Enhanced Fujita Ratings Debate Thread

[Grand Poo Bah]

7. Rochelle-Fairdale 2015 - Y'all beat me to this one, so don't need to share most of my pics. Here's a quote I saved from @buckeye05 from page 6 in this thread.

"As this tornado struck the Deer Creek subdivision to the north of town, numerous EF5 hallmarks occurred. Multiple large, modern, well-anchored homes were swept away, with the debris granulated and wind-rowed long distances. Mowed, short lawn grass was scoured from the yards of several of these homes as well. Most impressively, a concrete sidewalk leading to the front door of one of these homes was actually shifted and pulled away from the driveway and house (photo below). The low-level winds that would have been needed to move this sidewalk would have to have been absolutely insane."



8. Chapman 2016 - The most impressive contextuals I've ever seen, it really encapsulates what Ted Fujita said about F5 tornadoes "leaving behind a path of destruction so severe that it could defy explanation due to the sheer force of the winds involved". It could easily be anywhere on people's top 10s (even #1) and I wouldn't argue. It literally fused a truck with a combine, moved railroad tracks (it was only 85 degrees that day so I don't want to hear anyone mention thermal expansion), snapped the foundation of a well built brick farm house, and mangled cars in ways that defy explanation.

 

[slenker]

Which makes its rating even more egregious than if it was actually rated EF4.

Speaking of EF4/5 candidates that are rated EF3, the 2011 Berlin, ND tornado deserves a mention. Just look at this damage...

Of course it’s 2011.

 

[TH2002]

Of course it’s 2011.

Year of the tornado, my friend. On top of it being the deadliest tornado season since 1925 for the US, many other countries had at least one significant, deadly or otherwise notable tornado in 2011.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

1. Goldsby 2011 - My number one based on sheer strength. A storm system on May 24th, 2011 only spawned 12 tornadoes, but three of those were Piedmont, Goldsby, and Chickasha. I believe Goldsby was as strong as Piedmont. 16 well constructed houses had slabs swept completely clean. Only 5 had pictures, 8 were described as brand-new with exceptional construction.

This house had anchor bolts every 18 inches, current building code is 36 inches. Also note the evergreen tree in the foreground that is completely debarked.

View attachment 34294

three more well built, anchored homes
View attachment 34296View attachment 34295View attachment 34298

This 5000 sq foot house was built by married architects, who designed it specifically to be tornado resistant.

View attachment 34297View attachment 34299

2. Tuscaloosa 2011 - The third deadliest tornado in the last 70 years. Killed 64, injured 1500.

3. Mayfield 2021 - Killed 57 people and injured 520. Tore down a water tower, dug 8 inch trenches, and did this to a well constructed home in Bremen.

View attachment 34301View attachment 34304

Took the whole house AND the concrete slab it was built on.

Some more pics:

View attachment 34302View attachment 34303
University of Kentucky reinforced concrete building
Some structures which *apparently* may have been EF5 candidates, like some of the completely destroyed large brick churches were not officially surveyed by the NWS. No DIs for context, vehicle damage or similar were added. NWS Paducah highlighted multiple DIs for a rating of 190+mph (i.e. EF5 or at least very high end EF4), that were all kept at 190mph instead by Tim Marshall.

7. Rochelle-Fairdale 2015 - Y'all beat me to this one, so don't need to share most of my pics. Here's a quote I saved from @buckeye05 from page 6 in this thread.

"As this tornado struck the Deer Creek subdivision to the north of town, numerous EF5 hallmarks occurred. Multiple large, modern, well-anchored homes were swept away, with the debris granulated and wind-rowed long distances. Mowed, short lawn grass was scoured from the yards of several of these homes as well. Most impressively, a concrete sidewalk leading to the front door of one of these homes was actually shifted and pulled away from the driveway and house (photo below). The low-level winds that would have been needed to move this sidewalk would have to have been absolutely insane."

View attachment 34331

8. Chapman 2016 - The most impressive contextuals I've ever seen, it really encapsulates what Ted Fujita said about F5 tornadoes "leaving behind a path of destruction so severe that it could defy explanation due to the sheer force of the winds involved". It could easily be anywhere on people's top 10s (even #1) and I wouldn't argue. It literally fused a truck with a combine, moved railroad tracks (it was only 85 degrees that day so I don't want to hear anyone mention thermal expansion), snapped the foundation of a well built brick farm house, and mangled cars in ways that defy explanation.

View attachment 34332View attachment 34333
View attachment 34334View attachment 34335
View attachment 34337View attachment 34338
View attachment 34339View attachment 34340

9. 2013 Washington, Illinois - One of the most underrated EF4s in my opinion. Same issues as Greenfield. Debris collecting in basements and the density of houses hid the true scale of total destruction. The scar this tornado left behind, and its cycloidal marks are still incredibly impressive.



10. Chickasha, OK 2011 - From the May 24th system that produced Goldsby and Piedmont. Hit mostly open plain, but the damage it did do, along with ground scouring was some of the most impressive of the day. It also completely destroyed a concrete dome, which is about the strongest structures you can possibly build.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Just like Goldsby, damage from Chickasha was used in Tim Marshall's presentation "Discriminating EF4 and EF5 tornado Damage".



People can use pictures to overestimate damage, sure, but it seems Marshall likes to use them to under represent it.

"We've become fixated on finding everything a tornado didn't do as opposed to judging what a tornado did do with respect to totality of damage."

- Ricky from NWS Chicago

 

[buckeye05]

Washington just isn’t a very solid EF5 candidate imo. Tons of tract homes sliding off their subfloors, and the contextual evidence falls a bit short.

Just doesn’t have “the look”. Chickasha-Blanchard absolutely does, however. Should be way higher on the list.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Washington just isn’t a very solid EF5 candidate imo. Tons of tract homes sliding off their subfloors, and the contextual evidence falls a bit short.

Just doesn’t have “the look”. Chickasha-Blanchard absolutely does, however.

I think we're too far off from each other on the fundamentals to have a productive conversation about it. I'm of the belief that the EF scale is fundamentally useless and we've gone many steps backwards in the last 20 years. I'm not interested in debating the small minute details and semantics of these tornadoes as has become the norm over the last 11 years. I believe all 10 tornadoes on my list had winds in excess of 250 MPH, and the top 5 had winds in excess of 300 MPH. 5% of tornadoes have winds greater than 200 MPH. They're not even that uncommon.

I believe this because the Doppler on Wheels and NOAA have repeatedly proven it.

the tendency of radar-based strong/violent tornado intensity estimates to be meaningfully higher than EF-scale-based damage estimates exists across the HUD spectrum. The legacy F-scale wind speed ranges may ultimately provide a better estimate of peak tornado wind speeds at 10–15 m AGL for strong–violent tornadoes and a better damage-based intensity rating for all tornadoes.

-NOAA

When I see 10 or more slabbed houses, anchored or not, it's automatically an F5. When there's dozens, it's not even a debate anymore. Definitely an unpopular opinion, which is fine. I'm on team Ted Fujita! lol

 

[buckeye05]

Context and construction absolutely matter, and writing them of as semantics and small details is the analytical equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Yes, mobile radar readings do paint a wildly different picture than what the EF scale wind speed estimates assert, but when it comes to EF5 damage, honing in purely in on the number of slabs and disregarding everything else is an error in judgement, period. There are way, way too many examples of anchor bolted homes being swept away in winds that clearly weren’t at the top of the scale. Rewind 12 years or so, I would have agreed with you, but I’ve seen to many examples to the contrary, including full on sliders that were bolted down (Minden, IA for example).

There could be 20 slabbed houses as far as I’m concerned, but if it lacks contextual support, EF5 isn’t appropriate. In fact, extreme contextual damage is the main determinant factor that defines true EF5 damage, not volume of slabbed homes. Washington is that in a nutshell (tons of slabbed homes, no strong context to support anything higher). The EF5 designation is for the worst of the worst intensity wise, which Washington simply is not.

 

[TH2002]

Washington is borderline IMO, high end EF4 is perfectly acceptable but I wouldn't complain if the surveyors pulled a marginal EF5 rating from it.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

Context and construction absolutely matter, and writing them of as semantics and small details is the analytical equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. Yes, mobile radar readings do paint a wildly different picture than what the EF scale wind speed estimates assert, but when it comes to EF5 damage, honing in purely in on the number of slabs and disregarding everything else is an error in judgement, period.

There could be 20 slabbed houses as far as I’m concerned, but if it lacks contextual support, EF5 isn’t appropriate. Washington is that in a nutshell. That designation is for the worst of the worst, which Washington simply is not.

This is what I mean by us being too far apart for meaningful discussion, and we'll clog up this thread trying. As far as I'm concerned, if Ted Fujita didn't require anchor bolts for an F5 rating then neither do I. I think anchor bolted houses being slabbed is indicative of not just EF5 damage, but high end EF5 damage.

I agree if a couple non anchored houses are slabbed it doesn't justify an EF5 rating, but when it's over 10 the law of averages has to come into effect. Let's say an un anchored house has a 50% chance of being slabbed by a tornado with 180 mph winds. That would mean if 10 unanchored houses are all hit in a row, there's only a .09% chance of them all being slabbed. One house is likely, 10 is almost impossible, any more than 10 and it is now mathematically impossible for 180 mph winds to be the cause.

I will acknowledge that wind strength is exponential. Whereas 180 mph is 50%, 200 mph might be closer to 90%. Even then, there's only a 35% chance of those 10 homes being slabbed. In the case of Greenfield where it was 35 houses, you're looking at a 2.5% chance. And that's without there being ANY well built houses in the mix. Which there were.

Edit: rescinding this point because I'm not sure my math checks out

 

[buckeye05]

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree then. Giving the number of slabbed homes a higher weight than the intensity of the contextual damage is something that will never sit well with me, especially after seeing how tract homes handle in tornadoes.

You can bolt down a cardboard box as much as you want, but it’s still made of cardboard at the end of the day.

 

[TH2002]

This is what I mean by us being too far apart for meaningful discussion, and we'll clog up this thread trying. As far as I'm concerned, if Ted Fujita didn't require anchor bolts for an F5 rating then neither do I. I think anchor bolted houses being slabbed is indicative of not just EF5 damage, but high end EF5 damage.

I agree if a couple non anchored houses are slabbed it doesn't justify an EF5 rating, but when it's over 10 the law of averages has to come into effect. Let's say an un anchored house has a 50% chance of being slabbed by a tornado with 180 mph winds. That would mean if 10 unanchored houses are all hit in a row, there's only a .09% chance of them all being slabbed. One house is likely, 10 is almost impossible, any more than 10 and it is now mathematically impossible for 180 mph winds to be the cause.

I will acknowledge that wind strength is exponential. Whereas 180 mph is 50%, 200 mph might be closer to 90%. Even then, there's only a 35% chance of those 10 homes being slabbed. In the case of Greenfield where it was 35 houses, you're looking at a 2.5% chance. And that's without there being ANY well built houses in the mix. Which there were.

You're getting a bit pseudoscience-y. How do you know Ted Fujita didn't require anchor bolts for an F5 rating? The F scale documentation literally states that structures with weak foundations can be swept away by F4 winds, and the description for F5 states "Strong frame houses leveled off foundations and swept away". The only exception to requiring anchor bolts would be to account for different construction methods in different regions and time periods, such as the 1920's when anchor bolts were not yet common in US construction.

Where do those percentages about homes being slabbed come from, besides from your own subjective opinion? Then again, the very concept of rating tornadoes is subjective, as is illustrated by the various tornado intensity scales (and updates to them) used throughout the world.

Also, going by the rule that "anchor bolted homes being slabbed automatically constitutes high end EF5 damage", tornadoes like Coal City 2015, Winterset 2022, Elkhorn 2024, Minden 2024 and Munden 2015 would be considered high end EF5's, when that just objectively isn't true.

But with all that said, I respect your opinions and decision to 'agree to disagree' with buckeye. Your perspective and contributions to TW are a valuable part of the community.

 

[Grand Poo Bah]

You're getting a bit pseudoscience-y. How do you know Ted Fujita didn't require anchor bolts for an F5 rating? The F scale documentation literally states that structures with weak foundations can be swept away by F4 winds, and the description for F5 states "Strong frame houses leveled off foundations and swept away". The only exception to requiring anchor bolts would be to account for different construction methods in different regions and time periods, such as the 1920's when anchor bolts were not yet common in US construction.

Where do those percentages about homes being slabbed come from, besides from your own subjective opinion? Then again, the very concept of rating tornadoes is subjective, as is illustrated by the various tornado intensity scales (and updates to them) used throughout the world.

Also, going by the rule that "anchor bolted homes being slabbed automatically constitutes high end EF5 damage", tornadoes like Coal City 2015, Winterset 2022, Elkhorn 2024, Minden 2024 and Munden 2015 would be considered high end EF5's, when that just objectively isn't true.

But with all that said, I respect your opinions and decision to 'agree to disagree' with buckeye. Your perspective and contributions to TW are a valuable part of the community.

The original F5 description was "Whole frame houses tossed off foundations; steel-reinforced concrete structures badly damaged;
automobile-sized missiles generated; incredible phenomena can occur.” Most of the average homes in those days were set on CMU block foundations, and several F5s received their rating from those. Today, that description barely constitutes a high end EF3 rating.

Also the DOW team recorded 224 mph winds with the Minden tornado so yeah, that tracks. If we're talking purely about the EF5 threshold of 200 MPH, I believe pretty much all EF4 tornadoes of the last 10 years (and several EF3s) meet and/or exceed that mark. It's verifiable fact that 5% of tornadoes have winds exceeding 200 mph. I also believe, on average, tornado outbreaks have become significantly more widespread and intense over the last 20 years. It's why I'm so vocal about this stuff.

3 of the top 5 biggest 24 hour outbreaks have occurred in the 2020s. If you remove the insane outliers of 1974 and 2011, it's the top 3.



Look at the differences in F4/EF4+ ratings. Even EF2 ratings. Published research shows the NWS is underrating tornadoes by an average of 40 mph, and even more for violent tornadoes.

Idk how much more evidence I can provide to prove my point. Just look at the training module Tim Marshall has been using to mislead surveyors since 2011. Everyone here agrees Chickasha and Goldsby were EF5s. Why is it being used as training for EF4 damage?

 

[Sawmaster]

Sorry, but I disagree with a good portion of this. Tim Marshall has said some questionable things and did survey multiple tornadoes with questionable ratings, but his reputation is largely undeserved as he isn’t directly responsible for those ratings. What people seem unable to understand is that the bad calls you mention were almost entirely independently made by people in local WFO survey teams, and NOT by Tim Marshall himself. His surveys are supplemental and go along with the ratings decided by the WFO surveys. Tim’s survey of Vilonia actually subtly suggests dissent if you read it closely, and he never actually surveyed the EF5 areas of damage in Vilonia. Also, the person responsible for that mess is a guy named John Robinson, not Tim Marshall.

For Goldsby, the person who botched that survey is Kiel Ortega, not Marshall (btw that isn’t ground scouring in that photo, it’s a section of ground where grass isn’t growing along the perimeter of the foundation likely due to pooling of rain water).

Matador was ruined by the lead surveyor at NWS Lubbock, whose name escapes me right now.

Also EF4 for Mayfield is not egregious. Best shot at EF5 was in Bremen, and there wasn’t a single poured “slab and bolts” construction home in that area. Best construction was in Cambridge Shores, but there was no EF5 contextual damage there. Those two factors have to overlap.

Anyway you get the idea. Do I agree with everything he says? No way. Should Moore and Jarrell be the standard? Absolutely not. Does Tim catch way too much blame from people who don’t do enough digging and research to find the specific people on survey teams who made terrible decisions independently of Marshall’s surveys? Absolutely. The way I see it, guy is largely a scapegoat for tornado damage weenies who don’t see who the real main offenders are: incompetent local WFO survey teams who don’t know where the line between EF4 and EF5 damage lays, and couldn’t give you the reasoning behind previous EF5 ratings if their lives depended on it. They are the ones making the calls.

Nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. This understandable and forgivable. And I did respect Tim's vast knowledge and experience once, but he lost me when he said he could never again rate a properly built and bolted slab house being swept away as an EF-5. The statement wasn't made by mistake; he meant exactly what he said. My career in construction tells me that a slab foundation is one of the best and strongest there is with no stem walls to be impacted by debris or otherwise failing and the most mass of any normal foundation type to resist movement (except for frost heave which isn't relevant here). Coupling this with his numerous questionable calls regarding contextual damages including using single objects 100 ft distant which may not have been in the core makes it clear that he's got an agenda and it's not determining the truth anymore.

He was once a hero to me and it's tough to lose your hero after trying everything you can to explain the discrepancies, but at some point it becomes clear that your faith has been misplaced and that you were wrong about this person. He was not singly responsible for the mis-ratings nor did he have the authority to change them, but he could have spoken against them and he most likely would have been listened to, yet he did little or none of that. Instead he's become condescending to the NWS and their findings because they're "official". I'm sorry but that's not good enough for me. All I want is true accurate unbiased ratings and Tim's not unbiased anymore. I'm sad at his decline and frustrated too, but I harbor no hatred or dislike for him. He's just lost the objective thinking which signifies real intelligence and worse he's teaching others to act similarly. There comes a time for all of us when we should quit the business and leave things to the next in line to deal with. I think that time has already passed for Tim. That time is soon coming for me too and I hope to embrace it gracefully when it happens.

 

[Sawmaster]

...It’s a concrete slab resting on top of a CMU foundation that has a gravel/aggregate fill inside the empty space. It’s not a true slab foundation home, and the wind was able to get under the slab as a result of this.

Still it's very significant that this much mass and weight gets displaced and destroyed as it did. Even though it's not a specific DI it and all damages need consideration and allowance as indicators of what most likely actually happened.

 

[buckeye05]

Nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. This understandable and forgivable. And I did respect Tim's vast knowledge and experience once, but he lost me when he said he could never again rate a properly built and bolted slab house being swept away as an EF-5. The statement wasn't made by mistake; he meant exactly what he said. My career in construction tells me that a slab foundation is one of the best and strongest there is with no stem walls to be impacted by debris or otherwise failing and the most mass of any normal foundation type to resist movement (except for frost heave which isn't relevant here). Coupling this with his numerous questionable calls regarding contextual damages including using single objects 100 ft distant which may not have been in the core makes it clear that he's got an agenda and it's not determining the truth anymore.

He was once a hero to me and it's tough to lose your hero after trying everything you can to explain the discrepancies, but at some point it becomes clear that your faith has been misplaced and that you were wrong about this person. He was not singly responsible for the mis-ratings nor did he have the authority to change them, but he could have spoken against them and he most likely would have been listened to, yet he did little or none of that. Instead he's become condescending to the NWS and their findings because they're "official". I'm sorry but that's not good enough for me. All I want is true accurate unbiased ratings and Tim's not unbiased anymore. I'm sad at his decline and frustrated too, but I harbor no hatred or dislike for him. He's just lost the objective thinking which signifies real intelligence and worse he's teaching others to act similarly. There comes a time for all of us when we should quit the business and leave things to the next in line to deal with. I think that time has already passed for Tim. That time is soon coming for me too and I hope to embrace it gracefully when it happens.

When did he make that quote about never rating a home EF5 like that ever again? Not doubting you, I’ve just never heard about that. If that’s the case, it’s a a highly problematic statement.

However, I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m getting at. I’m not defending Tim as a great, intuitive damage surveyor who always uses solid logic and makes good calls. Far from it. What I’m saying is it doesn’t make sense to blame him for every bad rating as people do, because I do maintain that WFOs with a lack of knowledge about what true EF5 damage looks like are the main offenders here. Matador, Rochelle, Chapman, Vilonia…the list goes on and on. Those were all decisions made independently of Tim. The QRT wasn’t event called in for Rochelle. I’m not saying Tim isn’t behind some genuinely BS calls and logic, but when it comes to the question of who specifically is responsible for the rash of bad ratings being finalized, the answer doesn’t come down to Tim Marshall or a single person in general. It comes down to an across the board misapplication of the EF scale by numerous people. That’s the main reason for the EF5 drought. You just can’t pin an across the board issue on one person. That’s the point I’m trying to make, rather than a defense of his competency as an accurate surveyor.

 

[AJS]

I will give the Washington Tornado credit where credit is due. The wind rowing present throughout Washington was very impressive and is honestly some of the most defined i’ve seen. Other than that, the context just wasn’t there. If you compare the damage to other EF5s, it just doesn’t have “ The look. “

 

[UK_EF4]

Anecdotes and stories which are difficult to confirm should always be taken with a grain of salt, obviously, but I have heard some questionable stories relating to Tuscaloosa's EF4 rating and Tim Marshall.

Now, as I said, it would obviously be very hard to confirm this, but a friend of mine is in some sort of forum or server with quite a few meteorologists, including some in the NWS. What they claimed is that NWS BMX had Tuscaloosa surveyed as an EF5, ready to release the rating via PNS. Apparently, Tim Marshall and some of his associates entered the NWS building, and went into Jim Stefkovich's office (the former head of BMX) and convinced him to lower the rating to an EF4. Apparently one the receptionist who was also one of the forecasters at BMX tried to get them to leave, but he walked right in. The final rating was EF4, obviously.

The implications of this are fairly large, and I would be ready to believe BMX had Tuscaloosa ready to go as an EF5. In fact I remember reading somewhere there was one survey team out of roughly four or five that did in fact say they found EF5 damage. However, I just think its important to be careful about the Tim Marshall side of the story, as like I said this could be a rumor, over exaggerated, miscommunicated etc. I am mainly sharing this in case anyone here happens to know anything extra or has any thoughts. I personally respect Tim Marshall, think he has contributed a lot in the past to rating. I don't think he really has a particular bias in being conservative - just look at the Marietta tornado which he rated EF4 based on the warehouse damage, which I personally found shocking and if anything was slightly overdone. He probably just is stubborn in changing an opinion once he's made it.

Either way, I do strongly believe Tuscaloosa was an EF5 and deserves the rating. The damage to the apartment complex - large, multistory brick construction, to be completely levelled, plus the context is impressive. The story above makes sense in how borderline the rating was.

 

[buckeye05]

Still it's very significant that this much mass and weight gets displaced and destroyed as it did. Even though it's not a specific DI it and all damages need consideration and allowance as indicators of what most likely actually happened.

Sure, but I always ask the question, “Is it totally out of the realm of possibility that a high-end EF4 could do that?”. The answer here is not necessarily imo, especially if the slabs aren’t actually well anchored to the CMU and are just resting on top of the aggregate. It’s different than the concrete sidewalk I mentioned in Rochelle, as that was actually set into the ground rather than sitting on a surface above ground level.

I’m ok with non-traditional DIs being used to justify EF5, but it has to be really definitive, like the oil rig in El Reno 2011, or the Liberty Safe in Rainsville. I also recall an engineer saying that the uphill tossing of the massive metal Hurricane Creek rail bridge support truss outside of Tuscaloosa would have required EF5 winds, and that is good enough for an upgrade imo. I just don’t have that kind of certainty with the slabs in Bremen though.

Also: I’ve changed my stance on Tuscaloosa over the years. Used to think high-end EF4 was fine, but the damage to the Hurricane Creek bridge and the fact that Tornado Talk reportedly uncovered two well-built homes that were slabbed nearby changed my mind. I’m not sure if the leveled multi-story apartment buildings in Tuscaloosa are EF5 or not, but that’s certainly possible. I will say the worst apartment building damage I have ever seen was Louisville, MS 2014 though. Slabbed them clean. Never seen anything quite like it.

 

[buckeye05]

Anecdotes and stories which are difficult to confirm should always be taken with a grain of salt, obviously, but I have heard some questionable stories relating to Tuscaloosa's EF4 rating and Tim Marshall.

Now, as I said, it would obviously be very hard to confirm this, but a friend of mine is in some sort of forum or server with quite a few meteorologists, including some in the NWS. What they claimed is that NWS BMX had Tuscaloosa surveyed as an EF5, ready to release the rating via PNS. Apparently, Tim Marshall and some of his associates entered the NWS building, and went into Jim Stefkovich's office (the former head of BMX) and convinced him to lower the rating to an EF4. Apparently one the receptionist who was also one of the forecasters at BMX tried to get them to leave, but he walked right in. The final rating was EF4, obviously.

The implications of this are fairly large, and I would be ready to believe BMX had Tuscaloosa ready to go as an EF5. In fact I remember reading somewhere there was one survey team out of roughly four or five that did in fact say they found EF5 damage. However, I just think its important to be careful about the Tim Marshall side of the story, as like I said this could be a rumor, over exaggerated, miscommunicated etc. I am mainly sharing this in case anyone here happens to know anything extra or has any thoughts. I personally respect Tim Marshall, think he has contributed a lot in the past to rating. I don't think he really has a particular bias in being conservative - just look at the Marietta tornado which he rated EF4 based on the warehouse damage, which I personally found shocking and if anything was slightly overdone. He probably just is stubborn in changing an opinion once he's made it.

Either way, I do strongly believe Tuscaloosa was an EF5 and deserves the rating. The damage to the apartment complex - large, multistory brick construction, to be completely levelled, plus the context is impressive. The story above makes sense in how borderline the rating was.

Highly concerning if true.