Great graphics (if you have the $5,000 machine to run in top graphics mode) but realism? What's with the 'Aliens' technology? And two guys fighting dozens in a stand-up fight and winning?

It looks great, don't get me wrong, but "realism" is just not a word I'd use to describe it.

I also like how the highly trained special ops guy holds his machine pistol "gangsta" style and shoots with enough accuracy to hit something from a moving snowmobile. On the whole about as "realistic" as a James Bond film.

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by kronosposeidon.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Special-Ops-Extraction

Dupe of http://www.videosift.com/video/Special-Ops-Extraction

>> ^cybrbeast:
I have to remark that it could still be considered a cut. This is because this budget includes all the war money. If you remember the Bush days, every few months Bush would ask congress for XX billions to continue the war and support the troops. Obama isn't planning to do this AFAIK. So if you would add Bush's pleas to congress to his military budget it would probably be higher than Obama's. We'll just have to see if Obama doesn't come to congress for more...


Ahh, this is true, and in fact seems to be what Republicans are half-mumbling when confronted on TV about it.

That takes the conversation a little deeper. The essence of the Gates-Obama budget is that it's cutting back massively on cold-war style programs like the F-22, the airborne laser (seriously), and some of the fancier toys the Navy was building, including the new class of aircraft carriers.

Instead, it's beefing up funding for special ops teams, general recruitment, veteran's benefits, unmaned drones, and likely a wide array of other things that would be of direct assistance to the types of conflicts we're actually engaged in.

In short, defense contractors and their lobbyist-vehicles (aka congressmen and Senators) are going to be unhappy because it means their highly-expensive, dubious utility programs will be cut in favor of spending on things that are more valuable to the military, but less profitable to private industry.

>> ^ant:
MythBusters had this one in one of their episodes to shoot a dead tree down.


They also shot a fish in a barrel with it.

>> ^supersaiyan93:
okay, i get the panels on each side of the shooter, but dude, his balls are behind just glass.



Do you think that they are gonna spend that much money on the gun and the modification to the roof and NOT replace the windshield and other windows with bulletproof glass?

>> ^ren:
seems stupidly dangerous to half submerge a chopper to doit tho.


Why ?
The working components are about a foot up from the bottom of the fusealage, and anything up to the air intakes is pretty much waterproofed to begin with (for this purpose).

Those babies can lift tanks, a little bit of water isnt going to hurt it.

dupe http://www.videosift.com/video/Special-Ops-Extraction

*Sigh* Think about what you're saying. For this conspiracy to have happened, the ENTIRE NYPD AND NYFD would have to have been in on it. They searched WTC 7. Twice. Didn't find any special ops guys loading explosives. Don't mention any unusual explosions. Nobody reporting that the interior was perfectly fine until the whole building collapsed out of the blue. They weren't surprised at all the thing came down. They saw it leaning and buckling hours before it went and they had previously used. And they all report massive fires on multiple floors, which they were unable to fight because there was no water pressure.

But you're willing to believe one guy who comes out 7 years later and says "Oh actually, now that I think about it, I heard an explosion."

That's not "perfectly natural doubt." That's paranoia. You're not just beating a dead horse here. The horse is gone, they went and turned the remains into glue. There's nothing left to beat, but still you guys refuse to let go. Show me the evidence schmawy. Coincidence is not evidence. And anyone who thinks it is evidence is just plain ignorant in my opinion and deserves public censure.

And please oh please could you come up with a more plausible conspiracy while you're at it? They faked 9-11 so we would go to war... with Afghanistan? Come on now, why not just say Saddam did it and go straight to Iraq if that's your aim? If the architects of 9-11 are as good at this stuff as you guys claim they must be, they could easily have forged some link between Saddam and the 9-11 terrorists that we all would have bought. We barely thought twice about going into Afghanistan, do you really think we would have balked if Bush had come on the news and said Saddam did it?

And congrats, special_ops. Want to join me on special ops in Cambodia? Lots of nice mangos there.

eh, no prob. just wondering. thanks dag.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Hi Special Ops - hate to be the bringer of bad news - but we don't allow username changes - it's just a mess because of all the interconnecting database tables and post histories that rely on your username. Sorry.

In reply to this comment by special_ops:
hey dag, i was wondering, is there a way i could change my username?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Hi Special Ops - hate to be the bringer of bad news - but we don't allow username changes - it's just a mess because of all the interconnecting database tables and post histories that rely on your username. Sorry.

In reply to this comment by special_ops:
hey dag, i was wondering, is there a way i could change my username?

Dupe

http://www.videosift.com/video/Special-Ops-Extraction

*discard

alright, bummer. also, when would you say Videosift's birthday is?

In reply to this comment by dag:
Hey special ops, yep - we've raised the Channel manager bar to 250, sorry!

In reply to this comment by special_ops:
so does this mean that i have to wait until i sift 250 videos to create a channel?

oh and good job on the new site. that's my only concern.