“Expecting every tree in the vicinity of a destroyed home to be fully debarked”
That is the thing you cant, the homes in Moore had toenailed wall studs and properly managed bolts, The condition of the washers are extremely poor in Chapman. Vilonia had trees within a metre of the home left untouched and in this image we can see bolt spacing was rather inconsistent in the floorboards.
The thing is, EF-5 requires winds of 201 or more mph, that home failed under 200 due to those extremely poorly conditioned bolts, the fitting of the washers is also very poor. That home being EF-4 is perfectly fine, compared to this from Moore 2013. Also I am not an engineer, I said one of my friends is studying engineering.
The sill plates would have been torn off from those bolts much more easily.
Joplin is still a very bizarre case to me. What are the odds that a tornado touches down right at the edge of a major city, explodes to over a mile wide, and simultaneously strengthens to one of the most powerful tornadoes of all time right in the very heart of the most densely populated areas of that city. Then after 6 miles and essentially the very moment it got done obliterating massive sections of the city and finally entered rural areas, it immediately weakens to EF1-EF2 intensity. The storms path and timing also couldn’t have been any worse, it seemed almost intent on deliberately inflicting the most amount of damage and casualties as possible that it’s almost creepy.
Uh no I do know. Going stringently by the criteria of the EF scale, Chapman is not EF-5, Chickasha, Goldsby and Vilonia I would agree with EF-5. Chapman was 100% EF-5 intensity. The fact you aren't even addressing my points doesn't really help either.
Regarding Vilonia, I wouldn't exactly call those trees "untouched". Plus, it's hard to conclude if the bolt spacing was inconsistent as the possibility that some of the bolts were snapped off by the tornado needs to be considered.
Don't get me wrong, at least some understanding of engineering is necessary in the field of damage surveying. People like Tim Marshall, for example, have a solid understanding of both meteorology and engineering (which doesn't automatically mean every survey he's worked on is unquestionably accurate, but I digress).
It's this home. NWS Topeka didn't survey it, but Marshall did and, surprise surprise, gave it an EF4 rating.
I can easily see why this house was rated ef4, and honestly I’m fine with this being rated as such.It's this home. NWS Topeka didn't survey it, but Marshall did and, surprise surprise, gave it an EF4 rating.
Again, if I wanted to be a pedantic nitpicker I could come up with a million reasons to downgrade it, but I have to disagree with Tim on this one. If the EF5 shoe fits, wear it.
Right, well that is not logical to use at all. That is not the engineering mindset at all either, the only home you are partially right on is on Blue Ridge Road but that had surrounding contextuals to support it. The homes in SW 147th street had debris on them true, but a large portion of bolts were bent, sill plates were removed. Toenailed wall studs, double washers and securely attached nuts. Textbook EF-5.
I'll admit I chuckled the first time I read this, but it's probably best to leave comments like this off the thread. I don't agree with HAwkmoon's approach, but he's putting up a healthy debate and personal mentions are unnecessary.
The stringency of the EF scale, or at least certain WFOs' interpretations of it, is literally one of the biggest issues plaguing damage surveying.
I agree to a degree, and this is why it is getting revised. I will say Vilonia, Chickasha and Goldsby deserve EF-5, Chapman too intensity wise though the homes are a little less convincing.
I actually agree with most of what you say here. My "nitpicking Moore" post wasn't actual nitpicking, it was proving my point of how ridiculous pedantic nitpicking is.
Therein lies the problem. Going stringently by the criteria will lead to inaccurate results in times where other evidence beyond that listed and categorized as criteria indicates stronger has happened. If a tornado like Vilonia which everyone agrees is EF-5 instead struck only one solitary very well-built house and wiped the slab clean of debris it wouldn't be allowed as an EF-5 rating. Yet that very same house placed among a few similar ones which experienced similar destruction is now somehow allowed to achieve EF5 rating when it's the very same house in the very same winds. Clearly the logic of the engineers involved with these matters is at best suspect, and their assertions and conclusions need to be held accordingly.
That tree is not "untouched" lol, objectively.
