#FactCheck - Old Wedding Fire Video Misleadingly Shared as Iranian Hypersonic Missile Strike in Tel Aviv
Executive Summary:
Amid the ongoing conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, a video showing a building engulfed in flames is being widely circulated on social media. In the clip, a large fire can be seen inside a building while several people appear to be running in panic. The video is being shared with the claim that Iran fired a hypersonic missile targeting a ceremony in Tel Aviv, Israel, allegedly killing several Israeli military generals and other prominent figures.
However, research by the CyberPeace found that the claim is false. The video being circulated as footage of an attack in Israel actually predates the current conflict and shows a fire that broke out during a wedding ceremony.
Claim
A Facebook user named “Syed Asif Raza Jafri” shared the video on March 13, 2026, claiming that an Iranian hypersonic missile had struck a grand ceremony in Tel Aviv, where several Israeli military officers, generals, soldiers, and other important personalities were present. According to the post, the attack resulted in multiple casualties.
Source:
- https://www.facebook.com/reel/902182825912364
- https://ghostarchive.org/archive/rZryr
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we began our research using the Google Lens reverse image search tool. Several key frames from the viral video were extracted and searched online.
During the search, we found the same video shared earlier on multiple foreign social media accounts. A Facebook user named “Es de Bombero” from Chile had posted the video on January 17, 2026, describing it in Spanish as footage of a fire that broke out during a wedding celebration.
Our research shows that the viral video had been circulating on social media since at least January 15, 2026, well before the escalation of the current conflict. According to a report published on March 1, 2026, by BBC, the large-scale attacks on Iran by the United States and Israel began on February 28, 2026, after which Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was reported dead.
Additionally, a March 12, 2026 report by Al Jazeera stated that a house near Tel Aviv in central Israel was damaged by a rocket reportedly fired by Hezbollah, which has previously carried out joint attacks in coordination with Iran.
Conclusion
The viral video being shared as footage of an Iranian hypersonic missile strike in Tel Aviv is misleading. The clip is an older video of a fire that reportedly broke out during a wedding ceremony and was circulating online before the current conflict began.
While the exact location of the incident shown in the video cannot be independently verified, it is clear that the footage has no connection to the ongoing war between the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Related Blogs
Risk Management
The ‘Information Security Profile’ prioritises and informs cybersecurity operations based on the company's risk administration procedures. It assists in choosing areas of focus for security operations that represent the desired results for producers by supporting periodic risk evaluations and validating company motivations. A thorough grasp of the business motivations and safety requirements unique to the Production system and its surroundings is necessary in order to manage cybersecurity threats. Because every organisation has different risks and uses ICS and IT in different ways, there will be variations in how the profile is implemented.
Companies are currently adopting industry principles and cybersecurity requirements, which the Manufacturing Information is intended to supplement, not replace. Manufacturers have the ability to identify crucial operations for key supply chains and can order expenditures in a way that will optimise their impact on each dollar. The Profile's primary objective is to lessen and manage dangers associated with cybersecurity more effectively. The Cybersecurity Framework and the Profile are not universally applicable methods for controlling security risks for essential infrastructure.
Producers will always face distinct risks due to their distinct dangers, weaknesses, and tolerances for danger. Consequently, the ways in which companies adopt security protocols will also change.
Key Cybersecurity Functions: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover
- Determine
Create the organisational knowledge necessary to control the potential hazards of cybersecurity to information, systems, resources, and competencies. The Identify Function's tasks are essential for using the Framework effectively. An organisation can concentrate its efforts in a way that aligns with its approach to risk mitigation and company needs by having a clear understanding of the business environment, the financial resources that assist with vital operations, and the associated cybersecurity threats. Among the outcome characteristics that fall under this function are risk evaluation, mitigation strategy, the administration of assets, leadership, and the business environment.
- Protect
Create and put into place the necessary measures to guarantee the provision of crucial infrastructure amenities. The Protect Function's operations enable the limitation or containment of the possible impact of a cybersecurity incident. Instances of results Access Management, Knowledge and Instruction, Data Safety and Security, Data Protection Processes and Instructions, Repair, and Defensive Systems are some of the classifications that fall under this role.
- Detect
Create and carry out the necessary actions to determine whether a cybersecurity event has occurred. The Detect Function's operations make it possible to find vulnerability occurrences in an efficient way. This function's result subcategories include things like abnormalities and incidents, constant security monitoring, and identification processes.
- React
Create and carry out the necessary plans to address a cybersecurity event that has been discovered. The Response Function's operations facilitate the capacity to mitigate the effects of a possible cybersecurity incident. Within this Scope, emergency planning, interactions, analysis, prevention, and enhancements are a few examples of result categories.
- Recover
Create and carry out the necessary actions to uphold resilience tactics and restore any services or competencies that were hampered by a cybersecurity incident. In order to lessen the effects of a vulnerability incident, the Recovery Function's efforts facilitate a prompt return to regular operations. The following are a few instances of outcome subcategories under this role: communications, enhancements, and recovery planning.
Conclusion
The Information Security Profile, when seen in the framework of risk mitigation, offers producers a tactical method to deal with the ever-changing cybersecurity danger scenario. The assessment directs safeguarding operations prioritisation by recognising specific business reasons and connecting with corporate goals. The Profile enhances the cybersecurity standards and established industry guidelines by taking into account the differences in vulnerabilities and organisational subtleties among producers. It highlights the significance of a customised strategy, acknowledging that every business has unique risks and weaknesses.
The fundamental tasks of the Framework, to Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover, serve as a thorough roadmap, guaranteeing a proactive and flexible approach to cybersecurity. The Profile's ultimate goal is to increase the efficacy of risk mitigation techniques, understanding that cybersecurity is a constantly shifting and evolving subject for the manufacturing sector.
References
- https://csrc.nist.gov/news/2020/cybersecurity-framework-v1-1-manufacturing-profile
- https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2020/NIST.IR.8183r1.pdf
- https://mysecuritymarketplace.com/reports/cybersecurity-framework-version-1-1-manufacturing-profile/
.webp)
For more than a century, cinema has evolved alongside technology. Sound transformed silent films, colour changed visual storytelling, computer-generated imagery expanded the limits of imagination, and streaming reshaped how audiences experience films. Each transformation brought uncertainty, but Artificial Intelligence represents a different kind of shift. It is not merely changing how films are made; it is beginning to challenge who, or what, gets to create and perform them.
This debate has moved from theory to reality with Tilly Norwood, an AI-generated performer created by Particle 6 through its AI talent division Xicoia. After months of discussion surrounding the role of artificial performers in entertainment, Norwood is now set to headline her own feature film, Misaligned which is a project that places artificial intelligence at the centre of both the production process and the story itself. The film is described as a comedy-drama following an AI character without a tangible existence. The story follows that, guided by another AI character, she begins developing ambitions, emotions, and a desire to understand what it means to become “human” The premise of the movie is intentionally self-reflective. An AI performer, whose very existence has raised questions about authenticity and creativity, will now portray a character experiencing those same conflicts.
AI as storyteller?
Using Artificial Intelligence in filmmaking is not recent, for years production studios have used technology for visual effects, editing assistance, restoration, recommendation systems, and production planning. The emergence of AI-generated performers, however, introduces a far more complex question, can AI replace the actors who are core to storytelling?
When Tilly was first introduced at the Zurich film festival in late 2025 by the Dutch producer Eline Van Der Velden, CEO and Founder of Particle 6, introduced it as a hybrid model of film-making, where there are directors, producers, production team but a "synthetic performer" in the lead role and a comprehensive AI-experts team. Van Der Velden argued that human creativity was not being replaced but supplemented by AI.
This was not well received by the film community. Actors like Emily Blunt and SAG-AFTRA (the Screen Actors Guild- American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) a US labor organization representing roughly 160,000 professionals across the entertainment and media industries, including actors, performers, journalists, musicians, and voice actors, released a statement condemning this project with synthetic performer. They emphasised that ‘creativity is, and should remain, human-centered. The union is opposed to the replacement of human performers by synthetics.’
The Question of Authenticity
Acting has historically been understood as an interpretation of human experience. Performers bring personal histories, emotions, cultural backgrounds, and individual perspectives into their roles. The criticism is that an AI actor does not exist in a tangible form and essentially has no real story or background of any kind. Particle 6 describes Tilly only as a twenty-something who lives in London and loves coffee which is a very shallow context and has no personality at all. The film is also set in the fictional "Tillyverse," not a real place and exists on some cloud system reinforcing the sense that there is no lived reality behind the character.
At their core, AI performers are outputs of generative systems rather than individuals with lived experience or personal artistic interpretation. These systems learn by identifying patterns from vast datasets and generating results based on existing material, which raises questions about whether such performances can be considered original creative expression at all. Tilly Norwood's music video ‘Taking the Lead’ illustrated this gap in practice, drawing attention to inconsistencies in natural emotion, visual continuity, and expression across scenes.
Human actors, by contrast, bring authenticity and emotional depth shaped by real experience and creative interpretation which are qualities that recognition and awards have traditionally been built around. If a performance is produced through algorithms trained on existing creative patterns, a fundamental question follows: what exactly is being celebrated, the technology, the final output, or the humans guiding the system?
Creativity, Consent, and the Legal Grey Areas
AI performers also raise significant questions about intellectual property, personality rights, consent, and compensation. Existing legal and contractual frameworks were primarily designed around human performers who are individuals who negotiate compensation, own aspects of their identity, and participate in the wider cultural ecosystem surrounding cinema. However, an AI actor challenges these traditional assumptions. If a digital performer does not possess legal personhood, creative ownership, or independent rights, questions emerge regarding who should receive recognition and financial benefits: the developers, production studios, directors, or the human creators involved in building the technology?
Also if a digital actor’s expressions, movements, or style are influenced by thousands of existing performers, determining ownership becomes complicated. Who controls an AI-generated performance? Who deserves credit? Should performers have rights over how their likeness, voice, or style influences future AI systems?
Any advantages?
The most significant advantage of AI-assisted filmmaking may lie in what it offers smaller production houses and independent creators. By reducing certain production costs, AI tools could let filmmakers with limited resources attempt ambitious ideas that were previously out of reach. Beyond this production advantage, however, the acceptance of AI performers themselves remains uncertain. Projects like Misaligned are therefore less a proven shift in cinema than an industry experiment testing how far technology can move into a traditionally human creative space.
The Future of Cinema: Replacement or Reinvention?
Every major technological transformation in cinema has created fears about what might be lost, yet cinema has consistently adapted by absorbing new technologies into its storytelling. AI may follow a similar path, but the stakes are different as it does not simply change the tools available to artists, it challenges the definitions of creativity, authorship, and performance itself.
Much of cinema's economic and cultural life is really built on the bond between audiences and actors. It's actors who drive ticket sales, build loyal fan followings, and become cultural figures in their own right, through interviews, public appearances, and the visible journey of training, struggle, and growth that shapes a career. An AI-generated performer can mimic parts of that celebrity image, but it can't actually show up for any of it the way a person can. Handing central creative roles to artificial personalities also raises a fairness question, especially at a time when so many human performers are already struggling to find work.
Whether audiences will really embrace fully synthetic performers as stand-ins for human actors is still an open question. Misaligned may end up being the first real test of that. Early reaction to Tilly Norwood has been largely critical within the industry and among audiences. How viewers respond to Misaligned itself will be an early test of whether that scepticism holds.
Cinema has always found ways to absorb new technology, but AI is testing something deeper than the tools filmmakers use. As machines get better at telling human stories, the real challenge is making sure the human element behind those stories doesn't get lost.
References
- https://theprint.in/feature/tilly-norwood-tillyverse-misaligned-particle6-ai-actor/2980654/
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tilly-norwood-ai-generated-actor-feature-film/
- https://www.sagaftra.org/sag-aftra-statement-synthetic-performer
- https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/ai-actor-tilly-norwood-movie-debut-misaligned-1236638719/
Introduction
Google’s search engine is widely known for its ability to tailor its search results based on user activity, enhancing the relevance of search outcomes. Recently, Google introduced the ‘Try Without Personalisation’ feature. This feature allows users to view results independent of their prior activity. This change marks a significant shift in platform experiences, offering users more control over their search experience while addressing privacy concerns.
However, even in this non-personalised mode, certain contextual factors including location, language, and device type, continue to influence results. This essentially provides the search with a baseline level of relevance. This feature carries significant policy implications, particularly in the areas of privacy, consumer rights, and market competition.
Understanding the Feature
When users engage with this option of non-personalised search, it will no longer show them helpful individual results that are personalisation-dependent and will instead provide unbiased search results. Essentially,this feature provides users with neutral (non-personalised) search results by bypassing their data.
This feature allows the following changes:
- Disables the user’s ability to find past searches in Autofill/Autocomplete.
- Does not pause or delete stored activity within a user’s Google account. Users, because of this feature, will be able to pause or delete stored activity through data and privacy controls.
- The feature doesn't delete or disable app/website preferences like language or search settings are some of the unaffected preferences.
- It also does not disable or delete the material that users save.
- When a user is signed in, they can ‘turn off the personalisation’ by clicking on the search option at the end of the webpage. These changes, offered by the feature, in functionality, have significant implications for privacy, competition, and user trust.
Policy Implications: An Analysis
This feature aligns with global privacy frameworks such as the GDPR in the EU and the DPDP Act in India. By adhering to principles like data minimisation and user consent, it offers users control over their data and the choice to enable or disable personalisation, thereby enhancing user autonomy and trust.
However, there is a trade-off between user expectations for relevance and the impartiality of non-personalised results. Additionally, the introduction of such features may align with emerging regulations on data usage, transparency, and consent. Policymakers play a crucial role in encouraging innovations like these while ensuring they safeguard user rights and maintain a competitive market.
Conclusion and Future Outlook
Google's 'Try Without Personalisation' feature represents a pivotal moment for innovation by balancing user privacy with search functionality. By aligning with global privacy frameworks such as the GDPR and the DPDP Act, it empowers users to control their data while navigating the complex interplay between relevance and neutrality. However, its success hinges on overcoming technical hurdles, fostering user understanding, and addressing competitive and regulatory scrutiny. As digital platforms increasingly prioritise transparency, such features could redefine user expectations and regulatory standards in the evolving tech ecosystem.
