Significant Tornado Events

[TH2002]

sorry if this explanation is a bit wordy, i tried my best to phrase it in a way thats somewhat understandable lol. tldr is if a home has bent bolts, it had a complete load path and is EF5. if it didnt, its EF4 (like vilonia).

to get an EF5 rating, a home needs to have a complete load path that can verify EF5 winds. straight nails often (but not always) stop a complete load path from occurring, such as in the case of vilonia. bent bolts are evidence of a complete load path, if there is no bent bolts, that means the failure occurred at the straight nailing rather than at the bolts, and no EF5 rating can be awarded. this is why a lot of EF5 homes often have toenailing rather than straight nailing, as toenailing better allows for the load the be transferred all the way down to the anchor bolts

its not the straight nailing that matters for an EF5 rating, but whether there is a complete load path. in the case of vilonia, the straight nailing prevented a complete load path from occurring, meaning there was no bent bolts, and therefor, no EF5 rating could be given. in other tornadoes, including (i assume) joplin, the straight nailing didnt stop a complete load path from occurring, and the force was still properly transferred all the way down to the bolts, bending them, even though the wall studs were straight nailed.

tornadoes can be straight nailed and rated EF5, or they can be straight nailed and rated EF4. its all about whether a complete load path occurs, its just less likely for that to happen in straight nailed homes

in terms of bolts being bent being a requirement for EF5, this is a quote from a paper on Moore 2013:
"it was decided that an EF5 rating would be assigned to homes that had the following characteristics:
1) foundation swept clean with debris strewn some distance downwind; (vilonia had this)
2) foundation (generally slab) to base-plate connections with properly spaced bolts with properly sized, fitted, and tightened washers and nuts; (vilonia mostly had this)
3) removal of a large percentage of the base plates from the foundation; (vilonia didnt have this)
4) some anchor bolts bent (vilonia didnt have this)"

in regards to the wicker st home's interior walls, im 90% sure those are cut nails and not bolts, but i could be wrong. kinda hard to tell from the image but i think i remember reading in a paper somewhere that they were cutnails

I appreciate your explanation, but I'm just going to have to go with Occam's razor on this one.

Vilonia did have baseplate removal and bent anchor bolts. Here's another angle of the home:

Also, in this angle, you can see a bent bolt where a sill plate was ripped away:

Regarding whether or not the interior walls were bolted, we'll have to agree to disagree. I personally think they're way too thick to be cut nails, especially in comparison to these photos from Moore and Joplin, where nails were used to secure the interior walls:

edit: Fixed a misspelling that was really bothering me

 

[buckeye05]

sorry if this explanation is a bit wordy, i tried my best to phrase it in a way thats somewhat understandable lol. tldr is if a home has bent bolts, it had a complete load path and is EF5. if it didnt, its EF4 (like vilonia).

to get an EF5 rating, a home needs to have a complete load path that can verify EF5 winds. straight nails often (but not always) stop a complete load path from occurring, such as in the case of vilonia. bent bolts are evidence of a complete load path, if there is no bent bolts, that means the failure occurred at the straight nailing rather than at the bolts, and no EF5 rating can be awarded. this is why a lot of EF5 homes often have toenailing rather than straight nailing, as toenailing better allows for the load the be transferred all the way down to the anchor bolts

its not the straight nailing that matters for an EF5 rating, but whether there is a complete load path. in the case of vilonia, the straight nailing prevented a complete load path from occurring, meaning there was no bent bolts, and therefor, no EF5 rating could be given. in other tornadoes, including (i assume) joplin, the straight nailing didnt stop a complete load path from occurring, and the force was still properly transferred all the way down to the bolts, bending them, even though the wall studs were straight nailed.

tornadoes can be straight nailed and rated EF5, or they can be straight nailed and rated EF4. its all about whether a complete load path occurs, its just less likely for that to happen in straight nailed homes

in terms of bolts being bent being a requirement for EF5, this is a quote from a paper on Moore 2013:
"it was decided that an EF5 rating would be assigned to homes that had the following characteristics:
1) foundation swept clean with debris strewn some distance downwind; (vilonia had this)
2) foundation (generally slab) to base-plate connections with properly spaced bolts with properly sized, fitted, and tightened washers and nuts; (vilonia mostly had this)
3) removal of a large percentage of the base plates from the foundation; (vilonia didnt have this)
4) some anchor bolts bent (vilonia didnt have this)"

in regards to the wicker st home's interior walls, im 90% sure those are cut nails and not bolts, but i could be wrong. kinda hard to tell from the image but i think i remember reading in a paper somewhere that they were cutnails

Here’s my issue: there was still some bending of bolts and sill plate removal in Vilonia, and we’re not even delving into other EF5 candidates along the path that are missing. In addition, you say “needs to have” a continuous load path evidenced by anchor bolts being bent, versus that being typically preferable though not a requirement. That’s a big distinction, and if there’s recent literature or a presentation explicitly stating that evidence of a continuous load path with bent bolts are explicitly a universal requirement for EF5, then I’ll happily concede. But while LaDue said that bent bolts were a “key distinction” for the rating in Moore in his latest presentation, he did not say that explicit evidence of a continuous load path via bent bolts is a requirement for EF5 in general. Again, he even presented a potential scenario for EF5 involving a floor diaphragm in which anchor bolts aren’t in play at all. If you’re referencing the 2013 survey itself, then you have to at least know that individual surveys aren’t treated like tornadic case law, even though many would like that to be the case. The definition of where the bar should be unfortunately varies and changes depending on the year and who you are talking to.

Essentially, if that standard is explicitly a requirement for EF5 at every WFO, there has to be some direct evidence and recent official documentation that this standard not only exists, but is current and universal with no exceptions.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

April 15, 2011 Geiger EF3.

 

[Aaron Rider]

Overanalysis was the problem for 12 years. Even then, the problem was sneaking in by 5/24/11, with some.... Questionable ratings given to Goldsby and Chickasha DIs and we didn't really know it.

Of course approaching 2013, we had Moore. And that was still on the very strict portion of the scale yet some surveyors somewhat misused it and even then, regardless of Moore being EF5 intensity, some houses definitely were given the wrong rating. If we went off contextuals, i think it'd be very clear EF5.

Then El Reno started the debacle, and admittedly i still don't see why this started it because there's no evidence to suggest EF5 intensity and the car damage WAS intense but i wouldn't call it to the level of possible EF5 intensity.

Your comment explains Vilonia perfectly so skip that.

Rochelle. Several 200 mph DIs and it miraculously stayed under EF5 intensity there? Very clear EF5.

Sulphur had the same issue as El Reno with RaXPoL, but no evidence to suggest EF5 intensity

We didn't really have any major rating issues between 2017-2019, but Bassfield under the new rating standards actually is EF5 for me. The contextuals are extremely impressive.

Mayfield. I think it's a no brainer that this thing needed the rating.

Pembroke to some extent but i haven't seen strong evidence for this.

Rolling Fork. Florist shop im still inbetween on but certain of EF5 intensity.

Greenfield. doesn't deserve it for me, tornado likely was EF5 intensity but i have never actually seen a impressive contextual to point to it.

Enderlin. 10/6/25, finally broke the drought.

I'm very glad we're entering a new era. I got into weather in 2023 and remember calling Spalding 2023 a EF5 as it was ongoing or it was the other large rain-wrapped wedge that day. At least, professionals in the area are finally stepping up to look at it. That Lyza paper absolutely skyrocketed our progress.

Can someone educate me on why Black Creek should or shouldn't be an EF5?

 

[ColdFront]

Can someone educate me on why Black Creek should or shouldn't be an EF5?

Someone jump in here if I’m wrong. If I recall correctly, it cleanly swept away two well built and anchored homes. I think it was given a 185 rating and there weren’t any overly impressive contextual damage points.

 

[Western_KS_Wx]

this forum isn’t too useful for things regarding damage analysis; I’d rather hear from someone who has laid out their reasonings and have actual discussion/debate than just back-and-forth bickering and insulting people who are clearly experts in the field of damage assessment (people who work at NOAA/NWS, to be clear).

That’s actually a great idea and something I’d love to see, thanks for pointing that out. We have several very knowledgeable members here when it comes to that topic, and I myself am very into the forensics side of tornadoes.

I’m almost positive that thread would have some great discussion, but I would like to hear some feedback before going headfirst into it.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

That’s actually a great idea and something I’d love to see, thanks for pointing that out. We have several very knowledgeable members here when it comes to that topic, and I myself am very into the forensics side of tornadoes.

I’m almost positive that thread would have some great discussion, but I would like to hear some feedback before going headfirst into it.

I said a bit ago off-forum that surrounding yourself with people who accept your views isn't always a good thing, because you won't hear the other side of the story - I would love to see people with opposing viewpoints be more welcome here and have legitimate discussions. The past two times Nick has commented here have ended up being a crapshow, and that's something we need to work on. If someone has a view you don't agree with, discuss it or debate it with them instead of yelling at them and pushing them away. For example, the Smithville cycle claim was immediately brushed off as being false, without any particularly deeper look into it.

 

[TH2002]

On an unrelated note... some random footage finds.

Kansas, OK EF2 on May 22, 2011


Dennis, OK EF2 on May 22, 2011


Sedalia, MO EF2 (shoulda-been EF3) on May 25, 2011


Valliant, OK EF1 on November 8, 2011

 

[Union]

I mean i have no problem with calling people out on certain things if it's justified, but i just don't see some good reason that Nick needed to be brought into this. This was legit just a discussion about TT/Saltical, and i agreed with most of the points but I'm confused on why we needed some extra spice to fuel to the fire?

All ill say is: just do not randomly fire a extra name who's done nothing or affected this discussion in anyway just for the sake of it.

In order to provide some genuine content to steer the boat up again, i found a channel with around 40 obscure damage videos of Joplin and some of them are definitely impressive.

, this is just one of many from the channel!

Reminds me of this channel I found which despite not posting in 10 years had thousands of videos posted after 2011, but I saw one Joplin video of theirs in my recommended tab and had to go look, nothing really interesting except driving around 2 months after but these were more up close videos on a car that I guess had not been cleaned up yet.





And some more views of the car, there is a 3rd video surrounding this car and area on his channel which is where the 2nd image comes from I really do not want to scroll through a thousand videos but if you're interested go for it

 

[Union]

Re: Enderlin rating. I saw nothing wrong with your posts on it, it's totally fine to question the rating itself. However, I disagree on there being any issues with said calculations, maybe with exception to the >266 mph lofting case (there's good evidence to suggest the "lofted" train did indeed make contact with the ground a couple times). The issues I seem to recall you pointing out, i.e. the calculations not taking enough factors into account, leading to a potentially anomalously high value, are also arguments that could easily be applied to how we calculate wind velocities to home damage. If anything, the home calculations take into account more generalized assumptions from what I can tell. In this sense, these "issues" fall more under the category of problems with the scale itself, if it can even be considered an issue in the first place. There's zero chance we'd be able to calculate something more complicated without making a plethora of other assumptions, and the whole thing would become an absolute mess with gigantic errors assuming we'd be able to even get a comprehensive value out of it.

I have zero problems with this "Saltical" individual, but we need some actual work done by them that's showing these cycloid calculations and whatnot if they are to be taken seriously. A good example of this is Ethan Moriarty's calculations, which he publicly posts to Twitter. He's a genuine engineer and also the fact that Tim Marshall got a value very close to his for the same Enderlin wind calc definitely helps with the credibility there. Are there images of his work that this individual would be willing to share, either through themselves or through one of you guys? If not, that's fine, but don't expect people here to automatically buy it, especially if it goes against a common consensus. I, for one, would love to see any work that displays their findings to have a look for myself. That's the best way to determine credibility.

I'm not gonna continue to begin any argument because they're boring and annoying but the evidence to say that the tanker did touch the ground is like the single most problematic part of the whole thing because the entire calculation was done without any factors of that put into account.


Also for another thing I've been thinking about, the SUV from the Scarth EF3 which was calculated out to ~220mph came from this property in the tornado path

 

[ColdFront]

For example, the Smithville cycle claim was immediately brushed off as being false, without any particularly deeper look into it.

Multiple people discussed that and it definitely wasn’t immediately brushed off. I distinctly recall the user, A Guy, asking which radar to look at to see if he could recreate and view himself where it supposedly cycled. Maybe we will just agree to disagree, but I’ve seen multiple new users with different ideas become regular posters here.

This site is very evidence based, and if claims are made, it’s expected robust evidence is shown for it.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Speaking of opposing viewpoints and debates, I present this absolute monstrosity:

I know, it looks stupid, but there are a few signs that a weak ground circulation may have been pushed west by the derecho before the EF2 was confirmed. Check this out:

This is 0.96 miles from the Enderlin tornado's path. I've already verified that no other properties in the vicinity (including one 0.23 miles away) sustained this degree of damage, and thus I don't believe this was caused by the derecho that followed. This damage does not appear on any other historical imagery. This is the single most solid piece of evidence to suggest they may have been one tornado, imo.

There's also this damage, 0.18 to 0.26 miles from the EF2's path and technically within the Enderlin tornado's damage contour, although trees to the north are completely untouched.

Also this, although I'm not certain whether this is tornadic.

Note that I'm still trying to locate potential damage in this corridor. I'll analyze radar shortly to see if anything matches up.

Thoughts are welcome, but please don't murder me. I’m still working to get more solid evidence that this may have looped back around in the way I showed above.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Multiple people discussed that and it definitely wasn’t immediately brushed off. I distinctly recall the user, A Guy, asking which radar to look at to see if he could recreate and view himself where it supposedly cycled. Maybe we will just agree to disagree, but I’ve seen multiple new users with different ideas become regular posters here.

This site is very evidence based, and if claims are made, it’s expected robust evidence is shown for it.

Yes, we'll agree-to-disagree.

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

Speaking of opposing viewpoints and debates, I present this absolute monstrosity:
View attachment 48324
I know, it looks stupid, but there are a few signs that a weak ground circulation may have been pushed west by the derecho before the EF2 was confirmed. Check this out:
View attachment 48325
This is 0.96 miles from the Enderlin tornado's path. I've already verified that no other properties in the vicinity (including one 0.23 miles away) sustained this degree of damage, and thus I don't believe this was caused by the derecho that followed. This damage does not appear on any other historical imagery. This is the single most solid piece of evidence to suggest they may have been one tornado, imo.
View attachment 48326View attachment 48329
There's also this damage, 0.18 to 0.26 miles from the EF2's path and technically within the Enderlin tornado's damage contour, although trees to the north are completely untouched.
View attachment 48331
Also this, although I'm not certain whether this is tornadic.
View attachment 48332
Note that I'm still trying to locate potential damage in this corridor. I'll analyze radar shortly to see if anything matches up.

Thoughts are welcome, but please don't murder me. I’m still working to get more solid evidence that this may have looped back around in the way I showed above.

There’s a non-stop TVS from KMVX during this loop as well.

 

[TH2002]

Thoughts are welcome, but please don't murder me.

I think you're in the wrong place for that. But I know some guys who can potentially help you out:

 

[Union]

Multiple people discussed that and it definitely wasn’t immediately brushed off. I distinctly recall the user, A Guy, asking which radar to look at to see if he could recreate and view himself where it supposedly cycled. Maybe we will just agree to disagree, but I’ve seen multiple new users with different ideas become regular posters here.

This site is very evidence based, and if claims are made, it’s expected robust evidence is shown for it.

I posted the evidence that was available so idk what else I'm supposed to do with that except make stuff up and that's about the dumbest thing someone can do, and I never said it WAS brushed off I said it shouldn't be because a lot of people specifically on twitter immediately went after the people who made the same claims and that is also stupid to do in such an evolving situation like it was, I'm fine to agree to disagree but plz stop saying I said stuff I didn't which makes me out like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist

 

[ColdFront]

I posted the evidence that was available so idk what else I'm supposed to do with that except make stuff up and that's about the dumbest thing someone can do, and I never said it WAS brushed off I said it shouldn't be because a lot of people specifically on twitter immediately went after the people who made the same claims and that is also stupid to do in such an evolving situation like it was, I'm fine to agree to disagree but plz stop saying I said stuff I didn't which makes me out like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist

My brother, that comment was not directed at you. I quoted the post who that was in response to.

 

[Union]

My brother, that comment was not directed at you. I quoted the post who that was in response to.

Ok now I actually do look insane but I will say I also had 1 notification that I didn't check and I was just reading the posts and assumed that response was the notification so maybe that makes me look not insane

 

[Central Ohio Wx]

I think you're in the wrong place for that. But I know some guys who can potentially help you out:

What I hate most about it is the fact that it’s entirely possible it did loop. It's supported by KVMX and I've found possible damage as far back as 1.69 miles prior to the EF2.

Speaking of opposing viewpoints and debates, I present this absolute monstrosity:
View attachment 48324
I know, it looks stupid, but there are a few signs that a weak ground circulation may have been pushed west by the derecho before the EF2 was confirmed. Check this out:
View attachment 48325
This is 0.96 miles from the Enderlin tornado's path. I've already verified that no other properties in the vicinity (including one 0.23 miles away) sustained this degree of damage, and thus I don't believe this was caused by the derecho that followed. This damage does not appear on any other historical imagery. This is the single most solid piece of evidence to suggest they may have been one tornado, imo.
View attachment 48326View attachment 48329
There's also this damage, 0.18 to 0.26 miles from the EF2's path and technically within the Enderlin tornado's damage contour, although trees to the north are completely untouched.
View attachment 48331
Also this, although I'm not certain whether this is tornadic.
View attachment 48332
Note that I'm still trying to locate potential damage in this corridor. I'll analyze radar shortly to see if anything matches up.

Thoughts are welcome, but please don't murder me. I’m still working to get more solid evidence that this may have looped back around in the way I showed above.

Update on this:

 

[TH2002]

What I hate most about it is the fact that it’s entirely possible it did loop. It's supported by KVMX and I've found possible damage as far back as 1.69 miles prior to the EF2.

Update on this:

Okay, all Slashstreet Boys jokes aside, I'm trying to understand what I'm looking at here...

It looks like your map shows that the Enderlin EF5 completed a loop, and the (officially) separate EF2 was actually just a continuation of the same tornado? It's an interesting theory, but I'd like to see some accounts of chasers who were on the storm (did some specifically observe a failed occlusion of Enderlin rather than a new tornado forming, for example?)

I'm just gonna be completely honest when I say determining a tornado's full path length and width based on satellite imagery isn't my forte. I'm more of a structure-by-structure and contextual damage analysis guy.

But plotting tornado centerlines and damage points by geolocation is something I've done before. I'd kill (okay, not literally) to work on the DAT for the NWS.