#FactCheck - Viral Video Claiming Iran’s Attack on US Airbase Debunked as 9/11 Footage
Executive Summary
A video showing thick smoke rising from a building and people running in panic is being shared on social media. The video is being circulated with the claim that it shows Iran launching a missile attack on the United States.CyberPeace’s research found the claim to be misleading. Our probe revealed that the video is not related to any recent incident. The viral clip is actually from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in the United States and is being falsely shared as footage of an alleged Iranian missile strike on the US.
Claim:
An Instagram user shared the video claiming, “Iran has attacked a US airbase in Qatar. Iran has fired six ballistic missiles at the Al Udeid Airbase in Qatar. Al Udeid Airbase is the largest US military base in West Asia.”
Links to the post and its archived version are provided below.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we extracted key frames from the viral video and ran a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the search, we found visuals matching the viral clip in a report published by Wion on September 11, 2021. The report, titled “In pics | A look back at the scenes from the 9/11 attacks,” included an image that closely resembled the visuals seen in the viral video. The caption of the image stated that it was a file photo from September 11, 2001, showing pedestrians running as one of the World Trade Center towers collapsed in New York City.
Further research led us to the same footage on the YouTube channel CBS 8 San Diego. At the 01:11 timestamp of the video, visuals matching the viral clip can be clearly seen.
We also found an Al Jazeera report dated June 23, 2025, which confirmed that Iran had attacked US forces stationed at the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar in retaliation for US strikes on Iran’s uclear facilities. However, the visuals used in the viral video do not correspond to this incident.
Conclusion
The viral video does not show a recent Iranian attack on a US airbase in Qatar. The clip actually dates back to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in the United States. Old 9/11 footage has been falsely shared with a misleading claim linking it to Iran’s alleged missile strike on the US.
Related Blogs
Introduction
In the labyrinthine expanse of the digital age, where the ethereal threads of our connections weave a tapestry of virtual existence, there lies a sinister phenomenon that preys upon the vulnerabilities of human emotion and trust. This phenomenon, known as cyber kidnapping, recently ensnared a 17-year-old Chinese exchange student, Kai Zhuang, in its deceptive grip, leading to an $80,000 extortion from his distraught parents. The chilling narrative of Zhuang found cold and scared in a tent in the Utah wilderness, serves as a stark reminder of the pernicious reach of cybercrime.
The Cyber Kidnapping
The term 'cyber kidnapping' typically denotes a form of cybercrime where malefactors gain unauthorised access to computer systems or data, holding it hostage for ransom. Yet, in the context of Zhuang's ordeal, it took on a more harrowing dimension—a psychological manipulation through online communication that convinced his family of his peril, despite his physical safety before the scam.
The Incident
The incident unfolded like a modern-day thriller, with Zhuang's parents in China alerting officials at his host high school in Riverdale, Utah, of his disappearance on 28 December 2023. A meticulous investigation ensued, tracing bank records, purchases, and phone data, leading authorities to Zhuang's isolated encampment, 25 miles north of Brigham City. In the frigid embrace of Utah's winter, Zhuang awaited rescue, armed only with a heat blanket, a sleeping bag, limited provisions, and the very phones used to orchestrate his cyber kidnapping.
Upon his rescue, Zhuang's first requests were poignantly human—a warm cheeseburger and a conversation with his family, who had been manipulated into paying the hefty ransom during the cyber-kidnapping scam. This incident not only highlights the emotional toll of such crimes but also the urgent need for awareness and preventative measures.
The Aftermath
To navigate the treacherous waters of cyber threats, one must adopt the scepticism of a seasoned detective when confronted with unsolicited messages that reek of urgency or threat. The verification of identities becomes a crucial shield, a bulwark against deception. Sharing sensitive information online is akin to casting pearls before swine, where once relinquished, control is lost forever. Privacy settings on social media are the ramparts that must be fortified, and the education of family and friends becomes a communal armour against the onslaught of cyber threats.
The Chinese embassy in Washington has sounded the alarm, warning its citizens in the U.S. about the risks of 'virtual kidnapping' and other online frauds. This scam fragments a larger criminal mosaic that threatens to ensnare parents worldwide.
Kai Zhuang's story, while unique in its details, is not an isolated event. Experts warn that technological advancements have made it easier for criminals to pursue cyber kidnapping schemes. The impersonation of loved ones' voices using artificial intelligence, the mining of social media for personal data, and the spoofing of phone numbers are all tools in the cyber kidnapper's arsenal.
The Way Forward
The crimes have evolved, targeting not just the vulnerable but also those who might seem beyond reach, demanding larger ransoms and leaving a trail of psychological devastation in their wake. Cybercrime, as one expert chillingly notes, may well be the most lucrative of crimes, transcending borders, languages, and identities.
In the face of such threats, awareness is the first line of defense. Reporting suspicious activity to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center, verifying the whereabouts of loved ones, and establishing emergency protocols are all steps that can fortify one's digital fortress. Telecommunications companies and law enforcement agencies also have a role to play in authenticating and tracing the source of calls, adding another layer of protection.
Conclusion
The surreal experience of reading about cyber kidnapping belies the very real danger it poses. It is a crime that thrives in the shadows of our interconnected world, a reminder that our digital lives are as vulnerable as our physical ones. As we navigate this complex web, let us arm ourselves with knowledge, vigilance, and the resolve to protect not just our data, but the very essence of our human connections.
References
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67869517
- https://www.ndtv.com/feature/what-is-cyber-kidnapping-and-how-it-can-be-avoided-4792135
Introduction
In January 2026, the Basic Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and the Establishment of a Foundation for Trustworthiness came into effect in South Korea, establishing one of the first national AI laws in the world. The bill, enacted by the National Assembly of Korea in December 2024 and implemented from January 22, 2026, aims to strike a balance between the rapid advancement of technology and clear safeguards against risks, as well as transparency, accountability, and responsible AI use. It puts Seoul and the European Union on the frontline of developing legal systems for artificial intelligence and indicates a long-term goal of becoming an AI power on the global stage.
What the AI Basic Act Covers
The AI Basic Act consists of 19 separate AI bills that are merged into a single piece of legislation that covers the lifecycle of AI, including research and development, deployment, and utilisation. It is very wide in its coverage: it refers to any AI system that influences the Korean market or users inside the country, irrespective of the country in which it is created. The law does not apply to national defence and security applications.
The law defines key concepts like artificial intelligence, generative AI, and high-impact AI and establishes the principles of ethical AI, safety, user rights, industry support, and national policy coordination. It also offers a legal foundation for the activities of the government to promote AI innovation without jeopardising the common good.
Fundamentally, the AI Basic Act is designed to establish a culture of trust between businesses and the government/citizens. It does not prohibit AI technologies and does not excessively limit innovation. Instead, it creates the framework of responsible development and economic growth.
Guardrails for Safety and Accountability
One of the defining features of the AI Basic Act is its risk-based approach. Rather than considering all AI systems as similar, it makes a distinction between ordinary and high-impact AI systems, the ones applied in sectors where the wrong or unsafe decision can have a major impact on the safety, rights, or critical infrastructure of the population. Some of them can be seen in healthcare, transportation, financial services, education, and public services.
The high-impact AI operators must integrate risk management plans, human controls, and surveillance systems. In critical decision-making situations, human control should be available at all times; that is, machines can help but not override human control where human safety or other human rights are involved.
The law enables the regulators to perform on-site checks, demand documentation, and conduct compliance investigations. Fines for breaches may go up to 30 million Korean won (approximately 21,000 US dollars). It has a one-year period of transition that is based on guidance but not enforcement, thus allowing companies time to implement compliance measures before imposing fines.
These requirements contribute to enhancing accountability by defining who is accountable for the safety outcomes. The law in South Korea is placed in the ecosystem, as opposed to the methods in which industry self-governance alone is utilised.
Transparency and Labelling Requirements
The AI Basic Act is based on transparency. The legislation ensures that users are notified before an AI system is operating, particularly with the generation of AI outputs that could be confused with human-created material. As an example, AI-generated text, images, video, or audio that may be difficult to distinguish between reality and fake must have obvious labels or watermarks to allow users to understand the source of the content.
The necessity to label is meant to fight misinformation, misleading activities, and unintended influence on the perception of the people. It is based on international anxiety regarding AI-generated content, such as deepfakes, manipulated media, and misleading online advertisements that have already been addressed separately in policy by South Korea, as well as discussions of data governance.
The transparency is also applied to the process of decision-making in AI systems. Developers and operators should be able to give explicit information about the way in which high-impact systems make their conclusions so that those who are victims of automated decisions can seek meaningful explanations. Although specific explainability criteria are in the process of being developed, the law grounds the principle that AI cannot act behind the scenes in situations where crucial decisions are being made.
Data Privacy and User Protection
The AI governance practice in South Korea is complementary to its current data protection laws, the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), which is broadly regarded as equivalent to major international data protection regulations like the GDPR in regard to personal data laws. The AI Basic Act provides an explanation as to how the data can be gathered, processed, and utilised within AI systems with regard to privacy rights, particularly in areas of high impact.
The law does not supersede the personal data protection policies, but it sets certain conditions on how AI developers must address the data to be utilised in training, testing, and running AIs. Operators will be required to document their data workflows and demonstrate how they guard the privacy of their users, including by transparency and consent mechanisms where necessary. This can assist in ensuring that the information that is utilised in AI functions is regulated by definite norms, and it is more difficult to avoid privacy requirements in the name of innovation.
Accountability and Governance Infrastructure
The AI Basic Act establishes a national policy framework of AI governance. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy Committee, chaired by the President, is at the top and proposes the overall AI policy and aligns it with national objectives. The organisations that would support this are the specialised organisations that deal with safety, risk assessment, and research and the policy centre that would analyse the effects of AI on society and assist in its adoption by the industry.
This institutional structure facilitates strategic guidance as well as operational control. It is through incorporating AI governance in the administration of the people, but not into the market forces, that South Korea wishes to have the ethical and societal concerns become part of the sectors and agencies.
Promoting Innovation and Industrial Support
Although the AI Basic Act does not disregard regulation, it is not a law of restrictions. It also offers legal justification for research and development, human capital, and the growth of the AI industry, with special consideration for startups and small and medium-sized businesses. The legislation promotes AI clusters, long-term funding programmes, and policies to bring foreign talent to the Korean AI ecosystem.
This bidimensional approach of compliance and support is indicative of the broader desire of Korea to become one of the leading AI powers in the world, along with the US and China. The government has pointed out that it will encourage trust by having clear and predictable rules that will attract investment and maintain innovation and not stifle it.
What This Means Globally
The AI Basic Act of South Korea is not only interesting in its contents but also in its timing. It is also among the first thorough AI legislations to come into force in the world, and it beats the gradual regulatory implementations in other parts of the globe, like the European Union. Its system incorporates a principle-based framework, transparency requirements, accountability regulations, and industrial support, which reflects a contrasting model to either pure prescriptive risk regulation or lax self-regulation models elsewhere.
Other critics, such as industry groups and civil society organisations, have suggested that some of the protections may be more explicit, in particular to those who are harmed by AI systems, or to establish high-impact categories. Nonetheless, the framework sets a benchmark upon which most nations will pay close attention when they establish their own AI regimes.
Conclusion
The AI Basic Act puts South Korea at the forefront of national AI regulation, including very well-developed guardrails that enforce transparency, ethical control, accountability, and data protection in addition to fostering innovation. It recognises that AI could lead to economic and social advantages, yet also actual risks, particularly when systems are opaque, autonomous, or widely implemented. South Korea has gone holistically in responsible AI governance by integrating human oversight, labelling requirements, risk management planning, and governance infrastructure into law to be emulated by other countries in the years to come.
Sources
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/29/south-korea-world-first-ai-regulation-laws
- https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/10/artificial-intelligence-and-the-labour-market-in-korea_af668423/68ab1a5a-en.pdf
- https://asianintelligence.ai/south-korea
- https://aibasicact.kr/
- https://aibusinessweekly.net/p/south-korea-ai-basic-act-takes-effect-jan22-2026
- https://asiadaily.org/news/12112/
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media shows Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Gorakhpur MP Ravi Kishan walking with a group of people. Users are claiming that the two leaders were participating in a protest against the University Grants Commission (UGC). Research by CyberPeace has found the viral claim to be misleading. Our research revealed that the video is from September 2025 and is being shared out of context with recent events. The video was recorded when Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath undertook a foot march in Gorakhpur on a Monday. Ravi Kishan, MP from Gorakhpur, was also present. During the march, the Chief Minister visited local markets, malls, and shops, interacting with traders and gathering information on the implementation of GST rate cuts.
Claim Details:
On Instagram, a user shared the viral video on 27 January 2026. The video shows the Chief Minister and the MP walking with a group of people. The text “UGC protest” appears on the video, suggesting that it is connected to a protest against the University Grants Commission.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we searched Google using relevant keywords, but found no credible media reports confirming it.Next, we extracted key frames from the video and searched them using Google Lens. The video was traced to NBT Uttar Pradesh’s X (formerly Twitter) account, posted on 22 September 2025.
According to NBT Uttar Pradesh, CM Yogi Adityanath undertook a foot march in Gorakhpur, visiting malls and shops to interact with traders and check the implementation of GST rate cuts.
Conclusion:
The viral video is not related to any recent UGC guidelines. It dates back to September 2025, showing CM Yogi Adityanath and MP Ravi Kishan on a foot march in Gorakhpur, interacting with traders about GST rate cuts.The claim that the video depicts a protest against the University Grants Commission is therefore false and misleading.
