Thought experiments and models can offer explanations of events in case we go past some central philosophical presuppositions that dominate philosophy of thought experimentation, philosophy of modeling and philosophy of explanation. Philosophy of thought experimentation and modeling suggests that, before we get to see their roles as explanations, we need to define them and unless the definition points to explanation, they should be decoupled from it. Speaking of philosophy of explanation, it is often influenced by the ontic conception of explanation that, by definition, precludes from explanation accounts not strictly speaking true (as are thought experiments and models). I argue that by evading strict definitions of thought experiments and models and by opting for the epistemic view of explanation, we can consider thought experiments and models as offering explanations of events.