#FactCheck - Viral Photos Falsely Linked to Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi's Helicopter Crash

Executive Summary
‍

A video is going viral on social media showing a massive building engulfed in flames and collapsing into debris. It is being widely claimed that Iran launched a powerful attack that destroyed Israel’s army headquarters. However, research by CyberPeace reveals that this claim is misleading. The viral video is AI-generated and has no connection to any real-world event.

‍

Claim

‍

An X (formerly Twitter) user shared the viral video with the caption: “Iran has targeted Israel’s army headquarters. It seems Israel’s dream of becoming ‘Greater Israel’ will remain unfulfilled.”

‍

Post link:

• https://x.com/KAMESHKUMAR96/status/2039009484069368083

Archived version:

• https://archive.ph/HKXkK
• https://x.com/KAMESHKUMAR96/status/2039009484069368083 
• https://archive.ph/HKXkK 

‍

‍

‍

Similar videos have also been shared by other users on social media:

‍

• https://www.facebook.com/reel/913431111396693

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. During this process, we found several credible media reports confirming that Iran has carried out drone and missile attacks on Israel and the Gulf regions in recent times. However, none of these reports featured the viral video, indicating that it is not authentic footage.

‍

https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/4/1/central-israel-hit-by-one-of-irans-largest-missile-barrages-in-weeks

‍

‍

‍

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxDBX90bYng

‍

‍

A closer examination of the video revealed multiple visual inconsistencies commonly associated with AI-generated content. For instance, a building on the left side appears to bend and collapse in a rubber-like manner—something that is physically unrealistic for structures made of concrete and steel. Additionally, the smoke and flames appear unnatural and lack realistic dynamics.

‍

To further verify, we analyzed the video using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation, which classified it as 99.9% AI-generated.

‍

‍

‍

We also tested the video using the Deepfake-o-Meter platform.The AVSRDD (2025) model detected it as 99.5% AI-generated

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research clearly establishes that the viral video claiming Iran destroyed Israel’s army headquarters is false and misleading. The footage does not appear in any credible news coverage of recent attacks, which strongly indicates that it is not real. Moreover, multiple AI detection tools consistently classify the video as artificially generated, with extremely high probability scores. Visual anomalies in the clip further support this finding.

‍

Introduction

Targeting airlines and airports, airline hoax threats are fabricated alarms which intend to disrupt normal day-to-day activities and create panic among the public. Security of public settings is of utmost importance, making them a vulnerable target. The consequences of such threats include the financial loss incurred by parties concerned, increased security protocols to be followed immediately after and in preparation, flight delays and diversions, emergency landings and passenger inconvenience and emotional distress. The motivation behind such threats is malicious intent of varying degrees, breaching national security, integrity and safety. However, apart from the government, airline and social media authorities which already have certain measures in place to tackle such issues, the public, through responsible consumption and verified sharing has an equal role in preventing the spread of misinformation and panic regarding the same.

Hoax Airline Threats

The recent spate of bomb hoax threats to Indian airlines has witnessed false reports about threats to (over) 500 flights since 14/10/2024, the majority being traced to posts on social media handles which are either anonymous or unverified. Some recent incidents include a hoax threat on Air India's flights from Delhi to Mumbai via Indore which was posted on X, 30/10/2024 and a flight from Nepal (Kathmandu) to Delhi on November 2nd, 2024.

As per reports by the Indian Express, steps are being taken to address such incidents by tweaking the assessment criteria for threats (regarding bombs) and authorities such as the Bomb Threat Assessment Committees (BTAC) are being selective in categorising them as specific and non-specific. Some other consideration factors include whether a VIP is onboard and whether the threat has been posted from an anonymous account with a similar history. 

CyberPeace Recommendations

1. For Public 

• Question sensational information: The public should scrutinise the information they’re consuming not only to keep themselves safe but also to be responsible to other citizens. Exercise caution before sharing alarming messages, posts and pieces of information
• Recognising credible sources: Rely only on trustworthy, verified sources when sharing information, especially when it comes to topics as serious as airline safety.
• Avoiding Reactionary Sharing: Sharing in a state of panic can contribute to the chaos created upon receiving unverified news, hence,  it is suggested to refrain from reactionary sharing.

2. For the Authorities & Agencies

• After a series of hoax bomb threats, the Government of India has issued an advisory to social media platforms calling for them to make efforts for the removal of such malicious content. Adherence to obligations such as the prompt removal of harmful content or disabling access to such unlawful information has been specified under the IT Rules, 2021. They are also obligated under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 to report certain offences on their platform. The Ministry of Civil Aviation’s action plan consists of plans regarding hoax bomb threats being labelled as a cognisable offence, and attracting a no-flyers list as a penalty, among other things.

These plans also include steps such as :  

• Introduction of other corrective measures that are to be taken against bad actors (similar to having a non-flyers list).
• Introduction of a reporting mechanism which is specific to such threats.
• Focus on promoting awareness, digital literacy and critical thinking, fact-checking resources as well as encouraging the public to report such hoaxes

Conclusion

Preventing the spread of airline threat hoaxes is a collective responsibility which involves public engagement and ownership to strengthen safety measures and build upon the trust in the overall safety ecosystem (here; airline agencies, government authorities and the public). As the government and agencies take measures to prevent such instances, the public should continue to share information only from and on verified and trusted portals. It is encouraged that the public must remain vigilant and responsible while consuming and sharing information. 

References

• https://indianexpress.com/article/business/flight-bomb-threats-assessment-criteria-serious-9646397/
• https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-airline-flight-bound-for-new-delhi-from-nepal-receives-hoax-bomb-threat-amid-rise-in-similar-incidents-772795
• https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2024/Oct/26/centre-cautions-social-media-platforms-to-tackle-misinformation-after-hoax-bomb-threat-to-multiple-airlines
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/amid-rising-hoax-bomb-threats-to-indian-airlines-centre-issues-advisory-to-social-media-companies/articleshow/114624187.cms 

‍

Introduction

In an era when misinformation spreads like wildfire across the digital landscape, the need for effective strategies to counteract these challenges has grown exponentially in a very short period. Prebunking and Debunking are two approaches for countering the growing spread of misinformation online. Prebunking empowers individuals by teaching them to discern between true and false information and acts as a protective layer that comes into play even before people encounter malicious content. Debunking is the correction of false or misleading claims after exposure, aiming to undo or reverse the effects of a particular piece of misinformation. Debunking includes methods such as fact-checking, algorithmic correction on a platform, social correction by an individual or group of online peers, or fact-checking reports by expert organisations or journalists. An integrated approach which involves both strategies can be effective in countering the rapid spread of misinformation online.

Brief Analysis of Prebunking 

Prebunking is a proactive practice that seeks to rebut erroneous information before it spreads. The goal is to train people to critically analyse information and develop ‘cognitive immunity’ so that they are less likely to be misled when they do encounter misinformation. 

The Prebunking approach, grounded in Inoculation theory, teaches people to recognise, analyse and avoid manipulation and misleading content so that they build resilience against the same. Inoculation theory, a social psychology framework, suggests that pre-emptively conferring psychological resistance against malicious persuasion attempts can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. As the term suggests, the MO is to help the mind in the present develop resistance to influence that it may encounter in the future. Just as medical vaccines or inoculations help the body build resistance to future infections by administering weakened doses of the harm agent, inoculation theory seeks to teach people fact from fiction through exposure to examples of weak, dichotomous arguments, manipulation tactics like emotionally charged language, case studies that draw parallels between truths and distortions, and so on. In showing people the difference, inoculation theory teaches them to be on the lookout for misinformation and manipulation even, or especially, when they least expect it. 

The core difference between Prebunking and Debunking is that while the former is preventative and seeks to provide a broad-spectrum cover against misinformation, the latter is reactive and focuses on specific instances of misinformation. While Debunking is closely tied to fact-checking, Prebunking is tied to a wider range of specific interventions, some of which increase motivation to be vigilant against misinformation and others increase the ability to engage in vigilance with success.

There is much to be said in favour of the Prebunking approach because these interventions build the capacity to identify misinformation and recognise red flags However, their success in practice may vary. It might be difficult to scale up Prebunking efforts and ensure their reach to a larger audience. Sustainability is critical in ensuring that Prebunking measures maintain their impact over time. Continuous reinforcement and reminders may be required to ensure that individuals retain the skills and information they gained from the Prebunking training activities. Misinformation tactics and strategies are always evolving, so it is critical that Prebunking interventions are also flexible and agile and respond promptly to developing challenges. This may be easier said than done, but with new misinformation and cyber threats developing frequently, it is a challenge that has to be addressed for Prebunking to be a successful long-term solution. 

Encouraging people to be actively cautious while interacting with information, acquire critical thinking abilities, and reject the effect of misinformation requires a significant behavioural change over a relatively short period of time. Overcoming ingrained habits and prejudices, and countering a natural reluctance to change is no mean feat. Developing a widespread culture of information literacy requires years of social conditioning and unlearning and may pose a significant challenge to the effectiveness of Prebunking interventions. 

Brief Analysis of Debunking 

Debunking is a technique for identifying and informing people that certain news items or information are incorrect or misleading. It seeks to lessen the impact of misinformation that has already spread. The most popular kind of Debunking occurs through collaboration between fact-checking organisations and social media businesses. Journalists or other fact-checkers discover inaccurate or misleading material, and social media platforms flag or label it. Debunking is an important strategy for curtailing the spread of misinformation and promoting accuracy in the digital information ecosystem. 

Debunking interventions are crucial in combating misinformation. However, there are certain challenges associated with the same. Debunking misinformation entails critically verifying facts and promoting corrected information. However, this is difficult owing to the rising complexity of modern tools used to generate narratives that combine truth and untruth, views and facts. These advanced approaches, which include emotional spectrum elements, deepfakes, audiovisual material, and pervasive trolling, necessitate a sophisticated reaction at all levels: technological, organisational, and cultural.

Furthermore, It is impossible to debunk all misinformation at any given time, which effectively means that it is impossible to protect everyone at all times, which means that at least some innocent netizens will fall victim to manipulation despite our best efforts.  Debunking is inherently reactive in nature, addressing misinformation after it has grown extensively. This reactionary method may be less successful than proactive strategies such as Prebunking from the perspective of total harm done. Misinformation producers operate swiftly and unexpectedly, making it difficult for fact-checkers to keep up with the rapid dissemination of erroneous or misleading information. Debunking may need continuous exposure to fact-check to prevent erroneous beliefs from forming, implying that a single Debunking may not be enough to rectify misinformation.  Debunking requires time and resources, and it is not possible to disprove every piece of misinformation that circulates at any particular moment. This constraint may cause certain misinformation to go unchecked, perhaps leading to unexpected effects. The misinformation on social media can be quickly spread and may become viral faster than Debunking pieces or articles. This leads to a situation in which misinformation spreads like a virus, while the antidote to debunked facts struggles to catch up.

Prebunking vs Debunking: Comparative Analysis

Prebunking interventions seek to educate people to recognise and reject misinformation before they are exposed to actual manipulation. Prebunking offers tactics for critical examination, lessening the individuals' susceptibility to misinformation in a variety of contexts. On the other hand, Debunking interventions involve correcting specific false claims after they have been circulated. While Debunking can address individual instances of misinformation, its impact on reducing overall reliance on misinformation may be limited by the reactive nature of the approach.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms

With the rising threat of online misinformation, tech/social media platforms can adopt an integrated strategy that includes both Prebunking and Debunking initiatives to be deployed and supported on all platforms to empower users to recognise the manipulative messaging through Prebunking and be aware of the accuracy of misinformation through Debunking interventions. 

1. Gamified Inoculation: Tech/social media companies can encourage gamified inoculation campaigns, which is a competence-oriented approach to Prebunking misinformation. This can be effective in helping people immunise the receiver against subsequent exposures. It can empower people to build competencies to detect misinformation through gamified interventions. 
2. Promotion of Prebunking and Debunking Campaigns through Algorithm Mechanisms: Tech/social media platforms may promote and guarantee that algorithms prioritise the distribution of Prebunking materials to users, boosting educational content that strengthens resistance to misinformation. Platform operators should incorporate algorithms that prioritise the visibility of Debunking content in order to combat the spread of erroneous information and deliver proper corrections; this can eventually address and aid in Prebunking and Debunking methods to reach a bigger or targeted audience.
3. User Empowerment to Counter Misinformation: Tech/social media platforms can design user-friendly interfaces that allow people to access Prebunking materials, quizzes, and instructional information to help them improve their critical thinking abilities. Furthermore, they can incorporate simple reporting tools for flagging misinformation, as well as links to fact-checking resources and corrections.
4. Partnership with Fact-Checking/Expert Organizations: Tech/social media platforms can facilitate Prebunking and Debunking initiatives/campaigns by collaborating with fact-checking/expert organisations and promoting such initiatives at a larger scale and ultimately fighting misinformation with joint hands initiatives.

Conclusion

The threat of online misinformation is only growing with every passing day and so, deploying effective countermeasures is essential.  Prebunking and Debunking are the two such interventions. To sum up: Prebunking interventions try to increase resilience to misinformation, proactively lowering susceptibility to erroneous or misleading information and addressing broader patterns of misinformation consumption, while Debunking is effective in correcting a particular piece of misinformation and having a targeted impact on belief in individual false claims. An integrated approach involving both the methods and joint initiatives by tech/social media platforms and expert organizations can ultimately help in fighting the rising tide of online misinformation and establishing a resilient online information landscape. 

References

1. https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/THKE.22.BJP.pdf
2. https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Empowering-Audiences-Through-%E2%80%98Prebunking-Michael-Bang-Petersen-Background-Report_formatted.pdf
3. https://newsreel.pte.hu/news/unprecedented_challenges_Debunking_disinformation
4. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/global-vaccination-badnews/

‍