#FactCheck-9/11 Footage Falsely Shared as Iran’s Attack on Israel
Executive Summary
A video showing people running amid smoke and chaos during an attack is being widely shared on social media with the claim that it depicts an Iranian strike on Israel. The clip, around 29 seconds long, shows thick black smoke rising as people flee the scene, with voices heard calling for help. However, research by the CyberPeace found that the claim is misleading. The video is actually from the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in the United States.
Claim:
The video has been shared on Facebook with a caption claiming, “Iran has launched its most powerful attack on Israel. Thousands of soldiers have reportedly been killed. Massive protests have erupted within the country, and Israel appears completely helpless.”
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we conducted a reverse image search using keyframes from the viral video. This led us to a longer version of the same footage uploaded on YouTube on September 11, 2016.
The relevant portion appears around the 2-minute 9-second mark. The video description identifies the footage as part of the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Further, we found the same video in an archive folder on a website associated with the US Department of Commerce, which contains multiple images and videos related to the 9/11 attacks. This further confirms the origin of the footage.
Conclusion:
The viral claim is false. The video does not show an Iranian attack on Israel. It is from September 2001 and depicts the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks in New York, USA.
Related Blogs
Introduction
In today’s digital world, where everything is related to data, the more data you own, the more control and compliance you have over the market, which is why companies are looking for ways to use data to improve their business. But at the same time, they have to make sure they are protecting people’s privacy. It is very tricky to strike a balance between both of them. Imagine you are trying to bake a cake where you need to use all the ingredients to make it taste great, but you also have to make sure no one can tell what’s in it. That’s kind of what companies are dealing with when it comes to data. Here, ‘Pseudonymisation’ emerges as a critical technical and legal mechanism that offers a middle ground between data anonymisation and unrestricted data processing.
Legal Framework and Regulatory Landscape
Pseudonymisation, as defined by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Article 4(5), refers to “the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person”. This technique represents a paradigm shift in data protection strategy, enabling organisations to preserve data utility while significantly reducing privacy risks. The growing importance of this balance is evident in the proliferation of data protection laws worldwide, from GDPR in Europe to India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) of 2023.
Its legal treatment varies across jurisdictions, but a convergent approach is emerging that recognises its value as a data protection safeguard while maintaining that the pseudonymised data remains personal data. Article 25(1) of GDPR recognises it as “an appropriate technical and organisational measure” and emphasises its role in reducing risks to data subjects. It protects personal data by reducing the risk of identifying individuals during data processing. The European Data Protection Board’s (EDPB) 2025 Guidelines on Pseudonymisation provide detailed guidance emphasising the importance of defining the “pseudonymisation domain”. It defines who is prevented from attributing data to specific individuals and ensures that the technical and organised measures are in place to block unauthorised linkage of pseudonymised data to the original data subjects. In India, while the DPDP Act does not explicitly define pseudonymisation, legal scholars argue that such data would still fall under the definition of personal data, as it remains potentially identifiable. The Act defines personal data defined in section 2(t) broadly as “any data about an individual who is identifiable by or in relation to such data,” suggesting that the pseudonymised information, being reversible, would continue to require compliance with data protection obligations.
Further, the DPDP Act, 2023 also includes principles of data minimisation and purpose limitation. Section 8(4) says that a “Data Fiduciary shall implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure effective observance of the provisions of this Act and the Rules made under it.” The concept of Pseudonymization fits here because it is a recognised technical safeguard, which means companies can use pseudonymization as one of the methods or part of their compliance toolkit under Section 8(4) of the DPDP Act. However, its use should be assessed on a case to case basis, since ‘encryption’ is also considered one of the strongest methods for protecting personal data. The suitability of pseudonymization depends on the nature of the processing activity, the type of data involved, and the level of risk that needs to be mitigated. In practice, organisations may use pseudonymization in combination with other safeguards to strengthen overall compliance and security.
The European Court of Justice’s recent jurisprudence has introduced nuanced considerations about when pseudonymised data might not constitute personal data for certain entities. In cases where only the original controller possesses the means to re-identify individuals, third parties processing such data may not be subject to the full scope of data protection obligations, provided they cannot reasonably identify the data subjects. The “means reasonably likely” assessment represents a significant development in understanding the boundaries of data protection law.
Corporate Implementation Strategies
Companies find that pseudonymisation is not just about following rules, but it also brings real benefits. By using this technique, businesses can keep their data more secure and reduce the damage in the event of a breach. Customers feel more confident knowing that their information is protected, which builds trust. Additionally, companies can utilise this data for their research or other important purposes without compromising user privacy.
Key Benefits of Pseudonymisation:
- Enhanced Privacy Protection: It hides personal details like names or IDs with fake ones (with artificial values or codes), making it harder for accidental privacy breaches.
- Preserved Data Utility: Unlike completely anonymous data, pseudonymised data keeps its usefulness by maintaining important patterns and relationships within datasets.
- Facilitate Data Sharing: It’s easier to share pseudonymised data with partners or researchers because it protects privacy while still being useful.
However, using pseudonymisation is not as easy as companies have to deal with tricky technical issues like choosing the right methods, such as encryption or tokenisation and managing security keys safely. They have to implement strong policies to stop anyone from figuring out who the data belongs to. This can get expensive and complicated, especially when dealing with a large amount of data, and it often requires expert help and regular upkeep.
Balancing Privacy Rights and Data Utility
The primary challenge in pseudonymisation is striking the right balance between protecting individuals' privacy and maintaining the utility of the data. To get this right, companies need to consider several factors, such as why they are using the data, the potential hacker's level of skill, and the type of data being used.
Conclusion
Pseudonymisation offers a practical middle ground between full anonymisation and restricted data use, enabling organisations to harness the value of data while protecting individual privacy. Legally, it is recognised as a safeguard but still treated as personal data, requiring compliance under frameworks like GDPR and India’s DPDP Act. For companies, it is not only regulatory adherence but also ensuring that it builds trust and enhances data security. However, its effectiveness depends on robust technical methods, governance, and vigilance. Striking the right balance between privacy and data utility is crucial for sustainable, ethical, and innovation-driven data practices.
References:
- https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/
- https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6fb4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf
- https://gdpr-info.eu/art-25-gdpr/
- https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2025-01/edpb_guidelines_202501_pseudonymisation_en.pdf
- https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=303863&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=16466915
- https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=303863&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=16466915
Executive Summary
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was reportedly killed in a major attack carried out by Israel and the United States, with claims circulating that Iranian state media confirmed his death early Sunday morning. Amid these claims, a video is being widely shared on social media. The viral video shows a body trapped under debris. Users sharing the clip claim that the body seen in the footage is that of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. However, research conducted by CyberPeace found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the video is not authentic but AI-generated.
Claim:
On March 1, 2026, an Instagram user shared the viral video with the caption: “Shaheed Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei — Neither fled nor hid in a bunker, embraced death like a brave man.” The link to the post and its archived version are provided below along with a screenshot.
Fact Check:
Upon closely examining the viral video, we noticed several visual irregularities and technical inconsistencies. This raised suspicion about its authenticity. We then scanned the video using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. The results indicated that approximately 83 percent of the content showed signs of being AI-generated.
To further verify the claim, we also analyzed the video using another AI detection tool, WasItAI. The findings similarly suggested that the video was generated using artificial intelligence.
Conclusion:
Our research establishes that the viral video is not real. It has been artificially generated using AI and is being shared with misleading claims.
Introduction
When a tragedy strikes, moments are fragile, people are vulnerable, emotions run high, and every second is important. In such critical situations, information becomes as crucial as food, water, shelter, and medication. As soon as any information is received, it often leads to stampedes and chaos. Alongside the tragedy, whether natural or man-made, emerges another threat: misinformation. People, desperate for answers, cling to whatever they can find.
Tragedies can take many forms. These may include natural disasters, mass accidents, terrorist activities, or other emergencies. During the 2023 earthquakes in Turkey, misinformation spread on social media claiming that the Yarseli Dam had cracked and was about to burst. People believed it and began migrating from the area. Panic followed, and search and rescue teams stopped operations in that zone. Precious hours were lost. Later, it was confirmed to be a rumour. By then, the damage was already done.
Similarly, after the recent plane crash in Ahmedabad, India, numerous rumours and WhatsApp messages spread rapidly. One message claimed to contain the investigation report on the crash of Air India flight AI-171. It was later called out by PIB and declared fake.
These examples show how misinformation can take control of already painful moments. During emergencies, when emotions are intense and fear is widespread, false information spreads faster and hits harder. Some people share it unknowingly, while others do so to gain attention or push a certain agenda. But for those already in distress, the effect is often the same. It brings ore confusion, heightens anxiety, and adds to their suffering.
Understanding Disasters and the Role of Media in Crisis
Disaster can be defined as a natural or human-caused situation that causes a transformation from a usual life of society into a crisis that is far beyond its existing response capacity. It can have minimal or maximum effects, from mere disruption in daily life practices to as adverse as inability to meet basic requirements of life like food, water and shelter. Hence, the disaster is not just a sudden event. It becomes a disaster when it overwhelms a community’s ability to cope with it.
To cope with such situations, there is an organised approach called Disaster Management. It includes preventive measures, minimising damages and helping communities recover. Earlier, public institutions like governments used to be the main actors in disaster management, but today, with every small entity having a role, academic institutions, media outlets and even ordinary people are involved.
Communication is an important element in disaster management. It saves lives when done correctly. People who are vulnerable need to know what’s happening, what they should do and where to seek help. It involves risk in today’s instantaneous communication.
Research shows that the media often fails to focus on disaster preparedness. For example, studies found that during the 2019 Istanbul earthquake, the media focused more on dramatic scenes than on educating people. Similar trends were seen during the 2023 Turkey earthquakes. Rather than helping people prepare or stay calm, much of the media coverage amplified fear and sensationalised suffering. This shows a shift from preventive, helpful reporting to reactive, emotional storytelling. In doing so, the media sometimes fails in its duty to support resilience and worse, can become a channel for spreading misinformation during already traumatic events. However, fighting misinformation is not just someone’s liability. It is penalised in the official disaster management strategy. Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 mentions that "Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with a fine."
AI as a Tool in Countering Misinformation
AI has emerged as a powerful mechanism to fight against misinformation. AI technologies like Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) are effective in spotting and classifying misinformation with up to 97% accuracy. AI flags unverified content, leading to a 24% decrease in shares and 7% drop in likes on platforms like TikTok. Up to 95% fewer people view content on Facebook when fact-checking labels are used. Facebook AI also eliminates 86% of graphic violence, 96% of adult nudity, 98.5% of fake accounts and 99.5% of content related to terrorism. These tools help rebuild public trust in addition to limiting the dissemination of harmful content. In 2023, support for tech companies acting to combat misinformation rose to 65%, indicating a positive change in public expectations and awareness.
How to Counter Misinformation
Experts should step up in such situations. Social media has allowed many so-called experts to spread fake information without any real knowledge, research, or qualification. In such conditions, real experts such as authorities, doctors, scientists, public health officials, researchers, etc., need to take charge. They can directly address the myths and false claims and stop misinformation before it spreads further and reduce confusion.
Responsible journalism is crucial during crises. In times of panic, people look at the media for guidance. Hence, it is important to fact-check every detail before publishing. Reporting that is based on unclear tips, social media posts, or rumours can cause major harm by inciting mistrust, fear, or even dangerous behaviour. Cross-checking information, depending on reliable sources and promptly fixing errors are all components of responsible journalism. Protecting the public is more important than merely disseminating the news.
Focus on accuracy rather than speed. News spreads in a blink in today's world. Media outlets and influencers often come under pressure to publish it first. But in tragic situations like natural disasters and disease outbreaks, rushing to come first is not as important as accuracy is, as a single piece of misinformation can spark mass-scale panic and can slow down emergency efforts and lead people to make rash decisions. Taking a little more time to check the facts ensures that the information being shared is helpful, not harmful. Accuracy may save numerous lives during tragedies.
Misinformation spreads quickly it can only be prevented if people learn to critically evaluate what they hear and see. This entails being able to spot biased or deceptive headlines, cross-check claims and identify reliable sources. Digital literacy is of utmost importance; it makes people less susceptible to fear-based rumours, conspiracy theories and hoaxes.
Disaster preparedness programs should include awareness about the risks of spreading unverified information. Communities, schools and media platforms must educate people on how to respond responsibly during emergencies by staying calm, checking facts and sharing only credible updates. Spreading fake alerts or panic-inducing messages during a crisis is not only dangerous, but it can also have legal consequences. Public communication must focus on promoting trust, calm and clarity. When people understand the weight their words can carry during a crisis, they become part of the solution, not the problem.
References:
- https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/3556152
- https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/SMWG_Countering-False-Info-Social-Media-Disasters-Emergencies_Mar2018-508.pdf
- https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/india/fake-whatsapp-message-air-india-crash-pib-fact-check-fcwmvuyc
- https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/SMWG_Countering-False-Info-Social-Media-Disasters-Emergencies_Mar2018-508.pdf
