Eggers Halls. DPS is also in contact with the FBI and local law enforcement as the investigation into who made these calls continues.' Then on Friday, February 16, a false bomb threat was called in to Maxwell Hall, which was again quickly determined to be false. Students described the fear and disruption the incidents caused, with one student telling Jerk Magazine that 'all of us just froze.' DPS worked with the FBI and other law enforcement partners to investigate who was responsible for the false reports.
Analysis

Key Findings

Three false threats targeted the same building complex in five days, suggesting a coordinated swatting campaign
DPS was able to quickly confirm each report as false through video surveillance review
The incidents prompted DPS to bring in the FBI and local law enforcement to investigate who made the calls
Outcome
All three reports were confirmed false. DPS and Syracuse Police reviewed video footage and swept the buildings, finding no evidence of any threat. The FBI was brought in to assist with the investigation into who was responsible.
Provenance

Sources

  1. Student Paper
    DPS receives 'false' active shooter report at Maxwell, Eggers Hall (Daily Orange)
    dailyorange.com
    archived copy
  2. Student Paper
    DPS receives false bomb threat at Maxwell Hall (Daily Orange)
    dailyorange.com
    archived copy
  3. Official
    Public Safety Informational Notice: FALSE Report (Syracuse DPS)
    dps.syr.edu
    archived copy
  4. Official
    Public Safety Informational Notice: FALSE Bomb Threat (Syracuse DPS)
    dps.syr.edu
    archived copy
  5. News
    Syracuse University faces third false threat in a week (CNY Central)
    cnycentral.com
    archived copy
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "Syracuse University: Three false threat reports target two campus buildings over five days." Incident of February 11, 2024. Added April 2026; last updated July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/syracuse-university-swatting-2024-02-11/

Download case JSON

Alert text quoted on this page remains the work of the issuing institution; the archive is a secondary source.

Tags
swattingbomb-threatactive-shooter-hoaxfbi-investigationnew-yorkmaxwell-hallrepeat-targetingHoax
Added April 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion