Cal88 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

Oh boy, we have done like 50,000 bombing missions, and they shot down a 30 year old plane. Iran air defense is elite!

---

The great majority of these bombing runs were done using stand-off weapons fired from hundreds of KMs, the inventory of these is now depleted. So for further missions this Spring we either use up what's left, or have to fly deeper into Iran to drop gravity bombs (which are plentiful), exposing jets to much greater harm.

---

Solid propaganda from your spies who have obviously infiltrated the US supply room.

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

I don't have much time for you or people who are so heavily propagandized that it's useless to engage, but here's one detail that is easily debunked.

The claim was that the C-130s landed in the area, couldn't take off again, and were subsequently blown up by our troops because we didn't want Iran to have them. The destruction pattern on the propellers however clearly show that the plane crash landed:

---

Are you a plane aficionado? Where's the proof of what you say, you just posted images and made a claim.

oski003 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

Oh boy, we have done like 50,000 bombing missions, and they shot down a 30 year old plane. Iran air defense is elite!

---

The great majority of these bombing runs were done using stand-off weapons fired from hundreds of KMs, the inventory of these is now depleted. So for further missions this Spring we either use up what's left, or have to fly deeper into Iran to drop gravity bombs (which are plentiful), exposing jets to much greater harm.

---

Solid propaganda from your spies who have obviously infiltrated the US supply room.

---

Surprised you're that misinformed about a fact that has been widely published.

🇺🇸 The U.S. has reportedly burned through more than 1,000 of its most advanced cruise missiles in 5 weeks, going from 2,300 to roughly 425 available for everything else.

They're raiding Pacific stockpiles to keep the Iran campaign running, which means the deterrence signal to… https://t.co/BH24Z2Qy7k pic.twitter.com/AEccIFwPRB

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) April 4, 2026

The Pentagon is burning through its weapons at a rate that has genuinely alarmed its own officials. In the first 16 days alone, the US fired nearly half its combined inventory of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles, and nearly 40 percent of its THAAD interceptors.  Over 850… pic.twitter.com/1Q6GED6NSJ

— Gandalv (@Microinteracti1) March 31, 2026

Cal88 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

Oh boy, we have done like 50,000 bombing missions, and they shot down a 30 year old plane. Iran air defense is elite!

---

The great majority of these bombing runs were done using stand-off weapons fired from hundreds of KMs, the inventory of these is now depleted. So for further missions this Spring we either use up what's left, or have to fly deeper into Iran to drop gravity bombs (which are plentiful), exposing jets to much greater harm.

---

Solid propaganda from your spies who have obviously infiltrated the US supply room.

---

Surprised you're that misinformed about a fact that has been widely published.

🇺🇸 The U.S. has reportedly burned through more than 1,000 of its most advanced cruise missiles in 5 weeks, going from 2,300 to roughly 425 available for everything else.

They're raiding Pacific stockpiles to keep the Iran campaign running, which means the deterrence signal to… https://t.co/BH24Z2Qy7k pic.twitter.com/AEccIFwPRB

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) April 4, 2026

The Pentagon is burning through its weapons at a rate that has genuinely alarmed its own officials. In the first 16 days alone, the US fired nearly half its combined inventory of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles, and nearly 40 percent of its THAAD interceptors.  Over 850… pic.twitter.com/1Q6GED6NSJ

— Gandalv (@Microinteracti1) March 31, 2026

---

Looks like we still have a lot left. We are also capable of making more. It isn't our factories being bombed.

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

I don't have much time for you or people who are so heavily propagandized that it's useless to engage, but here's one detail that is easily debunked.

The claim was that the C-130s landed in the area, couldn't take off again, and were subsequently blown up by our troops because we didn't want Iran to have them. The destruction pattern on the propellers however clearly show that the plane crash landed:

---

Are you a plane aficionado? Where's the proof of what you say, you just posted images and made a claim.

---

Yes I am a plane afficionado.

Perhaps I have overestimated the capacity of certain people to understand that when the damage to the propellers is at the tips, it is a surefire indication of a crash rather than the plane having been blown up.

I am not here to try to raise your IQ or your elementary understanding of mechanics.

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

I don't have much time for you or people who are so heavily propagandized that it's useless to engage, but here's one detail that is easily debunked.

The claim was that the C-130s landed in the area, couldn't take off again, and were subsequently blown up by our troops because we didn't want Iran to have them. The destruction pattern on the propellers however clearly show that the plane crash landed:

---

Are you a plane aficionado? Where's the proof of what you say, you just posted images and made a claim.

---

Yes I am a plane afficionado.

Perhaps I have overestimated the capacity of certain people to understand that when the damage to the propellers is at the tips, it is a surefire indication of a crash rather than the plane having been blown up.

I am not here to try to raise your IQ or your elementary understanding of mechanics.

---

It's shocking how uneducated people can be over the most basic understanding of elementary mechanics.
Or economics.

It really begs the question if some of the posters here really went to CAL.

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

I don't have much time for you or people who are so heavily propagandized that it's useless to engage, but here's one detail that is easily debunked.

The claim was that the C-130s landed in the area, couldn't take off again, and were subsequently blown up by our troops because we didn't want Iran to have them. The destruction pattern on the propellers however clearly show that the plane crash landed:

---

Are you a plane aficionado? Where's the proof of what you say, you just posted images and made a claim.

---

Yes I am a plane afficionado.

Perhaps I have overestimated the capacity of certain people to understand that when the damage to the propellers is at the tips, it is a surefire indication of a crash rather than the plane having been blown up.

I am not here to try to raise your IQ or your elementary understanding of mechanics.

---

Lolol okay flyboy.

When you come back with proof that it was a crash and not blown up I'll make sure to be the first to admit you were right

DiabloWags said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

I don't have much time for you or people who are so heavily propagandized that it's useless to engage, but here's one detail that is easily debunked.

The claim was that the C-130s landed in the area, couldn't take off again, and were subsequently blown up by our troops because we didn't want Iran to have them. The destruction pattern on the propellers however clearly show that the plane crash landed:

---

Are you a plane aficionado? Where's the proof of what you say, you just posted images and made a claim.

---

Yes I am a plane afficionado.

Perhaps I have overestimated the capacity of certain people to understand that when the damage to the propellers is at the tips, it is a surefire indication of a crash rather than the plane having been blown up.

I am not here to try to raise your IQ or your elementary understanding of mechanics.

---

It's shocking how uneducated people can be over the most basic understanding of elementary mechanics.
Or economics.

It really begs the question if some of the posters here really went to CAL.

---

Do you get tired of repeating yourself or do you just forget that you post the same three things over and over again?

DiabloWags said:

---

You would be correct sir.
Our arms stockpile is dwindling.
No matter what the Trump War Hawks say.

And that's not a very good position to be when . . . . you have CHINA waiting in the wings.





U.S. missile supply stressed by Iran war

---

Cal88 supports China's dictatorship so he's not worried

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

I don't have much time for you or people who are so heavily propagandized that it's useless to engage, but here's one detail that is easily debunked.

The claim was that the C-130s landed in the area, couldn't take off again, and were subsequently blown up by our troops because we didn't want Iran to have them. The destruction pattern on the propellers however clearly show that the plane crash landed:

---

Are you a plane aficionado? Where's the proof of what you say, you just posted images and made a claim.

---

Yes I am a plane afficionado.

Perhaps I have overestimated the capacity of certain people to understand that when the damage to the propellers is at the tips, it is a surefire indication of a crash rather than the plane having been blown up.

I am not here to try to raise your IQ or your elementary understanding of mechanics.

---

Lolol okay flyboy.

When you come back with proof that it was a crash and not blown up I'll make sure to be the first to admit you were right

---

This is definitely a whole lot more ignorance than bad faith, you really are being "challenged" here.

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

I don't have much time for you or people who are so heavily propagandized that it's useless to engage, but here's one detail that is easily debunked.

The claim was that the C-130s landed in the area, couldn't take off again, and were subsequently blown up by our troops because we didn't want Iran to have them. The destruction pattern on the propellers however clearly show that the plane crash landed:

---

Are you a plane aficionado? Where's the proof of what you say, you just posted images and made a claim.

---

Yes I am a plane afficionado.

Perhaps I have overestimated the capacity of certain people to understand that when the damage to the propellers is at the tips, it is a surefire indication of a crash rather than the plane having been blown up.

I am not here to try to raise your IQ or your elementary understanding of mechanics.

---

Lolol okay flyboy.

When you come back with proof that it was a crash and not blown up I'll make sure to be the first to admit you were right

---

This is definitely a whole lot more ignorance than bad faith, you really are being "challenged" here.

---

Like I said, when you bring proof I'll be the first to admit you're right. I'd say you're the one being challenged right now

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

I don't have much time for you or people who are so heavily propagandized that it's useless to engage, but here's one detail that is easily debunked.

The claim was that the C-130s landed in the area, couldn't take off again, and were subsequently blown up by our troops because we didn't want Iran to have them. The destruction pattern on the propellers however clearly show that the plane crash landed:

---

Are you a plane aficionado? Where's the proof of what you say, you just posted images and made a claim.

---

Yes I am a plane afficionado.

Perhaps I have overestimated the capacity of certain people to understand that when the damage to the propellers is at the tips, it is a surefire indication of a crash rather than the plane having been blown up.

I am not here to try to raise your IQ or your elementary understanding of mechanics.

---

It's shocking how uneducated people can be over the most basic understanding of elementary mechanics.
Or economics.

It really begs the question if some of the posters here really went to CAL.

---

Do you get tired of repeating yourself or do you just forget that you post the same three things over and over again?

---

He has multiple insulting macros.

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

I don't have much time for you or people who are so heavily propagandized that it's useless to engage, but here's one detail that is easily debunked.

The claim was that the C-130s landed in the area, couldn't take off again, and were subsequently blown up by our troops because we didn't want Iran to have them. The destruction pattern on the propellers however clearly show that the plane crash landed:

---

Are you a plane aficionado? Where's the proof of what you say, you just posted images and made a claim.

---

Yes I am a plane afficionado.

Perhaps I have overestimated the capacity of certain people to understand that when the damage to the propellers is at the tips, it is a surefire indication of a crash rather than the plane having been blown up.

I am not here to try to raise your IQ or your elementary understanding of mechanics.

---

Lolol okay flyboy.

When you come back with proof that it was a crash and not blown up I'll make sure to be the first to admit you were right

---

This is definitely a whole lot more ignorance than bad faith, you really are being "challenged" here.

---

Like I said, when you bring proof I'll be the first to admit you're right. I'd say you're the one being challenged right now

---

Pattern on the propeller in Spitfire (linked below), B-17 crashes. On the B17, also a quadrimotor like the C-130 Hercules, the propellers from the engine that comes closest to the ground upon crashing will hit the turf and get damaged/bent.





.webp

https://www.flightglobal.com/ops-safety/2011/04/late-touchdown-mystifies-spitfire-crash-investigators/

---

That is proof of what happened to those planes, not proof of what happened to the planes in Iran. Cool pics though

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

I don't have much time for you or people who are so heavily propagandized that it's useless to engage, but here's one detail that is easily debunked.

The claim was that the C-130s landed in the area, couldn't take off again, and were subsequently blown up by our troops because we didn't want Iran to have them. The destruction pattern on the propellers however clearly show that the plane crash landed:

---

Are you a plane aficionado? Where's the proof of what you say, you just posted images and made a claim.

---

Yes I am a plane afficionado.

Perhaps I have overestimated the capacity of certain people to understand that when the damage to the propellers is at the tips, it is a surefire indication of a crash rather than the plane having been blown up.

I am not here to try to raise your IQ or your elementary understanding of mechanics.

---

Lolol okay flyboy.

When you come back with proof that it was a crash and not blown up I'll make sure to be the first to admit you were right

---

This is definitely a whole lot more ignorance than bad faith, you really are being "challenged" here.

---

Like I said, when you bring proof I'll be the first to admit you're right. I'd say you're the one being challenged right now

---

Pattern on the propeller in Spitfire (linked below), B-17 crashes. On the B17, also a quadrimotor like the C-130 Hercules, the propellers from the engine that comes closest to the ground upon crashing will hit the turf and get damaged/bent.





.webp

https://www.flightglobal.com/ops-safety/2011/04/late-touchdown-mystifies-spitfire-crash-investigators/

---

That is proof of what happened to those planes, not proof of what happened to the planes in Iran. Cool pics though

---

I can't imagine you teaching history since you have no direct proof of what happened during historic events.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

I don't have much time for you or people who are so heavily propagandized that it's useless to engage, but here's one detail that is easily debunked.

The claim was that the C-130s landed in the area, couldn't take off again, and were subsequently blown up by our troops because we didn't want Iran to have them. The destruction pattern on the propellers however clearly show that the plane crash landed:

---

Are you a plane aficionado? Where's the proof of what you say, you just posted images and made a claim.

---

Yes I am a plane afficionado.

Perhaps I have overestimated the capacity of certain people to understand that when the damage to the propellers is at the tips, it is a surefire indication of a crash rather than the plane having been blown up.

I am not here to try to raise your IQ or your elementary understanding of mechanics.

---

Lolol okay flyboy.

When you come back with proof that it was a crash and not blown up I'll make sure to be the first to admit you were right

---

This is definitely a whole lot more ignorance than bad faith, you really are being "challenged" here.

---

Like I said, when you bring proof I'll be the first to admit you're right. I'd say you're the one being challenged right now

---

Pattern on the propeller in Spitfire (linked below), B-17 crashes. On the B17, also a quadrimotor like the C-130 Hercules, the propellers from the engine that comes closest to the ground upon crashing will hit the turf and get damaged/bent.





.webp

https://www.flightglobal.com/ops-safety/2011/04/late-touchdown-mystifies-spitfire-crash-investigators/

---

That is proof of what happened to those planes, not proof of what happened to the planes in Iran. Cool pics though

---

I can't imagine you teaching history since you have no direct proof of what happened during historic events.

---

I don't teach history…?

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

I don't have much time for you or people who are so heavily propagandized that it's useless to engage, but here's one detail that is easily debunked.

The claim was that the C-130s landed in the area, couldn't take off again, and were subsequently blown up by our troops because we didn't want Iran to have them. The destruction pattern on the propellers however clearly show that the plane crash landed:

---

Are you a plane aficionado? Where's the proof of what you say, you just posted images and made a claim.

---

Yes I am a plane afficionado.

Perhaps I have overestimated the capacity of certain people to understand that when the damage to the propellers is at the tips, it is a surefire indication of a crash rather than the plane having been blown up.

I am not here to try to raise your IQ or your elementary understanding of mechanics.

---

Lolol okay flyboy.

When you come back with proof that it was a crash and not blown up I'll make sure to be the first to admit you were right

---

This is definitely a whole lot more ignorance than bad faith, you really are being "challenged" here.

---

Like I said, when you bring proof I'll be the first to admit you're right. I'd say you're the one being challenged right now

---

Pattern on the propeller in Spitfire (linked below), B-17 crashes. On the B17, also a quadrimotor like the C-130 Hercules, the propellers from the engine that comes closest to the ground upon crashing will hit the turf and get damaged/bent.





.webp

https://www.flightglobal.com/ops-safety/2011/04/late-touchdown-mystifies-spitfire-crash-investigators/

---

That is proof of what happened to those planes, not proof of what happened to the planes in Iran. Cool pics though

---

Keep digging.

---

When you bring proof of what happened to the planes in Iran, I'll admit you were right. As I've said multiple times

SBGold said:

---

Hateful, how is this kind of personal insult allowed?

I'm astounded by the hate, the trolling and the flame posts by MAGAs in this thread that goes unabated.

Choose Kindness

---

What hate? Flyboy? That's not hateful, it's playful at best. I know you're salty that you got banned for a month but there's nothing abnormal about the posts in this thread

SBGold said:

---

Playful? My God man

---

Yes, playful lol

"General slang
A pilot or aviator, especially military
Sometimes used playfully or admiringly (e.g., "hotshot flyboy")"

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

It's what all liberal media and the new psychotic antisemitism right do. Raise questions and innuendo.

HawaiiBear33 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

It's what all liberal media and the new psychotic antisemitism right do. Raise questions and innuendo.

---

And they feign innocence by claiming they're only asking questions!

Cal88 said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Feel free to prove any of it wrong instead of just claiming it sounds fishy.

---

I don't have much time for you or people who are so heavily propagandized that it's useless to engage, but here's one detail that is easily debunked.

The claim was that the C-130s landed in the area, couldn't take off again, and were subsequently blown up by our troops because we didn't want Iran to have them. The destruction pattern on the propellers however clearly show that the plane crash landed:

---

AI analysis:

Bent propellers could result from a crash (or hard landing) with engines running, and this has fueled Iranian claims and online debate questioning the U.S. account.

But experts note it's not decisive herethe damage is compatible with multiple scenarios, including ground demolition under combat pressure (where aircraft might still have engines running for various reasons). The broader evidence (burn patterns, lack of aerial debris field, U.S. statements on no fatalities from the C-130s) still points to the aircraft being destroyed on the ground after landing issues, not blown up in flight or crashing from altitude.

This remains a contested narrative with propaganda from both sides. Independent forensic analysis of full wreckage (beyond selective Iranian-released clips) would be needed for certainty, but current open-source assessments lean against a classic "shot down while flying" event.

1:04

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

1:04

---

Good informational post.
My recommendation is that he should take this "win" of rescuing the pilot and go home because if he tries again and the hundreds of people at risk don't come home he'll be blamed horribly.


What has he accomplished so far?


1. No regime change.

2. No uranium stolen.

3. ~13-15 Americans dead, ~300-370 wounded.

4. 2000-3600 Iranians killed, half civilians.

5. Generations more Iranians hate us.

6. Other countries dead:
Lebanon: ~1,100+
Iraq: ~100+
Israel: ~29
Gulf states (Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, etc.): dozens combined
Other countries (France, Philippines, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.): small numbers (single digits each)

7. Tens of billions spent by US military.

8. Economies…Rule of thumb economists use:
A sustained $10 increase in oil:
Cuts global GDP by ~0.1%-0.2% annually
US economic loss after 1 month (AI calc): U.S. portion:
About $3-8 billion

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

Obama abandoned 4 American patriots to die in Benghazi. Ambassador Stevens' body was dragged through the streets.

Biden left 13 American soldiers to die in the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal.

He also abandoned our astronauts in space for months until Elon helped to bring them home.

Trump rescued one American soldier with the full force of the U.S. military.

---

Trump started a war of choice that already has hundreds of US casualties and is wrecking the world economy, get a grip.