FirstAlerts

Severe Thunderstorm Warning Issued for Gwinnett, DeKalb, and Fulton Counties

The National Weather Service warned of damaging winds up to 60 mph and hail up to one inch in diameter across portions of Gwinnett, DeKalb, and Fulton counties.

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 5, 2026, 9:21 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 5, 2026, 8:38 p.m. ETWritten Sep 5, 2026, 9:23 p.m. ET
Developing · checked 1h ago

Hazard products are revised and cancelled as conditions change. Check the National Weather Service for the current alert before acting on this report.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Sep 5, 2026, 9:39 p.m. ET — checked 1h ago.

A is in effect for portions of Gwinnett, DeKalb, and Fulton counties, according to FOX 5 Atlanta. The covers areas between Roswell, Dunwoody, Doraville, Duluth, and Alpharetta. The main core of the storm produced heavy downpours, hail up to one inch in diameter, and damaging wind gusts reaching 60 miles per hour, FOX 5 Atlanta reported.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 5, 2026, 9:21 p.m. ETFirst report

    Severe Thunderstorm Warning Issued for Gwinnett, DeKalb, and Fulton Counties

    A severe thunderstorm warning was issued for portions of Gwinnett, DeKalb, and Fulton counties in metro Atlanta, according to FOX 5 Atlanta. The warning covered areas including Roswell, Dunwoody, Doraville, Duluth, and Alpharetta.

    The main core of the storm produced heavy downpours, hail up to one inch in diameter, and damaging wind gusts reaching 60 miles per hour, FOX 5 Atlanta reported. The event is still developing.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 16 Sept 2026, 01:23current

    First published.

  2. Version 16 Sept 2026, 01:21current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.