Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


boom!
November 9, 2005 1:12 PM   Subscribe

"A car riged [sic] with a VBIED [vehicle-borne improvised explosive device] blows up on bridge in Hit, Iraq." (Caution: contains audio with profanity.)
posted by crunchland (40 comments total)

 
ok.
posted by delmoi at 1:18 PM on November 9, 2005


Ya' sure VBIED doesn't stand for 'Very Big Improvised Explosive Device'? Damn.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 1:18 PM on November 9, 2005


Related article.
posted by jellicle at 1:18 PM on November 9, 2005


Related war porn.
posted by Rothko at 1:24 PM on November 9, 2005


Minimally Invasive Robotic Radical Prostatectomy.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:25 PM on November 9, 2005


Was the large explosion from the VBIED itself, or something they fired at it?
The main reason I ask is that at 1:39, you can hear:
Off Camera: "They shot it with a fucking [unintelligible]"
Cameraman: "Yeah... Jesus"
posted by numlok at 1:26 PM on November 9, 2005


Ohhh....so that's what these kids grew up to be.
posted by jaimev at 1:30 PM on November 9, 2005


That cameraman must have taken lessons from the popular "shaky cam" artists you see on prime-time television these days.

I just watched Boston Legal for the first time the other night, and while the story and acting was entertaining, the camera work was atrocious.
posted by thanotopsis at 1:31 PM on November 9, 2005


meh - the camera controls were really shoddy, and while the explosions looked good there wasn't much gameplay. Battlefield2 or even America's Army are way better.
posted by freebird at 1:33 PM on November 9, 2005


Awesome, there seems to be so little actual video of the army on the ground. Though I didn't know with image stabilization you could even shake that much on purpose.

How much explosives would it have taken to cause that to happen? How destructive would that have actually been? I mean unless the car was packed with shrapnel it can't be that effective.
posted by geoff. at 1:37 PM on November 9, 2005


I'm with you, thanotopsis. I hate that shakey cam stuff. Why do they expect us to like "Arrested Development" when they can't even do us the frickin' favor of holding the danged lens still? Yeah, real "cutting edge." Advice to television directors everywhere: Enough! Faze will not watch your programming unless you put your camera on a tripod. It's called "customer service," you morons. You do things to make it easier to watch your programs, not harder. I'm so annoyed by the shakey camera on "Arrested Development," I don't have any energy left to hate the lousy writing.
posted by Faze at 1:39 PM on November 9, 2005


Skip to a minute in if you want to avoid a lot of headache-inducing-shots of a white Bronco standing still.
posted by smackfu at 1:47 PM on November 9, 2005


or by clicking on the fourth image on the right.
posted by crunchland at 1:49 PM on November 9, 2005


How much explosives would it have taken to cause that to happen? How destructive would that have actually been?

It doesn't take a lot of Semtex to make that explosion. Maybe a kilogram or two, maybe less. However, Its evident from the delayed explosions that the car was shot at with something, probably a 50 cal, and the heat and fire from the resultant attack exploded the ordinance on board.

I mean unless the car was packed with shrapnel it can't be that effective.

Effective against what? Are you trying to blow up the bridge, in which case you're not looking to inflict indirect damage. If you're looking to cause casualties, the car itself is shrapnel. I wouldn't want to be within 100 feet of that thing when it goes off, lest I catch a bull-bar to the head.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:51 PM on November 9, 2005


Was OJ inside?
posted by eatyourlunch at 1:52 PM on November 9, 2005


That proves the terrist really have nice vehicles ..mmhh..BIG SUV = TERRIST !
posted by elpapacito at 1:56 PM on November 9, 2005


Maximum zoom - steadycam = me vomiting.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:58 PM on November 9, 2005


Listen to what someone says in the background at time 1:40, then the guy w/ the camera says something to the effect of 'Yeah, man'. What did that guy say at time 1:40??
posted by matty at 2:06 PM on November 9, 2005


Usually the VBIED's are loaded with shrapnel, nails, anything. Is this where we are right now? Stuck like Hadrian?
posted by Ironmouth at 2:16 PM on November 9, 2005


Not a soldier or a military equipment buff, but I'm guessing he said something like "They shot it with a fucking TOW", i.e. TOW.
posted by senor biggles at 2:18 PM on November 9, 2005


VBIED? How about "car bomb?"
posted by caddis at 2:22 PM on November 9, 2005


you don't expect the military to come up with a simple description when they can come up with a huge acronym, do you?
posted by crunchland at 2:24 PM on November 9, 2005


Semi Related story on torching cars
posted by srboisvert at 2:33 PM on November 9, 2005


Okay - so does anyone have a clue what this is about? Was this a military operation? What's the objective?

Seems like there are a couple of options, given that the soldiers are pleased with the results:

1. They found the SUV laden with explosives and are detonating it at a safe distance. (Why do it on a bridge? Why comment on the bridge destruction?)
2. They are attempting to disable the bridge. (Why pack the car with explosives rather than simply lay charges directly on the bridge itself?)

Anyone have a clue? Also, what's the point of destroying the bridge? I thought we were in the "reconstruction" stage. Seems pretty costly to blow up a bridge you'll have to rebuild.
posted by odinsdream at 2:35 PM on November 9, 2005


Less impressive, until you start trying to figure out where they got the washing machine.
posted by dsword at 2:38 PM on November 9, 2005


Faze
I hate that shakey cam stuff. Why do they expect us to like "Arrested Development" when they can't even do us the frickin' favor of holding the danged lens still? Yeah, real "cutting edge." Advice to television directors everywhere: Enough! Faze will not watch your programming unless you put your camera on a tripod. It's called "customer service," you morons. You do things to make it easier to watch your programs, not harder.

I would suggest avoiding anything on Current TV.
posted by pathighgate at 2:48 PM on November 9, 2005


Likely sequence of events:

1) Some guy stops his SUV on the bridge, gets out, gets into another car, and drives away.
2) U.S. military notices. Looks like they have a nice little observation post overlooking that bridge.
3) Military decides they're going to investigate this vehicle by shooting at it. (Um, would YOU want to go investigate in person?) Someone gets his camera. Traffic on the bridge is stopped.
4) Whoever in the group thinks he's a good shot starts taking pot shots at it. Cameraman gets lots of upclose, ultra-jerky frames.
5) Success: something is set off by a bullet.
6) Success: gas tank catches on fire, billow of flame.
7) Success: everything else in the car goes off at once, KABOOM.
8) Miscellaneous comments. "That was a VBIED" - confirmation that it was a car bomb - they weren't sure, but now they are, after that explosion. One mentions a TOW, but there's no smoke trail from an incoming missile, so the vehicle wasn't actually shot with a TOW. Probably should be interpreted as expressing the idea that it blew up as if it was shot with a TOW.

Q. Why didn't they move the vehicle off the bridge before blowing it up? A. You first. What, are you chicken?

Q. Were they trying to destroy the bridge? A. Nope, but shit happens. If they were trying, some engineers would have strung explosives and the whole thing would have dropped nicely into the water.

Q. Was this a cunning attack? Yes and no. The bridge is a choke point - if the vehicle could be detonated as some U.S. vehicles passed by, those U.S. vehicles would be destroyed and flung into the water, with many casualties. So that's a point in favor. However, doing this when the U.S. military has an observation post watching the bridge renders the attack pretty much worthless.
posted by jellicle at 3:05 PM on November 9, 2005


It sounds like they say SAW, not TOW.
posted by trey at 3:15 PM on November 9, 2005


trey means SAW, I think.
posted by Chuckles at 3:34 PM on November 9, 2005


As far as war porn goes, this was not very good.

I just knew that camera man was going to miss the initial explosion, and he did. And the lack of expository information between what we saw in the video and the larger situation was damaging. The lack of a tripod was almost enough to induce vomiting.
posted by teece at 3:36 PM on November 9, 2005


Do a google video search for IED and you'll see a damned creepy video.
posted by Bighappyfunhouse at 3:39 PM on November 9, 2005


"Less impressive, until you start trying to figure out where they got the washing machine."

Where did they get it from?
posted by pots at 3:55 PM on November 9, 2005


"That cameraman must have taken lessons from the popular "shaky cam" artists you see on prime-time television these days."

The further away you are from a subject, and the tighter you zoom, the more ordinary shakes are magnified.

You can go handheld without much noticeable shake if you zoom all the way out and stand closeby... But I would not recommend doing that near a bomb.

He could have carried a tripod, but that would make his primary job harder...
posted by bugmuncher at 5:16 PM on November 9, 2005


Or set it on the ground, brace it against his leg, etc. etc.
... and they let this guy carry a rifle?
posted by numlok at 5:52 PM on November 9, 2005


War pr0n is my 2nd least favorite kind of pr0n.
War does look fun, though. Is this something you can sign up for?
posted by signal at 7:16 PM on November 9, 2005


me thinks this wasn't a high explosive explosion. prior to the main explosion we see a bright light eminating (from the very shakey) direction of the vehicle which suggests to me that it was on fire or more slowly exploding. High explosive videos that i've seen general only have a large light at the very initial milliseconds and then are pretty much grey balls of smoke thereafter (then again i'm sure the vehicle did have some gas in it). I'd agree this wasn't a really big weapon as it didn't appear to do any significant damage to the bridge. I'd guess in the smaller range for what that vehicle could carry (then again i didn't see if there was any cratering of the bridge slab, but it generally looked like the structure was OK).

This was definitly meant more for injuring people nearby then blowing up a bridge (though i have no idea how well insurgents know how much explosives they need to damage a structure). As far as placing the weapon in the vehilce and not on the structure directly, i'd guess that it's something they'd not be able to do on site (ie: the truck would be a delivery system). I am a bit curious how it got to the state of being trapped on the bridge...but that the world may never know.

oh, and may i note that guys are risking their assess over there and we're bitching about their camera work (then again, the footage from the WWII did look better (they just don't make wars like that anymore, do they)).
posted by NGnerd at 11:03 PM on November 9, 2005


*sigh* Kids.

Military decides they're going to investigate this vehicle by shooting at it.
jellicle is right. SOP - recon by fire.
me thinks this wasn't a high explosive explosion.
Dunno. Semtex is a bit dirty. Mebbe.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:32 AM on November 10, 2005


IED's, beware the Buffalo!! The videos are sweet - especially the one where they show a normal pick-em-up truck parked on a landmine, but don't show what happens to the Buffalo in the same scenario...
Also, it gets 4.5 mpg on a full tank - perfect for an oil war.
posted by hypersloth at 4:04 AM on November 10, 2005


Though I didn't know with image stabilization you could even shake that much on purpose.

I think the image stabilization makes it worse. Without it, you would get constant little shakes at full zoom. But the IS gets rid of the small ones, and only shakes when the frame moves a lot. So you get a big jump which is much more distracting.
posted by smackfu at 7:22 AM on November 10, 2005


I just knew that camera man was going to miss the initial explosion, and he did. And the lack of expository information between what we saw in the video and the larger situation was damaging. The lack of a tripod was almost enough to induce vomiting.

y'all are some sick fuckers, sitting here critiqueing the production values as if you were looking at a damn sitcom or some attempt at cinematic creativity.

when these kids come from shrapnel city with half thier ass shot off, you just know someone is gonna say "dude, the least you could have done is hold the camera still. you ruined my voyeuristic experience, man."
posted by quonsar at 7:36 AM on November 11, 2005


« Older Has the C.I.A. legally killed prisoners?...   |   Sounds Cool!... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments