• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER

TH2002

Member
Sustaining Member
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
4,808
Location
California, United States
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
Alright, so on a discord server, several people were examining damage from Hackleburg, including a forensic engineer. They are convinced that this structure in between Hackleburg and Phil campbell is a SBO, and not a family residence, based on the fact that there is no evidence of interior walls, and the debris consists of sheet metal. I am still unsure and would like your opinions? (For note this was rated as EF-5, the DI was also rated as Null not Fr12, the nearby mobile homes were also rated as EF-5 for some reason).

View attachment 24911
View attachment 24912View attachment 24913View attachment 24914View attachment 24915
View attachment 24917
It's definitely an outbuilding, not a slab home. NWS Huntsville overdid it when it comes to assigning EF5 DI's during the Hackleburg survey, and many of their assigned EF5 damage points are rather questionable to say the least. That's really all there is to it.

Now there were spots with genuine EF5 damage including those duplexes in Hackleburg, a duplex in Phil Campbell, the well built home in Oak Grove and a restaurant in Mount Hope, among others.
 
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
2,821
Location
Missouri
My bad, THIS is the last batch of Guin photos:

Lamar County Airport, near Vernon and Sulligent, Alabama:


Fig-3-2N1A7654.jpg


Yampertown, Alabama:

Fig-16-2N1A7805.jpg

Various points along the path. Some from Guin, some from Basham, some from Decatur and some various rural areas between the towns.

Fig-15-CityOfGuin_RebeccaMarkhum_MarkAndPaulToddsCar.jpg


Fig-18-2N1A1134.jpgFig-20-2N1A1140.jpgFig-22-IMG_3699.jpgFig-23-IMG_3723.jpgFig-24-IMG_3544.jpg



Trees.png


This classic. Note how the scar is visible before it reaches the Bankhead Forest area; it left razed forest all over Alabama, before and after it struck populated areas.
18.jpg
 

andyhb

Member
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
2,963
Location
Norman, OK
Given today's the 50 anniversary of the event, I figured I'd post some more pics from it.

First off, a variety of Guin aerials of varying quality. Note how the narrow the core of F5 devastation is. The residential section of northwestern Guin was the hardest hit, with scoured grass, debarked trees and scores of homes swept clean in only a few seconds: Note how some buildings in the downtown area or in other residential areas outside of the F5-hit section are leveled or partially swept away while others are standing next to them; this thing definitely had a multivortex structure.

View attachment 24930View attachment 24931View attachment 24932View attachment 24933View attachment 24934





View attachment 24949

Next series is a variety of view of the demolished mobile home manufacturing plant:


View attachment 24936
I think you can see the town's tornado siren in this one:

View attachment 24937
View attachment 24935

View attachment 24938
This damage is extreme. It's not really hyperbole to say that core streak is "as complete a wipeout as you can have", especially with such a fast moving tornado.
 

HAwkmoon

Member
Messages
13
Reaction score
2
Location
Europe
what i mean is...

1:well built home completely swept clean with debris all turned into little parts and thrown furuther away.
2:has to have properly space bolts with properly fitted sized and tightened washers and nuts.
3:removeal of large percentage of baseplates form the foundation
4:anchor bolts were bent or snap off by the tornado
5:ground scouring or complete grass scouring.
6:trees within 100 yards all debarked and or flatten and some thrown away, all small shrubs/bushes are without leafs and debarked.

and within every image is see no complete grass scouring and trees standing beside the foundations looking pretty ok.

the first 4 rules are by tim marshall.
rule 5 is from some presentation by nws for EF4 vs EF5 damage.
rule 6 is for villonia,mayfeild.

when you look at it that way all the damage points of phil campbell seem less EF5 then villonia and bremen who were rated EF4, there is also a weird sitatuion with rainsville with trees being fine beside the main EF5 damage point.

i do have to say the last image is the most EF5 ish ive seen out of the bunch, and seems to be pretty much there tough the grass isnt completely scoured.
1-4 are all true, however 5 and 6 are not true. Sure for the cases you mentioned, but no two cases are the same. In the cases you presented, they were both already questionable to begin with, Vilonia, that home had unknown anchorage and no interior nuts and washers. For Mayfield, no true EF-5 damage occurred to a DI, the one home in Bremen was kept at EF-4 due to not just contextuals but the garage itself was cmu and the large overhanging porch meant that it failed at EF-4 level winds. All the 9 EF-5s would likely get EF-5 today, perhaps Philadelphia would not.
 
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
2,821
Location
Missouri
So, today I got the SIGNIFICANT TORNADOES 1974-2022 in the mail. My first response was to look at what it had for Vilonia and it was disappointing, to say the least. The controversy over the rating isn't even addressed. Also, Chapman 2016, Goldsby, Chickasha and Canton Lake of 5/24/2011 don't have any changed ratings either. On the plus side, the book has a new thing called the "Outbreak Intensity Score". A link below shows how it works. It has seven categories of outbreaks: weak, minor, significant, major, devastating, historic and super.

I've emailed Tom and his wife a few times and they've told me some interesting stuff. One thing I learned is that they have tons of photos of tornadoes and damage but they don't have permission to print them in a book due to copyright issues. They said over the decades lots of small, local independent newspapers have been swallowed up by national chain newspapers and those companies have so many photographs archived from the ones they absorbed; they often charge $250 or more for a single photograph. They said this is likely the reason lots of tornadoes (especially ones that strike rural areas) have tons of photos that aren't available digitally; you have to pay to get them in person. They said this is likely what happened with Guin and quite a few of the 4/3/74 tornadoes. So, TornadoTalk likely has to pay a ton of money to get some of the photos they do. From that perspective, I understand why they have a paywall now (even though I don't fully agree with it). As for Vilonia, Doris told me that I should contact Tom myself if I want to understand his reasoning for not changing the rating from EF4 to EF5. She even gave me a phone number.


Photos of the book:

Book 1.jpegBook 2.jpegBook 3.jpegBook 4.jpeg


This was interesting. He had to attach it as a note since he forgot to get it in the book but in involves the Mulhall, OK F4 from May 3, 1999. At its start it was 3.6 miles wide before narrowing for most of its path. This is interesting as El Reno 2013 at 2.6 miles wide officially the widest tornado on record. For the next book he plans on researching for pre-1950 tornadoes that are wider than El Reno 2013.

Book 5.jpeg

Link to OIS scale:

 

joshoctober16

Member
Messages
136
Reaction score
95
Location
Canada New brunswick
1-4 are all true, however 5 and 6 are not true. Sure for the cases you mentioned, but no two cases are the same. In the cases you presented, they were both already questionable to begin with, Vilonia, that home had unknown anchorage and no interior nuts and washers. For Mayfield, no true EF-5 damage occurred to a DI, the one home in Bremen was kept at EF-4 due to not just contextuals but the garage itself was cmu and the large overhanging porch meant that it failed at EF-4 level winds. All the 9 EF-5s would likely get EF-5 today, perhaps Philadelphia would not.
i think nws stated el reno 2011 would not be rated EF5 if it happend today, i feel like most would fail today , Parkersburg might have a chance but the rest suffers from trees standing within 100 yards away issue. unknown.png note issues like this , note most tornadoes have too much debris (both moore tornadoes for examples)there for most tornadoes would not be rated EF5 today.
 
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
2,821
Location
Missouri
This damage is extreme. It's not really hyperbole to say that core streak is "as complete a wipeout as you can have", especially with such a fast moving tornado.
According to Grazulis it may have been moving up to 75mph as it went through Guin. While I'm not wholly sure given how far this thing traveled and how long it was on the ground it wouldn't surprise me if it was moving that fast.
Grazulis has its path length at 102 miles and starting at 7:50 PM. Most sources say it dissipated around 9:30 PM. So 102 miles in 100 minutes. That's fast, even for Dixie Alley.
 
Last edited:

joshoctober16

Member
Messages
136
Reaction score
95
Location
Canada New brunswick
So, today I got the SIGNIFICANT TORNADOES 1974-2022 in the mail. My first response was to look at what it had for Vilonia and it was disappointing, to say the least. The controversy over the rating isn't even addressed. Also, Chapman 2016, Goldsby, Chickasha and Canton Lake of 5/24/2011 don't have any changed ratings either. On the plus side, the book has a new thing called the "Outbreak Intensity Score". A link below shows how it works. It has seven categories of outbreaks: weak, minor, significant, major, devastating, historic and super.

I've emailed Tom and his wife a few times and they've told me some interesting stuff. One thing I learned is that they have tons of photos of tornadoes and damage but they don't have permission to print them in a book due to copyright issues. They said over the decades lots of small, local independent newspapers have been swallowed up by national chain newspapers and those companies have so many photographs archived from the ones they absorbed; they often charge $250 or more for a single photograph. They said this is likely the reason lots of tornadoes (especially ones that strike rural areas) have tons of photos that aren't available digitally; you have to pay to get them in person. They said this is likely what happened with Guin and quite a few of the 4/3/74 tornadoes. So, TornadoTalk likely has to pay a ton of money to get some of the photos they do. From that perspective, I understand why they have a paywall now (even though I don't fully agree with it). As for Vilonia, Doris told me that I should contact Tom myself if I want to understand his reasoning for not changing the rating from EF4 to EF5. She even gave me a phone number.


Photos of the book:

View attachment 24982View attachment 24983View attachment 24984View attachment 24985


This was interesting. He had to attach it as a note since he forgot to get it in the book but in involves the Mulhall, OK F4 from May 3, 1999. At its start it was 3.6 miles wide before narrowing for most of its path. This is interesting as El Reno 2013 at 2.6 miles wide officially the widest tornado on record. For the next book he plans on researching for pre-1950 tornadoes that are wider than El Reno 2013.

View attachment 24986

Link to OIS scale:

interestingly villonia was listed as a EF5 by him..... but suddenly he went quiet , came back and put it to EF4 and stated it had EF5 winds but no EF4 damage?
i found it wierd almost as if nws badly wants evreyone to use there offical rating and wont let others correct them....
in a other post he mentions that the 2 f5 in oklahoma in 1955 would not be rated EF5 today... its realy starting to get anoying and i wish they would be allowd to fix tornado ratings instead of making them all messed up....

also talking about hints of somthing is odd look at this at your last image you posted.....
1712183971548.png wow wait.... even he and fujita find the offical ratings to be poor?
 
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
2,821
Location
Missouri
This damage is extreme. It's not really hyperbole to say that core streak is "as complete a wipeout as you can have", especially with such a fast moving tornado.
Yeah, I wish the photo was in color and higher quality so we could get a better view but at this point I've seen photos to realize that Guin lives up to its reputation and likely was the most violent tornado of the outbreak (although Brandenburg comes close in spots). I can't wait until this summer when the whole 6-part premium summary of Guin by TornadoTalk is complete, then we'll really know the full extent of it.
 

HAwkmoon

Member
Messages
13
Reaction score
2
Location
Europe
i think nws stated el reno 2011 would not be rated EF5 if it happend today, i feel like most would fail today , Parkersburg might have a chance but the rest suffers from trees standing within 100 yards away issue. View attachment 24987 note issues like this , note most tornadoes have too much debris (both moore tornadoes for examples)there for most tornadoes would not be rated EF5 today.
1712184993808.pngSame home, main reason for the EF-5 rating not being awarded is due to unknown strengthening mechanisms. El reno 2011 would be given EF-5, that presentation was making the point that it was an unconventional rating for a EXTREME tornado, Rick smith did a presentation, and even Marshal agrees with the EF-5 rating. For good reason, it is in my opinion most powerful tornado we can confirm in history based off of damage alone. As for Moore, both instances had areas with extreme granulation. The final home in 2013 rated EF-5 would solidly get so today. Bridge creek is a no-brainer, not much to say here considering it is used as the textbook example for EF-5 damage, in the presentation of discriminating between EF-4/EF-5 damage.
 
Last edited:

locomusic01

Member
Messages
1,355
Reaction score
3,776
Location
Pennsylvania
I've emailed Tom and his wife a few times and they've told me some interesting stuff. One thing I learned is that they have tons of photos of tornadoes and damage but they don't have permission to print them in a book due to copyright issues. They said over the decades lots of small, local independent newspapers have been swallowed up by national chain newspapers and those companies have so many photographs archived from the ones they absorbed; they often charge $250 or more for a single photograph. They said this is likely the reason lots of tornadoes (especially ones that strike rural areas) have tons of photos that aren't available digitally; you have to pay to get them in person. They said this is likely what happened with Guin and quite a few of the 4/3/74 tornadoes.
This is super common and it drives me absolutely crazy. I'd say probably a majority of the major tornadoes in the last 50+ years that are considered not well-documented actually do have plenty of photos out there, but it's unlikely anyone will ever see them because of greedy corporations. I suppose it's not quite as egregious as libraries and universities doing the same thing w/photos they've usually had donated to them, but it's no less frustrating. I ran into this problem multiple times w/tornadoes from 5/31/85, both in the US and in Canada. And not just photos - videos, too.
 

andyhb

Member
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
2,963
Location
Norman, OK
interestingly villonia was listed as a EF5 by him..... but suddenly he went quiet , came back and put it to EF4 and stated it had EF5 winds but no EF4 damage?
i found it wierd almost as if nws badly wants evreyone to use there offical rating and wont let others correct them....
in a other post he mentions that the 2 f5 in oklahoma in 1955 would not be rated EF5 today... its realy starting to get anoying and i wish they would be allowd to fix tornado ratings instead of making them all messed up....

also talking about hints of somthing is odd look at this at your last image you posted.....
View attachment 24988 wow wait.... even he and fujita find the offical ratings to be poor?
I mean, that snippet there from Grazulis just about says it all.
 

locomusic01

Member
Messages
1,355
Reaction score
3,776
Location
Pennsylvania
Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it, your articles have been amazing for Jarrell, Bridge Creek and Tristate, the level of detail plus the images is amazing. When you say 500 photos is this for Bridge Creek or Tristate?
Thanks! That's for Bridge Creek. I haven't checked my Tri-State folder but I'm sure it's probably like half that.

Impressive!
Do you think at some point you might go back and revise some of your older articles, especially if newer information on certain events comes to light?
Be really cool if you could find a photo of the Tri-State Tornado, although that's likely a slim event happening, I know.
Besides Tri-State, I'd really like to revisit my Palm Sunday article someday. I've collected tons of photos since I wrote it, but I also don't feel like I did nearly a good enough job covering some of the lesser-known tornadoes especially. Somehow it's still a hugely underrated outbreak IMO.

Have you had a follow up from this? I would love to see the images of Sherman.
I'd totally forgotten about it tbh. I'll have to make a note to reach out to them again. The whole May 1896 outbreak sequence has been on my list to cover forever, but it's a bit intimidating because it's so huge and there doesn't seem to be much available photo-wise (besides St. Louis obviously).
 

andyhb

Member
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
2,963
Location
Norman, OK
Thanks! That's for Bridge Creek. I haven't checked my Tri-State folder but I'm sure it's probably like half that.


Besides Tri-State, I'd really like to revisit my Palm Sunday article someday. I've collected tons of photos since I wrote it, but I also don't feel like I did nearly a good enough job covering some of the lesser-known tornadoes especially. Somehow it's still a hugely underrated outbreak IMO.


I'd totally forgotten about it tbh. I'll have to make a note to reach out to them again. The whole May 1896 outbreak sequence has been on my list to cover forever, but it's a bit intimidating because it's so huge and there doesn't seem to be much available photo-wise (besides St. Louis obviously).
I have to say, the fact that it has no official F5s is probably part of this, and that's a complete shame.
 

locomusic01

Member
Messages
1,355
Reaction score
3,776
Location
Pennsylvania
I have to say, the fact that it has no official F5s is probably part of this, and that's a complete shame.
Yeah, that's probably the biggest factor, when in reality there were (at least IMO) a pretty comparable number of F5 candidates as with the Super Outbreaks. It's strange how much something like that affects peoples' perceptions.
 

andyhb

Member
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
2,963
Location
Norman, OK

Cood101

Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
23
Location
Pittsburgh PA
I don't wish to stir the pot with the E/F5 debate but I do wish people would give Mr. Grazulis some leeway about the Vilonia rating.

Is there even an entry in the Enhanced Fujita era part of the new book that differs from the official rating? My recollection, and I can double check, is that even debated tornadoes from 4/27/2011 such as New Wren are still in the narrative section as their official ratings. That doesn't mean Mr. Grazulis has been taken over by Big Weather or however one wants to construe a conspiracy. I think that note, for example, pertains more to earlier outbreaks and tornadoes such as 4/3/74. Those do have rating changes, such as Tanner #2, that vary from the official rating in the narrative section.
 
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
2,821
Location
Missouri
I don't wish to stir the pot with the E/F5 debate but I do wish people would give Mr. Grazulis some leeway about the Vilonia rating.

Is there even an entry in the Enhanced Fujita era part of the new book that differs from the official rating? My recollection, and I can double check, is that even debated tornadoes from 4/27/2011 such as New Wren are still in the narrative section as their official ratings. That doesn't mean Mr. Grazulis has been taken over by Big Weather or however one wants to construe a conspiracy. I think that note, for example, pertains more to earlier outbreaks and tornadoes such as 4/3/74. Those do have rating changes, such as Tanner #2, that vary from the official rating in the narrative section.
I'm just curious as to his reasoning for backpedaling from EF5 to EF4 on Twitter. But yeah, no ratings have been changed for any tornado (so far). Now the volume that will go from 1680-1973 I wonder if he might change up some things.
 
Back
Top