#FactCheck - Viral Video of Burning Aircraft Falsely Linked to UAE, Found to Be AI-Generated
Executive Summary:
A video is being shared on social media showing an aircraft engulfed in massive flames on an airport runway. The video is being linked to the UAE. It is being claimed that a UAE airport was completely destroyed due to recent drone and missile attacks by Iran. Research by the CyberPeace found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the viral video is not real, but AI-generated.
Claim:
On social media platform Facebook, a user shared the viral video on March 3, 2026, and wrote, “Amid the Iran-US-Israel conflict in the Middle East, operations at several major airports, including Dubai International Airport, have been temporarily suspended, causing thousands of flight cancellations and delays. Due to multiple missile and drone attacks from Iran, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had shut its airspace, and limited structural damage at Dubai Airport was also confirmed, with reports of four staff members being injured. Later, considering the security situation, a limited number of flights were resumed, but full operations are still delayed due to ongoing safety concerns. This tension has significantly impacted regional aviation, travel, and global flight routes.”
Fact Check:
To verify the viral video, we searched relevant keywords on Google. However, we did not find any credible media report confirming the claim.However, we found a video report on the YouTube channel of CNN-News18 mentioning explosions near Dubai Airport after a suspected Iranian drone strike. But the visuals shown in that report are completely different from the viral video.
Upon closely examining the viral video, we noticed several inconsistencies, raising suspicion that it might be AI-generated. We then analyzed the video using the AI detection tool Sightengine. The results indicated that the video is 71 percent likely to be AI-generated.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the viral video is not real, but AI-generated.
Related Blogs
Introduction
The world has been witnessing various advancements in cyberspace, and one of the major changes is the speed with which we gain and share information. Cyberspace has been declared as the fifth dimension of warfare, and hence, the influence of technology will go a long way in safeguarding ourselves and our nation. Information plays a vital role in this scenario, and due to the easy access to information, the instances of misinformation and disinformation have been rampant across the globe. In the recent Russia-Ukraine crisis, it was clearly seen how instances of misinformation can lead to major loss and harm to a nation and its subjects. All nations and global leaders are deliberating upon this aspect and efficient sharing of information among friendly nations and inter-government organisations.
What is IW?
IW, also known as Information warfare, is a critical aspect of defending our cyberspace. Information Warfare, in its broadest sense, is a struggle over the information and communications process, a struggle that began with the advent of human communication and conflict. Over the past few decades, the rapid rise in information and communication technologies and their increasing prevalence in our society has revolutionised the communications process and, with it, the significance and implications of information warfare. Information warfare is the application of destructive force on a large scale against information assets and systems, against the computers and networks that support the four critical infrastructures (the power grid, communications, financial, and transportation). However, protecting against computer intrusion, even on a smaller scale, is in the national security interests of the country and is important in the current discussion about information warfare.
IW in India
The aspects of misinformation have been recently seen in India in the form of the violence in Manipur and Nuh, which resulted in a massive loss of property and even human lives. A lot of miscreants or anti-national elements often seed misinformation in our daily news feed, and this is often magnified by social media platforms such as Instagram or X (formerly known as Twitter) and OTT-based messaging applications like WhatsApp or Telegram during the pandemic. It was seen nearly every week that some or the other new ways to treat COVID-19 were shared on Social media, which were false and inaccurate, especially in regard to the vaccination drive. A lot of posts and messages highlighted that the Vaccine is not safe, but a lot of this was a part of misinformation propaganda. Most of the time, the speed of spread of such episodes of misinformation is rapid and is often spread by the use of social media platforms and OTT messaging applications.
IW and Indian Army
Former Meta employees have recently come up with allegations that the Chinar Corp of the Indian Army had approached the social media giant to suppress some pages and channels which propagated content that may be objectionable. It is alleged that the formation made such a request to propagate its counterintelligence operations against Pakistan. The Chinar Corps is one of the most prestigious formations of the Indian Army and has the operational area of Kashmir Valley. The instances of online grooming and brainwashing have been common from the anti-national elements of Pakistan, as a faction of youth has been engaged in terrorist activities directly or indirectly. Various messaging and social media apps are used by the bad actors to lure in innocent youth on the fake and fabricated pretext of religion or any other social issue. The Indian Army had launched an anti-misinformation campaign in Kashmir, which aimed to protect Kashmiris from the propaganda of fake news and misinformation, which often led to radicalisation or even riots or attacks on defence forces. The aspect of net neutrality is often misused by bad actors in areas which are sociological, critical or unstable. The Indian Army has created special offices focusing on IW at all levels of formations, and the same is also used to eradicate all or any fake news or fake propaganda against the Indian Army.
Conclusion
Information has always been a source of power since the days of the Roman Empire. Control, dissemination, moderation and mode of sharing of information plays a vital role for any nation both in term of safety from external threats and to maintain National Security. Information Warfare is part of the 5th dimension of warfare, i.e., Cyberwar and is a growing concern for developed as well as developing nations. Information warfare is a critical aspect which needs to be incorporated in terms of basic training for defence personnel and law enforcement agencies. The anti-misinformation operation in Kashmir was primarily focused towards eradicating the bad elements after repealing Article 377, from cyberspace and ensuring harmony, peace, stability and prosperity in the state.
References
- https://irp.fas.org/eprint/snyder/infowarfare.htm
- https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/metas-india-team-delayed-action-against-army-led-misinfo-op-in-kashmir-us-news-report/article67352470.ece
- https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/facebook-instagram-block-handles-of-chinar-corps-no-response-from-company-over-a-week-says-officials-1910445-2022-02-08
Introduction
Two of the most influential voices offered strikingly divergent visions of humanity’s technological future in May 2026. On one side of the equation was Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, who spoke of a future in which intelligence would be a "service like electricity or water," available on a metered basis and powered by massive AI infrastructure. On the other side was Leo XIV, the Pope of the Catholic Church, whose encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, presented the Church's most substantial response to AI, presenting the technology not simply as a technical innovation but also as a crucial moral, social, and civilizational challenge.
The differences in their views run much deeper than merely those regarding control and development. At issue is a conflict in understanding intelligence, the purpose of technology, and the dignity of man. While Altman saw intelligence as an abundant economic factor, one that could be produced, distributed, and consumed, Leo XIV emphasized that intelligence is indissociable from the person and that we should be wary of turning human potential into mere merchandise. Their clash of visions can essentially be understood as two different answers to the question: What is a human being, and to whose service should technology be devoted?
Intelligence as Infrastructure
Altman implies that artificial intelligence will follow the trajectory of electricity in industrial society, where the utility became available everywhere as part of the bedrock of society. The ultimate goal is to generate abundance. Cognitive ability will become cheaper and more readily available until it is so inexpensive that it is built into everything.
From the perspective of the business, this is compelling. In many ways modern AI already has infrastructure-like properties. Programmers, businesses, governments, and even individuals are using intelligence as a commodity delivered by a centralized platform and API in a way similar to how previous generations would have used the electricity grid. Altman is essentially predicting that this trend will reach its ultimate form, where intelligence becomes a utility.
There are several assumptions inherent in this utility metaphor; however, utilities are never neutral technologies; they are all forms of governance, ownership, and control. It is not merely the resource being delivered that makes electricity grids, telephone systems, and water infrastructure powerful but the institutions that mediate access to those resources. In Altman's statement "people will buy it from us," there is a political question inherent: Who does the infrastructure of cognition belong to?
Altman himself is also concerned with these issues, often reiterating that this technology could lead to an unprecedented concentration of power and wealth. Yet this concern is a paradox, as truly democratized artificial intelligence does not appear possible without immense capital investment, colossal data centers, proprietary models, and a monopolization of talent. The path to making intelligence universally available appears to lie through unprecedented centralization.
The Vatican's Response: Beyond Technology
Magnifica Humanitas approaches this from a different perspective. It is not, fundamentally, a document on AI policy but on social philosophy, rooted in the Catholic tradition of social teaching. Just as Rerum Novarum, published in 1891, had explored the social implications of industrial capitalism, Leo XIV views AI as a new juncture in humankind's engagement with technology and power.
Two biblical images are recurring throughout the encyclical: Babel and Jerusalem. Babel, the archetype of technical ambition without purpose or moral intent, is an effort to reorder and recenter human society based on conformity, centralization, and the delusion of self-sufficiency. Jerusalem, rebuilt under Nehemiah, is an image of collective reconstruction based on participation and responsibility.
The symbolic weight is critical. Leo XIV is not arguing that technology in itself is inherently dangerous. He is, rather, suggesting that the tools of technology will inherently contain and perpetuate whatever values, incentives, and priorities of the architects and wielders of these technologies. The question is not therefore whether AI should exist, but rather whether it increases human flourishing or enhances systems of control.
This provides what is likely the most significant realization within the encyclical that AI and human intelligence are categories distinct in kind, not in degree. AI can simulate, calculate, and compute, but it can never possess awareness, ethical responsibility, embodiment, or meaningful relationships. As such, decisions impacting human life can no longer be deferred to algorithms in a manner that negates the human good.
The Problem of Power
The most evident clash between Altman's vision and Magnifica Humanitas lies in power dynamics.
The utility model of Altman places the assumption that intelligence can be centrally controlled and widely disseminated. However, the Vatican perceives major political consequences from the concentration of cognitive ability. According to the encyclical, this kind of concentration can lead to major political problems because small groups are given immense power over the economy, public debate, and democracy by possessing the necessary control over data, computation, and the network.
This idea is becoming more prominent in recent research. Experts like Kate Crawford, for instance, have described AI as 'a registry of power' in which systems build up hierarchies of social, political, and economic power. Digital colonialism scholars also show that the control of the network of intelligence under a few transnational corporations may diminish power that would otherwise reside with local authorities and democratic institutions.
The problem, seen from this point of view, does not simply address technology but sovereignty itself. If intelligence is provided as a metered service within private platforms, the access to knowledge, reason, and decision-making tools might rest with entities outside the public sphere, unconcerned with democracy.
The Vatican's solution relies on the principle of subsidiarity; decisions should be taken at the lowest possible levels, respecting the autonomy of individuals, communities, and local institutions. This principle directly contradicts the proposals that see cognitive infrastructure located within a few multinational organizations.
The Hidden Labour Behind AI
A particularly important segment of Magnifica Humanitas addresses the invisible labor of the AI economy.
While discourse on AI frequently conceptualizes it as an intangible or ethereal technology residing within "the cloud," the opposite is in fact the case. AI relies on the unseen labors of data annotators, content moderators, miners harvesting rare earth metals, construction workers creating data centers, and technicians repairing digital infrastructure. In many cases, these workers exist in marginal situations; investigations have revealed poor wages, minimal rights, and psychologically damaging working conditions, especially for content moderators and data annotators in the Global South. Critics contend that the AI of today exists on the backbone of an unacknowledged global workforce that is shielded from consumers of AI technology. In the encyclical, this idea of the AI economy is framed in terms of human dignity, the standard by which all progress, technological or otherwise, must be measured. Progress cannot be defined solely in terms of efficiency and productivity but must be defined by its consequences for workers, society, and human relationships. While the technology of AI may confer tremendous value to a few, it must not do so at the expense of the humanity of others. It gives a key critique of Altman’s utility model that the appeal of abundant intelligence often focuses on products while neglecting the social and material conditions in which it is produced.
A Clash of Anthropologies
The deepest philosophical disagreement of Altman's and Leo XIV's is over anthropology, i.e., who human beings actually are.
Altman’s view presumes an ability to quantify and allocate the human capacity for intelligence. The more intelligent the society, the better the society; and intelligence becomes the prime causal factor whose production must be maximized by the machine.
The Vatican rejects this fundamental principle. According to the argument of Magnifica Humanitas, human value is not located in intelligent productivity or efficiency or economic productivity. Dignity is non-conditional and cannot be reduced to measures of performance. One has dignity not because one can compute, produce, and optimize, but because one is a person.
The implications of this difference are vast. If intelligence is principally treated as an economic asset, then humans will constantly have to deal with being judged as being of greater or lesser use compared to the machine. If dignity is intrinsic, machines must remain instruments of the flourishing of the human, irrespective of machine efficiency. In sum, this is not a debate over machines. It is a debate over whether society is going to be defined according to an ideology of optimization or an ideology of humanity.
Conclusion
The juxtaposition of Sam Altman’s model of utility and Leo XIV’s idea of Magnifica Humanitas defines one of the key intellectual arguments of our times. Altman presents a vision of abundance, efficiency, and humanly impossible intellectual capacity. Leo XIV represents what happens when intelligence is divorced from the demands of ethics, democracy, and human dignity; when the demands they represent only contribute to its ultimate capacity to wound the needs it serves.
It is not whether we will build machines more and more intelligent; it is what politics and values will govern these machines. When intelligence becomes a service, whose interests will govern the machine, who will write the rules, and who will be the direct beneficiaries? When dignity is the source from which man and machine alike emerge, the service must not be judged on what the machine does best but on what it can do for man. The ultimate question is whether we will be able to maintain a view of ourselves that is larger than just our capacity to engineer.
References:
- Atlas of AI, Crawford, Kate. Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021.
- Pope Leo XIV. Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. Vatican City: Holy See, 2026.
- Pope Leo XIII. Rerum Novarum. Vatican City: Holy See, 1891.
- Pope John Paul II. Laborem Exercens. Vatican City: Holy See, 1981.
- Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Dignitas Infinita. Vatican City: Holy See, 2024.
- International Theological Commission. Quo Vadis, Humanitas? Thinking About Christian Anthropology in the Face of Some Scenarios on the Future of Humanity. Vatican City, 2026.
- Nick Lichtenberg. "Sam Altman Admits AI Is Killing the Labor-Capital Balance—and Says Nobody Knows What to Do About It." Fortune, 12 March 2026.
Executive Summary
A graphic featuring a photograph of Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is being widely circulated on social media. The graphic carries a statement attributed to him: “It is not appropriate for the Prime Minister of India to bow before Trump, and India was a matter of pride under Indira Gandhi.” The graphic claims that Mojtaba Khamenei made this statement. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found that Mojtaba Khamenei did not make any such statement. The research revealed that there is no credible evidence, official statement, interview, or verified social media post supporting the claim. Had such a statement been made by him, it would have been reported by credible media outlets.
Claim
Sharing the graphic, an X user named Thakur Kuldeep Singh wrote:“Narendra Modi has tarnished India’s name across the entire world. Do we now have to hear all this from Iran too?”
https://x.com/Ramesh18498367/status/2066095602954649607?s=20
Fact Check
As part of our fact-checking process, we conducted a keyword search on Google using terms such as “Mojtaba Khamenei criticized India’s Prime Minister for bowing before Trump” and “Mojtaba Khamenei praised India under Indira Gandhi.” However, we found no credible news reports, official statements, interviews, or verified social media posts supporting the claim that Mojtaba Khamenei made such remarks. During our research, we also found a report published by NDTV on March 12, 2026, which mentioned remarks made by a representative of Iran’s Supreme Leader regarding Iran-India relations.
According to the report, the representative stated that Mojtaba Khamenei “loves India” and values the long-standing civilizational ties between the two countries. He further said that Iran’s leadership has historically admired India’s culture, philosophy, and history and has consistently supported stronger relations between the two nations.
Conclusion
Our research found that the claim attributing a statement to Mojtaba Khamenei criticizing India’s Prime Minister for bowing before Trump and praising India during Indira Gandhi’s tenure is false. There is no credible news report, official statement, interview, or verified social media post confirming that Mojtaba Khamenei made such a statement. The viral graphic is being circulated with a false attribution.
