Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[Grand Poo Bah]

23 continued... look at all that rebar. This is the perfect example of a DI where the construction quality far exceeded the standard as described in the EF scale. But the scale was applied literally and it inexplicably was rated EF3. It's the EXACT structure people have been saying strong tornadoes "just haven't hit" in 12 years. smh..

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

24. at least partially Anchored CMU house described in the DAT as "home gone". I see anchors in the first pic but not the second.



25. CMU retail building



26. Concrete Block and Masonry apartment destroyed



27. Well built masonry home destroyed



28. Masonry low-rise building completely destroyed



29. Masonry low-rise building destroyed #2



30. Masonry low-rise building destroyed #3



31. University of Kentucky masonry clad CMU block destroyed. Apparently the rebar wasn't done correct, but I'm not sure I can take that as gospel anymore with the way Tim Marshall and others have been caught in lies lately. Especially because this was right next door to the extremely well built elementary school that was equally (if not moreso) destroyed.






Ok that's everything... sorry for the mile long string of comments. Let me know what you guys think. I'd like to get this huge list condensed into a more well-refined slam dunk EF5 case.

 

[Aaron Rider]

1. "Anchored and reinforced CMU home" near Bremen

View attachment 37382View attachment 37383
View attachment 37384

2. Another "anchored reinforced CMU house" and surveyors indicated it wasn't "bolted down well". these are the only pics.

View attachment 37385View attachment 37386

3. "CMU house swept away" rated EF3

View attachment 37387View attachment 37388

4. "modular, anchored CMU home swept clean"

View attachment 37389View attachment 37390
View attachment 37391

damn that little moose doll hit me in the feels. Sometimes, though, we need a reminder of what these events really mean.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

damn that little moose doll hit me in the feels. Sometimes, though, we need a reminder of what these events really mean.

I hope the family all survived, and finding that moose was a source of light for an otherwise devastated family.

Edit:
I also want to say the Mayfield surveyors did a pretty impressive job documenting one of the longest tornado paths ever in the limited time they had. They missed a lot of homes, but did a decent job documenting all the ones they found that were well built. They also extensively documented the elementary school and Univeristy of Kentucky buildings that were hit, and probably felt a decreased need to document everything else because that was the maximum damage Indicator (and their EF5 case). Even with that decreased need, they still got tons of drone photography and pictures on the ground. I think they left it up to the engineers to make the final call, and those engineers are who let us down.

 

[buckeye05]

5. CMU construction "most walls collapsed" EF3

View attachment 37392

6. CMU constructed office completely destroyed

View attachment 37395View attachment 37394


7. Reinforced CMU residence slab swept clean

View attachment 37396View attachment 37397

8. possible CMU residence swept clean

View attachment 37398View attachment 37402

9. possible CMU house slab swept clean


View attachment 37399

10. Steel framed CMU building destroyed

View attachment 37400

11. Possible concrete block home destroyed

View attachment 37403

As I suspected, these are just CMU foundation homes. No evidence of them having actual reinforced masonry frames.

1. "Anchored and reinforced CMU home" near Bremen

View attachment 37382View attachment 37383
View attachment 37384

2. Another "anchored reinforced CMU house" and surveyors indicated it wasn't "bolted down well". these are the only pics.

View attachment 37385View attachment 37386

3. "CMU house swept away" rated EF3

View attachment 37387View attachment 37388

4. "modular, anchored CMU home swept clean"

View attachment 37389View attachment 37390
View attachment 37391

Same thing. None of these are reinforced masonry homes. I mean come on the last one is so obvious. A reinforced masonry modular home especially does not exist.

It’s ok to have opinions, but when you base those opinions on misinterpretation, that opinion isn’t valid. You’re trying to argue something that just really isn’t debatable. These are wood frame homes, and you are making a series of misidentifications. It’s not an “agree to disagree” scenario.

The rest of the photos are

 

[buckeye05]

5. CMU construction "most walls collapsed" EF3

View attachment 37392

6. CMU constructed office completely destroyed

View attachment 37395View attachment 37394


7. Reinforced CMU residence slab swept clean

View attachment 37396View attachment 37397

8. possible CMU residence swept clean

View attachment 37398View attachment 37402

9. possible CMU house slab swept clean


View attachment 37399

10. Steel framed CMU building destroyed

View attachment 37400

11. Possible concrete block home destroyed

View attachment 37403

Bremen house 190 MPH house was wood frame, and that’s not up for debate. The “before” pictures do not show a masonry home. Otherwise, a couple of actual CMU homes and other structures here, but no tell tale signs of reinforcements. Critical distinction you don’t just get to ignore.

 

[buckeye05]

23 continued... look at all that rebar. This is the perfect example of a DI where the construction quality far exceeded the standard as described in the EF scale. But the scale was applied literally and it inexplicably was rated EF3. It's the EXACT structure people have been saying strong tornadoes "just haven't hit" in 12 years. smh..

View attachment 37425
View attachment 37426
View attachment 37427
View attachment 37428
View attachment 37429

View attachment 37430
View attachment 37431
View attachment 37432
View attachment 37433
View attachment 37434

None of that rebar matters because the construction crew neglected to attach it to the foundation, negating a continuous load that would have made it “that” kind of building. I’m not sure if you’re aware of that detail or not, but that is a huge flaw it makes a massive difference. Now we’re straying away from the topic of houses so this isn’t even relevant.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

As I suspected, these are just CMU foundation homes. No evidence of them having actual reinforced masonry frames.


Same thing. None of these are reinforced masonry homes. I mean come on the last one is so obvious. A reinforced masonry modular home especially does not exist.

It’s ok to have opinions, but when you base those opinions on misinterpretation, that opinion isn’t valid. You’re trying to argue something that just really isn’t debatable. These are wood frame homes, and you are making a series of misidentifications. It’s not an “agree to disagree” scenario.

The rest of the photos are

Look again. The descriptions with quotes around them were made by surveyors. If you disagree, it's with the surveyors not me.

 

[buckeye05]

24. at least partially Anchored CMU house described in the DAT as "home gone". I see anchors in the first pic but not the second.

View attachment 37435View attachment 37444

25. CMU retail building

View attachment 37436View attachment 37437

26. Concrete Block and Masonry apartment destroyed

View attachment 37438

27. Well built masonry home destroyed

View attachment 37439

28. Masonry low-rise building completely destroyed

View attachment 37440

29. Masonry low-rise building destroyed #2

View attachment 37441

30. Masonry low-rise building destroyed #3

View attachment 37442

31. University of Kentucky masonry clad CMU block destroyed. Apparently the rebar wasn't done correct, but I'm not sure I can take that as gospel anymore with the way Tim Marshall and others have been caught in lies lately. Especially because this was right next door to the extremely well built elementary school that was equally (if not moreso) destroyed.

View attachment 37443




Ok that's everything... sorry for the mile long string of comments. Let me know what you guys think. I'd like to get this huge list condensed into a more well-refined slam dunk EF5 case.

First pic is another wood frame home. Rest are a series of unreinforced masonry homes and non-homes. UK building wasn’t reinforced, as I mentioned previously.

 

[andyhb]

Look again. The descriptions with quotes around them were made by surveyors. If you disagree, it's with the surveyors not me.

But you're the one attaching the claims. If you're wondering why you're flack recently for some of your posts, it's because you keep posting claims as fact repeatedly, often with a lot of confirmation bias added on top.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

None of that rebar matters because the construction crew neglected to attach it to the foundation, negating a continuous load that would have made it “that” kind of building. I’m not sure if you’re aware of that detail or not, but that is a huge flaw it makes a massive difference. Now we’re straying away from the topic of houses so this isn’t even relevant.

You're thinking of the University of Kentucky building. The elementary school is an entirely different building nearby, and it's very clear in the photos it was properly anchored and reinforced. If you're going to dispute the photos, I welcome and encourage it, but at least take a minute to actually read the descriptions and look at the photos.

I spent wayyyy too much time collecting and posting these pics to have you just waving them off willy nilly!

 

[buckeye05]

Look again. The descriptions with quotes around them were made by surveyors. If you disagree, it's with the surveyors not me.

As I mentioned, when you see the note “CMU home” in the DAT, that usually refers to the foundation type alone. I know enough to identify wood-frame construction in several of those homes, and have even seen “before” pics from Bremen that proves it beyond a doubt. It’s not debatable. There are a few true CMU wall homes in the mix, but they are not reinforced, and I can tell looking at the visual appearance of the remaining masonry. There’s nothing stating reinforcement was present at those homes to begin with, and anything beyond that would be a baseless assumption. This series of posts only proves that you have issues identifying certain types of construction, don’t know what reinforced masonry looks like when it fails, and fill in information gaps with assumptions.

Look…when I joined this forum, despite my initial confidence, it became apparent how much I didn’t know about tornado intensity and construction types. But I decided I wanted to learn and become as competent as possible on the topic. Whether you want to accept it or not, that’s where you are at currently. You’ve got the confidence, but you’ve got a lot to learn too. Whether you want to accept that and be open to learning when you’re incorrect or misinformed is up to you.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

But you're the one attaching the claims. If you're wondering why you're flack recently for some of your posts, it's because you keep posting claims as fact repeatedly, often with a lot of confirmation bias added on top.

Wait, so me posting direct quotes from surveyors from the DAT with attached photos is me "claiming facts", but Buckeye's counter arguments without any supporting evidence provided whatsoever are not? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Say whatever you want about my claims (this is literally a debate thread after all) but at least I'm putting thought and effort into them, leaving them open for discussion, and asking questions.

 

[buckeye05]

You're thinking of the University of Kentucky building. The elementary school is an entirely different building nearby, and it's very clear in the photos it was properly anchored and reinforced. If you're going to dispute the photos, I welcome and encourage it, but at least take a minute to actually read the descriptions and look at the photos.

I spent wayyyy too much time collecting and posting these pics to have you just waving them off willy nilly!

Just straight up incorrect. The tornado did not hit an elementary school in Princeton. That building is a grain research lab and was part of the same UK facility where they didn’t anchor the rebar. It only says “school” as the Di on the DAT because that is the most similar building type listed on the EF scale. So again, more misinformation based out of assumptions.

I’m not dismissing what you’re saying willy nilly. I’m dismissing what you’re saying because it’s rife with misconceptions, misinformation, and errors in judgement. You can still dig your heels when you’re wrong, but that’s not what someone does when they actually want to become more knowledgeable on a topic like this.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

As I mentioned, when you see the note “CMU home” in the DAT, that usually refers to the foundation type alone. I know enough to identify wood-frame construction in several of those homes, and have even seen “before” pics from Bremen that proves it beyond a doubt. It’s not debatable. There are a few true CMU wall homes in the mix, but they are not reinforced, and I can tell looking at the visual appearance of the remaining masonry. There’s nothing stating reinforcement was present at those homes to begin with, and anything beyond that would be a baseless assumption. This series of posts only proves that you have issues identifying certain types of construction, don’t know what reinforced masonry looks like when it fails, and fill in information gaps with assumptions.

Look…when I joined this forum, despite my initial confidence, it became apparent how much I didn’t know about tornado intensity and construction types. But I decided I wanted to learn and become as competent as possible on the topic. Whether you want to accept it or not, that’s where you are at currently. You’ve got the confidence, but you’ve got a lot to learn too. Whether you want to accept that and be open to learning when you’re incorrect or misinformed is up to you.

Oh yeah, my bad. Out of the 31 DIs posted your point about a few of them being unreinforced, and the Bremen homes actually being wood (without evidence other than your own memory) refutes all of it. Silly me. I'm such a newbie. Why would someone possibly think there might be a couple structures in there that actually prove my point? Let's throw it all out!

 

[TH2002]

Phew... lots of faulty logic here @Grand Poo Bah. Don't even know where to start, so I'll try and break this down with as little wording as possible:

Structures 1-4: all of these homes were on CMU foundations. The walls were NOT made of concrete. Big difference there.
Structure 5: admittedly, don't know the location of this DI
Structure 6: if I'm not mistaken that's the American Legion building in Dawson Springs - CMU's were unreinforced, pretty straightforward
Structures 7 and 8: again, these were wood-framed homes on block foundations.
Structure 9: unanchored wood framed home on slab - the cinder blocks visible came from an adjacent foundation
Structure 10: tbh, this damage admittedly looks very impressive and I'm not the most qualified person to give an opinion on this type of construction... looks like it could be EF4 damage though.
Structures 11-13: nope, more wood-framed houses
Structures 14 and 15: impressive damage yes, but what sets those specific buildings above EF3? Looks very reminiscent of the 2018 Marshalltown tornado
Structure 16: that structure was already a slab before the tornado. Mistake on PAH's part.
Structure 17: impressive damage, and I don't know enough about that building's construction off the top of my head, but I can tell you that if the 2015 Dolo-Mira tornado didn't get rated F5, that building wouldn't have either
Structure 18: nope, wood-framed house with brick or stone veneer
Structure 19: like you, not sure what to make of this one
Structure 20: again, what sets this above EF3?
Structure 21: that is a well-constructed steel reinforced masonry building, but the DOD simply isn't there for a violent rating. Had the building been as thoroughly obliterated as the one medical center building in Joplin, it could have been an EF5 indicator imo.
Structure 22: impressive contextuals, but poor construction quality. Pretty straightforward.
Structure 23: yes, that IS the Princeton Research Center. It's already been explained that the walls were not properly attached to the foundation, rendering the rebar essentially useless.
Structure 24: again, the foundation was CMU, not the walls.
Structure 25: impressive damage, sure, but again I see telltale signs that the CMU and masonry were unreinforced. Also, EF3's have been able to similarly mangle steel frames of similar structures.
Structure 26: wood-framed apartment building with brick veneer. I should note here that when someone refers to a "brick" home having been destroyed by a tornado, it more accurately means a brick veneer home (at least in the US). The structural framing is still made of wood.
Structure 27: admittedly don't know the location of this DI
Structures 28-30: the damage is definitely violent but not quite EF5 worthy. Now, if those buildings were reinforced with a steel frame (again, like the medical center building in Joplin) or had thicker European style masonry walls, the EF5 criteria would have been met imo.
Structure 31: see entry 23

 

[buckeye05]

Wait, so me posting direct quotes from surveyors from the DAT with attached photos is me "claiming facts", but Buckeye's counter arguments without any supporting evidence provided whatsoever are not? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Say whatever you want about my claims (this is literally a debate thread after all) but at least I'm putting thought and effort into them, leaving them open for discussion, and asking questions.

There’s no sources I need to cite here because what I’m saying isn’t up for debate. It’s like if you posted a picture of a dog and said “where’s your sources and evidence saying this photo doesn’t show a cat!?”. I don’t need some source to prove what is self-evident. You posted a series of misidentifications and assumptions, and that is all there is to it.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Phew... lots of faulty logic here @Grand Poo Bah. Don't even know where to start, so I'll try and break this down with as little wording as possible:

Structures 1-4: all of these homes were on CMU foundations. The walls were NOT made of concrete. Big difference there.
Structure 5: admittedly, don't know the location of this DI
Structure 6: if I'm not mistaken that's the American Legion building in Dawson Springs - CMU's were unreinforced, pretty straightforward
Structures 7 and 8: again, these were wood-framed homes on block foundations.
Structure 9: unanchored wood framed home on slab - the cinder blocks visible came from an adjacent foundation
Structure 10: tbh, this damage admittedly looks very impressive and I'm not the most qualified person to give an opinion on this type of construction... looks like it could be EF4 damage though.
Structures 11-13: nope, more wood-framed houses
Structures 14 and 15: impressive damage yes, but what sets those specific buildings above EF3? Looks very reminiscent of the 2018 Marshalltown tornado
Structure 16: that structure was already a slab before the tornado. Mistake on PAH's part.
Structure 17: impressive damage, and I don't know enough about that building's construction off the top of my head, but I can tell you that if the 2015 Dolo-Mira tornado didn't get rated F5, that building wouldn't have either
Structure 18: nope, wood-framed house with brick or stone veneer
Structure 19: like you, not sure what to make of this one
Structure 20: again, what sets this above EF3?
Structure 21: that is a well-constructed steel reinforced masonry building, but the DOD simply isn't there for a violent rating. Had the building been as thoroughly obliterated as the one medical center building in Joplin, it could have been an EF5 indicator imo.
Structure 22: impressive contextuals, but poor construction quality. Pretty straightforward.
Structure 23: yes, that IS the Princeton Research Center. It's already been explained that the walls were not properly attached to the foundation, rendering the rebar essentially useless.
Structure 24: again, the foundation was CMU, not the walls.
Structure 25: impressive damage, sure, but again I see telltale signs that the CMU and masonry were unreinforced. Also, EF3's have been able to similarly mangle steel frames of similar structures.
Structure 26: wood-framed apartment building with brick veneer. I should note here that when someone refers to a "brick" home having been destroyed by a tornado, it more accurately means a brick veneer home (at least in the US). The structural framing is still made of wood.
Structure 27: admittedly don't know the location of this DI
Structures 28-30: the damage is definitely violent but not quite EF5 worthy. Now, if those buildings were reinforced with a steel frame (again, like the medical center building in Joplin) or had thicker European style masonry walls, the EF5 criteria would have been met imo.
Structure 31: see entry 23

Thank you!!! Now that's what I call a thorough analysis. Appreciate it dude. I'll look closer and respond later. Even if I'm wrong, the fact you put thought and consideration into your response is literally all I wanted from the huge effort I put in.

 

[TH2002]

Wait, so me posting direct quotes from surveyors from the DAT with attached photos is me "claiming facts", but Buckeye's counter arguments without any supporting evidence provided whatsoever are not? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Say whatever you want about my claims (this is literally a debate thread after all) but at least I'm putting thought and effort into them, leaving them open for discussion, and asking questions.

No, the problem here is that you're taking buckeye's criticism way too personally. You deserve to be commended for spending all the time you did collecting those photos and posting them, don't get me wrong. Still, the time you spent doesn't automatically make you correct either.

The ASCE put lots of time and effort into their "Joplin wasn't an EF5" study, but does that automatically mean it's correct? Absolutely not.

 

[Shakespeare 2016]

As I suspected, these are just CMU foundation homes. No evidence of them having actual reinforced masonry frames.


Same thing. None of these are reinforced masonry homes. I mean come on the last one is so obvious. A reinforced masonry modular home especially does not exist.

It’s ok to have opinions, but when you base those opinions on misinterpretation, that opinion isn’t valid. You’re trying to argue something that just really isn’t debatable. These are wood frame homes, and you are making a series of misidentifications. It’s not an “agree to disagree” scenario.

The rest of the photos are

Are unreinforced masonry homes like CMU foundations or homes that look like cookie cutters? I have learned a lot from you so I do trust your judgment.