Comments on: boom!

boom!

crunchland — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:12:13 -0800

(Caution: contains audio with profanity.)

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:18:02 -0800

ok.

By: mr.curmudgeon

mr.curmudgeon — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:18:09 -0800

Ya' sure VBIED doesn't stand for 'Very Big Improvised Explosive Device'? Damn.

By: jellicle

jellicle — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:18:23 -0800

By: Rothko

Rothko — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:24:06 -0800

Related war porn.

By: The Jesse Helms

The Jesse Helms — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:25:37 -0800

Minimally Invasive Robotic Radical Prostatectomy.

By: numlok

numlok — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:26:57 -0800

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"

By: jaimev

jaimev — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:30:36 -0800

Ohhh....so that's what these kids grew up to be.

By: thanotopsis

thanotopsis — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:31:27 -0800

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.

By: freebird

freebird — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:33:30 -0800

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.

By: geoff.

geoff. — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:37:12 -0800

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.

By: Faze

Faze — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:39:42 -0800

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.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:47:10 -0800

Skip to a minute in if you want to avoid a lot of headache-inducing-shots of a white Bronco standing still.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:49:53 -0800

or by clicking on the fourth image on the right.

By: SweetJesus

SweetJesus — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:51:24 -0800

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.

By: eatyourlunch

eatyourlunch — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:52:18 -0800

Was OJ inside?

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:56:12 -0800

That proves the terrist really have nice vehicles ..mmhh..BIG SUV = TERRIST !

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:58:06 -0800

Maximum zoom - steadycam = me vomiting.

By: matty

matty — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:06:27 -0800

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??

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:16:37 -0800

Usually the VBIED's are loaded with shrapnel, nails, anything. Is this where we are right now? Stuck like Hadrian?

By: senor biggles

senor biggles — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:18:28 -0800

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.

By: caddis

caddis — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:22:28 -0800

VBIED? How about "car bomb?"

By: crunchland

crunchland — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:24:49 -0800

you don't expect the military to come up with a simple description when they can come up with a huge acronym, do you?

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:33:28 -0800

Semi Related story on torching cars

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:35:21 -0800

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.

By: dsword

dsword — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:38:27 -0800

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

By: pathighgate

pathighgate — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:48:26 -0800

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.

By: jellicle

jellicle — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:05:40 -0800

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.

By: trey

trey — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:15:35 -0800

It sounds like they say SAW, not TOW.

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:34:28 -0800

trey means SAW, I think.

By: teece

teece — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:36:49 -0800

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.

By: Bighappyfunhouse

Bighappyfunhouse — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:39:08 -0800

Do a google video search for IED and you'll see a damned creepy video.

By: pots

pots — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:55:36 -0800

"Less impressive, until you start trying to figure out where they got the washing machine." Where did they get it from?

By: bugmuncher

bugmuncher — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:16:43 -0800

"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...

By: numlok

numlok — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:52:26 -0800

Or set it on the ground, brace it against his leg, etc. etc. ... and they let this guy carry a rifle?

By: signal

signal — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:16:17 -0800

War pr0n is my 2^nd least favorite kind of pr0n. War does look fun, though. Is this something you can sign up for?

By: NGnerd

NGnerd — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:03:18 -0800

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)).

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:32:08 -0800

*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.

By: hypersloth

hypersloth — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 04:04:53 -0800

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.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:22:48 -0800

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.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:36:19 -0800

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."