#FactCheck - Misleading Video of Dubai Airport Attack Circulates Online, Found AI-Generated
Executive Summary
Amid rising tensions in the Middle East following attacks on Iran by the United States and Israel, a video is being shared on social media claiming that it shows a recent attack at Dubai International Airport. Research by the CyberPeace found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the viral video is not real but has been created using artificial intelligence technology.
Claim:
An Instagram user shared the viral video on March 1, 2026, claiming it shows an attack at Dubai Airport. The link to the post, the archive link, and a screenshot are provided below.
Fact Check:
To verify the viral claim, we searched Google using relevant keywords. However, we did not find any credible media report confirming the claim.On closely examining the viral video, we noticed several unusual visuals and technical inconsistencies, raising suspicion that it might be AI-generated. To verify this, we scanned the video using the AI detection tool Sightengine. According to the results, around 74 percent of the video shows the likelihood of being AI-generated.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the viral video is not real but has been created using artificial intelligence technology.
Related Blogs
A video clip of journalist Palki Sharma is being widely shared on social media. Along with the video, it is being claimed that during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent Middle East visit, she questioned Jordan’s diplomatic protocol.
In the viral clip, Palki Sharma is allegedly seen asking why Jordan’s King Abdullah II did not come to the airport to receive Prime Minister Modi, and whether this indicated a downgrade in the level of welcome.
However, an investigation by the Cyber Peace Foundation found this claim to be misleading. The probe revealed that while the visuals in the viral video are genuine, the audio has been altered using Artificial Intelligence (AI).
On the social media platform ‘X’, a user named “Ammar Solangi” shared this video on 18 December. The post claimed that the video was related to questions raised about Jordan’s diplomatic protocol during Prime Minister Modi’s visit. According to the post, Palki Sharma questioned why King Abdullah II did not receive Prime Minister Modi at the airport. The archive link of the viral post can be seen here: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/26aK0
Verification
During the investigation, the fact-check desk noticed the ‘Firstpost’ logo in the top-left corner of the viral video. Based on this clue, a customized Google search was conducted, which led to the original news report.
The investigation revealed that the viral video was taken from an episode of journalist Palki Sharma’s show “Vantage with Palki Sharma”, which aired on 17 December.
Analysis of the video showed that the visuals appearing at the 33 minutes 30 seconds timestamp in the original report exactly match those used in the viral clip. However, in the original broadcast, Palki Sharma neither questioned Jordan’s protocol nor made any comment about King Abdullah II not being present at the airport.
In the original video, Palki Sharma says:
“Prime Minister Modi was on a diplomatic tour of Jordan, Ethiopia, and Oman, and in Jordan he was received at the airport by the country’s Prime Minister…” The link to the original report can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VYZYe9l6Bs
AI Audio Examination
Further investigation involved separating the audio from the viral video and analyzing it using the AI voice detection tool ‘Resemble AI’. The tool’s results confirmed that fake, AI-generated audio had been added over the real footage in the viral clip to spread a misleading claim. A screenshot of the results from this examination can be seen below.
Conclusion
The video being circulated in the name of journalist Palki Sharma has been tampered with. Her voice has been altered using AI technology, and the claim made regarding the Jordan visit is completely misleading.
Executive Summary
Amid the ongoing war between the United States–Israel alliance and Iran since February 28, 2026, two videos are going viral across social media platforms. The clips show people running in panic, with visuals suggesting a large-scale attack. Users are sharing these videos with the claim that they depict Iran’s recent strikes on Israel. However, a research by the CyberPeace has found both claims to be false. The viral posts are misleading, as the videos are actually from the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, United States. They have no connection to the current conflict involving Iran or Israel.
Claim
A Facebook page titled ‘Bihar Ko Nihar’ shared one of the videos on March 25, 2026, with the caption: “Iran has launched its most powerful attack on Israel so far. Thousands of soldiers are reported dead, triggering massive protests within the country, and Israel appears completely helpless.” Similarly, another video is being circulated with the false claim that Iran has launched a missile attack on the United States.
The above claims are being widely shared by multiple users across different social media platforms. Archived versions of these posts are also available.
- https://www.facebook.com/reel/4317571078525937
- https://www.facebook.com/reel/1485000739860984
- https://perma.cc/E98R-A4CT
Fact Check
To verify the authenticity of the videos, keyframes were extracted and analyzed using Google Lens. The first viral clip was traced back to a YouTube video uploaded on September 11, 2007, by a channel named ‘Jumperwtc’, which clearly identifies the footage as being from the World Trade Center attacks in the United States. This confirms that the viral video is a segment from that older footage.
For the second video, reverse image searches led to a report published on CBS8.com on September 10, 2021, where the same visuals were found. Further reesearch revealed that the footage also appears in a video uploaded on September 11, 2021, by the YouTube channel ‘CBS 8 San Diego’. The viral segment can be seen around the 1:11 timestamp in that video.
Conclusion
Both viral videos being shared as recent attacks by Iran on Israel or the United States are actually old clips from the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. The claims are false, and the videos are unrelated to the ongoing conflict in West Asia.
A word rooted in medical terminology keeps getting mistaken for a word rooted in technology, and that confusion is not just semantic. On 6 August 2026, it sat at the heart of a case where police in Uttar Pradesh reportedly treated the absence of WhatsApp chats, call recordings, and social media material as grounds to disbelieve a sexual assault complaint altogether, before the Allahabad High Court intervened. For an organisation working at the intersection of digital literacy and public safety, this case is less a story about a legal term and more a case study in how assumptions about digital evidence, when left unchecked, can become a barrier to justice rather than a tool for it. "Digital" here refers to a finger, not a device, and the gap between what police expected and what the law actually required is exactly where this case becomes instructive. Digital rape has nothing to do with the internet. Digit simply means finger, and the word describes non-consensual penetration by a finger, thumb, toe, or similar body part or object. That basic clarification matters because the same investigating officers who were expected to know the law also appear to have leaned on a mistaken evidentiary standard, one where a complaint without a digital trail was treated as a complaint without merit. The judgment that followed says as much about how the criminal justice system treats sexual assault complaints, and how it treats digital evidence, as it does about legal terminology.
The case, in brief
The matter is Arpit Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571, neutral citation 2026:AHC:168404-DB, decided by a Division Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena. Arpit Gupta, the owner of a Noida based real estate firm, Parit Associates (OPC) Private Limited, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an FIR registered against him at Wave City police station, Ghaziabad, alleging rape, sexual harassment, and criminal intimidation. The complainant, a former employee of Gupta's company, alleged sustained workplace sexual harassment culminating in an act legally categorised as digital penetration, along with subsequent threats and intimidation. She resigned in April 2026. What followed procedurally is where the case becomes significant: Gupta filed a separate extortion complaint against her, she was arrested and later released on bail, and only after that sequence did she attempt to formally report the sexual assault, a report the police initially declined to register.
What followed complicates the picture considerably, and is central to why the case reached the High Court at all. On 14 April 2026, Gupta filed his own FIR against the complainant alleging extortion, claiming she had demanded 10 crore rupees from him. She was arrested in connection with that case and secured bail on 21 May 2026. After her release, she attempted to register her own complaint of sexual assault, but police at Wave City station declined to register an FIR. A written complaint dated 7 July 2026 addressed directly to the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, also produced no result. The police investigating officer's report, dated 16 July 2026, went further still, terming her allegations false and characterising the sexual assault complaint as a retaliatory counter-blast to Gupta's extortion case, citing in particular the absence of supporting electronic material such as WhatsApp chats, call recordings, or social media evidence. Only after she approached a Magistrate under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, did the FIR finally get registered, by Magisterial order dated 20 July 2026.
The legal terminology: what "digital rape" actually means under BNS
Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced Section 375 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, defines rape. Clause (b) of Section 63 extends that definition to cover non-penile penetrative acts, specifically insertion, to any extent, of any object or body part other than the penis into specified parts of a woman's body, done without her consent or against her will, subject to the circumstances of absent consent set out in the section. Digital penetration, meaning penetration by finger or thumb, falls squarely within this clause. There is no standalone offence in the BNS titled "digital rape"; the term is a widely used medico-legal shorthand, not a separate statutory category, and the offence itself is prosecuted and punished as rape under Section 64 BNS, which prescribes the punishment provisions. In this particular case, the FIR reportedly also invoked Sections 74, 75(2), and 76 BNS, provisions dealing with assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty, sexual harassment by a person in a position of authority, and related offences, alongside Section 351(3) BNS concerning criminal intimidation.
CyberPeace View
This is where the case circles back to the concern raised at the outset. The most instructive part of this judgment for the wider public may not be the definition of digital rape at all, but the police's original insistence on WhatsApp chats and call recordings before treating the complaint as credible. That reflex, a growing habit of associating the credibility of any complaint with the existence of a corresponding digital trail, reflects a wider and increasingly common misunderstanding about how evidence actually works in criminal law. Not every offence leaves an electronic footprint, and sexual assault, by its nature, frequently occurs without any accompanying digital record at all. Treating the absence of a chat log or a recording as evidence of falsehood inverts the legal presumption entirely, and risks turning digital literacy gaps within law enforcement into a structural barrier for genuine complainants who have no messages to produce because none were ever exchanged. As India's criminal justice system increasingly interacts with digital evidence, this case is a useful reminder that digital forensics should supplement an investigation, never gatekeep its starting point.
There is a genuinely technology rooted counterpart to this terminology confusion worth flagging, and it sits at the opposite end of the spectrum from where this case began. While "digital rape" has nothing to do with computers, "virtual rape" very much does, and it is an emerging harm India's legal framework is still catching up to. In January 2024, British police opened what was reported as the first investigation of its kind after a minor's avatar was allegedly gang assaulted by other avatars on Meta's metaverse platform, and similar incidents, avatars groped or sexually harassed within minutes of entering platforms like Horizon Worlds, have been documented repeatedly since, including a widely reported case involving psychotherapist Nina Jane Patel as far back as 2021. These incidents involve no physical contact whatsoever, yet researchers and legal scholars studying virtual reality note that immersive VR environments are specifically engineered to create a sense of embodiment, where the brain processes an avatar's violation as something closer to a real bodily experience than a typical online interaction, producing genuine trauma responses in victims. India's legal position here remains only partially settled. The POCSO Act's coverage of non-contact sexual abuse of minors likely extends to avatar based assaults on children, but adult victims of virtual sexual violence in India currently have no clearly dedicated statutory provision, leaving prosecutors to stretch existing harassment and outraging modesty provisions, originally drafted for a physical world, onto a form of harm the legislature has not yet explicitly addressed. As metaverse and VR platforms grow their user base in India, that gap is one worth closing before, rather than after, a case forces the question, much as this one forced the question of how police ought to treat digital evidence.
Conclusion
Two lessons run through this judgment. First, that the law's protection of bodily autonomy extends well beyond narrow, traditional definitions of penetration, a principle Section 63(b) BNS makes explicit. Second, that a complainant reporting a cognizable offence cannot be made to investigate her own case before the police will even open a file. FIR registration is not conviction, and conviction requires investigation, evidence, and trial to follow. What this case asks of the system is simpler than any of that: register the complaint, then do the work of finding out what happened.
References
- https://www.barandbench.com/news/digital-rape-allahabad-hc-orders-inquiry-against-senior-ghaziabad-police-officers-for-not-filing-fir
- https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-hc-police-cant-refuse-fir-sexual-complaint-non-production-evidence-545374
